E. Jean Carroll AGREES to PAUSE $83.3 Million Dollar Trump Verdict!

追加: 2026-05-12

[00:00:00]And you guys improperly ignored Trump versus United States back in 2024 which ended Jack Smith's cases and said that we have the three buckets of presidential immunity. Absolutely immune, presumptively immune, and not immune. Trump was the president when he was making these statements, these defamatory statements allegedly against Egene. You know, she's okay not having that money right now, presumably because she realizes that if she loses this thing, then she has potentially the liability of $83 million, which she doesn't want to get ins sns snared in.

[00:00:30]Eene Carol, the woman who says that she got a dressing room at Burgdorfs, now agreeing to stay the delivery of the $83.3 million judgment that the jury said she's entitled to. The president in this filing going up to the court of appeals for the second circuit coming up out of New York where the case presided which was a civil case Carol versus Trump has now submitted this new filing saying we're asking for a stay of the mandate pending Supreme Court review. So Trump is going to be taking this up to the Supreme Court and he's saying while we're going there don't make us pay the $83 million. And what's curious about this is Eugene Carol does not oppose this motion, right? Presumably because they don't want to take almost $90 million and then have to give it back if this is all reversed. They say, "All right, judge." In a descent from the denial of a re-haring on Bon here, three judges of this court identified your legal errors, important questions of federal law, and other conflicts with the president of the Supreme Court. And so, for those reasons, you should stay the mandate. allow President Trump to present important questions about presidential immunity and the Westfall Act to the Supreme Court. And the Westfall Act is the idea that federal workers essentially, which the president is one, cannot be liable for certain civil lawsuits when they're doing things within the scope of their duty. I would say it's very similar and analogous to presidential immunity. You might think of it like qualified immunity. Pops acting within the scope of their profession. You know, get into a bad situation. Can you sue them? No. They've got immunity if they're within the scope of their work. So, same type of thing saying we're going to bring this up to the Supreme Court and they're going to grant this. They say there is a reasonable probability that they will accept our claim to address these two.

[00:02:05]They have granted C each time based on best research that a president has sought a review that rejects presidential immunity. Scotas has also granted Cert in an overwhelming number of cases establishing the standard for waiver of structural constitutional immunities that are analogous to presidential immunity which can't be waved as well as other cases interpreting the Westfall Act. And second, we think that there is a fair prospect of reversal here. The panel's sole rationale for its immunity waiver law of the case will not apply to the Supreme Court and you guys improperly ignored Trump versus United States back in 2024 which ended Jack Smith's cases and said that we have the three buckets of presidential immunity. Absolutely immune, presumptively immune, and not immune. Trump was the president when he was making these statements, these defamatory statements allegedly against Egene. And moreover, contrary to your finding originally, the prior determination that Trump waved this defense was incorrect. The descent said it clearly. Trump has a serious claim that the district court conducted the trial in this case in violation of his presidential immunity. The officials and entities involved in distributing the statements, wrote the judge, as well as the context involved direct inquiries to the White House and other comments on matters of public policy. The president can defend himself while in office. some lady who paints her trees blue who was basing this whole claim off a law and order episode in my opinion doesn't get to just lob insults without the president responding. They indicate that he was speaking in an official capacity because she was attacking him in his role. So there was also a fair in fact strong prospect that Scottus will reverse them. The descent also noted this. There was no principal justification for holding that AG's Bill Bar his certification decision could be revisited by AG Garland. But Garland's certification decision could not be revisited by bonding. If it goes one way, it has to go the other way. The descent also concluded that the panel's decision created a circuit split on how removal is treated under the Westfall Act, which is basically federal worker immunity. Because this case either would have come out differently in the DC circuit or it would have come out differently in other circuits if Trump had simply removed the case on the basis of diversity jurisdiction before the US moved to substitute in. And third, there is irreparable harm if you don't say this. Trump may be immediately required to bear the burdens of proceedings to execute the judgment of $83 million.

[00:04:19]Allowing these proceedings before the Supreme Court has reviewed the significant legal questions here would eviscerate the immunity. And further, if the execution on the judgment were allowed, it is very unlikely that any money could be recovered because Carol has publicly said she plans to give away any money that she gets from the lawsuit. God has repeatedly found a reparable harm like here where money distributed pending an appeal is unlikely to be recovered. And fourth, the equities also strongly favor a stay of the mandate. Trump will suffer a reparable harm if a stay is not granted by being deprived of immunity. In not opposing this motion, Carol asked the following statement be included in her position. He said, "Without waiver as to or addressing any of the arguments in the motion, appel does not oppose the motion on the condition that they increase the bond to $7,400,000 to account for any postjudgment interest that would occur during any proceedings up through Scotas. So, the court should stay the mandate. These are vital questions and Carol does not even oppose this. So, we'll just pay a little bit more money and then continue to progress this up through Scotas." Now, if we do go to Scotas, we must show that there is a good cause for a stay. Need to demonstrate there's reasonable probability and more. Each one of these factors weighs in our favor, says Trump.

[00:05:30]We're going to address two issues.

