[50 / 1 / 1]
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/appeals-court-upholds-e-jean-carrolls-83-million-judgment-trump-rcna212907
A federal appeals court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump's appeal of writer E. Jean Carroll's defamation verdict against the president, leaving him on the hook for the $83 million judgment.
"[W]e conclude that Trump has failed to identify any grounds that would warrant reconsidering our prior holding on presidential immunity. We also conclude that the district court did not err in any of the challenged rulings and that the jury’s damages awards are fair and reasonable," the ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said.
"The record in this case supports the district court’s determination that the ‘the degree of reprehensibility’ of Mr. Trump’s conduct was remarkably high, perhaps unprecedented,” the three-judge panel found, referring to the punitive damages award against the president.
Trump's attorneys had argued the verdict needed to be tossed because it "severely damages the presidency and is a great miscarriage of justice."
Carroll's lawyer had told the appeals court it should stand because "the president is not above the law."
A federal appeals court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump's appeal of writer E. Jean Carroll's defamation verdict against the president, leaving him on the hook for the $83 million judgment.
"[W]e conclude that Trump has failed to identify any grounds that would warrant reconsidering our prior holding on presidential immunity. We also conclude that the district court did not err in any of the challenged rulings and that the jury’s damages awards are fair and reasonable," the ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said.
"The record in this case supports the district court’s determination that the ‘the degree of reprehensibility’ of Mr. Trump’s conduct was remarkably high, perhaps unprecedented,” the three-judge panel found, referring to the punitive damages award against the president.
Trump's attorneys had argued the verdict needed to be tossed because it "severely damages the presidency and is a great miscarriage of justice."
Carroll's lawyer had told the appeals court it should stand because "the president is not above the law."