Carroll v. Trump Sexual Abuse + Libel Verdict

I'm traveling this week, and don't have much to add on this case in any event, but I thought I'd point to two Reason pieces on the subject, Jury Finds Trump Liable for Sexual Abuse and Defamation of Writer E. Jean Carroll (Elizabeth Nolan Brown) and 8 Reasons Why E. Jean Carroll Won Her Sexual Abuse and Defamation Lawsuit Against Trump (Jacob Sullum).

Comments

[Dilan Esper]

Wow. No comments?

[Mr. Bumble]

Give it some time.
This should be a fun thread.

[Gandydancer]

That's the way it always is when an article first appears.

The real question is why there were still no comments after yours was posted.

Mine is that the verdict is shit. There's no evidence Trump did this.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, there's "no [sic] evidence."

To quote Andrew Fleischman's tweet:

New York juries are so biased they will find a dude liable based on nothing more than eyewitness testimony, contemporaneous accounts of that testimony, other victims, failure to testify, a disastrous deposition, and a taped admission to doing the thing he's accused of.

https://twitter.com/ASFleischman/status/1656317632495099909

[Mr. Bumble]

So will it survive appeal?

[not guilty]

What issue(s) would Trump raise on appeal?

[Gandydancer]

Fleischman is a self-discrediting liar, as are you, NoPoint. The only “eyewitness testimony” is that of the accuser; the “contemporaneous accounts of that testimony” were and are just uncorroborated hearsay, at best; the “other victims” have no proof either; the “failure to testify” is a farcical lie (as you admit, Trump was deposed, denying the account of the accuser), and (as you know perfectly well) the “you can grab pussy” comment wasn’t an admission of doing anything, though accompanied by a claim of limited credibility that Trump “just kisses” attractive women.

[David Nieporent]

The only “eyewitness testimony” is that of the accuser;

And?

the “contemporaneous accounts of that testimony” were and are just uncorroborated hearsay, at best;

You're back to pretending to do law without knowing law. They are not hearsay. FRE 801(d)(1)(B)(i). And "uncorroborated" doesn't even make sense here.

the “other victims” have no proof either;

Testimony is evidence.

the “failure to testify” is a farcical lie

You mean he didn't refuse to appear for the trial (while claiming he was doing everyone a favor by saving on the need for security)? He got on the witness stand and testified before the jury that he hadn't done it?

and (as you know perfectly well) the “you can grab pussy” comment wasn’t an admission of doing anything

Uh huh. Except it was.

You've got to love the circular non-logic of the Trump fool: him boasting that he did something isn't evidence he did it, because it's just locker room talk without any actual witness saying that he actually did it — but the actual witness saying that he did exactly what he had admitted doing isn't evidence that he did it, because it's not corroborated.

[Gandydancer]

No, Trump did not boast that he'd grabbed pussy. You know this, but lie uncontrollably.

Fed. R. Evid. 801 (d) (1) (B) (i) leaves the evidence of prior consistent statements as hearsay for proving the events described in them. Which is the way the Trump bashers here try to use them.

[David Nieporent]

Trump in fact boasted that he grabbed pussy. He then inexplicably did not even try to walk that back at his deposition, instead saying that "unfortunately or fortunately" it's true.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If I recall, it's THEY LET YOU -- that's consent...

[Michael Ejercito]

What year did this alleged event happen?

[Gandydancer]

1996.

[Nige]

Not 'alleged' any more.

[not guilty]

"There’s no evidence Trump did this."

In what universe is the testimony of an aggrieved party "no evidence"? (Especially where that testimony is unrebutted by the opposing party.) One may quibble about whether testimony is or is not credible, but that is why we empanel juries.

[Gandydancer]

We are capable of judging for ourselves whether the accusation is credible, which in this case it isn't. And the fact that accusation is technically evidence doesn't mean that it is actually evidence as the word is commonly understood. You know this perfectly well.

