"... and then realizing that we are, all of us, that 80-year-old woman. That we have been, for some time, subsumed and consumed by one man and his very strong MAGA base. In the future when sociologists and historians study this period of time, I wonder if this will be the most lasting psychological stain. Not any specific acts, but the general weight, the inescapable pull, the black hole, the fog, the fug, the reality that our atmosphere is coated in a thin, smoggy layer of Donald Trump...."
Trump is responsible for whatever bad acts he's committed, such as, if Carroll is right, raping a woman in a department store dressing room, but subsuming and consuming the entire world and coating it with thin smog... that's something that you're doing to yourself.
Hesse can only imagine a Sociologist of the Future decoding it all for us. Now, it's just crazy. It's fog. It's fug.
The "fug" of which Hesse speaks is not "fug" the respelling of "fuck." It's "fug," the "thick, close, stuffy atmosphere, esp. that of a room overcrowded and with little or no ventilation." The oldest quote the OED has for "fug" is from 1888: "Seating himself in the most comfortable chair, as a consolation for the prevailing fug."
How will you console yourself for the fug that is Trump?
In the future when sociologists and historians study this period of time, I wonder if this will be the most lasting psychological stain.
If theres' anyone like that in the future my bet is, like most people now, they won't be interested. Too busy trying to understand why so many girls turned into boys will be all consuming, however...
"In the future when sociologists and historians study this period of time" ... they will focus on Covid. Tangentially they may consider Trump's push to deliver a vaccine and the lockdown tone he allowed at the beginning, including his support of Fauci.
"Following the E. Jean Carroll trial feels like watching one 80-year-old woman realize there is just nothing she can do to rid herself of this omnipresence..."
She goes after him, and then they complain she can't get rid of him?
"... and then realizing that we are, all of us, that 80-year-old woman."
Who dat we? For one thing, most of us would remember well enough the year in which we were raped.
"That we have been, for some time, subsumed and consumed by one man and his very strong MAGA base."
Is MAGA becoming the new prog knee-jerk condescension? I guess they think it sounds better than deplorable.
"I wonder if this will be the most lasting psychological stain."
The stain of the 24/7 Trump hate and persecution, week after week, year after year.
Right. A 25 year old unreported, uncorroborated rape of a 57 year old weirdo by a man with no history of sexual assault and a fortune to lose, sued for defamation because he forcefully denies his guilt.
What is wrong with this picture? Nothing if the defendant is Trump and it is a New York courtroom.
That's like John Hinckley peeping into Jodie Foster's bedroom window with binoculars and saying to himself, "Why won't this bitch just leave me alone!"
Trump is responsible for whatever bad acts he's committed, such as, if Carroll is right, raping a woman in a department store dressing room
Really?! You have been arguing for the last eight years that Trump is not responsible (or at least should not be held criminally or civilly liable) for his bad acts.
And a jury has already found Trump liable for sexual assault in the Carroll case, yet you (and most of your commenters) do not accept the jury verdict.
"Following the E. Jean Carroll trial feels like watching one 80-year-old woman realize there is just nothing she can do to rid herself of this omnipresence and then realizing that we are, all of us, that 80-year-old woman."
And where do we go from here? Which is a way that's clear
Still looking for that E. Jean Baby queen Prettiest girl I've ever seen See her shake on the movie screen Jimmy Dean (James Dean) Jimmy Dean Rock on
"Ann, based on what you have read, do you think she is telling the truth?"
I tend to think she believes that something happened. She did not have to bring the lawsuit. She could have been content with getting her story out in the book. He didn't sue her. I think there was political motivation to bring the defamation lawsuit, and I think his failure to counterclaim for defamation suggests that something did happen. His deposition was pretty hinky. He said he didn't remember.
E.Jean Carroll chose to be a puppet and punch the Trump derangement tar baby. Many have done it for the 15 minutes of fame. The Colorado Supreme Court for example. Maine's Secretary of State. She let herself be coaxed into the original false claim by the Trump deranged.
Trump didn't rape Ms. Carroll. The bullshit jury didn't even find that a fact. But, Trump haters (including Mitt Romney) will exaggerate the "findings" of the first trial. It's all bullshit. Watch the clips from the "Law and Order" episode on Twitter that completely match her fake story.
I like Trump's fog. It's better than the fog of war, and it smells like...victory.
She has made herself into a singularly weird person, all for the purpose of notoriety. And now the worst possible thing has happened: The person she has attacked, has eclipsed her completely; people would rather hear about Trump. By her own hand, she has rendered herself irrelevant by making him bigger. Poetic.
Althouse said...suggests that something did happen.
But was it rape, or sexual assault? The most plausible explanation if anything did happen, was that Carroll consensually fucked Donald Trump in a dressing room. Then he jilted her. But I don't believe that happened either. She is being financed by Trump haters. The main financer is associated with Epstein.
With all the bullshit being thrown at Trump, not suing her means nothing. Is Trump supposed to sue everyone who defames him. That's a really long list. Should he sue Adam Schiff for calling him a "despot"? Or every media crook that says he's a racist?
Let's remember, Stormy Daniels and smokin' hot Karen McDougal didn't accuse Trump of doing anything forceful or wrong. They consensually fucked a rich playboy. Happens a lot.
Will no one relieve my "burden" has far-reaching implications... uh, burden, with historical precedent.
That said, this is a case of she didn't report, she doesn't remember, no forensic evidence or witness, but sufficient hearsay to color inferential conclusions. This is between her, him, and the closet.
Looks like Nikky Haley got in on the frisky action too...
"Communications consultant Will Folks, 49, and lobbyist Larry Marchant, 61, both signed affidavits in 2010 alleging they had a sexual relationship with Haley"
In the worst case, it was consensual, until it was not. Now, they sell continuous agreement devices and contracts to indemnify their wearers from allegations of sexism, rape, and rape-rape in privileged cliques.
"I think his failure to counterclaim for defamation suggests that something did happen."
Despite his fortune, Trump has been plagued by poor lawyering. A counterclaim would have been the appropriate legal strategy regardless of whether anything happened.
It seems to me equally likely that we have an octogenarian idealogue striking a blow for the left in her book and in court where Christine Blasey Ford failed.
I answered the question I was asked. What more can I say? I'm being honest. I don't know. I don't know if she knows. She chose to write a book. That's a creative enterprise. A lawsuit is something else, but she felt confident enough to do that (along with whoever was encouraging her). Trump gave a pretty bad deposition. He'd said EJC wasn't his type, then he mistook a photo of her for a photo of Marla Maples. I'm not stretching what I think one way or the other. I'm not trying to hurt or help either of them. Can you say the same thing?
In the distant future it's more likely that mediocre grad students will be doing doctorates on why the turn of the millennium drives the human race bat feces insane.
"The most plausible explanation if anything did happen, was that Carroll consensually fucked Donald Trump in a dressing room. Then he jilted her. But I don't believe that happened either. She is being financed by Trump haters. The main financer is associated with Epstein...."
If I had to bet and if there were some way to get back there and find out what really happened, I would guess that there was a voluntary fooling around with him, going in the dressing room, and it got too abrupt and wasn't the cool experience she'd imagined and, as time wore on, and he didn't turn into a good boyfriend or social contact, she recycled her memories to the point where they got processed into the #MeToo cultural vibe and she had her book idea and ran with it.
Althouse said: " If I had to bet and if there were some way to get back there and find out what really happened, I would guess that there was a voluntary fooling around with him, going in the dressing room, and it got too abrupt and wasn't the cool experience she'd imagined and, as time wore on, and he didn't turn into a good boyfriend or social contact, she recycled her memories to the point where they got processed into the #MeToo cultural vibe and she had her book idea and ran with it."
I agree with this.
Also, did you mean to say Trump had the burden of proof when she sued him? That's not right, right?
"In the future when sociologists and historians study this period of time..."
They will most likely be focusing on the reaction by the press and the Elite to Trump and comparing it to past social anomalies like the Dutch Tulip Bubble or various dancing manias.
A complete Fruit Loop™ with nothing to lose and lots of money to gain submits to some modest coaching by political operatives so they can run a lawsuit in a friendly courtroom that will assist in expediting and justifying the removal of a political opponent from the ballot. Anything else is too generous...
Not for nothing they could have asked me- I was once nearly run over by Donald Trump on the street. I'm unknowingly walking in front of Trump Tower when I encounter a small crowd and a rope line. Momentary confused I hesitate in front of them just as Trump is exiting a limo and headed from the front door. He bounced off me bit. Assault! Battery! I even remember the month and year- February 1985. Also, not a crazy bag lady...opportunity missed.
