Grab Trump by the "pursey"...

Get the Point!

"All water has a perfect memory and is forever trying to get back to where it was..." Toni Morrison 

“Water seeks its own level…” Momma Vivian Hobbs

Over the past year or so, I have striven mightily to avoid writing about former President Donald Trump because I believe that the media, both major sites and minor niche sites like my own, are partially to blame for normalizing the abnormal when it comes to the 45th President of the United States. Whether you think that he was the worst president of all time or the greatest, let's be real; any former president facing four felony criminal trials—and multiple civil trials—is as abnormal as abnormal can be!

Such is why I vacillated about whether to write anything about Mr. Trump's latest legal judgment, yesterday's $83.3 million dollar verdict that a Federal jury awarded in favor of E. Jean Carroll, the journalist who accused Trump of rape and by so doing, later became the persistent target of Trumpian rage via Twitter (X) and other social media forms. This latest verdict comes after a separate jury awarded Carroll $5.5 million dollars in a defamation action against the former president last year. 

But I’ve chosen to address this subject because there are several questions/comments that I keep seeing on social media that my past professional experiences give me insight to address. 

The first question is whether Mr. Trump will ever have to pay anything to Ms. Carroll? Well, the simple answer is, "possibly."

In civil cases, when a verdict in favor of the plaintiff is rendered, the defendant certainly has a right to appeal. Now, an appeal is NOT always akin to a "do over" because the courts of appeal, potentially all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, will judge the legal objections made during trial, as well as any pre-trial or in-trial motions, to determine whether the presiding judge correctly called objections, or the "balls" and "strikes" of the case if you will, in accordance with the law.

Appellate courts occasionally decide whether the amount in judgment is in accordance with the law, too. But note carefully the following: when a defendant, like Mr. Trump, appeals a civil verdict, the defendant ordinarily must deposit the verdict amount into the court registry, or get a surety bond from a bank that basically says that the amount will be covered if the appellate courts refuse to overturn the verdict and ultimately awards the adjudged amount to the plaintiff.

E. Jean Carroll (center)

Thus, my "probably" comment above, because the money will already be set aside in total or via a bond which will ensure that the plaintiff gets paid in full if the case is not overturned!

We all know that Mr. Trump is a wealthy man, but most of his wealth is tied up in property and other assets, so the idea that he already has set aside $5.5 million to appeal the first Carroll case, and soon may have to set aside as much as 20 percent of $83.3 million in the second verdict ($16 or 17 million) is a significant setback that hurts his coffers no matter how much he claims to the contrary. 

The second question that I keep seeing is whether Trump is being given special treatment because he keeps acting a fool in court with impunity? 

From my perspective, the simple answer is that these judges are allowing the former president just enough rope to hang himself in front of juries that see his childish antics—and are judging accordingly. I strongly suspect that the latest Carroll jury, after watching and hearing the former president blurt out in court on some days—and walk completely out of the courtroom during the middle of the plaintiff's closing argument the other day, had to impact the deliberations—and did nothing to help Mr. Trump's defense.

The longer answer is that as we all know, Trump has a segment of zealous followers who are more than willing to break the law to support him. Which is why I believe that as his trials turn from civil to criminal, I anticipate that the security at the courthouse(s) will be heavily armed and prepared to avoid another January 6th experience.

January 6th MAGA Riots…

But I would be remiss if I didn't note that having tried nearly 200 criminal and civil cases in the past, I have seen judges hold litigants, witnesses, and even lawyers in contempt of court for WAY less onerous behavior than what former President Trump is displaying in and out of court each week. The punishments from those judges for contemptuous acts ranged from harsh verbal admonishments in front of juries, to hefty fines, to jail time—even for the lawyers! Such is why when I’ve read that Trump just keeps yelling out at will during court sessions, I am reminded of several instances in my past where defendants talked back to judges or shouted out loud in open court, and soon found themselves either hurried out of by multiple bailiffs or in one instance, literally gagged—with an obstruction placed in his mouth—until the court proceeding ended!

Now, I'm no fool, and I know that for all of the talk about equal justice under the law in America, I know that a poor defendant who is yelling out in court is generally going to be treated more harshly than a wealthy former President of the United States displaying the same behavior. 

But I also see the wisdom in judicial restraint, at least for now, when Trump is acting up in court as he/she who laughs last tends to laugh best. Meaning, as Trump seeks his own level, which is extremely low when it comes to displaying class and respect for America's judicial institutions, should the water run dry and the criminal verdicts start to read "guilty," don't be surprised if one or more of the judges who are the constant targets of Trump's ire don't wind up sentencing him to federal prison or home confinement—a reality that will cause an even greater constitutional quagmire should those verdicts be reached prior to the election or, God forbid, should Trump actually defeat Joe Biden and get sworn in for a second term at a Federal Correctional facility.

Stay tuned...