[David Nieporent]

We are capable of judging for ourselves whether the accusation is credible,

Well, you aren't, both because of a lack of intelligence and a complete inability to be objective. Plus, you didn't actually see the witness testify, unlike the jury.

[Mike Hansberry]

Objective? As in requiring a claim to be verifiable or refutable?

The claim was forcible kissing, groping and rape, but no time/date was given, so not verifiable or refutable.

The jury did not believe the rape claim, but did believe forcible kissing and groping.

So, wearing our objective listener hats, did the woman mis-remember the "details" (rape is hardly a detail) encounter that supposedly happened, did she embellish, or was it all BS?

Had the claim been merely a short encounter consisting of only unwanted kiss and groping, there likely would have been no claim and counter claim regarding defamation. It was the claim of rape that is most defamatory.

He kissed me without asking!
He raped me!
The above are not equal in their defamatory effect.

Since the jury determined no rape, why didn't the jury conclude that they defamed each other? He for denying the incident and calling her a liar, she for claiming he raped her?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, normally, (I mean, if Trump weren't involved.) they wouldn't do either, because we don't treat criminal complaints as defamation, in order to avoid making real victims afraid to report crimes. And we don't treat denying you're guilty as defaming your accuser, because we don't want to discourage innocent people from pleading innocent by threatening to punish them twice if they're convicted.

[David Nieporent]

Nobody treated Trump denying his guilt as defaming his accuser. It was the rest of his statements about her that were actionable.

[not guilty]

Let's see. You contend upthread that there is "no evidence" that Trump did what he is accused of. You now acknowledge as fact that accusation is evidence.

Are you next going to claim that it depends on what the definition of "is" is?

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is the nadar of war on men.

[AmosArch]

I'm a little surprised EV posted this. Usually he doesn't listen to people demanding he regurgitate the same news stories everybody else in the world has posted and goes on with some soporific niche legal or wordplay post.

[AmosArch]

Verdict: Trump said 'grab em by the pussy' once and we don't like him so he loses.

[Brett Bellmore]

Technically, since he said they LET you do it if you're a star, he wasn't confessing to any sort of sexual assault, he was just marveling at what you could consensually do if you were a star.

[David Nieporent]

And then in his deposition in this case, he added that it was true, "Unfortunately or fortunately," and that he himself was a star.

[Mr. Bumble]

Running out the door, but serious question: How common is it for the jury to be anonymized, even to defense council?

[Gandydancer]

Damn uncommon. Investigating jurors is a perfectly standard service, though it costs dinero. In a high-profile case like this crowdsourcing can work even better.

[Dr. Ed 2]

QED grounds for appeal?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Your question is not based on reality. You might want to check your facts.

[jdgalt1]

It really shows how blatantly both that judge and his jury are willing to lie, that they found Trump not guilty of rape, but guilty of libel for having said he didn't commit rape -- two contradictory facts out of one mouth within a week. If the legislature were honest his impeachment would be as immediate as it is a slam-dunk.

[Vryedni]

You're ignorant of the facts, the law, or both.

[Gandydancer]

Enlighten us.

[Social Justice is neither]

What an insightful rebuttal of the point, almost like you had nothing but couldn't let the truth stand unchallenged by your ignorance and lies.

[Gandydancer]

The claim that it is libel of your accusers to deny that a crime took place is.... interesting. But the failure to find liability for rape isn't obviously relevant. Trump's "libelous statements" are along the lines of saying Carroll made shit up, not merely that he didn't rape her.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

If you get any dumber, we're going to have to put you on a ventilator.

[Sarcastr0]

From the links provided:

"Carroll provided her own testimony, of course. But she also presented evidence that she had told others about the assault at the time, as well as evidence from other women that Trump had assaulted them and touched them without their consent."

"Trump declined to testify at the trial, but the jury did see his videotaped deposition, during which he denied Carroll's claims but also doubled down on his assertions in the infamous "Access Hollywood" video. "I just start kissing them," he said on the tape, "It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything." He added: "Grab 'em by the [genitals]. You can do anything."