Ann Althouse said... She sued for defamation. Truth is a defense. He had the burden of proof. *************
Say WHAT, professor???
https://legaldictionary.net/burden-of-proof/
Burden of Proof in a Civil Lawsuit
When an individual files a civil lawsuit against someone else, the burden of proof rests on his shoulders. When the parties go to court, they each have an opportunity to tell their side of the story. Of course, if that was all that was needed, nearly every case would end in a “he said / she said” situation. The party who filed the lawsuit, called the “plaintiff,” or the “petitioner,” must prove that the things alleged in the lawsuit are true, and that the other party, called the “defendant,” or the “respondent,” caused harm or damages.
The verdict was split: Jurors rejected Carroll’s claim that she was raped, finding Trump responsible for a lesser degree of sexual abuse.
Now, I haven't been following this shit-show very closely, but my understanding is that the AP is right and the jury specifically declined to say that Trump raped her.
And now the judge says that rape has been conclusively established, and it's binding.
... says our host. Her scenario is exactly what I would bet on too.
Just in talking with my siblings, I'm struck with the way each of us has edited and recycled our own memories of events in which we all participated, with no animus and nothing on the line. If I were writing a memoir, what's the likelihood that I would be a camera of my own life rather than a storyteller, even by accident?
But adding to that, if I personally hated my siblings and if they were also generically hated by the segment of the public that I liked best and from which I wanted admiration, how might I spin those teenage arguments?
I wouldn't even rule out the possibility that she now believes she was raped. You can, through repetition and the needs of the ego, convince yourself of some wild things. It's widely known how inconsistent and unreliable eye witnesses are - but lots of people still consider them to be some kind of gold standard of evidence.
Ann's comment at 11:31am seems to me to be the most reasonable supposition of what occured if there was, in fact, changing room hanky-panky. As n.n. said, it was consensual until it wasn't.
This however...
Ann Althouse said... She sued for defamation. Truth is a defense. He had the burden of proof.
1/19/24, 11:27 AM
If she can't place herself in Bergdorf's at a definite time, how is he supposed to prove he did *not* have the contact with her that she claims?
Given that the trope of someone "living rent-free in your head" is so well-known, it's astonishing how many people have chosen to hang out the Vacancy sign for Donald Trump.
I've never liked nor supported Trump, but when I tell people that I've never lost even one night of sleep worrying about him, they look at me as if I've failed to live up to my civic duty.
Folks, the burden of proof is on the party asserting an affirmative defense (like truth, in a defamation case).
Carroll's burden is to prove the alleged defamation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Trump, asserting the affirmative defense of truth to that allegation, is then required to prove that assertion, also by a preponderance of the evidence.
Let me see,Hollywood access tape " trump I just grab em by the pussy,they just let you when your famous" Judge awarded E Jean 5 million 1st round for inserting his fingers in her vagina(off shot off grab em by the pussy)Lied about never met her(Marla) never tried to sue her and kept up his lies after guilty of civil judgement and now will pay 2x the amout.Brilliant, maybe first women to take him down,Stormy next..Just boy locker room talk...pay up fella
Factoid alert: Don’t over generalize, Trump-hating author whose name I refuse to scroll up to find. Most of us outside your bubble. — even MAGA types — spend very, very little time dealing with Trump’s presence. I myself, a true Trump supporter, only think of him when I’m here, on the internet, trying to troll your tribe. Admittedly, this is about a half-hour of my day if that. But that’s only because d-bags like you, author whose name I don’t consider worthy of the fifteen seconds of my life to look up, bring out my trolling instincts, which are legend. (Tbf, it took that much time to write out my description of this author who I refuse to back-button but it was worth it because I got to troll you three times here, maybe four.)
Frederick wrote: "And a jury has already found Trump liable for sexual assault in the Carroll case, yet you (and most of your commenters) do not accept the jury verdict."
Are people obliged to accept that juries are infallible? If something is proven to the satisfaction of a jury, is it your position that that thing is necessarily true?
What do you say about cases like Sacco and Vanzetti or the Rosenbergs, where it is a canon of leftist faith that the juries got it all wrong? Or what about all of the contemporary leftist claims that our prisons are disproportionately stocked with black inmates only because the legal system is racist? Like it or not, every one of those black inmates was convicted by a jury or a judge. Should our CRT friends simply "accept" that there's an outsize percentage of blacks in prison because they're, in fact, all guilty?
I'd suggest to you that the truth exists independently of what a court, jury, or average guy on the street thinks is the truth. In this case, either nothing or something happened between Carroll and Trump one day in the changing room of a NYC department store. Fair to say, none of us will ever know, for absolute certain, what (if anything at all) actually happened.
Courts and juries are simply a mechanism for resolving disputes in an orderly, non-violent fashion. It is hoped that courts and juries will arrive at the truth far more often than not, but there are no guaranties it'll work out that way.
In a free society, people are at liberty to draw their own conclusions.
Althouse said...If I had to bet and if there were some way to get back there and find out what really happened, I would guess that there was a voluntary fooling around with him, going in the dressing room...
Wow. What a day for Gusty Winds on the Althouse Blog. The good professor and I agree!!!
Thanks Ann.
Well worth the 12 to 13 plus years of participation here.
"His deposition was pretty hinky. He said he didn't remember."
Wouldn't that make her entire lawsuit "hinky"? I have to imagine that both Bergdorf and Trump's organization could produce quite convincing facts about who was where if they had a day to zero in on. She couldn't remember the YEAR of the alleged act.
In the future when sociologists and historians study this period
Notice how when people use the "future historians" rhetorical device, they always assume they're the one who be proven right? Just once I'd like someone to talk about how future historians will realize they were the dumbass.
I don't know if Trump's public vendettas are worse than his private ones. With Rosie O'Donnell it apparently began with her attacking him on The View or something, and him fighting back--for years. Rosie may have been the first person with a substantial media presence to say Trump's greatest claim to fame at the time--business acumen--was greatly exaggerated.
I don't have much sympathy for Jean Carroll--the whole story is about as fishy as Christine Blasey Ford's story about Justice Kavanaugh--but Trump's behavior is ridiculous. To sue for defamation based on what she says in her book? Surely he has brought about the Streisand Effect, making it more likely that people will read the book and now, follow the court proceedings.
Why has Trump had a number of women sign non-disclosure agreements about their time with him, presumably meaning he paid more than he otherwise would for their silence? Is there some kind of treatment of women that is typical of him, and he wants to hide?
As it unfolded, she accused him of raping her. He said he didn't--that she was lying. She sued him for calling her a liar.
In a defamation case, she has to prove he said something slanderous--which he did. He said that she was lying. It is then up to him to prove that it was true that she lied because in a defamation case, truth is a defense.
That's how she got around the need to prove that he raped her. But it also raises the question, why didn't he countersue that she defamed him when she accused him of rape?
When I read fug and fog, I immediately thought of "Nacht and Nebel" similar alliteration. Night is not exactly the same thing as fug but analogous. And fog/nebel
It is hard to believe that the phrase "the fog, the fug" is accidental.
I could not remember exactly what it was other than something evil cooked up by Hitler and his National Socialists. I had to look it up.
Yup. We are living in a time of Nacht and Nebel (night and fog) but it is not Trump. It is the fascists currently in power that are rounding people up, investigating people who read church pamphlets or wear MAGA hats and on.
Grand Imperial Wizard Freder Frederson writes, "And a jury has already found Trump liable for sexual assault in the Carroll case, yet you (and most of your commenters) do not accept the jury verdict."
Planning any more cross-burnings this winter? Or will you wait for warmer weather?
Fields Marshall Freder is certain that Trump raped this crazy woman all those years ago. That she can't remember the year and had no witnesses or facts to offer does not count to the obsessed TDS sufferer. The fact that Reid Hoffman has boasted of his funding her lawsuit, does not bother Freder. Nor does the fact that she lied about it in a deposition. New York judges and juries are malignant about Trump.
Gusty Winds said... Althouse said...If I had to bet and if there were some way to get back there and find out what really happened, I would guess that there was a voluntary fooling around with him, going in the dressing room...
Wow. What a day for Gusty Winds on the Althouse Blog. The good professor and I agree!!!
Thanks Ann.
Well worth the 12 to 13 plus years of participation here. **********
Huh?
How does Althouse square her suspicion as to what "really" happened, with her claim that Trump has the burden of proof to contest the charge that he assaulted and/or raped Carroll?
