62
Trump asks supreme court to throw out $83m E Jean Carroll defamation verdict
(www.theguardian.com)
Defaming someone he abused is part of his job!?!
this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2026
62 points (95.6% liked)
Politics
1249 readers
12 users here now
For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.
Rule 1-3, 6 & 7 No longer applicable
Rule 4: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.
Rule 5: Be excellent to each other. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.
The Epstein Files: Trump, Trafficking, and the Unraveling Cover-Up
Info Video about techniques used in cults (and politics)
Bookmark Vault of Trump's First Term
Media owners, CEOs and/or board members
Monitor every stock trade Congress and the White House makes
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
This is their second time hearing this bullshit, so hopefully they'll shut this one done too. Ya never know with these easily bribed asshats.
There's a key difference between this case and the 5 million dollar case.
In this case, Donald Trump was the president when he made the defamatory statements. In the other case, he was not the president when he made the specific defamatory statements that were in the case.
In Trump v. U.S. (2024), the supreme court invested the presidency with criminal immunity for official acts. In this case, Trump wants to extend that to full civil immunity as well and they argue that defaming Carroll was an official act of the presidency.
Remember Bill Clinton?
SCotUS has already determined that the PotUS can be held civilly liable.
I do remember Bill Clinton. Bill is not a good precedent here because Bill's lawsuit stemmed entirely from Bill's pre-presidential behavior.
In E. Jean Caroll's other $5 million lawsuit, SCOTUS declined to intervene. And that lawsuit is based on Trump's non-presidential statements, same as Bill.
How can they make him immune to civil cases? That would be insane.
I would love to hear the argument for how repeated defamation is considered part of his job.
If the US Supreme court rule in Trump's favour, it would effectively make anything he does as president within the jurisdiction of an official act.
This wouldn't just make him king, this would make him an outright dictator. There'd be almost nothing he could be held liable for as sitting president.
I think he may be going straight to supreme court so that he doesn't have to post bond required in order to properly appeal the ruling.
E Jean Carroll asks supreme court to throw out donald trump.
That's not how it works. Him bad-mouthing a private citizen just for criticizing him, is not an "official act" as president. If anything, it would be a violation of her 1st amendment rights to be attacked by a sitting president simply for expressing her opinion of him.
I don't think the ruling covered civil cases