[AmosArch]

Every big male pol has (multiple) women popping up claiming they were raped by them . Its to the point where I'd be suspicious about what sort of strings they were pulling behind the scenes if they didn't have any accusers after awhile.

[Sarcastr0]

MGTOW asshole: "she also presented evidence that she had told others about the assault at the time"

[AmosArch]

I'm a MGTOW because I believe in balancing the rights of the accused/accuser and that the statue of limitations shouldn't be suddenly stripped away to allow people to roll the dice on giant paydays for stuff that supposedly happened decades ago they just now decided was worth telling the system. All for the sake of punishing one dude that is disliked almost entirely because of his politics.

[Gandydancer]

Hey, fuckface, telling others that something happened isn't evidence that it happened and isn't transformed into evidence that it happened by the passage of time.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The hearsay exceptions indicate otherwise. Especially ones for where the declarant is unavailable. I mean that’s arguably the entire premise behind the imminent death exception: telling someone something in certain circumstances is evidence it happened.

[Gandydancer]

In this case it's just hearsay, no reason to find exceptions. Carroll told a wild story about being raped, never mind the other customers and personal shoppers etc. present. Constitutes zero evidence that it happened.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You don’t know what “zero” and “evidence”’mean, do you?

[Gandydancer]

No, YOU don't know. I repeat, " Carroll [has] zero evidence that it happened." That's "evidence" as in "there is evidence for the evolution of species" or "evidence" as in "there is evidence that LawTalkingGuy has shit for brains", not "evidence" as in "the FRE or jury instructions mean that absolute hearsay is evidence".

[MoreCurious]

Thank you for providing evidence that you never attended law school, never represented a client, never read the FRE, and never tried a case.

[Gandydancer]

If you think that's an answer to anything I said you have your head fixed permanently in your rectum.

[CJColucci]

FRE 801(d)(1)(B)

[Gandydancer]

It’s not so fucking long you can’t quote it.

“Prior consistent statements F.R.E. 801 (d) (1) (B) prior consistent statements can be used to rehabilitate a witness once they have been impeached, without triggering any hearsay concerns. Again, these prior consistent statements have to have been made at a trial, hearing, or deposition and have to have been made under oath and subject to cross examination.”

Did you read the last sentence? And even if you didn’t, why is is Carroll supposedly telling some vague uncorroborated story in 1996 to some pal of hers (also anti-Trump) supposed to have any weight as evidence that anything actually happened?

[TwelveInchPianist]

I sure don't want to jump to any conclusions, but it's possible that savie spoonie may have this wrong.

[Gandydancer]

Is "savie spoonie" a pop culture reference? Searching for it turns up an endangered wading bird.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Savie spoonie is who your quote appears to come from.

[Gandydancer]

No, I quoted directly from the FRE, and am not seeing that it needs further exegesis to establish the cited section's irrelevance here.

[David Nieporent]

Well, to be clear, you did not, in fact, quote directly from the FRE. You quoted — as TiP correctly noted — from some guy's blog about FRE.

Here's the actual FRE. You can see that your quoted words do not appear there, but do appear in that blog.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Gandydancer appears to be auditioning for a position assisting Profs. Barnett and Blackman with Today in Supreme Court History.

[Gandydancer]

OK. My bad. I see I didn't get beyond what duckduckgo quoted. Thanks for not being obscure.

[not guilty]

Where, as here, a prior consistent statement is offered under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(1)(B) to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated it or acted from a recent improper influence or motive in so testifying, or to rehabilitate the declarant’s credibility as a witness when attacked on another ground, the statement is non-hearsay.

Rule 801(d)(1)(A)'s criteria that the out-of-court statement was given under penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition applies to prior inconsistent statements, which are ordinarily offered on cross-examination by the adverse party of the declarant-witness.

[Gandydancer]

The section said to be relevant was FRE 801(d)(1)(B). It’s not. And it says nothing about rebutting an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated, so you'll need a different section for that (unless it is an invented interpolation unsupported by the text of the FRE that maybe ought to be in the FRE but isn't.)

