From "Live Updates: E. Jean Carroll Is Being Cross-Examined Over Trump Rape Allegation/Defense lawyers questioned why the writer could not remember the precise day she claimed that Donald J. Trump had raped her in the 1990s. She responded, 'I wish we could give you a date'" (NYT).
Earlier, on direct examination today: "Mike Ferrara, Carroll’s attorney, asked her at one point if there had been any conversation that 'crystallized' the idea of suing Trump. Carroll said that she decided to sue after speaking with George Conway, a lawyer and one of Trump’s fiercest critics, after a party in 2019. Carroll testified Wednesday that the suit was not motivated by politics or money."
Not even partially motivated by politics or money? Why make such a strong assertion? Ironically, you'd only make such an absolute assertion if you were motivated by politics or money. But I'm only reading the NYT paraphrase, not the verbatim text. Maybe Carroll's actual statement was not so absolute. Or do you think it's possible that Carroll is 100% motivated by something else? Exactly what would that motivation be that doesn't raise the question why didn't you go to the police or file a tort suit at the time?
Posts
69 comments:
Pretty hard to postulate a reasonable cause for someone to sue someone that doesn’t involve politics or money.
Just in case everyone forgot. Carroll originally couldn't remember what day,month, or year the rape occured. Maybe after working with her lawyers, she's tied that down. Because it was SEARED Into her MEMORY!
"Not even partially motivated by politics or money?"
Reid Hoffman, lefty billionaire activist known for funding dirty tricks (see the Alabama Senate Race trial: https://www.insider.com/reid-hoffman-misinformation-alabama-senate-race-2018-12) is funding entire exercise in Latest Lefty Hoaxing....and it came about after Carroll spoke with George Conway....in 2019!
But nothing about money or politics. Nope. Just a bunch of honorable people running around doing honorable things for all the right honorable reasons.
To report this evidence of politically motivated bullshit today means AOC will be calling for your cancellation tomorrow, then weekend, then you are cancelled on Monday…
Not even partially motivated by politics or money? Why make such a strong assertion? Ironically, you'd only make such an absolute assertion if you were motivated by politics or money.
I commend Althouse for breaking the code.
On July 2, 1881, Charles J. Guiteau, a disappointed and delusional office seeker, shot President James Garfield at the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Station in Washington. In the 21st century disappointed and delusional job seeker George Conway sticks to character assassination and lawfare over a .44 caliber revolver, but his intentions are similar. Conway should remember that Guiteau was executed for his crime.
An increasing perception among the public that a significant percentage of sexual assault claims are fraudulent will have terrible consequences. E Jean Carroll (who I strongly suspect to be a liar), Christine Blasey Ford (who I am convinced is a liar), and their ilk are object lessons in the moral equivalency of the sexes. This is equally true of anyone who has falsely accused Biden or W. Clinton of sexual assault.
This is where the jury and the judge are supposed to pretend to believe there are no political agendas of any kind behind this lawsuit. Leftists are pretty good at pretending to be stupid, and even better at being stupid, so it doesn't matter- the Trump lawyers could literally show this jury a video of Carroll saying she was lying to get Trump, and it wouldn't matter- the jury would still rule against Trump.
Clearly, she doesn't want this rapist to run free.
That she cannot recall the date doesn't bother me much. Memory around trauma is a tricky business, as I just posted this week at home.
One of the things we learned during the Kavanaugh hearings is that genuine rape victims are condemned to remember every single detail of the event, over and over and over. That E. Jean Carroll has issues with details simply means that it was either consensual or imaginary.
Carroll testified Wednesday that the suit was not motivated by politics or money.
i suppose that's technically correct. That is:
the suit was not motivated by politics or money.
the suit was motivated by politics AND money.
They are never going to stop financially fronting people to go after Trump, EVER. If you think that by letting them get away with what they did, (lie to us for over 7 years about Fake Russian Collusions among other Progressive lies, like conspiring against him, and jailing his supporters), they are going to stop. You would be delusional. If you give an inch.....
