Judge Rejects Trump’s Plea to Lift E. Jean Carroll’s $83M Verdict, Slamming the Door on His Legal Maneuvers

New York City, USA – A judge in New York City swiftly denied former President Donald Trump’s request to suspend an $83 million verdict against him in a defamation lawsuit filed by writer E. Jean Carroll. The ruling came just days after Trump’s lawyers made the request.

Carroll accused Trump of raping her in a department store dressing room in the 1990s. Trump denied the allegation and claimed that Carroll was lying to sell a book. In a move that many saw as a way to dodge responsibility for his words, Trump argued that he was protected by the United States Constitution’s provision that the president cannot be sued while in office.

However, the judge rejected Trump’s argument and allowed the lawsuit to move forward. The judge also expressed doubts about Trump’s claim of immunity, stating that there was no precedent to support it. The decision opens the door for Carroll to proceed with her lawsuit and potentially collect the $83 million judgement against Trump.

Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, hailed the judge’s decision as a victory for her client and for all victims of sexual assault. She stated that no one, including the former president, should be above the law. Kaplan also noted that Trump’s attempts to avoid accountability were contrary to the principles of justice and the rule of law.

The denial of Trump’s request to suspend the verdict is another blow to the former president, who is facing multiple legal challenges. However, Trump’s legal team is expected to appeal the decision, prolonging the legal battle.

The lawsuit brought by Carroll is one of several defamation cases Trump is facing from women who have accused him of sexual misconduct. These cases have raised questions about the extent of presidential immunity and the potential consequences for defamatory statements made by a sitting president.

Legal experts believe that the outcome of Carroll’s case could have broader implications for future cases involving presidential immunity. The judge’s decision to deny Trump’s request may signal that the courts are unwilling to shield a president from facing consequences for his actions.

If the $83 million verdict against Trump holds up, it could set a precedent for holding presidents accountable for defamatory statements made while in office. The case serves as a reminder that no one, regardless of their position or power, is above the law.