I have no problem with Carroll’s contemporaneous claims being offered as proof that she didn’t come up with her accusations in 2019 just for her book, or to bring this suit.

But that is not what Sollum, or Gaslightr0 summarizing Sollum, did here. They offer it as point#2 as to why Trump lost the case, with no reference to any claims about later invention, which appear much further down the list. This is incompetent or dishonest. Pick one.

[David Nieporent]

The section said to be relevant was FRE 801(d)(1)(B). It’s not. And it says nothing about rebutting an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated, so you’ll need a different section for that (unless it is an invented interpolation unsupported by the text of the FRE that maybe ought to be in the FRE but isn’t.)

God, you're a fucking moron. This is going to be like when you claimed aggressively and offensively for like a week that Clarence Thomas didn't have to disclose his real estate transaction, and then you bothered to read the actual statute and said, "Well, I guess I was wrong but it's really everyone else's fault because I didn't like them so I chose not to believe them when they said it."

Here's FRE 801(d)(1)(b), which according to you "says nothing about rebutting an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated":

(d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay:

(1) A Declarant-Witness’s Prior Statement. The declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination about a prior statement, and the statement:

(A) is inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony and was given under penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition;

(B) is consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered:

(i) to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated it or acted from a recent improper influence or motive in so testifying; or

Moron.

[Gandydancer]

You are in fact responsible for your own lack of credibility.

As I’ve said many times, even relying on a mistaken understanding of what the statute said (which I of course admit once it is demonstrated, since =I= am not a liar) I never had any objection to the contemporaneous recitations of Carroll's claims as proof that her fabrications were not recent. As proof that the "rape" happened they remain weightless.

[not guilty]

Is that as true as everything else you have said, Gandydancer?

You characterized as hearsay what the federal rules of evidence define as non-hearsay. The verbiage "Statements That Are Not Hearsay" should give you a clue.

And BTW Rule 801(d)(1)(B) includes subsections (i) and (ii) thereof.

You are a shameless liar.

[Gandydancer]

I repeat, "why is is Carroll supposedly telling some vague uncorroborated story in 1996 to some pal of hers (also anti-Trump) supposed to have any weight as evidence that anything actually happened?"

It's still not, even if I mistook what turned up on the search page for the statute.

[Brett Bellmore]

Just as a factual question, I'm curious which we have:

1) People who publicly stated at the time that she'd told this story. Like, you can find contemporaneous records of them having said she'd told it.

or

2) People NOW saying that she told them this story at the time.

Because in the first instance, I'd consider that real evidence.

In the second case, it could just mean they'd gotten together recently and agreed what to say had happened.

[David Nieporent]

It could just mean that, yes. They could indeed be lying. That's why we have juries!: to sort out who's telling the truth and who's lying.

[Aunt Teefah]

Except it literally is evidence, according to the Federal Rules of Evidence (and presumably New York's evidence code as well). Fuckface.

[Gandydancer]

We already had CJC cite the FRE, and it turned out to be irrelevant bullshit. What have YOU got?

Besides which, if the FRE or jury instructions say that Carroll's wild story in 1996 is evidence of any weight that SOMETHING ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN 1996 then that merely would prove that the FRE or jury instructions were crap.

[Vryedni]

You think the FRE are irrelevant bullshit? What are doing on a legal blog? You're on mute.

[Gandydancer]

Uncritical admiration of the FRE is a requirement for posting comments on a legal blog? And the brown stains on that claim are from where?

Anyway, learn to recognize the use of “if”.

I repeat: “… IF the FRE or jury instructions say that Carroll’s wild story in 1996 is evidence of any weight that SOMETHING ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN 1996 then that merely would prove that the FRE or jury instructions were crap.”

Which is true.

As to muting me, the ostrich defense is a ridiculous pose. But go ahead, assume it. I can always use a good laugh.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Dude you’re doing the “Am I out of touch?” meme.

