The former president has continued to criticize the journalist in public statements.

An attorney representing E. Jean Carroll has indicated the journalist could sue Donald Trump for a third time, as the former president continues to speak about her client publicly.

Speaking on MSNBC’s Inside With Jen Psaki on Monday night, Shawn Crowley, an attorney for Carroll, responded to the frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination telling supporters at a Michigan rally on Saturday that he had not done anything wrong to Carroll, whom he claimed he did not know, and that lawsuits against him were “unfair.”

In January, a New York City jury ordered that the former president must pay $83.3 million in damages to the former Elle columnist, for statements made in 2019. He said she was lying about allegations that he sexually assaulted her inside a Manhattan department store dressing room in the 1990s. That amount includes $7.3 million in compensatory damages, $11 million for reputational repair, and $65 million in punitive damages. He has repeatedly denied all wrongdoing and has said he will appeal the verdict.

Trump was previously ordered to pay Carroll $5 million in damages in May in another civil defamation trial stemming from a denial he made about her claims in 2022. He is appealing that decision and has set aside $5.55 million with the Manhattan Court as part of that process. Newsweek contacted a representative for Trump by email to comment on this story.

  • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
    2·
    9 months ago

    I don’t understand. Your other comment says he defaults on loans all the time and it’s the bank’s problem rather than his. Now you’re saying New York will seize assets if he doesn’t pay ?

      • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
        0·
        9 months ago

        I’m very confident that a court of law will take whatever action is necessary to enforce it’s rulings.

        Banks have a range of interests and they will weight the direct and indirect costs of seeking settlement for loans. That is to say that in some circumstances they may choose to sit on the debt for a time seeking to preserve a relationship or so.

        A court’s interest is much more confined. Their only interest is to apply the law and enforce their rulings.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          1·
          9 months ago

          I’m very confident that a court of law will take whatever action is necessary to enforce it’s rulings.

          Are you? When is Alex Jones going to be forced to pay that $1.5 billion? Because that case was two years ago.