Does she think Trump should have described what "really" happened (just fooling around)?
Would that have exonerated him, or would Carroll have claimed "defamation" anyway?
“ If she can't place herself in Bergdorf's at a definite time, how is he supposed to prove he did *not* have the contact with her that she claims?”
She proved he made the statement and it was defamatory. That was her burden. He asserts that the statement was true, which is a defense. He said it. Why did he say it? It needs to be that it was true or the defense isn’t established. Don’t make statements that damage someone’s reputation unless they are true.
Let me see,Hollywood access tape " trump I just grab em by the pussy,they just let you when your famous" Judge awarded E Jean 5 million 1st round for inserting his fingers in her vagina(off shot off grab em by the pussy)Lied about never met her(Marla) never tried to sue her and kept up his lies after guilty of civil judgement and now will pay 2x the amout.Brilliant, maybe first women to take him down,Stormy next..Just boy locker room talk...pay up fella
Trump did not say "I just...". He said "When you are a star, you can ..."
That's a Hollywood truth. Just as Harvey Weinstein or Matt Lauer. Trump's fault was being honest about Hollywood.
Hey Drago whe.n you get some $$$ buy a laptop and USE GOOGLE you can actually watch the whole tape live.Man you must live in a cave if you never seen that talk about uninformed even your co.patriots up in here can help you find that 8 year old tape g
VA Lawyer Mark: "Can anyone really dispute that Trump effectively has a deranged stalker personality disorder?"
Look, we all understand that you guys are not handling the implosion of the DeSantis campaign very well. But that doesnt mean you have to begin imitating Joy Behar and the "ladies" of The View.
Get hold of yourself man! Its becoming embarrassing.
LOL! this, from a guy at the head of the mob complaining about false arrest and conctant injustice.
Freder Frederson said...
And a jury has already found Trump liable for sexual assault in the Carroll case, yet you (and most of your commenters) do not accept the jury verdict.
Field Marshall Freder clearly remains outraged, OUTRAGED I tellya(!), that those darn Soviet Jewish Refusniks of the 1980's still stubbornly proclaim their innocence despite their convictions in those Soviet courts before Soviet Judges and Soviet prosecutors and Soviet juries.
Indeed, one has to admit the New Soviet Democraticals and their LLR-democratical allies have certainly been effective in creating their own, fully Soviet and Maoist, "legal" jurisdictions, where any republican/conservative can be convicted of any charge and truth, facts and evidence are utterly irrelevant.
"She proved he made the statement and it was defamatory. That was her burden."
How can the statement be defamatory if she can't prove what she was defamed about? She said he raped her, he said no I didn't. Wouldn't it then be her responsibility to establish that he actually did rape her?
The real issue is that this was a civil proceeding with "preponderance of evidence" rules / thresh-holds, unrelated "character" issues were introduced, and somehow the jury was able to divine what allegedly occurred without knowing where or when this occurred. If this happened to someone you knew personally would you be so blasé about the result?
He asserts that the statement was true, which is a defense. He said it. Why did he say it? It needs to be that it was true or the defense isn’t established.
"The statement" is that she is lying that he raped her. The only way to prove it is... to prove that he never raped her. She refuses to provide any details on when he supposedly raped her, which could be exculpatory for him/probative for his defense/whatever the correct legal terminology would be, because the burden of proof is on him to prove he didn't - so his only ways to prove that she was lying - to prove the truth of his statement - would be either for him to account for every minute of his life such that he could never be placed with her (though this would also require that her constant whereabouts be accounted for too, which could require her cooperation, which she's obviously not going to give... or for her to be caught in front of witnesses and preferably on video chortling about how she's lying.
Is that correct? He has no actually doable way to defend himself?
Lord, Trump really should have let this go. But how could he? As others have pointed out, his silence, his lack of response to her memoir, was already taken as evidence of his guilt.
The same people who say this absolutely happened because they hate Trump won't even acknowledge that Tara Reade had more evidence again Joey or even know she made the accusation.
"Following the E. Jean Carroll trial feels like watching one 80-year-old woman realize there is just nothing she can do to rid herself of this omnipresence and then realizing that we are, all of us, that 80-year-old woman."
The only time I think about Trump is when idiots like you insist on broadcasting your butthurt feelings to the planet. Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, the problem is you? You might.
Freder Frederson: And a jury has already found Trump liable for sexual assault in the Carroll case, yet you (and most of your commenters) do not accept the jury verdict.
I don't accept the O.J. verdict either. What's your point?
This woman is no more believable than Christine Blasey Ford or "Jackie".
If I am understanding this case, instead of calling Carroll a liar Trump should have used the "Queen's Defense." When accused of racism because some family members speculated about the complexion of Harry and Meghan's unborn child, the Queen responded, "Recollections may vary."
If Trump had used that response would that have prevented Carroll's defamation case? Or could she still have gone on and accused him of rape and sued him for not agreeing with her? So confusing for non-lawyers.
"When fake quotes have to be created to help you serve up your fake points."
It's a timesaver when a poster makes it known that he/she/it make shit up- now you're free to skip subsequent posts since there's good reason to believe those posts are contaminated with shit, too.
If I am understanding this case, instead of calling Carroll a liar Trump should have used the "Queen's Defense." When accused of racism because some family members speculated about the complexion of Harry and Meghan's unborn child, the Queen responded, "Recollections may vary."
If Trump had used that response would that have prevented Carroll's defamation case? Or could she still have gone on and accused him of rape and sued him for not agreeing with her? So confusing for non-lawyers.
DINKY DAU 45: "Hey Drago whe.n you get some $$$ buy a laptop and USE GOOGLE you can actually watch the whole tape live.Man you must live in a cave if you never seen that talk about uninformed even your co.patriots up in here can help you find that 8 year old tape g" (sic)
LOL
I'll just add general incoherence to your previous fake quoting as outstanding flaws you need to correct.
Althouse: ... I think his failure to counterclaim for defamation suggests that something did happen.
One of several possibilities. I would suggest TDS be the primary assumption, especially given she can't recall shit. She won't timestamp it for the same reason Ford's accusations fell apart, some piece of information would negate it because it's a fable.
The problem with boasting you grab women by the pussy is that in a preponderance-of-evidence trial the jury is apt to believe you and the woman who says you have rapeyfingers.
Ann Althouse said... “ If she can't place herself in Bergdorf's at a definite time, how is he supposed to prove he did *not* have the contact with her that she claims?”
She proved he made the statement and it was defamatory. That was her burden. He asserts that the statement was true, which is a defense. He said it. Why did he say it? It needs to be that it was true or the defense isn’t established. Don’t make statements that damage someone’s reputation unless they are true. ********************
But neither you nor she proved she was damaged by the statement!! What's the "measure of damages" here?
She proved he made the statement and it was defamatory. That was her burden. He asserts that the statement was true, which is a defense. He said it. Why did he say it? It needs to be that it was true or the defense isn’t established. Don’t make statements that damage someone’s reputation unless they are true."
This is really troubling, either as a statement of the law, or as a statement of what Althouse believes the law ought to be. WTH?
In an ideal world (and yes, I understand that the law is very far from an ideal world, but aren't we supposed to try?) E. Jean Carroll had the burden of proving that every part of her published claim was true and correct, in order to succeed in claiming that a response from the person she alleges committed a heinous crime to the effect that "she's a liar" is somehow defamatory.
Even as a legal proposition she didn't meet that burden. "Something happened" doesn't do it. "Maybe something happened" is a travesty of justice.
Rob C said... "She proved he made the statement and it was defamatory. That was her burden."
How can the statement be defamatory if she can't prove what she was defamed about?
That is really backwards, isn't it? Call someone a liar when they accuse you, and the burden becomes yours to prove you didn't? Even if they can't prove you did the thing? Orwell.
Following the E. Jean Carroll trial feels like watching one 80-year-old woman realize there is just nothing she can do to rid herself of this omnipresence...
I feel like there is nothing we can do to rid ourselves of the omnipresence of boomer women these days...
Mason G said... The only time I think about Trump is when idiots like you insist on broadcasting your butthurt feelings to the planet. Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, the problem is you? You might.
You're living in blissful ignorance (of which I'm jealous). Wish I was clueless. Whether or not you love or hate Trump, to pretend you don't think about him, the current American battle, and the effect on future generations is...well...false.
But somehow you made it to the Althouse blog to express your condescending frustration. Disingenuous is my guess. The Pro-Trump commentors here are the only voices that make you think about Trump? Bullshit. My guess is you think about Trump more that his supporters. TDS.