Do I not understand what evidence is?

No, it’s the federal rules of evidence and boilerplate jury instructions that are used in every single criminal and civil case that are wrong.

[Gandydancer]

To repeat myself for the benefit of dimwits like you, you haven't yet established that "the FRE or jury instructions say that Carroll’s wild story in 1996 is evidence of any weight that SOMETHING ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN 1996", and if they did they would obviously be wrong to so claim. But even Gaslightr0 downthread admits that the existence of contemporaneous hearsay is no proof of the fact claimed in it, despite the contrary fashion in which he presented Sullum's point#2.

[Aunt Teefah]

I’ve got literally every exception to the rule against hearsay. Not to mention that in-court and deposition testimony is literally “evidence” of what happened to them.

Best to leave legal analysis to people who have a clue as to what they’re talking about and stick to your usual limp-dicked juvenile insults. Fuckface.

[Gandydancer]

In other words you have nothing, since I even bothered to write this time "evidence OF ANY WEIGHT", though in common parlance evidence of no weight is "no evidence", and you have to be a real dimwit to deny it.

But, yeah, that's your picture in the dictionary next to "dimwit", right next to NoPoint's.

[Aunt Teefah]

You seem to have some very fundamental misunderstandings about basic things like what “law” is and how “trials” work. A victim or witness’ testimony, and their out-of-court statement IS competent and admissible evidence. Convictions are rendered, and civil liability is established on nothing more than a victim’s testimony, every day, in cases all across the country.

You don’t think testimony or admissible hearsay should be given any weight? So what? Your opinion, and five dollars is worth a small coffee at Starbucks, so long as you don’t get the good stuff. What matters is whether juries give that evidence any weight. And they do. All the time. In all sorts of cases unrelated to trump.

[Gandydancer]

You evince a determined refusal to understand what I said, which is tedious beyond belief. The accusation here is weightless and if a jury reaches a conclusion based on weight-free, i.e. no, evidence then a travesty of justice has occurred. As it did here. And I don’t need your permission, or anyone else’s, to say so. And your attempt to move this question to a higher level of generalization is a failed distraction, so get over it.

[David Nieporent]

The accusation here is weightless

You seem to have some very fundamental misunderstandings about basic things like what “law” is and how “trials” work. The jury, not you, decides what weight to give testimony.

[Gandydancer]

They have that power, but I retain a perfect right to observe that they screwed up when they exercised it.

This is perfectly consistent with basic things like what “law” is and how “trials” work.

What’s the colot of the sky on YOUR world?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Now that I think about it, there’s no need to use the hearsay exceptions to rebut this idea that: “telling others that something happened isn’t evidence that it happened.” It’s fundamentally at odds with the entire concept of witness testimony and trials! Our entire system for determining the facts necessary to find guilt/liability is based on people telling a jury/judge what happened! Like that’s the entire thing. There is no other way.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah. It’s not being used to prove the matter asserted, but to bolster credibility. Just like impeachment testimony isn’t hearsay.

[Gandydancer]

Bingo. It proves that Carroll didn’t first make up her story when her book came out. But the anti-Trump assholes on this thread (and Sollum in his Reason article) are offering it precisely “to prove the matter asserted”.

Jeez, I despise Trump as a lying do-nothing self-indulgent incompetent squish, but his enemies are despicable liars for all that.

[Sarcastr0]

No, you defend Trump against all comers.

You don’t get to disssociate from him as you repeatedly fail evidence to defend the indefensible.

You and Trump. Sitting in a tree.

[Gandydancer]

I’ve said this before often enough so that I know you’ve read it: I stopped believing anything from Trump the moment “They all must go!” turned into Pence’s touchback amnesty scheme, about a week after he came down the escalator. Which doesn’t mean that I didn’t vote for him as the lesser evil. If that "associates" me with him I'm fine with that. That I despise the lies of you and your ilk about him doesn’t turn you into “all comers”. No, he was never an agent of Putin either. Sheesh.

