From "The Donald Trump Doom Loop/Sitting in a courtroom, feet away from the woman he sexually assaulted, the ex-President keeps trying to outrun the consequences of his own bad acts" (The New Yorker).
***
Yesterday, someone sent me the video I'm embedding below. I can see that people on X have been sharing it and saying it shows E. Jean Carroll is "a nut job."
I disagree. Judge for yourself:
I see a woman with a cute/cutesy, quirky self-presentation who is leaning into an arty, hippie vibe.Donald Trump is not allowed to call his accuser E Jean Carroll a nut job. So we can do it for him. pic.twitter.com/X6kPqOsHdY
— Big Fish (@BigFish3000) January 17, 2024
I have no idea what really happened between her and Trump, but I do think that once the first trial ended, and she won (to some extent), he needed to accept the outcome of the legal process. It was a defamation case, brought on by his accusing her of lying. To go back to the assertion that she lied about their encounter is a new defamation, and now he needs to pay for that.
Even if you were trying anew to prove that she lied about the encounter, her literary shed, Annie Hall clothing, and painting rocks and trees blue have precious little probative value.
পোস্টগুলি
১৭৫টি মন্তব্য:
Ridiculous lawsuit. No rape occurred.
Ms. Cutesy teaches children archery by putting pictures of people she hates on targets.
The only gun New Yorker has ever supported.
No Offense Professor..
But the fact that you don't see her as a nut job is something that says a LOT about YOU.
an "arty hippie vibe" Might be something for a 20 year old in the early 1970's.
For a geriatric old lady, it spells NUT JOB..
You know the type, the type that posts the same picture of a lake on the internet.. EVERY DAY for 20 years
If she’s not a nut job then she’s an evil cunt that needs to be in a prison somewhere.
She doesn't even remember when it happened, and I am sorry, but since WHEN are changing rooms in high end department stores NOT monitored and WHERE in NYC would Donald Trump be able to go, sneak into a dressing room and rape somebody. It didn't happen. Sorry, not buying her lies, and he has the right to defend himself from yet, another witch hunt trying to take him out.
Such a self-own by Trump. Just shut up for once. No one really cares about this he-said she-said, except your enemies as a club to beat you with.
His temperament is really not suited for leadership.
Someone who uses a diaresis in an overwrought phrase and someone who paints tree trunks in the woods blue are equally silly.
If I were a woman who had been raped, disbelieved, and defamed, I would hate this performance art version of my experience.
Of course her blue rocks have precious little probative value. They're propaganda promoted by the media to garner sympathy and impose a ludicrous image of sexual and social innocence upon a person who dedicated herself to promoting the opposite -- sexual promiscuity by women as liberation. This court case is also political and also affects the electorate. We should have a full grasp of these facts about her case too. Political judgment matters; cultural judgment matters, regarding the political and electoral implications. I never said they mattered in the courtroom.
So her decades of sex columns advocating for women to seek precisely the sorts of encounters she blames on Trump do matter, and they should be disclosed to the public, along with her disgusting prejudiced gaffes and published recounting of her own life. Not all of it is unreasonable, but if Trump is to be subjected to such scrutiny, she should too, because this was a case decided solely on her word against his. And it should not have ever been tried in the first place.
There is no probative significance to the "grab her by the you-know-what" comment either, but it is being brought up in the courtroom.
Sorry, she comes across as a nut job. And to be honest, as a lying liar to quote some movie I have forgotten.
Yet another articulate, nuanced, interesting Althouse blog post. The only problem is that you seem to have missed the part about Trump being a raging, malevolent sociopath.
No report, no evidence, no witnesses, and a handmade tale of empathetic jurisprudence, and sympathetic journolism in the fashion of olde. One step forward, two steps backward.
Since this is a civil case, a person is barred from claiming their own innocence?
I need some help with the law. A civil rape charge, a civil sexual assault charge. from 35 years ago, finds liability and the accused has been stripped of any power to defend themselves because the accuser cant even get close to which decade the civil assault occured.
But after the finding of liability, the accused losses his free speech rights to claim his innocence.
Was Trump found guilty of sexually assaulting Carroll as stated in the New Yorker?
My memory is a little fuzzy. But didn't Trump sue her back for defamation after the finding of liability, for civil sexual assault, but no liability for civil rape? Carroll again stated the Trump raped her. The court tossed Trumps defamation claim. So after the trial Carroll has free speech rights to continue to assert her victim of rape status, but Trumps free speech rights are stripped when he claims his innocence.
The bane of my work as a church musician is nice 80 year old ladies who haven’t had sex in 20 years and imagine a sexual relationship with me that doesn’t exist. They don’t mean any harm. Their attention is kinda flattering, but any one of them can get me fired instantly.
That's women's logic. He's reasserting the old claim about the same thing, plus that the verdict was wrong. We need a name for a false verdict, maybe faldict.
Ann:
1. She has burnt Orange hair. She’s a nut.
2. From media accounts, her claim of an attack was not at all credible. The jury was biased.
3. Trump’s right to due process was violated when NY passed a special statute of limitations.
4. Appellate court can reverse.
5. Different jury; different result.
I know that others have already covered this ground, but do you not have a problem with the fundamental injustice of the idea that saying someone lied about claiming you committed a heinous crime--denying that you committed said heinous crime-- is defamation for which legal damages can be pursued? Do you not see the potential harm to freedom of expression? The chaos and abuse of the legal system which will flow from this?
If he committed the heinous crime (I note that even the jury verdict in the prior action was ambiguous at best, and inherently inconsistent) he should have faced a claim for damages for the alleged heinous act--brought and pursued within the proper legal framework, including the statute of limitations. This "defamation" claim decades after the alleged 'event" is a legal travesty.
One thing the video makes clear is that Ms. Carroll has an active imagination.
A red queen, a humpty dumpty sat on the bench... wall, a handmade tale begging for an innocence project, too.
just exactly how did she prove what he said was defamation? an affirmative defense against a claim of defamation is that what he said was the truth. He was not allowed in the trial to use witnesses that would have supported him, e.g. Bergdorfs was not allowed to testify that (1) when a customer as well known as PJT comes thru the door they are accompanied and assisted the entire time, never left alone; (2) all change rooms are kept LOCKED and monitored when someone is allowed in. That is just ONE piece of evidence that was not allowed.
For you (as a lawyer) to say you "believe" her is surprising.
I’m bothered by “The New Yorker”’s use of the indicative mood “Trump assaulted.” In firmer times a serious journalist would have used “allegedly” or some such construction to indicate the lack of established fact. Other European languages like German would use the subjunctive mood. I get that to “The New Yorker” it’s established fact, but I don’t respect them as writers, and I don’t respect their writing,
As for Carroll? I think it supports Trump’s assertion “not my type.”
And why is everybody making a big deal about her age? I gave a theory, but I’m keeping it to myself for now.
That’s not a river; it’s a creek or stream.
She didn’t paint the forest; just a few trees.
“Exaggeration is a form of lying.” Baltasar Gracian, S.J.
I'm no lawyer, but I can honestly say I am flabbergasted that a person can be sued for trying to defend themselves against charges that they committed a crime. This came as a total surprise to me. It feels Kafkaesque that I can't call a witness against me a liar, regardless of my ability to prove they are lying. Is this a foundational legal precept that once you are found guilty anything you say about the veracity of the witnesses is an actionable defamation claim? That can't be right ... right?