Would calling someone a liar be enough to rise to the level of defamation? Remember, one element of defamation is harm to the reputation of the person allegedly defamed. How much value would a reputation for always telling the truth affect someone who was an advice columnist?
Hey, Hey, Hey, wait just a minute here! I "don't recall" can ONLY be used by Democrat office holders on cross!
I've got a question. Why are the dumbest murder trials with the most-obviously guilty defendants televised, but not this? WTF CourtTV?
I cite "World v. Clintons, 1994 - 2014)
Three tri-decades and her testimony is not viable.
That E. Jean Carroll has issues with details simply means that it was either consensual or imaginary.
After a tri-decadal period, a displaced memory projected on a de-monized figure. Perhaps a regret stemming from her other choices normalized through social progress a la grooming, trans/social affirmation, planned parenthood, etc.
Rage from a scorned woman? Delayed revenge?
Excuse my shocked face as I clutch my pearls.
With every report about Carroll, I silently say to myself "She's bat-sh*t crazy."
Carroll said that she decided to sue after speaking with George Conway, a lawyer and one of Trump’s fiercest critics, after a party in 2019. Carroll testified Wednesday that the suit was not motivated by politics or money.
Not motivated by politics or money??? I'm going to need to update my Mostly-Peaceful-Protester bingo card.
Big Mike. That is why there are Statute of Limitations laws. Because memory is fallible, and becomes even more so, as time passes. The Statute of Limitations are just one of dozens of mechanisms, in place to protect citizens against the power of government abuse of power to prosecute innocents.
If you believe in our govt structure, you would be demanding the judge follow the Constitution and toss this case. It should have never gotten this far. And yes, I know the legislature passed a law lifting the limitations. But that does not make the law Constitutional.
Assistant Village Idiot said...
Clearly, she doesn't want this rapist to run free.
While I realize this could be a metaphor my understanding is that this is a civil rather than a criminal trial.
At this remove it probably is reasonable to assume that a memory of an exact date is difficult. I would expect, however, that she might be able to provide evidence of either contemporaneous disclosure or disclosure at some point prior to 2016.
Our legal system is based on what you can prove, not the truth.
Ampersand said...An increasing perception among the public that a significant percentage of sexual assault claims are fraudulent will have terrible consequences.
We're already in a place where if a controversial figure is accused of rape and there's anything at all hinky about it, you figure it's probably BS. Careless or just plain weird accusations like this one will make it easier for people to get away with rape.
Meanwhile Christie Blasey Ford is still scared.
"This is equally true of anyone who has falsely accused Biden or W. Clinton of sexual assault."
Has there been anyone falsely accusing Biden or Bill Clinton? Serious question.
With both of these men, there is a pattern of predatory behavior.
Like your birthday, your SSN or your class number should you have ever graduated from BUDS/SEALS, there are certain things you NEVER forget.
One of these would be that traumatic day when your entire concept of life including your sex life changed forever. But this fraudster can't remember that date!!!
This is in NYC, right? So the jury is a bunch of criminals in COVID masks.
"I dont recall anything about it": The Hillary Clinton method of replying while under oath.
Hey, give her a break. At least she remembers the decade and also pretty sure about the century.
Hey, give her a break. At least she remembers the decade and also pretty sure about the century.
I dunno, what other reason (other than politics or money) would someone have for waiting 30 years before bringing this lawsuit?
Did she offer one? Or just adamantly deny that it had anything to do with politics or money?
George Conway - Kellyanne Conway's ex, correct? No wonder they split up
@Big Mike "or imaginary."
I wouldn't call it imaginary, I'd call it made up. ChatGPT would have done a far better job, and that's scary.
Will the NYC jury award her $1 Billion so that Trump is tied up in appeals for the next year?
There is also the likely Georgia indictment as well as the DOJ investigation into Presidential records.
The obviousness with which Trump is being persecuted tells me that there are plenty of people who will never ever vote for him, no matter what.
Trump will be the nominee because of the persecution and will lose to Uncle Joe again.
We will lose free speech rights by 2027.
Of course she can't remember any details. Details are what would show she is lying. Date, time, and place could be checked against Trump's schedule. Can't risk that.