But you're are correct. We don't think we're the problem. The problem is the corrupt, the brainwashed, and the willfully ignorant. Pick a lane. I'm sure one of the three I just mentioned would offer comfort.
" Ann Althouse said... She sued for defamation. Truth is a defense. He had the burden of proof. *************
Say WHAT, professor???
https://legaldictionary.net/burden-of-proof/
Burden of Proof in a Civil Lawsuit
When an individual files a civil lawsuit against someone else, the burden of proof rests on his shoulders. When the parties go to court, they each have an opportunity to tell their side of the story. Of course, if that was all that was needed, nearly every case would end in a “he said / she said” situation. The party who filed the lawsuit, called the “plaintiff,” or the “petitioner,” must prove that the things alleged in the lawsuit are true, and that the other party, called the “defendant,” or the “respondent,” caused harm or damages."
The stupidity posted by Know Nothings like effinayright reaches new heights around here every day.
"The same people who say this absolutely happened because they hate Trump won't even acknowledge that Tara Reade had more evidence again Joey or even know she made the accusation. "
I must have missed that lawsuit Tara Reade brought against Joey. Get back to me when E. Jean defects to Russia like Tara did.
The comment I made (to which you replied) was directed at Monica Hesse- you know, the author of the topic of this blog post. Are you she (or her or whatever)?
"Whether or not you love or hate Trump, to pretend you don't think about him..."
Not pretending. I don't think about him except when I'm dinking around on the intertubes and other people are talking about him. Sometimes, I'll enter into the discussion and other times not. Do you think about him a lot? I hope not- that doesn't sound healthy.
"Ann Althouse said... "She has literally provided zero facts..." What does "provide facts" mean? Speak English. -- Evidence. For context, she (almost) made s'Cooper blush with that rape is sexy comment. She also tossed the concept around in her collumn.
Who dat we? For one thing, most of us would remember well enough the year in which we were raped. ========= what if Ms Jean is used to hanging out at Bergdorf during slow times and arrange/hope to running into friendly strangers?
She said he raped her, he said no I didn't. ========= Trump did not do as Bill Clinton 'not have sexual relations' When Is Sex Not "Sexual Relations"? By Richard Lacayo TIME When Bill Clinton gave his deposition in the Paula Jones case, he said he had never had "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky. But Lewinsky has reportedly testified to a number of acts that most people think of as sex. Can both statements somehow be true? Is it possible that the two of them had intimate contact, yet Clinton still did not perjure himself? In the intricate world of the law, a world of hairsplitting distinctions where the President is famously at home, it just may be so. Here's why.
Uncle Billy asked ... Ann, based on what you have read, do you think she is telling the truth?
Professora [puts hat on] >> She proved he made the statement and it was defamatory. That was her burden. He asserts that the statement was true, which is a defense. He said it. Why did he say it? It needs to be that it was true or the defense isn’t established. Don’t make statements that damage someone’s reputation unless they are true."
so if I understand correctly E. Jean Carroll manurevered Trump into 'wrong' /weaker for him/ side of legal arena ?? but populi are perplexed
I hate it when writers say "WE" and then presume to pretend they speak for everyone, including me. Some of us have a life, and it is quite different from hanging around expensive department stores.
"New York Magaine said on its cover, “The jacket dress she was wearing that day has hung in her closet ever since; she wore it again for the first time for her portrait with New York.” But there was one big problem with this woman’s story. The Donna Karan jacket dress was not even made or sold in the mid-1990s. The story is a complete hoax.
Attorney Boris Epshteyn: “She said, this is the dress I wore in 1994. They went back, they checked. The dress wasn’t even made in 1994. And that’s why the date’s moved around. This is the 80s. Is it the 90s? Is it the 2000s? President Trump has consistently stated that he was falsely accused and he has the right to defend himself.”
I recall the grab-em-by-the-pussy comment, and the context: what starlets will let rich and powerful men do with them.
I see nothing wrong about that, and certainly won't waste my time defending the honor of starlets. (It always reminds me of the part in "Bananas" when Fielding Mellish observes that the women of San Marcos are, like the local crafts, available at popular prices.)
"New York Magaine said on its cover, “The jacket dress she was wearing that day has hung in her closet ever since; she wore it again for the first time for her portrait with New York.” But there was one big problem with this woman’s story. The Donna Karan jacket dress was not even made or sold in the mid-1990s. The story is a complete hoax."
Your "one big problem"is, whether true or not, this fact was never put into evidence.
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Encourage Althouse by making a donation:
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
पोस्ट्स
१३८ टिप्पण्या:
Oh the vapors!
In the future when sociologists and historians study this period of time, I wonder if this will be the most lasting psychological stain.
If theres' anyone like that in the future my bet is, like most people now, they won't be interested. Too busy trying to understand why so many girls turned into boys will be all consuming, however...
An 80 year old slow-motion-car-wreck is still a car wreck regardless of how long it takes for them to understand they've been in one. And are one.
Sad.
"that's something that you're doing to yourself."
The only question in my mind is if they know it. I suspect they do, and it fulfills some need they have.
"In the future when sociologists and historians study this period of time" ... they will focus on Covid. Tangentially they may consider Trump's push to deliver a vaccine and the lockdown tone he allowed at the beginning, including his support of Fauci.
"Following the E. Jean Carroll trial feels like watching one 80-year-old woman realize there is just nothing she can do to rid herself of this omnipresence..."
She goes after him, and then they complain she can't get rid of him?
"... and then realizing that we are, all of us, that 80-year-old woman."
Who dat we? For one thing, most of us would remember well enough the year in which we were raped.
"That we have been, for some time, subsumed and consumed by one man and his very strong MAGA base."
Is MAGA becoming the new prog knee-jerk condescension? I guess they think it sounds better than deplorable.
"I wonder if this will be the most lasting psychological stain."
The stain of the 24/7 Trump hate and persecution, week after week, year after year.
Ann, based on what you have read, do you think she is telling the truth?
Right. A 25 year old unreported, uncorroborated rape of a 57 year old weirdo by a man with no history of sexual assault and a fortune to lose, sued for defamation because he forcefully denies his guilt.
What is wrong with this picture? Nothing if the defendant is Trump and it is a New York courtroom.
Democrats corrupt everything.
She can't rid herself of Trump?
Really?
That's like John Hinckley peeping into Jodie Foster's bedroom window with binoculars and saying to himself, "Why won't this bitch just leave me alone!"
Wait a minute! Who sued whom in this business?
I like Trump's fog and fug. Smells like victory.
Trump is responsible for whatever bad acts he's committed, such as, if Carroll is right, raping a woman in a department store dressing room
Really?! You have been arguing for the last eight years that Trump is not responsible (or at least should not be held criminally or civilly liable) for his bad acts.
And a jury has already found Trump liable for sexual assault in the Carroll case, yet you (and most of your commenters) do not accept the jury verdict.
"Following the E. Jean Carroll trial feels like watching one 80-year-old woman realize there is just nothing she can do to rid herself of this omnipresence and then realizing that we are, all of us, that 80-year-old woman."
And where do we go from here?
Which is a way that's clear
Still looking for that E. Jean
Baby queen
Prettiest girl I've ever seen
See her shake on the movie screen
Jimmy Dean
(James Dean)
Jimmy Dean
Rock on
Right. A 25 year old unreported, uncorroborated rape of a 57 year old weirdo by a man with no history of sexual assault
Really?! Accusations of sexual assault (including Ivana in her initial divorce filing) are myriad.
"Ann, based on what you have read, do you think she is telling the truth?"
I tend to think she believes that something happened. She did not have to bring the lawsuit. She could have been content with getting her story out in the book. He didn't sue her. I think there was political motivation to bring the defamation lawsuit, and I think his failure to counterclaim for defamation suggests that something did happen. His deposition was pretty hinky. He said he didn't remember.
Rape is serious business. If it happened as she said- reporting it back when it occurred, would have been a strong woman's choice. Why didn't she?
E.Jean Carroll chose to be a puppet and punch the Trump derangement tar baby. Many have done it for the 15 minutes of fame. The Colorado Supreme Court for example. Maine's Secretary of State. She let herself be coaxed into the original false claim by the Trump deranged.
Trump didn't rape Ms. Carroll. The bullshit jury didn't even find that a fact. But, Trump haters (including Mitt Romney) will exaggerate the "findings" of the first trial. It's all bullshit. Watch the clips from the "Law and Order" episode on Twitter that completely match her fake story.