She's a nut, and the jury verdict in the first trial is proof that New Yorkers are scum. To hell with that entire cesspool of a city.
I’m not sure exactly what the defamation was but saying someone is a liar is a non actionable opinion. When juries find a person non credible they are implicitly giving an opinion that the person is lying. In fact jury decisions while establishing facts upon preponderance of the evidence they are merely giving an opinion. Trumps opinion of someone should never result in lawsuit.
What would Meade think if Althouse went out and painted all the backyard landscape that Meade tended and groomed?
She is quirky. Nothing wrong with that. Suing someone without adequate evidence, however, is very wrong. She would know that.
Ann has been very persistent in her desire to see Trump cowed by this political farce. I have a problem with demanding compliant behavior of someone wronged by an out of control legal system that changed the rules specifically to attack the leading Democrat challenger for President. En ex-President that deserves the respect and deference that title…
…if Trump chooses to mock this woman and not be cowed by the prospect of financial loss because of it more power to him.
Weird, lefty, white old ladies living in fantasy worlds: don’t have nearly enough of them…
As usual, Tina Trent cuts to the heart of the matter. One part of her excellent comment that I'd like to repeat in case anyone skimmed it instead of reading with careful interest:
So her decades of sex columns advocating for women to seek precisely the sorts of encounters she blames on Trump do matter, and they should be disclosed to the public, along with her disgusting prejudiced gaffes and published recounting of her own life. Not all of it is unreasonable, but if Trump is to be subjected to such scrutiny, she should too, because this was a case decided solely on her word against his.
I mean, just - if you don't remember TT's comment, I suggest rereading it, at 6:37am.
Also - "quirky" does not automatically mean "bat shit crazy," but it doesn't preclude it either. So I agree that the cute faerie lovechild nonsense doesn't automatically make Carroll a vindictive lying nutjob, but it's also utterly irrelevant to whether she is a vindictive lying nutjob - a position on which I have very little opinion. I think she's lying about being raped, but I don't know why.
Though money certainly presents itself as a motive.
Kangaroo courts undermine the entire system of American civilization. Deference my ass…
I would root around and find if she has a license for the gun she claims to have but doesn’t. In any event Trump’s lawyer should drop the question on her. What make. What caliper. Pistol or revolver.
I’m curious about the usual time required to bring a defamation case before the court in this jurisdiction. Seems this one was rather quick for some reason. The timing is also suspicious…
These things should be obvious to everyone.
I remember when she wrote for Esquire. Should disqualify her for any claim of defamation by Trump.
Tara Reed had actual evidence for her claim against Joe Biden. We had the contemporaneous phone call by her mother describing what happened, while withholding names, but of course it could only have been Biden, because what other Senators was Tara Reed associated with? None of that matters though, because in the United States, "justice" is about power.
Oh, and let's not forget the 12 year old girl whose nipple Joe Biden pinched, which is on video, who, as an adult said that that is what happened as anybody could plainly see. Justice is about power in the United States.
Monica Lewinsky said that the true measure of power is whether a person can appear in public, for years and years, without anybody asking him the question that is on everybody's mind.
The US government is illegitimate, if its legitimacy arises from the values that it claims to be founded on.
That's right, she's a public figure.
he needed to accept the outcome of the legal process.
He didn't need to accept any such thing. Why should Trump capitulate to a false accusation, and corrupt court proceedings? The "legal process" in America is not blind, especially when it comes to Trump, and J6 political prisoners.
Carroll is lying. She was put up to this a funded by Trump haters. Statute of limitations was changed just to try and snare Trump.
Should Trump just accept that Mara Lago is only worth $18 million because some corrupt asshole NY Judge said so? Plus the judge is WRONG?
Question for all the lawyers out there. Why should injustice just be accepted because of a legal proceeding? What about the innocent people sent to death row? Should they just accept their fate because of the "legal proceeding", or fight for their life?
so, just to be clear..
If a woman accuses me of Rape.. With No Evidence, and No Witnesses ..
And a Jury finds me Not Guilty of Raping her..
Then I be be liable for defamation?
That's Interesting.
I'm still surprised that our hostess has enough residual respect for the judicial process in this case that she thinks Trump should accept the outcome. It was/is a set of political trials. And the only way through is a political response which is what Trump is providing. Once Trump starts shutting up about all this we are doomed. I'm with RHardin. Most women want to get nice, orderly things through a nice orderly process. But sometimes nice things require a lot of noise, sweat, and blood. Both real and metaphorical.
The fright wig is good clue.
I don't believe an old lady painted all those trees herself, and it's recent paint (no cracks). Ladders don't work well against a narrow trunk, or step-ladders on unlevel ground.
You can’t go around painting trees and rocks. Not done. Not cool. Not creative. Cliched. Boring. Nutty.
Wouldn’t any damages in this case have to reflect the additional harm of the new statements? At this point the additional harm to her reputation would seem to be very small.
"For a geriatric old lady, it spells NUT JOB."
No. It doesn't. It's no nuttier than an old man in his underwear, sitting in a recliner, watching sports on television.
It's a choice about what to wear that a lot of people disapprove of and a preference for an activity that a lot of people think is dumb.
I often hear it said that when you're old you've earned the privilege to enjoy yourself and do what you want and disregard the haters.
That isn't nutty. It's perfectly sane. I'm tired of all these bullshit diagnoses of mental illness.
Also, did she make herself a public figure by suing an ex-President? That would change the threshold for a libel or slander and differentiate this case from the first as the initial comments would have been made prior to her becoming a public figure while these new comments were made when she was one.
"She doesn't even remember when it happened, and ..."
Remember, this all started when she wrote a MEMOIR, drawing on what she did remember.
DT then called her a liar and shone a light on the precise details, which she (said she) didn't remember. She then chose to sue for defamation. He could have sued for defamation too. But she won. The legal system exists and she used it.
If A defames B, and Prevails in a suit against A; and then A repeats the original defamatory statement, what are B's damages the second time around? If the damages are to compensate for injury to reputation, then in the second case, shouldn't the starting point for measuring that injury be the status of B's reputation after the original defamation?
I do think that once the first trial ended, and she won (to some extent), he needed to accept the outcome of the legal process.
I'm going to push back hard on this.
It's like saying, "Dred Scott has to shut up, the judges have spoken."
You don't have to accept shit if the judges are wrong.
And I will say too that if judges are obviously politicized, dishonest, and corrupt, then there can be no peaceful resolution of conflicts. Democrats who hate Trump need to bend over backwards to be fair to him.
Didn't the jury say she was lying about rape, and she published her lie (outside of courtroom testimony)?
I’m here because Donald Trump raped me, and when I wrote about it, he said it didn’t happen. He lied and shattered my reputation, and I’m here to try and get my life back,” Carroll told jurors.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/e-jean-carroll-writer-suing-trump-in-rape-case-takes-the-stand
If Trump did NOT contend that the whole thing was a lie, the party line would be: "See! SEE! He tacitly admits he did it!"
I'm tired of all these bullshit diagnoses of mental illness.
100%. I don't think she's "crazy." I do think she's lying.
His temperament is really not suited for leadership.
His narcissism requires that he respond to attack. He needs his own private whipping boy. Where's Jared?
"Since this is a civil case, a person is barred from claiming their own innocence?