September 19, 2019: NY extended the statute of limitations for victims to seek civil damages for rape/assault (see CNN article, found with Google: not going to go dig it out of the statute book).
The amendment gave them 20 years to bring their case. So Carroll's injury had to have arisen no earlier than September 1999.
When does she allege it took place? I have read that she wasn't sure when it happened. And I guess there's no physical evidence that can give us a date; nor any witnesses who can do so. (No police complaint? No statement by Carroll to friends, family, store manager, doctor --nobody?
Will nobody help this poor woman in her lonely fight for a huge payout, I mean simple justice?
To me, that email about "a scheme" and "we must do our patriotic duty" --an email she doesn't remember and which clearly gives the very political motivation for the lawsuit-- is the Perry Mason Moment.
I recall, can't find a link, somebody going to the site of the brutal crime and looking at the layout of rooms and halls and so forth and saying it was physically impossible. Wonder if that line of evidence will come up.
I guess this is the new tactic.
DESANTIS NUKES REPORTER OVER ‘TOTALLY BS’ CLAIM: ‘Focus On The Facts And Stop Worrying About Narrative.’
DeSantis forcefully rejected the claims made by former detainee Mansoor Adayfi, who claims that he saw a picture of DeSantis on Twitter and remembered his face from nearly two decades ago...
When the reporter mentioned that the former detainee claimed that DeSantis was present at force-feedings, DeSantis quickly fired back at the reporter.
“Who said that? How would they know me?” DeSantis responded. “Okay, think about that. Do you honestly believe that’s credible? So this is 2006, I’m a junior officer, do you honestly think that they would have remembered me from that? Of course not.”
“They’re just trying to get into the news because they know people like you will consume it because it fits your pre-ordained narrative that you’re trying to spin,” DeSantis continued. “Focus on the facts and stop worrying about narrative.”
Believe All Women.
"Not motivated by politics or money."! Even if I'm a brain-dead NYC juror, that would do it for me. She's a stone-cold liar. Verdict for the defendant.
It has been reported that Trump never goes anywhere alone. Totally absurd to think he was out shopping in New York by himself.
Holy Crap. Put George Conway on the stand. This case will be over in 2 minutes.
Even totally bought and paid for Democrat jurors will figure out that George Conway is an absolute fraud who gets paid to slander Trump. And his ex-wife will confirm it.
What absolute sleaze.
In regards to statute of limitation laws, I believe that New York basically eliminated them for certain alleged crimes, so that this particular assault on Trump and the law could proceed.
All up, the case does not pass the smell test, just like the Blasey Ford allegations. But I am sure the 'main' stream media will run with it as proof, proof I say, that DJT is the bad orange man and must be stopped at any cost.
Trump so upset the DC apple cart that these folks depend on and they are going to get him one way or another.
I expect you'll love this part, Althouse. (Or, perhaps it is the kind of thing that you would otherwise love if it weren't cutting against Trump.)
Joe Tacopina was crossing E. Jean Carroll on the stand and raised the issue of Carroll's book title, "Men; Why Do We Need Them? A Modest Proposal." Tacopina was trying to elicit the notion that the suggestion was to kill all men. And E. Jean Carroll was trying to explain the literary reference when Judge Kaplan stepped in and said, "It's from Jonathan Swift; 'A Modest Proposal'."
Lol. Note to all outer-borough lunkheads. Yes, it is a reference to Swift, and perhaps the original great classic example of satire in the modern literary age. Yes, the satirical Swift proposal was effectively for eating the poor babies of London in 1729. No, Swift was not actually proposing infanticide. No, E. Jean Carroll was not actually proposing the mass killing of men. And yes, Judge Kaplan is known throughout the Southern District for his inability to resist literary interjections.
Isn't it a pity that Trump is chickening out of testifying at this trial?
iowan2 said...
Big Mike. That is why there are Statute of Limitations laws. Because memory is fallible, and becomes even more so, as time passes. The Statute of Limitations are just one of dozens of mechanisms, in place to protect citizens against the power of government abuse of power to prosecute innocents.