I like Trump's fog. It's better than the fog of war, and it smells like...victory.
“something” isn’t rape. What the hell is wrong with you? She has literally provided zero facts to back up her claim. Zero. And you know it.
"That we have been, for some time, subsumed and consumed by one man and his very strong MAGA base."
It's easy to understand why the leftmediaswine consider an acronym for "make America great again" to be an expletive.
There is nothing to remember. She sure as hell doesn’t remember anything.
TDS monkeys on parade…
She has made herself into a singularly weird person, all for the purpose of notoriety. And now the worst possible thing has happened: The person she has attacked, has eclipsed her completely; people would rather hear about Trump. By her own hand, she has rendered herself irrelevant by making him bigger. Poetic.
They had to destroy themselves to save themselves?
Althouse said...suggests that something did happen.
But was it rape, or sexual assault? The most plausible explanation if anything did happen, was that Carroll consensually fucked Donald Trump in a dressing room. Then he jilted her. But I don't believe that happened either. She is being financed by Trump haters. The main financer is associated with Epstein.
With all the bullshit being thrown at Trump, not suing her means nothing. Is Trump supposed to sue everyone who defames him. That's a really long list. Should he sue Adam Schiff for calling him a "despot"? Or every media crook that says he's a racist?
Let's remember, Stormy Daniels and smokin' hot Karen McDougal didn't accuse Trump of doing anything forceful or wrong. They consensually fucked a rich playboy. Happens a lot.
Will no one relieve my "burden" has far-reaching implications... uh, burden, with historical precedent.
That said, this is a case of she didn't report, she doesn't remember, no forensic evidence or witness, but sufficient hearsay to color inferential conclusions. This is between her, him, and the closet.
Looks like Nikky Haley got in on the frisky action too...
"Communications consultant Will Folks, 49, and lobbyist Larry Marchant, 61, both signed affidavits in 2010 alleging they had a sexual relationship with Haley"
Those heels really are a weapon.
I am decidedly not an liberal New York 80-year-old woman.
E. Jean was twice married. No children per Wiki. That's the real issue.
While she'll never collect any money from Trump as both cases will be reversed, who gets that house with the river next to it?
In the worst case, it was consensual, until it was not. Now, they sell continuous agreement devices and contracts to indemnify their wearers from allegations of sexism, rape, and rape-rape in privileged cliques.
isn't evidence necessary?
"I think his failure to counterclaim for defamation suggests that something did happen."
Despite his fortune, Trump has been plagued by poor lawyering. A counterclaim would have been the appropriate legal strategy regardless of whether anything happened.
It seems to me equally likely that we have an octogenarian idealogue striking a blow for the left in her book and in court where Christine Blasey Ford failed.
What a way to go out in a blaze of glory!
Again - evidence.
is there any?
I answered the question I was asked. What more can I say? I'm being honest. I don't know. I don't know if she knows. She chose to write a book. That's a creative enterprise. A lawsuit is something else, but she felt confident enough to do that (along with whoever was encouraging her). Trump gave a pretty bad deposition. He'd said EJC wasn't his type, then he mistook a photo of her for a photo of Marla Maples. I'm not stretching what I think one way or the other. I'm not trying to hurt or help either of them. Can you say the same thing?
Enjoy the cruel neutrality.
"She has literally provided zero facts..."
What does "provide facts" mean? Speak English.
She sued for defamation. Truth is a defense. He had the burden of proof.
In the distant future it's more likely that mediocre grad students will be doing doctorates on why the turn of the millennium drives the human race bat feces insane.
"The most plausible explanation if anything did happen, was that Carroll consensually fucked Donald Trump in a dressing room. Then he jilted her. But I don't believe that happened either. She is being financed by Trump haters. The main financer is associated with Epstein...."
If I had to bet and if there were some way to get back there and find out what really happened, I would guess that there was a voluntary fooling around with him, going in the dressing room, and it got too abrupt and wasn't the cool experience she'd imagined and, as time wore on, and he didn't turn into a good boyfriend or social contact, she recycled her memories to the point where they got processed into the #MeToo cultural vibe and she had her book idea and ran with it.
Althouse said:
" If I had to bet and if there were some way to get back there and find out what really happened, I would guess that there was a voluntary fooling around with him, going in the dressing room, and it got too abrupt and wasn't the cool experience she'd imagined and, as time wore on, and he didn't turn into a good boyfriend or social contact, she recycled her memories to the point where they got processed into the #MeToo cultural vibe and she had her book idea and ran with it."
I agree with this.
Also, did you mean to say Trump had the burden of proof when she sued him? That's not right, right?
What Althouse just said.
she does and she can't remember the date, come on now,
it just goes to show they law is hot garbage in Gotham, if you are a target,
where are the lawsuits against Lauer, Rose et al, right they were all paid off
Shorter WAPO: Whatever happens in the world, the real victim is you.
"In the future when sociologists and historians study this period of time..."
They will most likely be focusing on the reaction by the press and the Elite to Trump and comparing it to past social anomalies like the Dutch Tulip Bubble or various dancing manias.
A complete Fruit Loop™ with nothing to lose and lots of money to gain submits to some modest coaching by political operatives so they can run a lawsuit in a friendly courtroom that will assist in expediting and justifying the removal of a political opponent from the ballot. Anything else is too generous...
Not for nothing they could have asked me- I was once nearly run over by Donald Trump on the street. I'm unknowingly walking in front of Trump Tower when I encounter a small crowd and a rope line. Momentary confused I hesitate in front of them just as Trump is exiting a limo and headed from the front door. He bounced off me bit. Assault! Battery! I even remember the month and year- February 1985. Also, not a crazy bag lady...opportunity missed.
'Really?! Accusations of sexual assault (including Ivana in her initial divorce filing) are myriad.'
Key words, 'divorce filing.'
'She sued for defamation. Truth is a defense. He had the burden of proof.'
How does he have the burden of proof?
Hey Althouse, prove you're not a child molester. I'll wait.
If that's the system, then we are a fucked up nation...
"...and then realizing that we are, all of us, that 80-year-old woman."
I absolutely despise it when someone in the media states that "we are all [fill in blank]". Really gets my blood pressure up. Anyone else?
Ann Althouse said...
She sued for defamation. Truth is a defense. He had the burden of proof.
*************
Say WHAT, professor???
https://legaldictionary.net/burden-of-proof/
Burden of Proof in a Civil Lawsuit
When an individual files a civil lawsuit against someone else, the burden of proof rests on his shoulders. When the parties go to court, they each have an opportunity to tell their side of the story. Of course, if that was all that was needed, nearly every case would end in a “he said / she said” situation. The party who filed the lawsuit, called the “plaintiff,” or the “petitioner,” must prove that the things alleged in the lawsuit are true, and that the other party, called the “defendant,” or the “respondent,” caused harm or damages.
I'm not stretching what I think one way or the other. I'm not trying to hurt or help either of them.
It would be nice if the trial judge was like that!
The Guardian quotes Kaplan as saying:
“Consequently, the fact that Mr Trump sexually abused – indeed, raped – Ms Carroll has been conclusively established and is binding in this case"
Contrast what the AP says about the first ruling.
The verdict was split: Jurors rejected Carroll’s claim that she was raped, finding Trump responsible for a lesser degree of sexual abuse.
Now, I haven't been following this shit-show very closely, but my understanding is that the AP is right and the jury specifically declined to say that Trump raped her.
And now the judge says that rape has been conclusively established, and it's binding.
Wow.
If I had to bet...
... says our host. Her scenario is exactly what I would bet on too.
Just in talking with my siblings, I'm struck with the way each of us has edited and recycled our own memories of events in which we all participated, with no animus and nothing on the line. If I were writing a memoir, what's the likelihood that I would be a camera of my own life rather than a storyteller, even by accident?
But adding to that, if I personally hated my siblings and if they were also generically hated by the segment of the public that I liked best and from which I wanted admiration, how might I spin those teenage arguments?
I wouldn't even rule out the possibility that she now believes she was raped. You can, through repetition and the needs of the ego, convince yourself of some wild things. It's widely known how inconsistent and unreliable eye witnesses are - but lots of people still consider them to be some kind of gold standard of evidence.
Trump as Mr Freeze. That’s a new one. Credit where credit is due.
I got an idea. Go talk to a Trump voter.
They're easy to find, they represent a majority of the populace.
Still no proof. Just a decades later accusation launched conveniently as her book sakes flagged.
"that's something that you're doing to yourself."
