By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear an appeal, Donald Trump’s legal team has requested an extension to pay a $5 million civil judgment awarded to E. Jean Carroll. Attorneys cite the need for new lead counsel, Josh Halpern, to become fully acquainted with the case’s complexities as the reason for the delay. The request aims to postpone a response to Carroll’s demand for payment, with Trump’s lawyers asserting that the funds are secured and no material harm will befall the plaintiff. Carroll’s counsel, however, views this as a further attempt to delay payment, noting that Trump has had ample time to secure new representation.
Read the original article here
Donald Trump is once again attempting to delay the payout of $5 million to E. Jean Carroll, a sum awarded to her after a jury found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation. This latest effort to postpone payment highlights a recurring pattern of resistance to legal judgments against him, regardless of the amount.
The situation is particularly striking given the substantial financial resources Trump is reported to possess. Despite claims of immense wealth, including significant gains from stock and cryptocurrency ventures, the $5 million judgment appears to be a sum he is determined to avoid disbursing. It’s as if even a few dollars would be difficult for him to part with, let alone millions.
Adding to the complexity, the money is already held in an escrow account, suggesting that the judge has the authority to release it to Carroll without further delay from Trump. This legal mechanism is in place precisely to ensure judgments are satisfied, yet Trump’s persistent attempts to obstruct the process are an ongoing source of frustration.
Some observers characterize Trump’s tactics as a form of DARVO: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. This strategy, often employed when facing accountability, seems to be at play as he continues to fight the payment.
The core of E. Jean Carroll’s case, and the jury’s findings, rests on the principle that “no means no.” The legal battles have reinforced that the jury’s determination of sexual abuse aligns with the common understanding of rape, and legally qualified as such under New York law. This is in addition to the substantial damages awarded for his repeated defamation of Carroll.
It’s not just the $5 million for sexual abuse that is outstanding, but also the larger judgment of $83.3 million awarded for defamation. The interest on these judgments continues to accumulate, meaning the longer Trump delays, the more the total amount owed will increase. Some suggest a punitive interest rate, even as high as 200% daily, to reflect the perceived audacity of the delays.
A cynical interpretation of Trump’s strategy is that he is hoping to outlast E. Jean Carroll, waiting for either her to die or for some other circumstance to arise that would make the payment moot. This perceived tactic, described as “running out the clock,” reflects a deep-seated reluctance to fulfill his obligations.
Beyond the Carroll case, there are numerous other allegations of sexual assault and harassment against Trump dating back decades. These accusations, detailed in books and media reports, often describe similar patterns of behavior and traumatic encounters, painting a consistent picture of alleged misconduct.
Even when facing significant financial resources, as Trump has recently demonstrated with reported billions earned, the $5 million payout remains a point of contention. It’s seen as a relatively small sum compared to his reported earnings, leading to questions about why he wouldn’t pay to simply make the issue disappear.
The irony is not lost on many that a political party often espousing “law and order” seems to exhibit a consistent disregard for legal rulings when they apply to their leader. The expectation is that legal judgments should be followed, and the refusal to do so in this instance is viewed as a fundamental breakdown of civic responsibility.
The question arises as to why assets aren’t being seized to satisfy the judgment, especially since Trump has lost his appeals and seemingly exhausted legal avenues to avoid payment. The fact that he continues to refuse payment suggests a deliberate act of defiance against the judicial system.
Some propose more drastic measures, such as holding Trump in contempt of court, linking it to his existing convicted felon charges to underscore his alleged moral and ethical bankruptcy. The ongoing delays, they argue, only compound the problem and increase the amount owed.
Ultimately, the persistent efforts by Donald Trump to delay the $5 million payout to E. Jean Carroll are seen by many as a clear indication of his character and his approach to accountability. It is a situation that continues to draw scrutiny and criticism, highlighting a fundamental conflict between legal obligation and a determined refusal to pay.