If you believe in our govt structure, you would be demanding the judge follow the Constitution and toss this case. It should have never gotten this far. And yes, I know the legislature passed a law lifting the limitations. But that does not make the law Constitutional.
Do you realize that you are completely mixing up the two E. Jean Carroll-Trump cases?
The trial underway in the SDNY is the defamation case. Well within the SoL because it relates to a defamatory statement made by ex-President Trump on his Truth (lol) Social platform since he left office.
The NY state sexual assault case, under the newly extended state criminal statute, is coming up for trial later.
So, there you go. Your comment was totally off base.
This sounds as important as the lawsuit for "hostile workplace" by the woman who never met Tucker Carlson. This is pitiful but maybe a New York jury will believe it.
OT:
Watch Desk #2 - she keeps re-scanning the same pile of votes.
Bragg files Emergency protective order against Trump, with 2000 comments from the NYC jury pool.
Yancey Ward said...
This is where the jury and the judge are supposed to pretend to believe there are no political agendas of any kind behind this lawsuit. Leftists are pretty good at pretending to be stupid, and even better at being stupid, so it doesn't matter- the Trump lawyers could literally show this jury a video of Carroll saying she was lying to get Trump, and it wouldn't matter- the jury would still rule against Trump.
Let's review. Trump is a defendant who is being sued or investigated in at least a half-dozen jurisdictions. He is taking the Fifth every chance he gets. This is a civil trial in New York, and very much a matter of he said/she said, but Trump isn't going to testify. Go figure.
Trump is a monumental sociopath, and even a violent sociopath by many credible independent accounts. All given under oath.
And you're going to moan about dem libruls?
I've told you shit heads before; you really don't want to take "deporable" and turn it from an epithet into your mission statement.
are object lessons in the moral equivalency of the sexes
TBH, I'm finding it hard not to conclude that women are worse than men. I work on it, really, I do. But the cases keep popping up like mushrooms after a rain.
One of the major problems with accusing a guy like Trump of rape is that he travels a lot, and he has a bunch of people helping to manage that travel. This tends to create rather detailed records of his whereabouts. But you don't have access to that information when you are cooking up your story. So if you provide an actual date, there is a good chance he will be able to prove he was elsewhere on that date. Blasey Ford had the same problem, and chose the same solution.
A woman that uses photos of political celebrities as archery targets is not motivated by politics. And I'm supposed to believe Trump defamed her by calling her a liar.
I've already provided quotes showing her BS about not having sex in the past 25 years. She boasted of having a Tinder account and creating a Tinder like dating app as recently as 2015.
Do you realize that you are completely mixing up the two E. Jean Carroll-Trump cases?
========
nice catch
Pretty neat trick, an accusation without an hour, or a day, or even a year of the offense. Impossible for the defense to establish alibi or witnesses. I’d like to see this one go all the way to the SCOTUS.
Chuck, I care about facts when it comes to court cases, and, as you freely admit, Carroll has none in this trial. The prosecutors in the NY criminal case had to create a new interpretaion of a law to indict Trump. That Trump is under investigation in numerous jurisdictions proves my point more than it proves yours- Trump is uniquely despised by Democrats like you, and it is Democrats who are doing the investigations you mentioned- what a coincidence. In other words, it is nothing but political persecution, and nothing to do with justice. Like I have written before, you give lawyers a bad name with your attitude in matters like this. I wouldn't support this kind of lawfare against Trump if he were a Democrat- but that is the difference between you and me- I actually have some principles I live by, you don't you piece of dogshit.
For those paying attention to LLR-democratical and Violent Homosexual Rage Rape Fantasist Chuck's serial moronic attacks against Elon Musk, this story from yesterday provides important context for Chuck's seemingly inexplicable hatred towards Musk:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12017643/Elon-Musk-suspends-Twitter-user-created-pedophile-flag.html
Leland needs to call the Trump lawyers and volunteer to present his proof that Ms. Carroll lied. A few chuckles from the jury would loosen things up and could convince Trump to testify.
