By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Donald Trump is again attempting to delay payment of the $5 million defamation judgment awarded to E. Jean Carroll, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear his appeal. Despite a prior agreement stipulating that funds would be disbursed upon the denial of certiorari, Trump’s legal team has requested a further stay, citing a potential motion for reconsideration. Carroll’s legal team insists on the enforcement of the original stipulation, urging immediate disbursement of the funds. This latest maneuver represents an ongoing effort to evade the financial consequences of the defamation verdict.
Read the original article here
It’s quite remarkable, or perhaps depressingly predictable, how Donald Trump is reportedly continuing to stonewall paying his sexual abuse victim, E. Jean Carroll, even after the Supreme Court essentially told him to “kick rocks” on his appeal. Recent court filings suggest a rather desperate maneuver by his legal team, aiming to further delay a payment that seems increasingly inevitable.
The core of the issue stems from an agreement made during the appeals process. The understanding was that payment of the substantial damages awarded to Carroll would be put on hold until the Supreme Court made a decision on whether to hear Trump’s appeal. That decision has now come, and it wasn’t in his favor. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, a decision that was reportedly unanimous, a 9-0 ruling. This means the legal avenues for him to avoid paying are effectively exhausted.
However, instead of complying, Trump’s lawyer is apparently requesting an extension of that original agreement. The stated purpose is to allow them time to consider asking the court to reconsider its decision not to hear the case. This strikes many as a tactic designed purely to stall, especially given the overwhelming nature of the Supreme Court’s initial refusal.
Fortunately, the funds designated for this appeal aren’t sitting directly in Trump’s personal accounts. They are reportedly held in escrow, a crucial detail that makes the potential payout to Carroll more straightforward. This arrangement was put in place precisely to ensure that if the appeals failed, the money would be available to satisfy the judgment.
The question then arises: if the money is already secured in a bond held by the court, why is his permission or further legal maneuvering even necessary for its release? This is precisely the point of such financial safeguards in legal proceedings. The court can, and likely will, order these funds to be released to Carroll, bringing this particular chapter to a close.
One can’t help but wonder about the next steps if this stalling continues. At what point can Carroll’s legal team directly pursue enforcement, perhaps even with the authority to seize assets? The sentiment is that Trump is being given ample opportunity to fulfill his legal obligations, and yet he continues to find ways to delay. Filing liens against his properties, or even exploring the possibility of attaching assets like his new jet, seem like logical, albeit aggressive, next steps.
This situation casts a long shadow over Trump’s character and his perceived relationship with the law. Regardless of how his supporters attempt to reframe history or defend his actions, the legal findings in the E. Jean Carroll case remain. Judge Lewis Kaplan himself clarified that the jury’s findings were consistent with the common understanding of the term “rape,” and a New York jury indeed found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll.
Furthermore, the jury awarded Carroll a significant sum, $83.3 million, not only for the sexual abuse but also for his repeated defamation of her. This ruling came after a long line of accusations and allegations that span decades. From claims made by his first wife, detailing aggressive sexual encounters, to instances like beauty pageant contestants alleging inappropriate behavior from Trump in dressing rooms, and numerous other accusations of sexual assault and harassment from women dating back to the 1970s, a pattern has been consistently alleged.
The “Hollywood Access” tape, where Trump bragged about grabbing women “by the pussy,” and his dismissive responses to accusers, labeling them “liars” and claiming a conspiracy, further complicate the narrative. His past involvement with figures like Jeffrey Epstein, and allegations of exploiting young women, only add to the grim picture painted by these legal proceedings and public accounts.
The sheer reluctance to pay a judgment, especially after exhausting appeals, raises serious questions about accountability. When a figure with substantial wealth, and former presidential power, appears to be above the law in fulfilling financial obligations, it creates a concerning precedent. The idea that he might avoid paying, much like individuals jailed for failing to pay child support or other judgments, suggests a fundamental disconnect from legal consequences.
The enabling lawyers who continue to pursue these delaying tactics also come under scrutiny. Their role in obstructing justice and undermining the court’s authority is a separate, but related, concern. The $5 million-plus held in escrow, readily available for release by the judge, underscores the artificiality of the delay. Any argument against its immediate disbursement should, by all accounts, be swiftly dismissed.
The notion of Trump, a former President, not adhering to the law is deeply troubling for the concept of law and order itself. His consistent pattern of alleged non-payment of debts, to the point where it seems to be a defining characteristic, makes this current situation less surprising, but no less galling. The idea that his assets could be frozen and sold to satisfy judgments, perhaps even contributing to public funds like Social Security, is a sentiment echoed by many who believe he has amassed wealth through questionable means and should be held to account financially.
The ongoing defamation of Carroll and attempts to shift legal responsibility, such as trying to have the Department of Justice named as the defendant in further defamation suits, highlight a continued pattern of avoidance. It seems E. Jean Carroll’s legal team will have to pursue multiple avenues, including liens and potentially aggressive asset seizure, to ensure she receives what she is owed. The comparison to fictional characters known for paying their debts, contrasting with a supposed Trump family creed of not paying, further emphasizes the public perception of his character.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear his appeal was a clear signal. The continued obstruction after this resounding rejection is not just a legal tactic; it’s a profound statement about a refusal to accept accountability, a pattern that has become, unfortunately, remarkably consistent.