Well, of course she is. That's what you pay her to do, that's what she does. If you want her to stop, you have to stop paying her. Pretty simple.
Ann's comment at 11:31am seems to me to be the most reasonable supposition of what occured if there was, in fact, changing room hanky-panky. As n.n. said, it was consensual until it wasn't.
This however...
Ann Althouse said...
She sued for defamation. Truth is a defense. He had the burden of proof.
1/19/24, 11:27 AM
If she can't place herself in Bergdorf's at a definite time, how is he supposed to prove he did *not* have the contact with her that she claims?
"Is Trump in the room with us now?"
Given that the trope of someone "living rent-free in your head" is so well-known, it's astonishing how many people have chosen to hang out the Vacancy sign for Donald Trump.
I've never liked nor supported Trump, but when I tell people that I've never lost even one night of sleep worrying about him, they look at me as if I've failed to live up to my civic duty.
Her world evaporated in the woke (sic) of the fourth estate.
My guess is... It has been written, by one who knows.
Honey, honey
Call me on the telephone
I know you're moving out to Hollywood
With your can of tasty foam
All those beat up friends of mine
Gotta get you in their books
Lead guitars and movie stars
Get their tongues beneath your hood
The burden of proof, at least with respect to abuse, shifted with the jury ruling.
Folks, the burden of proof is on the party asserting an affirmative defense (like truth, in a defamation case).
Carroll's burden is to prove the alleged defamation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Trump, asserting the affirmative defense of truth to that allegation, is then required to prove that assertion, also by a preponderance of the evidence.
Let me see,Hollywood access tape " trump I just grab em by the pussy,they just let you when your famous" Judge awarded E Jean 5 million 1st round for inserting his fingers in her vagina(off shot off grab em by the pussy)Lied about never met her(Marla) never tried to sue her and kept up his lies after guilty of civil judgement and now will pay 2x the amout.Brilliant, maybe first women to take him down,Stormy next..Just boy locker room talk...pay up fella
Factoid alert: Don’t over generalize, Trump-hating author whose name I refuse to scroll up to find. Most of us outside your bubble. — even MAGA types — spend very, very little time dealing with Trump’s presence. I myself, a true Trump supporter, only think of him when I’m here, on the internet, trying to troll your tribe. Admittedly, this is about a half-hour of my day if that. But that’s only because d-bags like you, author whose name I don’t consider worthy of the fifteen seconds of my life to look up, bring out my trolling instincts, which are legend. (Tbf, it took that much time to write out my description of this author who I refuse to back-button but it was worth it because I got to troll you three times here, maybe four.)
Frederick wrote: "And a jury has already found Trump liable for sexual assault in the Carroll case, yet you (and most of your commenters) do not accept the jury verdict."
Are people obliged to accept that juries are infallible? If something is proven to the satisfaction of a jury, is it your position that that thing is necessarily true?
What do you say about cases like Sacco and Vanzetti or the Rosenbergs, where it is a canon of leftist faith that the juries got it all wrong? Or what about all of the contemporary leftist claims that our prisons are disproportionately stocked with black inmates only because the legal system is racist? Like it or not, every one of those black inmates was convicted by a jury or a judge. Should our CRT friends simply "accept" that there's an outsize percentage of blacks in prison because they're, in fact, all guilty?
I'd suggest to you that the truth exists independently of what a court, jury, or average guy on the street thinks is the truth. In this case, either nothing or something happened between Carroll and Trump one day in the changing room of a NYC department store. Fair to say, none of us will ever know, for absolute certain, what (if anything at all) actually happened.
Courts and juries are simply a mechanism for resolving disputes in an orderly, non-violent fashion. It is hoped that courts and juries will arrive at the truth far more often than not, but there are no guaranties it'll work out that way.
In a free society, people are at liberty to draw their own conclusions.
It takes a heart of stone not to laugh! Best "chuckle" I have had all week!
we have been, for some time, subsumed and consumed by one man and his very strong MAGA base
Hell is other people — in this case, half your country.
Althouse said...If I had to bet and if there were some way to get back there and find out what really happened, I would guess that there was a voluntary fooling around with him, going in the dressing room...
Wow. What a day for Gusty Winds on the Althouse Blog. The good professor and I agree!!!
Thanks Ann.
Well worth the 12 to 13 plus years of participation here.
This concerns me:
"His deposition was pretty hinky. He said he didn't remember."
Wouldn't that make her entire lawsuit "hinky"? I have to imagine that both Bergdorf and Trump's organization could produce quite convincing facts about who was where if they had a day to zero in on. She couldn't remember the YEAR of the alleged act.
In the future when sociologists and historians study this period
Notice how when people use the "future historians" rhetorical device, they always assume they're the one who be proven right? Just once I'd like someone to talk about how future historians will realize they were the dumbass.
I don't know if Trump's public vendettas are worse than his private ones. With Rosie O'Donnell it apparently began with her attacking him on The View or something, and him fighting back--for years. Rosie may have been the first person with a substantial media presence to say Trump's greatest claim to fame at the time--business acumen--was greatly exaggerated.
I don't have much sympathy for Jean Carroll--the whole story is about as fishy as Christine Blasey Ford's story about Justice Kavanaugh--but Trump's behavior is ridiculous. To sue for defamation based on what she says in her book? Surely he has brought about the Streisand Effect, making it more likely that people will read the book and now, follow the court proceedings.
Why has Trump had a number of women sign non-disclosure agreements about their time with him, presumably meaning he paid more than he otherwise would for their silence? Is there some kind of treatment of women that is typical of him, and he wants to hide?
Let's make a deal.
Liberals stop accusing every prominent conservative man of 30 year old rape accusations, and we won't start slut shaming Nikki Haley and Fani Willis.
As it unfolded, she accused him of raping her. He said he didn't--that she was lying. She sued him for calling her a liar.
In a defamation case, she has to prove he said something slanderous--which he did. He said that she was lying. It is then up to him to prove that it was true that she lied because in a defamation case, truth is a defense.
That's how she got around the need to prove that he raped her. But it also raises the question, why didn't he countersue that she defamed him when she accused him of rape?
Are guesses evidence?
I remember first reading E. Jean when she had an Esquire column. This must have been long after they shed their cojones.
I almost posted about the Fugs last night. You discussed "Music hath charms to soothe the savage breast"
I was going to point out that the Fugs had said, musically, "Music hath alarums to wild the savage beast"
I still get horny whenever I see a piano leg reach down to the floor.
I just asked my granddaughter to sell my entire vinyl collection on EBay. Maybe I should fish out my Fugs LP first.
Naah.... Easier just to download it from YouTube.
John Henry
It is amazing how easy it is to accuse a Republican of rape without knowing where/when/who it happened.
AND get a corrupt Democrat court and Democrat mob to agree.
When I read fug and fog, I immediately thought of "Nacht and Nebel" similar alliteration. Night is not exactly the same thing as fug but analogous. And fog/nebel
It is hard to believe that the phrase "the fog, the fug" is accidental.
I could not remember exactly what it was other than something evil cooked up by Hitler and his National Socialists. I had to look it up.
Yup. We are living in a time of Nacht and Nebel (night and fog) but it is not Trump. It is the fascists currently in power that are rounding people up, investigating people who read church pamphlets or wear MAGA hats and on.
Brandon and Co.
John Henry
Grand Imperial Wizard Freder Frederson writes, "And a jury has already found Trump liable for sexual assault in the Carroll case, yet you (and most of your commenters) do not accept the jury verdict."
Planning any more cross-burnings this winter? Or will you wait for warmer weather?
DINKY DAU 45: "Let me see,Hollywood access tape " trump I just grab em by the pussy,they just let you when your famous"
When fake quotes have to be created to help you serve up your fake points.
No different than the fake "drink bleach" quote along with about a thousand others.
Next up for Dinky Dau: Trump also yells "This is MAGA Country" when he grabs them!
When do the writers of Law and Order SVU get to sue Betty Jean for plagiarism?
Fields Marshall Freder is certain that Trump raped this crazy woman all those years ago. That she can't remember the year and had no witnesses or facts to offer does not count to the obsessed TDS sufferer. The fact that Reid Hoffman has boasted of his funding her lawsuit, does not bother Freder. Nor does the fact that she lied about it in a deposition. New York judges and juries are malignant about Trump.
"going in the dressing room, and it got too abrupt and wasn't the cool experience she'd imagined"
To be more explicit, he stuck his hands down there and groped her, gross IMO.
Def not the great sublime romance or ravishing she'd hoped for..