I need some help with the law. A civil rape charge, a civil sexual assault charge...."
The civil cause of action was defamation — that DT injured her reputation by calling her story a complete fabrication.
DT wasn't barred from defending himself with a claim that in fact he had nothing to do with her. That's what he said in his deposition that was shown in the first trial. The jury didn't believe that, and he lost.
Now, there's a second case, but he can't relitigate what the jury found in the first case.
Her claim caught the me too wave perfectly and she rode it to shore. The idea that someone can ruin lives based on decades old claims disgusts me. Thanks Harvey.
If the assault actually happened, he is defaming her. If it didn’t, she is defaming him. Since there is no evidence either way (beyond he said/she said), let’s call the whole thing off.
Ann is seeking a remedy the court does not, cannot provide.
Everything women imagine is true, especially if they use the legal system.
I remember a gf mad at me because of something I did in her dream. Fortunately I was not sued, just cut off from sex for a while.
No one really cares about this he-said she-said, except your enemies as a club to beat you with.
------
If no one e cared, then it wouldn't be a vlub. It's o ly a club because the left k ows that they can use it to hang "he's a convicted rapist" and that a lot of stupid white women will be scared away from voting for him. "Dignified silence" only allows them to continue the attack.
Honestly, fighting it is probably better from an electoral perspective, as he can argue, "if they'll do this to me, imagine what they can do to your sons!"
"You don't have to accept shit if the judges are wrong."
Yes, but when you speak, you might defame, and if you defame, you might get sued again, and if it's about the same facts, you won't be able to go back to square 1 and prove the truth of the statement that the previous trial established was not true.
The courts have rules about the preclusive effect of judgments.
Why can't Trump sue her for defamation?
It is better that 10 guilty men be set free than that a single innocent man be convicted.
Is Trump the unlucky eleventh or is this rule void for disagreeing with a woman.
Ann is just explaining how lawfare works.
"Why can't Trump sue her for defamation?"
Since it is a claim that is based on the same occurrence as the the one in the original case she brought, he needed to raise it as a counterclaim in that case. Not having done that, he is now precluded. That's called res judicata.
Res judicata is to prevent cluttering the court calendar with justice.
But if she makes new statements that are false and damaging to his reputation, his problem would be that she'd defend on the ground of the truth of her statement, and it might be the same subject as in the first case, and he couldn't relitigate the same facts.
That's called collateral estoppel.
It's no nuttier than an old man in his underwear, sitting in a recliner, watching sports on television.
Sure it is. If the old man you describe had filmed it and uploaded the video then it might be “no nuttier” but she is promoting her nutty side not enjoying it in private. It’s the infantile “look at me look at me” BS that nudges the dial past “playful eccentric” towards “might be a nutball” territory.
Althouse said: No. It doesn't. It's no nuttier than an old man in his underwear, sitting in a recliner, watching sports on television.
If that old man's recliner is his front yard for all to see then yes, he's a full on nut job.
It's not narcissism to respond to an attack. But I cannot get past the simple facts in this case, and how badly they don't add up to any kind of recognizable justice - starting with the fact that the State of New York changed one of its own laws for the sole purpose of enabling the prosecution in the first place.
And it seems odd that a slew of people are constantly pointing out Trump's use of the incident to register political points, while ignoring that his accuser is a professional fabulist, who is scoring a slew of hits in her own social milieu, on the back of this event. 'Sleeping with a loaded gun next to her pillow'. Really? You would trust this person with a loaded gun? I might - if she was in a locked, bulletproof room, alone.
Well, she is a nutjob. Whether this video reveals her to be more of a nutjob than originally suspected is not relevant to the conclusion.
The case was ridiculous and the only reason she won is the court hated Trump and wanted to punish him for something. Between this and the fraud case, the conclusion is the New York courts are utterly corrupt. A corrupt court declaring something to be true is something that should be resisted by all decent people. Yet, here we are.
Our other Trump cases are currently being run by a corrupt DA who is paying her lover to lead the prosecution so they can use the money to go on vacations, and the federal case led by a prosecutor who is a proven political hack. But trust the courts.
But Ann. The first judgement and verdict have NOT been decided by an appellate court. So, not final. I don't think res judicata applies.
That's called res judicata.
That's called collateral estoppel.
These common law ideas have to bow down to our Constitution.
Trump can say, "I am not a rapist and I did not rape that woman."
That's called free speech. And that's called due process.
This whole thing is a partisan shit-show. The idea that innocent people have to be silenced, the judges have already ruled on that, ugh.
"an 'arty hippie vibe' Might be something for a 20 year old in the early 1970's.
For a geriatric old lady, it spells NUT JOB.."
Why? Do you think an "arty hippie vibe" is an affectation, merely a pose of young people trying to present themselves as "cool," but is unseemly for an older person? Many young people, not yet established in their adult lives, do affect particular poses, wanting to be perceived in a certain way by their peers, but for other persons, it is actually who they are deep down in their personality, not a pose, and not a function of their age.
"You know the type, the type that posts the same picture of a lake on the internet.. EVERY DAY for 20 years
What's wrong with that?
"...since WHEN are changing rooms in high end department stores NOT monitored...."
I was friends with a woman in NYC who told me she had performed sex acts in department store changing rooms on several occasions. In her case it was always voluntary, with a man she was seeing at the time. I have only changed clothes in NYC department store changing rooms, but I can attest they're not always that closely monitored.
Ann Althouse said...
"Why can't Trump sue her for defamation?"
Since it is a claim that is based on the same occurrence as the the one in the original case she brought, he needed to raise it as a counterclaim in that case...
But if she makes new statements that are false and damaging to his reputation, his problem would be that she'd defend on the ground of the truth of her statement
But the jury verdict did not affirm the "rape" allegations she published.
When did she make the last "rape" claim publicly?
Wouldn't the statute of limitations be her defense rather than a defense of the truth based on some preclusive effect of a jury verdict that rejected her "rape" allegation?
feet away from the woman he sexually assaulted
Asserts facts that aren't. The trial is a joke and not to be taken seriously. The state can punish Trump, but it is still a joke.
That isn't nutty. It's perfectly sane. I'm tired of all these bullshit diagnoses of mental illness.
Is stating the "rape is sexy" on Anderson Cooper considered sane? Come on. That's pretty nutty. Especially when the only reason Carroll was invited on the show, was because she was accusing someone of rape...30 years ago.
Why won't the judge let the jurors see that clip? It's all over social media.
I believe that she won her first case based on the testimony of others whom she told about the incident at the time it occurred and the jury found those persons credible, for what it's worth.
Yes, she had a career as a sex columnist. She also had a daytime TV gig in NYC at the time of the alleged Bergdorf incident. And on the heels of the "Me Too" movement, she wrote an essay reflecting on her lifetime of experiences with male sexual aggression that began in childhood and continued even past the alleged incident involving Trump. Very much in keeping with "Me Too," she reflected on why she was too petrified to do anything about these incidents when they occurred.
I read it and found it believable. She identified numerous other men. I would suppose that if any of them felt that they'd been slandered, they would be suing her and her publisher. I suspect that instead they are just hoping this all blows over without inviting too much attention.
This is just not what courts of law were made for. It's become a crazy-toon hall of mirrors.
There is clearly a nutto-vago sisterhood thing going on here.
