When discussing the recent $83.3 million defamation penalty slapped on Donald Trump in the E. Jean Carroll case, MSNBC’s Morning Joe host, Joe Scarborough, delved into the broader landscape of serious payouts endured by political figures for disseminating falsehoods. A report by Raw Story on January 29, 2024, outlined Scarborough’s emphasis on the legal repercussions faced by those engaging in defamation, drawing parallels with other prominent cases involving misinformation.
Scarborough commenced by spotlighting a discernible pattern of legal consequences for individuals employing falsehoods in support of Donald Trump. Referencing cases involving figures such as InfoWars host and Rudy Giuliani, he remarked, “So we see, you know, one idiot at a time. I’ve got to say it, one idiot at a time, do they not know there are defamation laws in America?”
Drawing attention to the bankruptcy of the InfoWars host, Scarborough underscored the financial ruin resulting from false claims about the Sandy Hook parents. Expressing disbelief at the assumption that lies could be freely disseminated without repercussions, he stressed the existence of defamation laws in America to hold individuals accountable for spreading misinformation.
More Read
Turning to Rudy Giuliani, Scarborough detailed the financial ramifications the former mayor faced for lying about two black women in Georgia. Giuliani’s false statements, according to Scarborough, led to bankruptcy, reinforcing the notion that individuals cannot defame others without facing legal consequences. “One idiot at a time, whether you’re talking the InfoWars guy, Rudy Giuliani, now Donald Trump, you know,” Scarborough emphasized, “They’ve screwed around and found out what happens when you defame people over and over again.”
Central to the discussion was the recent $83.3 million penalty imposed on Donald Trump in the E. Jean Carroll case, where the jury found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll during his presidency. Scarborough highlighted the significance of the jury’s decision as a reassertion of the enforcement of defamation laws, challenging the belief that even a former president could escape accountability for spreading lies.
In connecting the dots between these cases, Scarborough argued that the era where people could utter anything without facing consequences has ended. He remarked, “We talked about it over the last several years; it was almost like the laws of gravity were suspended, and people could say whatever they wanted as it pertained to speech.” Scarborough underscored the importance of legal consequences for spreading false information, portraying defamation laws as instrumental in upholding accountability.
