Was Donald Trump found liable of sexual assault and defamation because he actually committed those actions, or because he’s Donald Trump and a New York jury wasn’t going to let him off the hook? You make the call.
If you will recall, Trump was sued in civil court by former columnist E. Jean Carroll. To put it bluntly, Carroll is weird. Her story of the encounter with Donald Trump is weird, and her subsequent interview was weird. Her story was that Donald Trump assaulted her and raped her sometime in 1995 or 1996 in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room. No, she can’t pin down the year. No, she said nothing about it publicly until 2019, when she wrote a book detailing her claims. And since the statute of limitations was long past, the only place her claims could go was civil court, after being convinced to sue Donald Trump by his fan-turned-nemesis George Conway.
The civil trial began three weeks ago, and most agreed that a Manhattan jury was not going to be favorable to Donald Trump. As Andy McCarthy put it in the New York Post, Trump could be found liable simply because he’s Trump, and for what he has said before.
The Carroll team’s approach has been a clever one: make Trump the pivotal witness in the case.
Not on the witness stand — Trump has not even shown up for the trial, much less testified in front of the jury.
No, Carroll’s main witness is Trump as he appears in the “Access Hollywood” tape.
Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled prior to the trial that Carroll, in addition to testifying about her claim that Trump raped her in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman, would be permitted to play the tape for the jury.
Not just that. She was also permitted to call as witnesses two other women who claim to have been sexually assaulted by the former president.
Carroll’s lawyers did not play the recording in the abstract — the way the public has heard it, disconnected from any personal episode, with Trump dismissing it as “locker room talk.”
Instead, they played it during the testimony of Natasha Stoynoff, who wept as she described for the jury an incident in which, she claims, Trump steered her into an empty Mar-a-Lago room and forcibly kissed and pressed up against her until he was suddenly interrupted by a butler’s entry.
Thus, when the jury heard Trump bragging on the tape about being sexually aggressive with women, about kissing them and groping them without their consent, it was in the context of listening to a real person who said it happened to her.
And as they listened, still ringing in the jurors’ ears was not only Carroll’s sordid story but also the testimony of Jessica Leeds, who claims Trump assaulted her in the small first-class cabin of an airplane, groping her and reaching up her skirt.
These accounts match up with Trump’s own words describing what he bragged were his practices.
That strategy has apparently paid off.
Carroll, 79, held her head down as the verdict was read in Manhattan federal court — and nodded when she heard the jury finding in favor of her defamation claim for Trump, 76, branding her a liar when she came forward with her allegations.
The nine-person jury — three women and six men — decided the case after three hours of deliberations that began just before noon Tuesday.
The jurors rejected Carroll’s claim in her 2019 suit that Trump, 76, had raped her, but found him liable for sexual abuse. Carroll, 79, had accused Trump of attacking her in a fitting room at the Fifth Avenue department store, most likely in 1996.
Watchers in the court gallery cried tears of joy when the verdict finding Trump liable for sexual abuse was read.
Jurors also found in favor of Carroll on her claim that the ex-president defamed her in a lengthy Oct. 12, 2022, Truth Social post claiming her accusations were a “hoax.”
The decisions feel like the jury split the difference between sexual assault and rape. With no concrete evidence that either action happened, the jury built upon Trump’s words and the testimony of other women, and found him liable for the sexual assault by establishing repeat behaviors. And with the decision made regarding the sexual assault, the defamation decision followed.
The real question isn’t the financial damages, it’s the political fallout. And quite honestly, I don’t know how Trump supporters will respond to the decision in this case. If this case ends up taking Donald Trump out at the knees during the primary, then the leftists who are crying “tears of joy” right now might be gnashing their teeth and wailing later over a potential Ron DeSantis nomination.
Of course, the media is trying to take down DeSantis at the same time that they are gloating over Trump.
Annnnnnnd? @ABC is this supposed to make us not like him? What was the mission here? You guys suck at whatever it is you’re attempting.
— ⚡️Sarah⚡️ (@T00thpasteW0rds) May 8, 2023
Be careful what you wish for.
Feature Photo Credit: Trump via Pixabay, cropped and modified
Cameron says: So another mentally ill chick with a rape fantasy but unlike Christine Ford, she gets a payday.
A reader says: This decision was unanimous. One of the jurors literally gets their news from right wing sources. I’d go read the descriptions of the jurors, because you will see how utterly stupid you sound. Basically, your answer is that if a Republican did it, it didn’t happen and the woman is awful. But if a Democrat did it, then he’s automatically guilty. Can you even hear how hypocritical you sound?!