Sacco and Vanzetti. Another pair who were just as well-advised to accept the legal process.
She's going to have to sue a lot of people if she wants her "reputation" back.
Are we all guilty of slander?
I say, liar, liar, pants on fire to this judge, this jury, this ruling and Miss Hot Pants.
You know how many Republicans think she's full of shit?
Most of Iowa, most of New Hampshire. Probably most of the USA. Every vote for Trump is a big "bullshit!" to E. Jean Carroll and all the felony charges and the mug shot.
She might be able to rob him successfully, but that doesn't make her a rape victim or a nice woman.
And here's the Anderson Cooper transcript that made me feel this way.
>Even if you were trying anew to prove that she lied about the encounter, her literary shed, Annie Hall clothing, and painting rocks and trees blue have precious little probative value.<
Oh well, that matters little when Republican/Trump probative value is of absolutely no value in Democrat kangaroo courts. So, why not?
The courts have rules about the preclusive effect of judgments.
The courts have a lot of rules that judges break and purposefully ignore or override all the time.
The civil cause of action was defamation — that DT injured her reputation by calling her story a complete fabrication
Her story is based (plagiarized?) from an episode of law and order. Jury wasn't allowed to see that either.
I'm happy she is exercising her second amendment rights to self defense.
"From media accounts, her claim of an attack was not at all credible."
What media accounts? Did they provide factual information that impeaches her accusation?
"The jury was biased."
How do you know?
I served on quite a few juries--criminal, civil, and grand jury--in 40 years in NYC (Manhattan). For most of my years in NY, one could be sure to receive jury summons' every two years, until they opened up juries to be populated by previously exempted citizens, such as lawyers, doctors, and law enforcement officers.
The last time I was called for jury duty, (during Trump's years in the White House), one of the other NYC citizens called in that day to be interviewed for jury duty was Donald Trump, Jr. He was called to report to the same courtroom as I was, (where I sat two rows behind him and spied the discreet wire in the ear of the man next to him, one of his Secret Service agents). He was called up for the voir dire, where he answered questions in front of the 50 or so others of us who had been called in. He had a suprisingly--to me--resonant voice. I don't think I had ever heard him speak before then. But I digress. He was excused from jury duty, (and they filled up the jury before my name was called, so I was also discharged and released from further duty).
In every jury on which I served, my fellow jurors took pains to be fair, to consider all evidence and testimony for and against each side, and to make a just and honest verdict. Does this mean no juries in NYC are biased, that none of them render verdicts on the basis of their personal presumptions, even if contrary to the evidence? No, I can't say that. But my experience belies it.
Unless you have specific factual knowledge that informs your accusation of a biased jury, (which you present as fact), you're being glib and dishonest.
Lyle E. Strom was a federal judge in Nebraska for about 40 years. I won both trials I had before him; non-jury.
Judge Strom said, "Every trial is a contest of credibility."
In that clip, E. Jean Carroll says that a tiny creek is a river. That's not just imprecision in language, that's plain wrong. And coming from a "writer" it's particularly wrong.
She has no credibility, but the jury found in her favor. There's an appellate point of law that a jury verdict can be reversed if no reasonable jury could find for the plaintiff. This is that case. Clear bias and irrationality.
The first jury verdict is not final because the appeal hasn't been decided. This second trial never should have happened.
I'll say it, the trial judge is crazy wrong.
Give me an effing break.
What an obnoxious piece. I couldn't get past the excerpt.
Will someone PLEASE save us from this pretentious ë?
Judge Kaplan clearly resisted rising to Trump’s bait and making Trump a martyr here, but sooner or later a line will be crossed. I would think, avoiding rising to the bait of people trying to martyr themselves in court is sound judicial policy.
As for the lawsuit, I have zero sympathy for Trump.
He brings these things on himself. He asks for it, so he gets it.
He really is the worst kind of client for a lawyer, a guy who cannot, who will not, discipline himself and keep his fat mouth shut. But, hey, they are getting paid $$$$, so let him make an ass of himself (again). (And Trump is probably fool enough to think his lawyers are personally for him.)
That's called res judicata. That's called collateral estoppel.
Yes, those are legal rules that can prevent parties from asserting even truthful and dispositive legal positions.
It’s a good thing we can all rely on such rules to protect us from abuse of our legal system, right?
Now can we talk about limitations?
"DT then called her a liar and shone a light on the precise details, which she (said she) didn't remember. She then chose to sue for defamation. He could have sued for defamation too. But she won. The legal system exists and she used it."
If this was a civil defamation then isn't she really responsible for proving the truth of her statement and not the other way around? How can there be any "preponderance of evidence" when the crucial item of time (even so "detailed" as YEAR) could not be established? This convenient "lapse" in memory allowed one side to make wild claims that were well outside the expected behaviors of both the defendant and the location where the alleged action occurred but they could not be defended against.
What ever happened to "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"?
"...proof that New Yorkers are scum. To hell with that entire cesspool of a city."
I think a certain someone is just a tad bit envious of those fortunate to live in the greatest city in the USA, and among the best in the world. (I left two years ago--my wife's desire--but I loved and will always love NYC.)
I'm sorry, but anyone who's ever been in a department store changing booth knows that there's no fucking way that anyone can fuck anybody in one of those things. And particularly anybody with the EQ (Erectile Quotient) of E. Jean Carroll AKA "Ms. Cutesy".
Althouse @ 8:37: "The courts have rules about the preclusive effect of judgments."
Collateral estoppel applies in legal proceedings, not to out-of-court statements.
Suppose someone criminally convicted of of a crime says that the accuser committed perjury by testifying that he raped her. Is that defamation?
"What would Meade think if Althouse went out and painted all the backyard landscape that Meade tended and groomed?"
ME: Before you cut down those weed trees, I'd like to paint them blue and take some arty photos for the blog.
MEADE: Good idea.
ME: Thanks!
"But Ann. The first judgement and verdict have NOT been decided by an appellate court. So, not final. I don't think res judicata applies."
Res judicata applies from the time of the judgment. The judgment comes from the trial court. That's what's called a "final judgment." It's a final judgment from which you can appeal. That's the general rule. You need to research the details.
Very lawyerly, that "probative value" assessment. But spot on. She could be a chainsmoking cat lady living in a fridge box in an alley, and that, too, would have no probative value regarding her claims. Trump needs someone to tell him that Bill Clinton got off easier for demonstrably worse behavior, and that Bill & Hillary's method of deny, delay, diminish, denigrate ws a technique that worked against even the very true charges against him.
Shut up, Donnie. You have bigger things to accomplish.
Ann Althouse said:
"I have no idea what really happened between her and Trump..."
Judge Kaplan made it clear that you MUST have the exact idea that Trump did indeed "Rape" Ms. Carroll.
I'm struck by how similar our hostess's support of Carroll's sequential (and unsupported) claims is to her defense of the indefensible (and unsupported) accusations against Kavanaugh by Christine Blasey Ford during his confirmation hearings.
When men say they grab women by the pussy, believe them.
"Collateral estoppel applies in legal proceedings, not to out-of-court statements."
Yes, but as I said, that out-of-court statement could be defamatory and give rise to a new cause of action which will then be in court and subject to collateral estoppel. There are facts that were established in the first case that will not be able to be relitigated — notably, here, that Trump attacked (but did not rape) Carroll.