Wince, where in DeSantis' statement did he odeny not being there for the feedings? He never claims that it could not have been him, he just attacks the source of the claim not the substance of it.
I would note more than one detainee claims he witnessed the forced feedings.
Meanwhile Carroll also testified that her romantic life is forever ruined because Haven Monahan doesn't sext her anymore.. :(
Yancey Ward @ 10:19; see you in court.
Put George Conway on the stand. This case will be over in 2 minutes
Only if the questioning attorney has Wonder Woman's magical lasso of truth.
Aw. Isn't that cute. Chuck is trying to be a real boy.
I don't understand why, or how, Chuck believes that being "under investigation," even being under indictment, is tantamount to proof of guilt. Same with taking the Fifth, a Constitutionally protected act that juries are explicitly instructed not to conflate with guilt.
Given that Trump has been in the public eye for most of his life, derided and scorned for at least the last couple of decades, and has eluded every attempt to throw him in jail so far, Occam's Razor suggests to me not Chuck's "where there's smoke there's fire! Really, this time!" interpretation but instead the simpler business-as-usual "get the rich obnoxious guy" one. There's certainly no doubt that Trump is rich and obnoxious.
And, if Trump ever listens to his lawyers, when they tell him to take the Fifth rather than continue running off at the mouth as he does tend to do would be a good time to do so.
Yo gadfly, the evidence is in the public domain via an article by "The Observer". The trial is a defamation case, which you are probably unaware. Trump called her a liar. She says that is defamation. She also claims that she hasn't had sex with a man since 1995 or is it 1996, because Trump assault on her was so traumatic. So traumatic that she kept the outfit from that day she can't remember, never had it laundered, and never handed it over to forensic investigators. But back to the no sex; in Carroll's own words from 2015:
"Ms. Carroll has been divorced twice, but she has no regrets about her past relationships. She says she’s simply not meant for marriage. “You’re on this earth to have as many chaps as you want,” Ms. Carroll told me. She is, mostly out of curiosity, on Tinder, even though her new game, Damn Love, is a send-up of the app, and Tawkify, her matchmaking service, is positioned as an answer to the impersonal aspects of online dating. “There’s nobody in my vicinity, because I’m the oldest woman on Tinder,” she said. “But that’s great.”
I think a reasonable person would agree she lies.
I think you have just enough intelligence to realize Carroll's case is a loser with the only hope being Trump to take the stand. Unfortunately for you, attorneys on both sides have already excluded Trump from their witness list. I know that ruins your day. I can't and won't help you feel better. Suck it up.
Actually, Jamie, do you remember who the guy was, who famously claimed that pleading the Fifth was an indicator of guilt and that only mobsters took the Fifth?
It was Trump.
Go back and look at my comment and how it was reacting to the Althouse TrumpWingers who were claiming that Carroll was lying. Not just lying; but since she is under oath, it would be perjury. I doubt that I would have posted as I did if I wasn’t trying to push back hard on the Trumpers.
With Trump, we actually did get some deposition testimony, because it isn’t a criminal case and because he was subpoenaed to testify. He could now testify at trial. It’s rather obvious that if Trump had a good rebuttal, he’d want to deliver it forcefully himself at trial. He isn’t doing that.
I remember when Althouse said Brett Kavanaugh should confess and ask for forgiveness. Not the best take, perhaps, but maybe she would have the same advice for Trump.
Blogger Jamie said...
I don't understand why, or how, Chuck believes that being "under investigation," even being under indictment, is tantamount to proof of guilt. Same with taking the Fifth, a Constitutionally protected act that juries are explicitly instructed not to conflate with guilt.
--
Chuck said...
"I am afraid you are mistaking me for someone who has an interest in fair treatment of Donald Trump. I'm not your guy. I am interested in smearing him, hurting him and prejudicing people against him."
3/4/16, 4:46 PM
It has been reported that Trump never goes anywhere alone. Totally absurd to think he was out shopping in New York by himself.
That's what I've been saying from the start. He would've been mobbed by crowds in a NYC department store in the 1990s. People blinded by their current hate forget just how popular he was before 2015.
Post a Comment