Even Braggadocio Has A Price

Carroll's lawyer Robbie Kaplan asks for at least:

*$12 million to repair her client's reputation
*At least $12 million to compensate emotional harm

For punitive? She reminds jury he's a billionaire

"It will take an unusually high punitive damages award to stop Donald Trump."

— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) January 26, 2024

How much will it take to make Donald Trump stop? He can’t afford the appeal bonds on both this case and the fraud case, so he can’t stop execution on the judgments. His only out is going to be bankruptcy, and that will only end in liquidation.

No wonder Trump doesn’t know whether to shit or go blind.

“The only right, honest, and lawful thing that Clinton-appointed Judge Lewis Kaplan, who has so far been unable to see clearly because of his absolute hatred of Donald J. Trump (ME!), can do is to end this unAmerican injustice being done to a President of the United States, who was wrongfully accused by a woman he never met, saw, or touched (a photo line does not count!), and knows absolutely nothing about," Trump posted on Truth Social.

You’re not a President anymore. Welcome to the land of ordinary people. You had a chance to try that case. You lost. After that, collateral estoppel took over.

"I have been considered an A-List celebrity for many decades," Trump said, "so even decades ago, since no one knows which date or dates to refer to, because the accusing woman can’t say the day, month, season, year, or decade, it would have been impossible for me to walk into a crowded department store (surrounded by buildings I own), right opposite the cashiers’ checkout desk, without being written about on Page Six, and every other outlet at the time. Remember, those gossip columnists were, perhaps, even more vicious and obsessed than the Internet of today."

Asked and answered. Ask your attorneys; oh, wait, they don’t understand the law, either.

"We asked for one Trial, on the E. Jean Carroll False Accusation Case, but the Judge wouldn’t give it to us, he made us have two Trials on the same Hoax, and then, on the second Trial, they were allowed to use whatever information they wanted from the first, but we weren’t allowed to use anything!" Trump said. "As an example, the Depositions they’re using on the second Trial were taken in the first. He wouldn’t allow us to use the totally exonerating Anderson Cooper/CNN Interview on either trial, but none of it in the second."

Take it to the appellate court; social media can’t help you. Since you didn’t offer any evidence in the first trial, I don’t know what evidence you were going to offer from it in a trial for damages. Since your lawyer was criminally incapable of entering evidence in this trial, I don’t think the judge was your problem. And your last sentence says the same thing twice. Did you think you were emphasizing a wholly irrelevant point? Or that if you said it twice it would somehow make sense?

How much will it take to make you shut up?