"Suppose someone criminally convicted of of a crime says that the accuser committed perjury by testifying that he raped her. Is that defamation?"
You should ask will he be successful if he sues her for defamation. Obviously, he won't. Her defense will be truth and he'll be estopped from attempting to prove any other version of the facts.
Or are you imagining her suing him for continuing to claim that he's innocent after he's been convicted? She should be successful, because he won't be able to use truth as a defense.
Donald Trump should have just stopped talking about Carroll. She's entitled to more damages now. I have to assume he knew the risk of talking about her, and he chose to do it anyway, and he accepted that he'd be paying a price for saying what he wanted to say.
The smartest thing that fat orange fuck ever said is so true.
He could rape someone on 5th Avenue, in broad daylight and his shitheel supporters would defend him.
Cultists and scumbags defend the act and shit all over the survivor and then pretend like Trump is the actual vicim.
[Her lawyer] said that Carroll now sleeps with a loaded gun next to her bed
Wow, I sure hope she as a license for that!
I have no idea what really happened between her and Trump
Seriously? Here, let me help you:
Carroll sued in Manhattan federal court last year, alleging Trump raped her in the dressing room of a Bergdorf Goodman department store near his Fifth Avenue home in 1995 or 1996. She first went public with the claim in 2019 in her book “What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal.”
The verdict carries no criminal implications.
She can't "remember" what year it happened? The first time she made the claim was 23 years later, not when he was doing "The Apprentice" and all over TV?
Even a Manhattan jury wasn't willing to claim that Trump raped her?
Her story is complete and utter bullshit, without the slightest shred of truth to it.
Anyone who pretends otherwise is a delusional lunatic.
, but I do think that once the first trial ended, and she won (to some extent), he needed to accept the outcome of the legal process.
No, he doesn't, and neither does anyone else.
No Republican need ever accept ANY civil jury verdict from a Manhattan jury, especially not on a purely political issue like this one.
“The legal system exists and she used it.
Yes… it exists, such as it is.
Ann Althouse said...
"Collateral estoppel applies in legal proceedings, not to out-of-court statements."
Yes, but as I said, that out-of-court statement could be defamatory and give rise to a new cause of action which will then be in court and subject to collateral estoppel. There are facts that were established in the first case that will not be able to be relitigated — notably, here, that Trump attacked (but did not rape) Carroll.
So can Trump sue e Jean Carrol for claiming that he raped her? Can he sue anyone else who claims that? Does collateral estoppel force them all to agree that Trump did not rape her?
Or does the magic only work to advance your political desires?
I'm not one hundred percent onboard with her sleeping with a gun under her pillow. This is a woman who goes around painting trees blue and talking about rapes in Bergdorf changing rooms. If a rape can happen in a Bergdorf dressing room, think of all the terrible things that could happen late at night when she's alone on her spacious bed. Brad Pitt is hoping and waiting for just the right moment to assault her.... If I were her maid, I'd walk on tippy toe when I came in the morning to awaken her. You don't want to startle her. The gardener also should be on his toes when painting the rocks. She wants just the right color and will accept no deviation from that color.
It's a witch hunt. PERIOD. I don't care about the supposed law. This country hasn't been running on law and order for years now. We live in a Banana Republic.
without evidence.
A claim before a tribunal, be it an administrative agency or a municipal board, is res judicata and may not, as a general rule, be relitigated once there has been a petition for judicial review and the petition has been dismissed. Kirkland v. Abramson, 248 Neb. 675, [*102] 538 N.W.2d 752 (1995); L.J. Vontz Constr. Co. v. City of Alliance, 243 Neb. 334, 500 N.W.2d 173 (1993).
Therefore, the Board, in the absence of other authority, could make use of the doctrine of res judicata. In this case, however, there is an ordinance which was entered into evidence and argued by both parties.
The ordinance provides in part: "In the event that the proposed variance or exception is denied by the Board of Zoning Appeals, no new request shall be made for the same or a substantially similar variance or exception within one year of said denial thereof." Lincoln Mun. Code § 27.75.050 (1994).
To understand the effect of this ordinance, it is necessary to first discuss the common-law doctrine of res judicata. The doctrine of res judicata bars the relitigation of a matter that has been directly addressed or necessarily included in a former adjudication if (1) the former judgment was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, (2) the former judgment was a final judgment, (3) the former judgment was on the merits, and (4) the same parties or their privies were involved in both actions. Baltensperger v. United States Dept. of Ag., 250 Neb. 216, 548 N.W.2d 733 (1996); Lincoln Lumber Co. v. Fowler, 248 Neb. 221, 533 N.W.2d 898 (1995); Hangman v. Bruening, 247 Neb. 769, 530 N.W.2d 247 (1995).
Moulton v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 251 Neb. 95, 555 N.W.2d 39 (1996)
"I have no idea what really happened between her and Trump..."
Is a refusal to accept the truth of the guilty verdict in the trial for sexual assault (Althouse) legally different from denying the truth of the guilty verdict (Trump)?
Have you defamed the lady?
Sometimes a nut job is a nut job.
Don't overcomplicate it.
What about the fact that NY state changed the statute of limitations on such laws specifically to target one man?
Doesn't that tell you anything?
Ive seen her near the Starbucks. She has a shopping cart filled with her things.
I gave her a 20 once.
I didnt know I was giving it to King Solomon II
Trump didn't "accidentally" defame Carroll. He purposefully defamed her. $10 million isn't a problem for Trump. Wouldn't doubt he wanted the defamation suit.
I relitigates the "rape" claim in front of the public. It also puts E. Jean Carroll out there in front of the public.
It reinforces the notion that all the lawsuits prosecutions are coordinated attacks. They are.
Trump can also defy the corrupt Judge. That's awesome.
Blogger Earnest Prole said...
When men say they grab women by the pussy, believe them.
In that case, you better believe Trump and not Easy Jean .. because that's NOT what he said.
“Outside it's a bright night, there's an opera at Lincoln Center
Movie stars arrive by limousine
The klieg lights shoot up over the skyline of Manhattan
But the lights are out on the mean streets”
Things haven’t changed in that overly praised metro…
This case was a fantasy of the woman who is being funded by a left wing billionaire who hates Trump. The fact that he was a visitor to Epstein's Island does not seem to bother her. She had no witnesses and no evidence. New York courts no longer require them in Trump cases.
Blogger fairmarketvalue said...
I'm struck by how similar our hostess's support of Carroll's sequential (and unsupported) claims is to her defense of the indefensible (and unsupported) accusations against Kavanaugh by Christine Blasey Ford during his confirmation hearings.
Exactly ! "Believe all women unless they're Jews."
Trial by press with empathetic appeal.
rhhardin said...
I remember a gf mad at me because of something I did in her dream.
The wife frequently confesses to waking up mad at me for something that happened in her dreams.
has our favorite blogger ever tried a civil case before a jury? she said she was raped, the jury found she was not raped. she was sexually abused according to the jury. trump called her a liar. she literally is a liar. the judge is sabotaging trump
I'm in California. She's not a nut job. She's a checker at Whole Foods.
So, irrespective of reporting, evidence, and witnesses, and the decay of memories with time, the jury verdict guarantees her legal indemnity to label him with assault, but not rape... rape-rape.
Mark said: "As for the lawsuit, I have zero sympathy for Trump."
Who didn't see that coming?