Gusty Winds said...
Althouse said...If I had to bet and if there were some way to get back there and find out what really happened, I would guess that there was a voluntary fooling around with him, going in the dressing room...
Wow. What a day for Gusty Winds on the Althouse Blog. The good professor and I agree!!!
Thanks Ann.
Well worth the 12 to 13 plus years of participation here.
**********
Huh?
How does Althouse square her suspicion as to what "really" happened, with her claim that Trump has the burden of proof to contest the charge that he assaulted and/or raped Carroll?
Does she think Trump should have described what "really" happened (just fooling around)?
Would that have exonerated him, or would Carroll have claimed "defamation" anyway?
This whole situation is spiraling out of control.
It's legal glossolalia.
And of course the rape-rape haunted her for years. Just not enough to report it.
The toxic person in Just is the narrator of the song.
Not “you’s” addict/bi polar friend who he lets take advantage of him.
If you could leave the toxic narrator then the friend problem would resolve itself.
Can anyone really dispute that Trump effectively has a deranged stalker personality disorder?
My friend pronounces #metoo as pound me too. Like it.
“ If she can't place herself in Bergdorf's at a definite time, how is he supposed to prove he did *not* have the contact with her that she claims?”
She proved he made the statement and it was defamatory. That was her burden. He asserts that the statement was true, which is a defense. He said it. Why did he say it? It needs to be that it was true or the defense isn’t established. Don’t make statements that damage someone’s reputation unless they are true.
Imagine how easy it would to be to create a fake rape claim against someone.
Say, they worked at a university as a professor.
Chose a time period.
Then say that your memory is hazy, but they raped you in the lecture room after class in Fall between 20-25 years ago.
Now imagine the professor has to defend against this.
GOOD LUCK.
Let me see,Hollywood access tape " trump I just grab em by the pussy,they just let you when your famous" Judge awarded E Jean 5 million 1st round for inserting his fingers in her vagina(off shot off grab em by the pussy)Lied about never met her(Marla) never tried to sue her and kept up his lies after guilty of civil judgement and now will pay 2x the amout.Brilliant, maybe first women to take him down,Stormy next..Just boy locker room talk...pay up fella
Trump did not say "I just...". He said "When you are a star, you can ..."
That's a Hollywood truth. Just as Harvey Weinstein or Matt Lauer. Trump's fault was being honest about Hollywood.
Telenovela meets Lucha Libre where no one goes off script.
Trump has been branded with the toxic "M", and now (no pun intended) bears the burden of disproving the social construct. Deja vu.
Hey Drago whe.n you get some $$$ buy a laptop and USE GOOGLE you can actually watch the whole tape live.Man you must live in a cave if you never seen that talk about uninformed even your co.patriots up in here can help you find that 8 year old tape g
VA Lawyer Mark: "Can anyone really dispute that Trump effectively has a deranged stalker personality disorder?"
Look, we all understand that you guys are not handling the implosion of the DeSantis campaign very well. But that doesnt mean you have to begin imitating Joy Behar and the "ladies" of The View.
Get hold of yourself man! Its becoming embarrassing.
LOL! this, from a guy at the head of the mob complaining about false arrest and conctant injustice.
Freder Frederson said...
And a jury has already found Trump liable for sexual assault in the Carroll case, yet you (and most of your commenters) do not accept the jury verdict.
List of wrongfully convicted in United States
Field Marshall Freder clearly remains outraged, OUTRAGED I tellya(!), that those darn Soviet Jewish Refusniks of the 1980's still stubbornly proclaim their innocence despite their convictions in those Soviet courts before Soviet Judges and Soviet prosecutors and Soviet juries.
Indeed, one has to admit the New Soviet Democraticals and their LLR-democratical allies have certainly been effective in creating their own, fully Soviet and Maoist, "legal" jurisdictions, where any republican/conservative can be convicted of any charge and truth, facts and evidence are utterly irrelevant.
"She proved he made the statement and it was defamatory. That was her burden."
How can the statement be defamatory if she can't prove what she was defamed about? She said he raped her, he said no I didn't. Wouldn't it then be her responsibility to establish that he actually did rape her?
The real issue is that this was a civil proceeding with "preponderance of evidence" rules / thresh-holds, unrelated "character" issues were introduced, and somehow the jury was able to divine what allegedly occurred without knowing where or when this occurred. If this happened to someone you knew personally would you be so blasé about the result?
Yes he made the statement thats shes lying ahe has no proof
Mark - what is your proof?
Actual evidence?
He asserts that the statement was true, which is a defense. He said it. Why did he say it? It needs to be that it was true or the defense isn’t established.
"The statement" is that she is lying that he raped her. The only way to prove it is... to prove that he never raped her. She refuses to provide any details on when he supposedly raped her, which could be exculpatory for him/probative for his defense/whatever the correct legal terminology would be, because the burden of proof is on him to prove he didn't - so his only ways to prove that she was lying - to prove the truth of his statement - would be either for him to account for every minute of his life such that he could never be placed with her (though this would also require that her constant whereabouts be accounted for too, which could require her cooperation, which she's obviously not going to give... or for her to be caught in front of witnesses and preferably on video chortling about how she's lying.
Is that correct? He has no actually doable way to defend himself?
Lord, Trump really should have let this go. But how could he? As others have pointed out, his silence, his lack of response to her memoir, was already taken as evidence of his guilt.
They need a focus for their mental issues and for now it is Donald Trump. When he is gone another focus will be acquired.
I recall when it was George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, or Sarah Palin that was the cause of their mental distress.
The same people who say this absolutely happened because they hate Trump won't even acknowledge that Tara Reade had more evidence again Joey or even know she made the accusation.
"Following the E. Jean Carroll trial feels like watching one 80-year-old woman realize there is just nothing she can do to rid herself of this omnipresence and then realizing that we are, all of us, that 80-year-old woman."
The only time I think about Trump is when idiots like you insist on broadcasting your butthurt feelings to the planet. Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, the problem is you? You might.
Freder Frederson:
And a jury has already found Trump liable for sexual assault in the Carroll case, yet you (and most of your commenters) do not accept the jury verdict.
I don't accept the O.J. verdict either. What's your point?
This woman is no more believable than Christine Blasey Ford or "Jackie".
If I am understanding this case, instead of calling Carroll a liar Trump should have used the "Queen's Defense." When accused of racism because some family members speculated about the complexion of Harry and Meghan's unborn child, the Queen responded, "Recollections may vary."
If Trump had used that response would that have prevented Carroll's defamation case? Or could she still have gone on and accused him of rape and sued him for not agreeing with her? So confusing for non-lawyers.
"When fake quotes have to be created to help you serve up your fake points."
It's a timesaver when a poster makes it known that he/she/it make shit up- now you're free to skip subsequent posts since there's good reason to believe those posts are contaminated with shit, too.
If I am understanding this case, instead of calling Carroll a liar Trump should have used the "Queen's Defense." When accused of racism because some family members speculated about the complexion of Harry and Meghan's unborn child, the Queen responded, "Recollections may vary."
If Trump had used that response would that have prevented Carroll's defamation case? Or could she still have gone on and accused him of rape and sued him for not agreeing with her? So confusing for non-lawyers.
DINKY DAU 45: "Hey Drago whe.n you get some $$$ buy a laptop and USE GOOGLE you can actually watch the whole tape live.Man you must live in a cave if you never seen that talk about uninformed even your co.patriots up in here can help you find that 8 year old tape g" (sic)
LOL
I'll just add general incoherence to your previous fake quoting as outstanding flaws you need to correct.
Good luck! We are all rooting for you!
Althouse:
... I think his failure to counterclaim for defamation suggests that something did happen.
One of several possibilities. I would suggest TDS be the primary assumption, especially given she can't recall shit. She won't timestamp it for the same reason Ford's accusations fell apart, some piece of information would negate it because it's a fable.
The problem with boasting you grab women by the pussy is that in a preponderance-of-evidence trial the jury is apt to believe you and the woman who says you have rapeyfingers.
Ann Althouse said...
“ If she can't place herself in Bergdorf's at a definite time, how is he supposed to prove he did *not* have the contact with her that she claims?”
She proved he made the statement and it was defamatory. That was her burden. He asserts that the statement was true, which is a defense. He said it. Why did he say it? It needs to be that it was true or the defense isn’t established. Don’t make statements that damage someone’s reputation unless they are true.
********************
But neither you nor she proved she was damaged by the statement!! What's the "measure of damages" here?
Althouse:
She chose to write a book. That's a creative enterprise.
