-3

She has claimed many times that Donald Trump raped her. Being accused of rape could potentially damage someone's reputation. At the Cornell Law School website, defamation is defined as, "...a statement that injures a third party's reputation." So why hasn't Donald Trump sued her for defamation?

He could have done that back when she first made her claims of rape. Instead, he said she was lying and that she was lying to promote herself. That resulted in the recent verdict that HE defamed her, and she was then awarded millions.

Still, he could have filed a counter suit, years ago. But yet, he didn't. And he hasn't. Why not?

MojaveMax
  • 27
  • 1
  • 8
    Defamation of a public figure has to be materially false. The verdict in the recent case suggested that a preponderance of the evidence indicated the allegedly defamatory allegations were true. If Donald Trump had sued her, that might well simply have accelerated the ruling against him. – Obie 2.0 May 13 '23 at 04:50
  • @Obie2.0: still Trump is known for filing and losing some long-shot lawsuits https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/1/20/trump-lawyers-sanctioned-nearly-1mn-over-clinton-lawsuit ; https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/03/donald-trump-lawsuit-new-york-times-mary-trump But we can't guess what was in his mind in this case, so it's probably unanswerable. – the gods from engineering May 13 '23 at 06:01
  • No, the Cornell Law School site does not simply say "a statement that damages someone's reputation," it specifically states that the allegation is *FALSE* statements that have damaged reputation. -1 for false pretext/framing. – PoloHoleSet May 15 '23 at 20:32
  • I was relying on Google. When I typed "what is defamation" in a Google search, one result was "...a statement that injures a third party's reputation," and Cornell's law school was shown as the source. I certainly had no intent of false pretext/framing, whatever that is. I am new here and I simply wanted an answer. Instead I got slapped down. Nice job folks. – MojaveMax May 17 '23 at 02:50
  • The oldest major court case in the US decided that "truth is a defense" against defamation. – dandavis May 18 '23 at 19:26

1 Answers1

17

The problem with suing someone is that it requires one to go to court and present evidence. If Trump had sued Carroll, we would have had more or less the same trial as we just saw, except the prosecution witnesses against Trump would have been defense witnesses for Carroll, with the outcome that Trump would lose the suit and probably be asked to pay Carroll's attorney fees. One cannot win a defamation suit when there is credible evidence that the defamatory statements are in fact true.

Trump doesn't ever want to go to court, where there are legal ramifications attached to truthful testimony, calm demeanor, and structured evidence. Trump wants to try everything in the court of public opinion, where there are (for him, apparently) few consequences for lies, fabrications, personal attacks, and hysterical claims.

Ted Wrigley
  • 69,144
  • 23
  • 179
  • 235