The Anderson Cooper transcript St. Croix cites is eye-opening. I saw it at the time but didn't focus on every word.
This is why we should now revisit her real life. Not the cutesy eccentric one carefully packaged by the media, but the real stories published in her own words over several decades of encouraging other women to be serial sexual risk takers as she was.
She's really quite nasty, and her story makes no sense. She mocks the fashion choices of Trump's type of women -- fur hats are "wearing dead animals on their heads" as if she's still just telling a jokey anecdote. She remembers everything Trump said but doesn't tell us virtually anything she said or did. She claims she ended up in the dressing room with him, partially undressed, suddenly, because she was imagining a comedy scene she would write for Saturday Night Live with him wearing the lingerie. So she was going to get him to take his clothes off, and that's her explanation for taking him into a dressing room and taking her clothes off?
I could go on, but these literary elisions and comical serial recollections are precisely why we should be scrutinizing her stories -- of zipless "f***s" as I said the other day -- and being raped multiple times by men she knows. She's in her Fifties. By her account, she keeps getting raped by men she knows, and she only writes about it decades later, and she names all these men decades later.
I've known or helped, professionally or personally, scores of rape victims as a rape victim advocate for thirty years, and I've heard every story in the book from all sorts of different victims. This type of story -- the type that leaves out everything she said or did, in the most calculated way, while obscuring her political operative financial sponsors, abetted by the media -- is a liar's tale.
And that matters outside the courtroom. Now.
I think a certain someone is just a tad bit envious of those fortunate to live in the greatest city in the USA, and among the best in the world.
------
Nope. You're all subhuman scum who should be marched into gas chambers.
9/11 was the best thing to happen to that city.
I could see the lady being elected our first woman President. She has more mental ability than Biden and twists a fine lie.
Ann Althouse said...
"What would Meade think if Althouse went out and painted all the backyard landscape that Meade tended and groomed?"
"ME: Before you cut down those weed trees, I'd like to paint them blue and take some arty photos for the blog.
MEADE: Good idea.
ME: Thanks!"
I don't think you'd do that because you more respect for nature.
This woman is a few brush strokes short of a painting.
"Even if you were trying anew to prove that she lied about the encounter, her literary shed, Annie Hall clothing, and painting rocks and trees blue have precious little probative value."
I wouldn't rape that with your dick.
Nut job may be too harsh, but she does seem a little nutty.
'I'm in California. She's not a nut job. She's a checker at Whole Foods.'
She's a model of sanity by Berkeley standards...
"Nope. You're all subhuman scum who should be marched into gas chambers.
"9/11 was the best thing to happen to that city."
OMG! You really resent that you don't live in NYC! Hey...where there's a will (and a desire), there's a way. You can do it! The Beautiful Apple welcomes all sorts of people, not least irritated malcontents. That's part of what makes it the greatest city in the USA!
Soooo... in a 'he said, she said' case accusing the other person as being a liar is defamation? Are you sure about that? Get serious, even if convicted you can protest your innocence.
I think Mossy Oak is considered high fashion by a large segment of the Althouse commentariat.
It's a studied kookiness. An indication of a warped view of the world, but not an indication that she is mentally ill or irrational in that "can't tell truth from falsity" sense.
If Trump didn't appeal the first verdict, a whole different legal question.
Ann: Care to place a bet on the outcome of the first defamation appeal? And the second case on appeal?
My bet. First case will be reversed and dismissed with prejudice. Due process and equal protection violated by new statute of limitations applied retrospectively. Second appeal dismissed as moot.
The stakes? Steak dinner at Omaha's Drover.
"The legal system exists and she used it."
The legal system sometimes punishes innocent people.
Mr. Wibble, deep breath.
"starting with the fact that the State of New York changed one of its own laws for the sole purpose of enabling the prosecution in the first place."
If you want people to respect the law, you can't do shit like this.
So, preponderance of hearsay witnesses, no forensic evidence, no official report. This is different from a witch hunt, a warlock judgment, a human rite how? He's a duck, but does he float?
This is why the Second Amendment is an imperative right. Shoot and demonstrate self-defence or suffer clinical... Capitol... capital punishment.
Since America is now into tearing down statues, can we please remove every blind justice statue throughout America.
It's a misleading myth. Completely fake. Blind justice without bias is merely a concept.
Lawyers and prosecutors aren't concerned about blind justice, right and wrong. They are concerned with winning and losing. That's it. Even if winning damages the justice system they claim to care about...it's all about the winning.
Althouse said…"Remember, this all started when she wrote a MEMOIR, drawing on what she did remember.". (emphasis added)
Or, she made it up.
Isn't Mr Wibble the guy who is always defending those "ultra-nationalists" in Kiev?
"When men say they grab women by the pussy, believe them."
Especially when he include the fact that it is consensual in the statement. "let you grab."
Althouse said:
"The legal system exists and she used it."
****************
When the statute of limitations is changed for the purpose of ensnaring a political enemy, what the fuck kind of legal system are we talking about here???
And, perfesser, you still will not reply to me, Yancy Ward and others asking you for citations to support your claim that Caroll's defamation suit is nothing unusual.
Do you think maybe an appeals Court might be asking those fundamental questions when Trump's cases come before them? Or that Trump's counsel will not raise them?
YA THINK?
I think that the fact that this case was ever brought to the court was a mockery of the justice system.
The video doesn’t prove that she’s a nutcase, just that she’s an eccentric, and reinforces my opinion that she’s an extreme egotist. Extreme egotists also have no problem being blatant liars. She’s having a ball being completely dishonest, and getting away with it. Being celebrated in fact.
I do appreciate Ann’s explanation of the law and how the procedures work. I also appreciate that regardless of how the law works, Trump never raped Carroll. Whatever happened was consensual, if anything at all happened. Not that he was able to say that without incriminating himself. Again, this case should never have been brought to begin with and now it’s really a circus.
Trump fanboi mantra: Trump would never in a million years do x but if in fact he did isn’t it awesome?!
Blogger fairmarketvalue said...
I'm struck by how similar our hostess's support of Carroll's sequential (and unsupported) claims is to her defense of the indefensible (and unsupported) accusations against Kavanaugh by Christine Blasey Ford during his confirmation hearings.
I'll let Ann express her motivations or not...I'm struck by her classic unsolicited advice for Trump from a Trump detractor. How many times in the last two days has she said Trump should have just stopped talking or something to that effect? Half a dozen? He's no Belichick but perhaps Trump has other motivations for doing what he's doing besides financial loss. I can think of three or four right quick...
rhhardin said...
“I remember a gf mad at me because of something I did in her dream.”
In her dream, did you bolt the toilet seat permanently up?
Earnest Prole said...
Trump fanboi mantra: Trump would never in a million years do x but if in fact he did isn’t it awesome?!
Are you stupid, or just dishonest?
No one who's dragged into a fitting room and raped forgets what year it happened. And if she contemporaneously told a friend or two about it, together they'd be able to pin down pretty precisely when it happened.
Which means it didn't happen, and it's all a political smear.
Unlike rapists Bill Clinton and Joe Biden, Donald Trump, despite his many flaws, appears to have been perfectly happy to score all the sex his money and position could bring him, and leave it at that.
Get over it
fairmarketvalue said...
I'm struck by how similar our hostess's support of Carroll's sequential (and unsupported) claims is to her defense of the indefensible (and unsupported) accusations against Kavanaugh by Christine Blasey Ford during his confirmation hearings
Yep. more of the same.