Sorry, but what has that to do with anything? John Wayne Gacey painted pictures.
She proved he made the statement and it was defamatory. That was her burden. He asserts that the statement was true, which is a defense. He said it. Why did he say it? It needs to be that it was true or the defense isn’t established. Don’t make statements that damage someone’s reputation unless they are true."
This is really troubling, either as a statement of the law, or as a statement of what Althouse believes the law ought to be. WTH?
In an ideal world (and yes, I understand that the law is very far from an ideal world, but aren't we supposed to try?) E. Jean Carroll had the burden of proving that every part of her published claim was true and correct, in order to succeed in claiming that a response from the person she alleges committed a heinous crime to the effect that "she's a liar" is somehow defamatory.
Even as a legal proposition she didn't meet that burden. "Something happened" doesn't do it. "Maybe something happened" is a travesty of justice.
DINKY DAU 45:
Let me see,Hollywood access tape " trump I just grab em by the pussy,they just let you when your famous"
Why did you put quotes on that? The real quote is "And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the p---y.".
Rob C said...
"She proved he made the statement and it was defamatory. That was her burden."
How can the statement be defamatory if she can't prove what she was defamed about?
That is really backwards, isn't it? Call someone a liar when they accuse you, and the burden becomes yours to prove you didn't? Even if they can't prove you did the thing? Orwell.
Rob C:
Wouldn't that make her entire lawsuit "hinky"?"
SHE HINKIED FIRST!
Hasn't anybody bothered to tell her she isn't cute anymore?
Following the E. Jean Carroll trial feels like watching one 80-year-old woman realize there is just nothing she can do to rid herself of this omnipresence...
I feel like there is nothing we can do to rid ourselves of the omnipresence of boomer women these days...
Mason G said...
The only time I think about Trump is when idiots like you insist on broadcasting your butthurt feelings to the planet. Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, the problem is you? You might.
You're living in blissful ignorance (of which I'm jealous). Wish I was clueless. Whether or not you love or hate Trump, to pretend you don't think about him, the current American battle, and the effect on future generations is...well...false.
But somehow you made it to the Althouse blog to express your condescending frustration. Disingenuous is my guess. The Pro-Trump commentors here are the only voices that make you think about Trump? Bullshit. My guess is you think about Trump more that his supporters. TDS.
But you're are correct. We don't think we're the problem. The problem is the corrupt, the brainwashed, and the willfully ignorant. Pick a lane. I'm sure one of the three I just mentioned would offer comfort.
"Is Trump in the room with us now?"
LOL 😆 for the win
"I feel like there is nothing we can do to rid ourselves of the omnipresence of boomer women these days...
E. Jean Carroll is not a boomer.
MayBee said...
"Also, did you mean to say Trump had the burden of proof when she sued him? That's not right, right?"
I guess they never taught the concept of an affirmative defense when MayBee got his law degree at Trump University.
effinayright said...
" Ann Althouse said...
She sued for defamation. Truth is a defense. He had the burden of proof.
*************
Say WHAT, professor???
https://legaldictionary.net/burden-of-proof/
Burden of Proof in a Civil Lawsuit
When an individual files a civil lawsuit against someone else, the burden of proof rests on his shoulders. When the parties go to court, they each have an opportunity to tell their side of the story. Of course, if that was all that was needed, nearly every case would end in a “he said / she said” situation. The party who filed the lawsuit, called the “plaintiff,” or the “petitioner,” must prove that the things alleged in the lawsuit are true, and that the other party, called the “defendant,” or the “respondent,” caused harm or damages."
The stupidity posted by Know Nothings like effinayright reaches new heights around here every day.
Martin said...
"The same people who say this absolutely happened because they hate Trump won't even acknowledge that Tara Reade had more evidence again Joey or even know she made the accusation. "
I must have missed that lawsuit Tara Reade brought against Joey. Get back to me when E. Jean defects to Russia like Tara did.
Trump is responsible for whatever bad acts he's committed, such as, if Carroll is right, raping a woman in a department store dressing room
Except that jury ruled there wasn't even a "preponderance of the evidence" that "rape" occurred.
Why aren't you respecting the same jury verdict you're demanding that Trump respect?
Gusty Winds said... some stuff.
The comment I made (to which you replied) was directed at Monica Hesse- you know, the author of the topic of this blog post. Are you she (or her or whatever)?
"Whether or not you love or hate Trump, to pretend you don't think about him..."
Not pretending. I don't think about him except when I'm dinking around on the intertubes and other people are talking about him. Sometimes, I'll enter into the discussion and other times not. Do you think about him a lot? I hope not- that doesn't sound healthy.
Nut job:
https://youtu.be/ldP8YNAPlTw?si=nLCgJzsBH6VP2nbM
"He'd said EJC wasn't his type, then he mistook a photo of her for a photo of Marla Maples."
One is built like Twiggy, the other like Marilyn Monroe. One was 56/57* when he met her, the other was 21.
*-In the Anderson Cooper interview she claimed she told Trump she was 52. Consider Ivanka was 41 when they divorced.
"Ann Althouse said...
"She has literally provided zero facts..."
What does "provide facts" mean? Speak English.
--
Evidence.
For context, she (almost) made s'Cooper blush with that rape is sexy comment. She also tossed the concept around in her collumn.
Who dat we? For one thing, most of us would remember well enough the year in which we were raped.
=========
what if Ms Jean is used to hanging out at Bergdorf during slow times and arrange/hope to running into friendly strangers?
She said he raped her, he said no I didn't.
=========
Trump did not do as Bill Clinton 'not have sexual relations'
When Is Sex Not "Sexual Relations"?
By Richard Lacayo
TIME
When Bill Clinton gave his deposition in the Paula Jones case, he said he had never had "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky. But Lewinsky has reportedly testified to a number of acts that most people think of as sex. Can both statements somehow be true? Is it possible that the two of them had intimate contact, yet Clinton still did not perjure himself? In the intricate world of the law, a world of hairsplitting distinctions where the President is famously at home, it just may be so. Here's why.
Uncle Billy asked ... Ann, based on what you have read, do you think she is telling the truth?
Professora [puts hat on] >> She proved he made the statement and it was defamatory. That was her burden. He asserts that the statement was true, which is a defense. He said it. Why did he say it? It needs to be that it was true or the defense isn’t established. Don’t make statements that damage someone’s reputation unless they are true."
so if I understand correctly
E. Jean Carroll manurevered Trump into 'wrong' /weaker for him/ side of legal arena ??
but populi are perplexed
I hate it when writers say "WE" and then presume to pretend they speak for everyone, including me.
Some of us have a life, and it is quite different from hanging around expensive department stores.
"New York Magaine said on its cover, “The jacket dress she was wearing that day has hung in her closet ever since; she wore it again for the first time for her portrait with New York.”
But there was one big problem with this woman’s story. The Donna Karan jacket dress was not even made or sold in the mid-1990s. The story is a complete hoax.
Attorney Boris Epshteyn: “She said, this is the dress I wore in 1994. They went back, they checked. The dress wasn’t even made in 1994. And that’s why the date’s moved around. This is the 80s. Is it the 90s? Is it the 2000s? President Trump has consistently stated that he was falsely accused and he has the right to defend himself.”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/01/huge-new-york-magazine-got-played-crazy-e/
" The Donna Karan jacket dress was not even made or sold in the mid-1990s. The story is a complete hoax."
Pretty plain English.
I recall the grab-em-by-the-pussy comment, and the context: what starlets will let rich and powerful men do with them.
I see nothing wrong about that, and certainly won't waste my time defending the honor of starlets. (It always reminds me of the part in "Bananas" when Fielding Mellish observes that the women of San Marcos are, like the local crafts, available at popular prices.)
Narr said...
"I recall the grab-em-by-the-pussy comment, and the context: what starlets will let rich and powerful men do with them.
I see nothing wrong about that"
If Obama or Biden had been caught saying that , you'd be the first to condemn them to eternal damnation.
wendybar said...
"New York Magaine said on its cover, “The jacket dress she was wearing that day has hung in her closet ever since; she wore it again for the first time for her portrait with New York.”
But there was one big problem with this woman’s story. The Donna Karan jacket dress was not even made or sold in the mid-1990s. The story is a complete hoax."
Your "one big problem"is, whether true or not, this fact was never put into evidence.
Mutaman says "If Obama or Biden had been caught saying that, you'd be the first to condemn them to eternal damnation."
Moi? Atheist moi?
Try harder, little fella.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा