83 Million!

That was the amount awarded by a jury after only three hours of deliberation, to author E. Jean Carroll in her defamation suit against our former president. According to the report in The Washington Post:

“Most of the award involved $65 million in punitive damages after jurors concluded that Trump acted spitefully and wantonly toward Carroll after she accused him of sexually assaulting her in the 1990s. Jurors also awarded a combined $18.3 million in compensatory damages.” ($11 million for repairing her reputation, and $7.3 million for emotional harm.)

The jurors made a powerful statement in their decision to award such enormous sums. To me, their award stated that no man is above the law. Even a former president cannot and should not say and do what he was accused of doing. He claimed, while he was in office, that he was immune from any charges against his speech and got the Department of Justice to defend him for a while. That suit was pended then until he left office. Now, maybe, for once, DJT will have to pay up. (He is appealing the five million Carroll was awarded at a previous lawsuit where the jury determined that DJT sexually assaulted her.)

In an opinion essay in the New York Times about this verdict, Professor Ron Nell Anderson Jones discussed the issue and concluded:

“Libel law imagines that we, as a people, respect the rule of law. It envisions that libel damages will protect not only plaintiffs like Ms. Carroll but all of society as we sort through what is relevant and provably accurate, band together to reject falsehoods, and denounce and deter those who knowingly lie. It expects that jurors doing this work on behalf of all of us will be celebrated, not that they will have to be warned to keep their participation secret from even their families and their identities shielded even from one another. It assumes that those who have told deliberate fabrications will see their audience dry up.

Libel law assumes that we wish to share a single, objective reality. It cannot tackle the supply-and-demand problem that today leaves us wondering if tens of millions of dollars in punitive damages will stanch the flow of a lie. It presupposes that we crave truth.”

So, how do we, as a country, move on from here? The nation adheres to the Rule of Law but this former president has never accepted that basic format of our country. A democracy depends upon some common definitions that are generally acceptable to the population. What do terms such as freedom and liberty mean to most people? What might an authoritarian leader do to our concepts of being a republic?

The charges, the childish behavior he demonstrated in the courtroom, the predatory nature of the offense and the continued defamation of an 80-year-old woman were all shown out in front of the world. How can the voters in America even think of allowing a sexual predator to again gain the highest office in our land? Do we, as a nation, actually crave truth as the author above notes?

Adoring crowds applaud MAGA speeches even as they know they are lies. They cheer as he claims he was properly elected in 2020. They repeat stories about the insurrectionists and echo his claims that the perpetrators were patriots. His almost cult-like fans repeat the fake rumors he uses in his speeches, such as blaming Nancy Pelosi for not calling in the National Guard, when it was his administration that would not permit its use until late on January 6^th.

How could this person meet with other international leaders as the representative of our democracy when such crass behavior is so well known? Recently, many financial leaders and others met at the annual International Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Many thought that DJT had a good chance of becoming president again and wondered out loud just how America would then act regarding the several international conflicts underway. Some wondered if Putin was just trying to hang on in the Ukraine War until his “friend” could be elected. So, already, actions proposed by President Biden are being considered in the light of what might happen in the November election.

The former president won Republican primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire and wanted to be anointed as the party nominee. Opponent Nikki Haley did not concede and continued campaigning, angering the winner. Her campaign moved forward, calling him confused and a chaos maker. He immediately started attacking her with racist remarks and hinted that she had scandals in her background that he would release in the future.  He even tried to claim that she was ineligible to serve as president since her parents were not American citizens when she was born in this country. Haven’t we heard similar claims from him before? Is this Birtherism again?

So much is happening in the world this weekend! Guess I will stop here or I’ll end up writing all night! I’ll have more to say next week, hopefully, Texas will still be part of the union then!

‘Til next week-Peace!