CBF showed her psych notes to a reporter, but wouldn't show them to the Senate Justice Committee. Why?
Because the psych notes had the date of the attack set years after Kavanaugh graduated. Something they didn't realize until after they showed the reporter the notes, which is why the first "news reports" had the attack in the "mid 1980s", which puts it after Kavanaugh graduated in 1983.
CBF also refused to give a day, or even a week, when teh attack supposedly occurred. Why is that?
Because she knew she was lying, and she was afraid if she stated a time frame, Kavanaugh could pull out his calendar and prove she was lying.
When you're telling the truth, when you were actually harmed, you want to nail the bad guy. And so you bring out all the evidence you can to do so.
When you're a lying political sleezebag, you bring out as little evidence as you can. Because you never know what bit of data will expose your lie
E Jean Carroll on Donald Trump...
Carroll: "Anderson, we were having a high old time. You remember Donald Trump. Hail-fellow-well-met, walking up and down the streets of New York, greeting everybody. Everybody liked him."
Cooper: "You're talking about 1995, '96."
Carroll: "'95, '96, he was Shakespearean. He was great. You'd love to see him on the street.
So when we met in Bergdorf's and he said, help me, advise me to find a present, I was -- I was thrilled. I thought this is hilarious."
E Jean Carroll on the quickie
Carroll: "And the minute I was in there he shut the door and pushed me up against the wall and bang -- banged my head on the wall and kissed me. It was so shocking. I couldn't -- of course, I started laughing again. Because --"
COOPER: "You started laughing."
CARROLL: "Of course."
COOPER: "Why? Why of course?"
CARROLL: "Because it was a way of -- if it was at all erotic, if a man is laughed at it usually will make him -- and he put his shoulder against me to hold me against the wall. And at that point I realized that I was in a very difficult situation."
COOPER: "Did he say anything?"
CARROLL: "No. No. It was just like we're going to do this thing, we're just so hot for each other."
E Jean Carroll after the quickie
CARROLL: "I called my friend right away. And one of the first things she said to me is: E. Jean, stop laughing, this is not funny."
COOPER: "You were laughing when you described it to her?"
CARROLL: "I was laughing as soon as she got on the phone apparently. I don't remember it."
COOPER: "CNN has talked to both friends who say you that spoke to them around that time.
And one of them says that yes, that you were laughing."
CARROLL: "Yes, doesn't that sound totally insane?"
-- Anderson Cooper show, June 24, 2019
I think Mossy Oak is considered high fashion by a large segment of the Althouse commentariat.
Says the guy in black skinny jeans and a Che T-shirt...
And, perfesser, you still will not reply to me, Yancy Ward and others asking you for citations to support your claim that Caroll's defamation suit is nothing unusual.
Althouse has a tag for E. Jean Carroll, and she said from coverage of the first case why she thought Carroll would win. It has everything to do with what Trump said Carroll lied about as the defamation. That was the first case, and this case is even easier. Like it or not, the first case established as legal fact that Trump touched Carroll in a sexual manner. Personally, I thought by the judge's orders to the jury that it was something less than rape but the judge claimed after the case that Trump was wrong and that the jury found he committed rape. I still don't agree with the judge, but that's irrelevant until an appeal finds otherwise. For Trump to continue saying Carroll is lying about being raped by Trump when a jury supposedly found otherwise is simple defamation. If Trump wants to contest it in court, fine. He should be appealing the original ruling. Until then, he shouldn't be blasting on Social Media that Carroll lied.
No Republican need ever accept ANY civil jury verdict from a Manhattan jury, especially not on a purely political issue like this one.
I wouldn't give the slightest credit to a criminal verdict from a New York (or DC) jury either, if there were any salient political or racial angle to it. They are the modern equivalent of all-white juries in Jim Crow Alabama.
In that clip, E. Jean Carroll says that a tiny creek is a river. That's not just imprecision in language, that's plain wrong.
You'd be amazed at what gets called a "river" in Arizona. Some of them are dry half the year.
I looked up the date of the alleged rape, 1996. Carroll would have been 57 years old. That is certainly consistent with Trump's known preference in women is it not?
No. It is not.
This deal scores nine out of ten on the Kavanaugh bullshit meter.
Oops posted this on the wrong thread, apologies for the repost
I find it incredible that anyone can believe her. The whole plot was lifted from an episode of Law & Order SVU, right down the the same lingerie store - Bergdorf Goodman.
"Donald Trump’s lawyer appeared to imply E. Jean Carroll got the idea for her rape allegations against the former president from an episode of “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit” — but she denied seeing it, calling the coincidence “astonishing” during testimony Monday.
Carroll — who was back on the stand in Manhattan federal court for her civil rape trial against Trump — was asked by his attorney Joe Tacopina if she knew her account of the alleged 1996 attack was very similar to a brief plot line in a 2012 episode of the popular NBC show.
The 79-year-old former journalist testified she was “aware” of the episode but, “I haven’t seen it.”
A brief moment of the episode — titled “Theatre and Tricks” — involves a character talking about role-playing a rape fantasy in Bergdorf Goodman.
“Role-play took place in the dressing room of Bergdorf’s. While she was trying on lingerie I would burst in,” the character says.
Carroll, in her lawsuit, claims that the former commander-in-chief raped her in a fitting room in the lingerie section of the Fifth Avenue department store most likely in 1996."
https://nypost.com/2023/05/01/trump-lawyer-asks-e-jean-carroll-about-svu-episode-at-trial/
Kaplan ruled the Anderson Cooper interview is irrelevant.
In that interview she herself says she was laughing during the alleged attack, and laughing when she called her friends after the alleged attack.
In the interview, after her friend reported that she was laughing after the incident, Carroll says,
"Yes, doesn't that sound totally insane?"
So is she slandering herself? She says she sounds crazy and Trump said she is crazy.
And the judge rules it's irrelevant as to how much she was damaged when Trump called her crazy.
I grant you that the judge has a framing for Trump ("rapist"), and this interview blows that framing out of the water. So he's trying to contain this verdict and protect it from the plaintiff's statements outside the court.
It's not the judge's job to protect the plaintiff from her unscripted comments she makes to the media. If her comments make your judgment look like shit, that's on you, moron.
If I was on the jury, and I read that transcript, I would award her $100 and send her on her way.
"The civil cause of action was defamation — that DT injured her reputation by calling her story a complete fabrication" - Ann Althouse
Only partially correct professor. The original civil cause of claim was defamation. That claim was then amended when New York passed the rights of Adult Survivors act to allow time barred accusation of rape to be bought for a limited period. She then added rape and sexual assault. The jury found in her favour on the accusations of defamation and sexual assault, but found in favour of Trump regarding the accusation of rape.
So Mittens defamed Trump yesterday when he said Trump was convicted of rape - firstly because there was no criminal prosecution therefore he could not be found guilty of anything, and secondly because the jury found in Trumps favour regarding the accusation of rape.
For you (as a lawyer) to say you "believe" her is surprising.
Not if you paid attention to her comments during the Kavanaugh hearings. She believed the lying liar who made up the sexual assault.
Again, for the umpteenth time, the idea that someone as famous as Donald Trump could simply walk into a high-end department store and rape someone is bullshit on steroids.