[00:05:31]Whether the president's absolute immunity from civil claims based on official acts can be waved. Trump says it can't, and at least without an explicit unequivocal renunciation, which he didn't do, and whether the US timely filed and did not wave a Westfall Act certification to say that he was an employee who's protected. So based on these issues, the United States is also going to go up to Scotas on the Westfall Act. The Supreme Court is likely to grant these petitions. These are important questions of federal law. Cir is warranted when a US court of appeals has entered a decision that is in conflict with another circuit and when there is an important unsettled area of law. All three criteria are satisfied here. There are important questions also being raised here. First, what about immunity? Scotas has never held that this is waveable. The panel said that a 2023 interlocatory ruling that immunity is waveable is a matter of first impression, but we had another decision from Scotas and so they were relying on incorrect cases. Past practices also demonstrate that there is more than a reasonable probability that they're going to review this. In fact, the Supreme Court according to best research has granted cert review of a lower court decision that rejects this citing a bunch of cases. So given this long tradition in reviewing this, it's more than reasonably probable that they'll want to hear this case as well. They've granted a large number of cases that are similar to this. For example, here's a case. Here's another case. And they always want to clarify these waiverss. Now, the panel at this court of appeals also erroneously decided that Trump and the United States waved certain things that they didn't do. They said that Pam Bondi's certification was untimely. It wasn't.

[00:07:01]Under the Westfall Act, the panel wrongly stated that the AG may move for substitution at any time, but only before the case goes to trial. But the need to protect federal employees does not disappear and actually may become more urgent once a trial has occurred, and so they can make those claims after that time as well. This is all confirmed by president. The Supreme Court is repeatedly granted review on the Westfall Act. The panel's decision, if allowed to stand, would irreparably weaken presidential immunity and the presidency himself because immunity protects the presidency, not an individual. It's a constitutional argument and you're going to get reversed. The second factor also considers whether there is a fair prospect that this will be reversed.

[00:07:37]Factor is satisfied when the underlying cases are important and difficult. Here your decision committed a series of fundamental errors. A full accounting of these errors must await briefing before SCOTUS. But Trump highlights a series of independently sufficient basises to do so. The judges in the panel strongly state that you guys didn't even analyze presidential immunity. You relied exclusively on the law of the case doctrine to dismiss Trump's entire claim. But that doesn't bind the Supreme Court. There's key precedent called Nixon versus Fitzgerald which recognized absolute immunity from civil claims based on official acts. And that carries over to Trump. In Trump, the other Supreme Court case, they said immunity is required to safeguard independence and the functioning of the executive branch. It ensures the president is not chilled from acting as the president.

[00:08:21]And the argument in this case falls squarely within the line of these other immunity cases and Supreme Court has said a lot of types of immunity are not waveable at all because it protects the institution not the person. Now two claims that Carol made which she said that were defamatory are clearly protected. The president possesses the power to speak to his fellow citizens and on their behalf. Most communications are probably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities. Those acts played a pivotal role in the unlawful outcome. Trump was acting officially at the trial. Council for Carol emphasized the official character of the statements, saying, "These statements indicate the jury was invited to scrutinize and punish official acts of the president, which they can't do.

[00:09:02]He's immune." Contrary to the finding, the prior determination that Trump waved those defenses is also incorrect. He consistently raised his defense repeatedly. Three dissenting judges agreed with that. And what he was doing was making a statement defending his fitness for office and bolstering public confidence in his leadership. All of it was issued through White House channels during White House press events are plainly official acts ruling otherwise irreparably damages the president. I guess the president can never respond to any claims by some crazy lady.

[00:09:30]Accordingly, there is at least a fair prospect the Supreme Court will reverse and the Westfall Act and removal and protections for federal officers. They said it could only happen before trial, but they say there is no time limitation. You can still invoke these things after the fact. This erroneous holding saying it only comes at a certain time is creating a circuit split. this would have happened differently in a different court and so the Supreme Court is likely to have to reconcile the difference here and they said that AG Bar's certification could be revisited by Garland but Garland's certification decision could not be revisited by Bondi. So that seems pretty arbitrary and capriccious and completely unfair. So we think that they will reverse and there's also in the third factor irreparable harm. She has publicly and repeatedly promised to give away any money that she gets. Once grants are distributed and spent, the funds almost certainly will not be recoverable. Scotas has found irreparable harm when they're unlikely to recover the funds. So Trump will suffer this harm if you don't grant a stay here. Issuing a mandate to force the payment will eviscerate the immunity. And so this is not a close case. The court need not balance the equities. But if you want to go through that analysis, they favor Trump. Carol will not suffer prejudice by saying this. If a stay is granted, she will be able to collect from the petitioner all money from the judgment if the panel's erroneous ruling is somehow upheld, which it should not be. And so stay this until we go up and through Scotas. So we're asking you to stay the mandate until the Supreme Court's final disposition until all resolution of all proceedings. Carol does not oppose this motion. If the court were to deny this request, which it shouldn't, Trump should request that the court grant an administrative day for at least 14 days to allow a reasonable time to go up to Scotas and seek a stay over there. So, this one continues to march through, signed by Justin D. Smith up to the second circuit court of appeals. And it's interesting that Carol doesn't, you know, she's okay not having that money right now, presumably because she realizes that if she loses this thing, then she has potentially the liability of $83 million, which she doesn't want to get ins snared in. So going up to Scotas and I think the presidential immunity argument, which obliterated both Jack Smith's cases, is going to come back and be in favor of the president. We're going to keep our eye on this one. Thank you for subscribing and joining as we