Obviously this author like basically all of the authors currently writing for this blog, has never known a woman who has been abused or assaulted. Because the answer here seems to be that they all lie. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. (Or at least the ones taking about Republicans…) What does it say about you when you are not “safe people” who a woman feels comfortable enough with to share about her assault? Because I can guarantee each of you know someone who has been assaulted. What exact things does a woman have to experience or do to prove that she’s telling the truth? Is there only one narrative that you’ll believe?
Because here’s the thing that the jury decision shows: memory is faulty. But it’s clear that they felt there was enough evidence to show that he did something. If you actually study the aftermath of sexual assault, you will see that victims often don’t remember exactly when it happens, the day or time or whatever. But they remember how they felt. They remember specific details about it. And sometimes they don’t scream. And sometimes they do, and nothing happens. Sometimes they fight and sometimes they don’t. None of that means it didn’t happen. Are you honestly craven and stupid enough to think a woman would go through all this abuse in the public eye if she was lying? If you do, then yet again, it’s obvious why you’re not someone a survivor feels comfortable talking to. The amount of abuse and blaming regular women are subjected to when they come forward is nothing compared to what E. Jean went through. And yet she still continued.
Besides, Trump literally confessed on tape to doing what he did to E. Jean Carroll to other women. So I guess you won’t take him at his word.
The search for power corrupts. And obviously the author is truly corrupted if she continues to not take Trump at his word.
Cameron says: Your feelings are noted. Thank you for sharing.
Kim Hirsch says: “This decision was unanimous.”
Wrong. It was a mixed decision — not guilty for rape, guilty for sexual abuse and defamation.
“Basically, your answer is that if a Republican did it, it didn’t happen and the woman is awful. But if a Democrat did it, then he’s automatically guilty.”
Show us where Deanna said anything close to that. We’ll wait. Actually, Deanna smartly chose to quote former Federal Prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy, who merely stated his legal opinion of the case and the verdicts. But you’re throwing a hissy fit because the Bad Orange Man didn’t get fitted with an orange suit. (PS — this was a civil, not a criminal trial.)
Oh, and BTW, while McCarthy is a conservative, he recently wrote in National Review that he does not support Trump.
And finally …
“Obviously this author like basically all of the authors currently writing for this blog, has never known a woman who has been abused or assaulted.”
YOU DON’T KNOW ANY OF US. You don’t know if some of us have experienced verbal or physical abuse from awful men. Yet here you are, making accusations about people whom you know nothing about. So my advice to you: Shut The Fuck Up about women whom you have never met.
Scott says: seems “reader” isn’t all that good at reading for comprehension…
Kim Hirsch says: And assumes waaay too much.
Bucky says: When does the first woman come forward to accuse DeSantis of rape?
Cameron says: 1/5th of a second after he is the official candidate. They probably have some woman lined up and standing by.
Kevin says: My only question is … Will the 280 pound malignant tumor have to register as a sex offender?
I had dinner with E. Jean Carroll in the early 2000’s in Portland, Oregon. She was writing a major article for a national magazine about a good friend of mine and the three of us went to dinner. Afterwards, we returned to my friend’s apartment and I stayed for a bit and then left so the two of them could talk. She was articulate, engaging, funny (really, really funny), inquisitive, and just a lovely woman. Aside from the word “woman” in the previous sentence, none of those descriptive words have ever been used when referencing the 280 pound malignant tumor.
Cameron says: “Will the 280 pound malignant tumor have to register as a sex offender?”
Defamation isn’t a sex crime so no.
Cameron says: And odds are good that the “sex abuse” probably isn’t serious enough to warrant registration.
Poor little Epsilon. From being so certain he’d be convicted after two impeachments to be gleeful over this. I’d pity you but I save that for human beings.
Kim Hirsch says: “I had dinner with E. Jean Carroll in the early 2000’s in Portland, Oregon.”
And I saw Lassie the TV dog at a county fair when I was a kid. Beautiful animal, smart, well-trained, obedient. And just a lovely dog.
Your pathetic attempt at name-dropping is irrelevant to any discussion of the case.
Cameron says: The amazing part of that spiel was that he actually said something nice about a woman for a change. But I’m sure the room clapped after hearing his story.
Taylor says: Another example of how Trump is a liaiblity for the Republican Party in 2024. Time to move on from him.
Cameron says: Accusations of sexual assault didn’t stop Bill Clinton from running for President.
Deanna Fisher says: But Bill Clinton had an entire political party willing to look the other way and either ignore or let Clinton excuse those accusations – with Hillary by his side. Will Republicans voting in a primary be willing to do the same for Trump? That’s the real question.
Cameron says: Assuming he runs, the GOP should go on the offensive with regards to that. Ask uncomfortable questions about Bill Clinton paying hush money to Paula Jones and demanding to know why that’s acceptable.
17 Comments