Anybody who actually believes that needs his/her head examined.
Ann Althouse said...
"For a geriatric old lady, it spells NUT JOB."
No. It doesn't. It's no nuttier than an old man in his underwear, sitting in a recliner, watching sports on television.
Close. It's no nuttier than an old man in his underwear, sitting in a recliner, watching sports on television, recording it, and releasing the video on the internet.
But, of course, doing that would be bat-shit crazy
Ann Althouse said...
"She doesn't even remember when it happened, and ..."
Remember, this all started when she wrote a MEMOIR, drawing on what she did remember.
And what she failed to "remember" proves she's a lying weasel.
Should couldn't remember what year it was? Pull, the other one, it plays "Jingle Bells".
She's writing her memoirs. She's going over her personal history, organizing the events that happened, digging into past details, pulling up old documents to make sure she's telling things correctly, and she couldn't figure out what year she was raped by the even then very famous Donald Trump?
Or is your claim that nothing in the memoirs benefited from any sort of effort on her part to establish reality? IOW, is it your position that she's a regular casual liar and BS artist?
I'm sorry, but there's no way a sane person can actually believe her claims, or even believe that SHE believes her claim. There's hundreds of events she could pull for 95 - 96 to narrow down the date. Was it before or after the gov't shutdown? What did she write about in the last article before she was raped, or the first one after she was raped?
The ONLY reason for her to not pin down the date is because it's a lie, and pinning down the date would give Trump a chancce to prove he wasn't in town that day / week / month
DT then called her a liar and shone a light on the precise details, which she (said she) didn't remember. She then chose to sue for defamation. He could have sued for defamation too. But she won. The legal system exists and she used it.
no, she abused it, using the corrupt Democrats of Manhattan to promote her fraud
Robert Cook said...
"...since WHEN are changing rooms in high end department stores NOT monitored...."
I was friends with a woman in NYC who told me she had performed sex acts in department store changing rooms on several occasions. In her case it was always voluntary, with a man she was seeing at the time. I have only changed clothes in NYC department store changing rooms, but I can attest they're not always that closely monitored.
That's stupid even for you, Cookie.
Why would anyone monitoring the room stop the consensual sex? As opposed to watch and enjoy?
Or are you saying your lady friend is really ugly?
wordsmith said...
I believe that she won her first case based on the testimony of others whom she told about the incident at the time it occurred and the jury found those persons credible, for what it's worth.
NONE of whom could "remember" when she told them.
Any jury that "found that credible" is clearly fraudulent.
"others", plural. So now we have at least three women, one who was raped, two who were told about it within a week or two of it occurring.
And none of those three can figure out what year it happened? They couldn't sit down together and say "well, it happened after I had that fight with my boyfriend about X, which was this date. And you told me about it before Y, because I remember thinking about it there...."
I repeat, you have to be clinically insane withe TDS in order to believe any part of her claims.
Rich said...
Judge Kaplan clearly resisted rising to Trump’s bait and making Trump a martyr here, but sooner or later a line will be crossed. I would think, avoiding rising to the bait of people trying to martyr themselves in court is sound judicial policy.
Not being a corrupt weasel running a corrupt trial is "sound judicial policy", but the scumbag "judge" is skipping that one.
"If the law supposes that … the law is a ass, a idiot."
@Leland:
Great! Now you give us the case law, the legal citations, demonstrating that claims of defamation in such cases are common, that Carroll's is no biggie.
Didn't do that, did you....
@Leland:
Great! Now you give us the case law, the legal citations, the fucking PRECEDENT demonstrating that claims of defamation in such cases are common, that Carroll's is no biggie.
Didn't do that, did you....
My bet. First case will be reversed and dismissed with prejudice. Due process and equal protection violated by new statute of limitations applied retrospectively. Second appeal dismissed as moot.
I bet Begley wins the bet!
The new law sounds crazy as shit to me.
The law opened a one-time window for adult sexual assault survivors in New York to file a civil case against an abuser or institution that protected the abuser — no matter when the assault took place, even if it’s outside the statute of limitations. But that window expires in six months.
One time window? Expires in six months?
That's sketchy as fuck. It's ex post facto madness, and a violation of due process.
Stogner v. California is directly on point.
And I think the Democrats wrote this illegal law with a "one time window" because it wanted to limit the number of litigations, because all of them will be tossed out under Stogner.
The timing -- like all the felony prosecutions -- is awfully suspicious. But what's particularly damning is to write an unconstitutional law that only applies right before the 2024 election.
“To go back to the assertion that she lied about their encounter is a new defamation, and now he needs to pay for that.“
Is that what this trial is about? I thought this trial was about the statements Trump made while he was President and the first trial was about the assault and statements Trump made after he was President. I can see how new defamations might be relevant to this trial and how res judicata and/or collateral estoppel would apply to what was decided in the first trial, but the issue of whether the statements Trump made while President were defamatory was not decided in that trial.
It’s a little confusing procedurally how this case got here, because ordinarily you have to bring all your claims in one lawsuit. But I understand this case was filed first, and the defamatory statements for which Trump was found liable in the other case were made after that case was filed, so the claims in the second case to be file weren’t barred by not being asserted in this case, and that case came to trial first.
One would think that the damages from the defamatory statements in the two cases would overlap (insert Venn diagram here). Carroll shouldn’t get double damages for the overlap, only for the damages that don’t overlap, so I’m interested in how that sorts out. There is certainly an argument that the overlap is 100%, and those damages have already been decided. It seems to me that res judicata and collateral estoppel work both ways in this case.
"Why would anyone monitoring the room stop the consensual sex? As opposed to watch and enjoy?"
Are you serious? Hoo boy!
"I wouldn't give the slightest credit to a criminal verdict from a New York (or DC) jury either, if there were any salient political or racial angle to it. They are the modern equivalent of all-white juries in Jim Crow Alabama."
You betray your uninformed presumptions and ignorance of the broad demographic array of people living in New York, even in Manhattan. In the NYC jury rooms one will find people of all ages, races, and economic class and social strata, though the very rich are seldom found, at least in my experience and to the best of my ability to guess by appearances and manners. (However, given that Donald Trump Jr. was called for jury duty and did appear in response to the summons at the same time as my last time to be called, the rich certainly can't be assumed to not serve...though Jr. was excused, no doubt because of his celebrity and status as son of the presiding POTUS.)
Saint Croix said...
The law opened a one-time window for adult sexual assault survivors in New York to file a civil case against an abuser or institution that protected the abuser — no matter when the assault took place, even if it’s outside the statute of limitations. But that window expires in six months.
One time window? Expires in six months?
That's sketchy as fuck. It's ex post facto madness, and a violation of due process.
Stogner v. California is directly on point.
So, let's check out that case:
Held: A law enacted after expiration of a previously applicable limitations period violates the Ex Post Facto Clause when it is applied to revive a previously time-barred prosecution. California’s law extends the time in which prosecution is allowed, authorizes prosecutions that the passage of time has previously barred, and was enacted after prior limitations periods for Stogner’s alleged offenses had expired. Such features produce the kind of retroactivity that the Constitution forbids.
Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, O’Connor, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined.
Quite the lineup there. I expect the current Court will have no trouble extending this case to the Trump cases. And I'm going to love the foaming at the mouth from the Left on this precedent where the Notorious RBG provided the deciding vote :-)
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন