By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A federal judge has denied Donald Trump’s attempt to delay a $5.8 million payout to E. Jean Carroll, stemming from a civil defamation case. This denial comes after years of Trump’s efforts to overturn a 2022 jury verdict finding him liable for sexual abuse and defamation against Carroll. Despite the Supreme Court declining to review the case, Trump’s legal team argued for more time, a request summarily rejected by the judge. Carroll’s attorney stated this ruling ends Trump’s efforts to evade accountability for his actions.
Read the original article here
The legal saga continues for Donald Trump, as a federal judge has shut down his latest attempt to delay the $5.8 million payout to E. Jean Carroll. This comes after years of litigation following a civil defamation case stemming from sexual abuse allegations. It seems Trump’s legal team has been playing a game of delay and deflection, but this particular tactic has apparently run its course.
The argument presented by Trump’s lawyers was essentially that the substantial verdict was unfairly imposed and intended to harm him, even though the ruling itself predates his return to the White House. This argument had already been batted away by an appeals court, and now the Supreme Court has declined to even consider the matter, effectively ending that avenue of appeal and solidifying the judgment.
In a rather unsurprising move, Trump’s legal team filed a motion requesting a delay in payment, citing the need for their new lead counsel, Josh Halper, to thoroughly familiarize himself with the intricacies of the case. This came after his previous lead attorney departed to take on a federal judgeship. It’s an argument that, frankly, strains credulity given the protracted nature of this legal battle.
District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan was apparently unimpressed by this latest maneuver, issuing a concise, text-only order on July 4th denying the motion without elaboration. The lack of explanation itself speaks volumes, suggesting the judge found the request to be without merit.
E. Jean Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, had been quite vocal in her accusations that Trump was simply trying to buy more time, perhaps to concoct further excuses to avoid payment. She pointed to the Supreme Court’s decision as validation of the jury’s verdict, a verdict that found Trump liable for both sexual assault and defamation. Her statement underscored that this ruling effectively closes the door on his quest to evade accountability.
The sheer pettiness of a billionaire attempting to stall such a payment, especially when it represents a relatively minuscule fraction of his wealth, is striking. The notion of using a change in legal counsel as a basis to pause a multi-year legal proceeding is quite audacious. It appears Judge Kaplan has little patience left for these delaying tactics, and the swift denial reflects that. The ongoing legal entanglements, however, continue to shed light on a pattern of behavior that many find deeply concerning.
It’s worth noting that the original verdict, and the subsequent appeals, revolve around a jury finding that Donald Trump sexually assaulted and defamed E. Jean Carroll. The $5.8 million figure represents the damages awarded in that defamation case. The fact that he’s still attempting to avoid this payment, even after multiple legal setbacks, suggests a deeper unwillingness to accept the judgment of the courts.
The sheer persistence in fighting this judgment, despite the financial implications being relatively minor for someone of Trump’s means, has led to widespread speculation about the underlying motivations. Many view it as a matter of pride or an inability to admit defeat, rather than a genuine financial hardship. It seems the legal system, while offering avenues for appeal, is also designed to eventually bring about a conclusion, and this latest attempt to sidestep that conclusion has been unsuccessful.
The broader context of numerous other accusations and legal challenges that Donald Trump has faced over the years certainly colors this particular ruling. While this case specifically pertains to E. Jean Carroll and a defamation award, the history of such allegations is extensive and often brought up in discussions surrounding his public and private life. The judge’s denial of the delay motion in this instance represents a small but significant step in the ongoing process of legal resolution.