[Sarcastr0]

Nah I have you blocked most of the time.

But if it walks like a MAGA tool and talks like a MAGA tool, trying to outflank Trump on the right is not going to make you less of a MAGA tool.

[LawTalkingGuy]

If you don’t want to be thought of as slavishly devoted to Trump, you could try not jumping right to: “the federal rules of evidence and standard jury instructions all must be wrong” simply because the man lost a civil case.

[Gandydancer]

@LTG: If you don’t want to be thought of as a liar you should stop lying. Because that is not what I said. See my disquisition above on recognizing the use of “if”. And my denial that you have produced anything in the FRE, etc., that I disagree with.

Sheesh, you’re shameless.

[Gandydancer]

@Gaslightr0: I don’t need to “try” to outflank Trump on his right any more than, say, Tucker Carlson or John Derbyshire does. And I don’t give a damn what you want to think about “MAGA tools”. I think you are a lying shit, because you are, but I don’t expect you to care, and I don’t care that you don’t care. So spare me your stupidities.

Wtf is this "most of the time" shit, anyway? Assume the ostrich position and stick to it, why don't you?

[LawTalkingGuy]

That’s a necessary implication of your position! You think they’re wrong if they permit something they obviously have always permitted: witnesses to testify and juries to make credibility determinations.

The rules of evidence permit witness testimony relevant to the claim, there is no arbitrary time limit about what they can testify about. Therefore Carroll’s testimony is direct evidence of what happened.

The instructions tell jurors that witness testimony is evidence and that they are the sole judge of witness credibility and what weight to give the evidence. That doesn’t change just because you don’t believe a particular witness.

Your position appears to be that because YOU don’t believe the witness the rules shouldn’t permit the testimony and the instructions should say something else about how the jury is to treat witnesses you personally don’t believe.

But that’s not the law and has never been the law. And what’s more it will never be the law. The law of evidence and instructions aren’t going to reorient itself to suit you or Trump just because you got the worse end of a particular case.

[Gandydancer]

@LTG: No, moron, I've made perfectly clear from the beginning that I had no objection to the accounts of Carroll's lies as evidence that she hadn't just recently invented them.

And that the jury believing her and awarding damages on no more evidence than that is an atrocity. (That her statements are technically evidence is no evidence that what she says happened happened. There is zero real evidence of THAT.

I'm uninterested in the technical definition of ":evidence". I'm interested only in "evidence" as used in the phrase "there is evidence that the evolution of species is true. That some Bible banger says otherwise is evidence of something, but for the contrary assertion it's a zero. Exactly the same as the evidence that Trump raped Carroll

[David Nieporent]

I’m uninterested in the technical definition of “:evidence”. I’m interested only in “evidence” as used in the phrase “there is evidence that the evolution of species is true. That some Bible banger says otherwise is evidence of something, but for the contrary assertion it’s a zero. Exactly the same as the evidence that Trump raped Carroll

The firsthand testimony of an eyewitness to an event is evidence in both a "technical" sense and in ordinary layman's terms.

[CJColucci]

Actually, since 801(d) identifies statements that are not hearsay at all, a prior statement that meets the requirements of 801(d)(1)(B), as Carroll's testimony did, is admissible not only to rebut the charge of recent fabrication, but as substantive evidence that the matter asserted in the prior statement is true.
So Carroll's testimony was properly admitted to prove the truth of the matter asserted and the jury was so instructed. Gandydancer may not like the law of evidence, but that's how it is, and an objection that "the FRE or jury instructions are crap" will accomplish nothing, except possibly sanctions.
As for its weight, that's for the jury. The jury was free to believe it, disbelieve it, or pay no attention to it. They don't have to consult Gandydancer, and he has spent many comments proving why that's a good thing.

[Frank Drackman]

Haha you said “Fuckface” that still cracks me up, who was it? Billy Ripkin who had that written on his Bat for his Baseball Card Photo, Topps (or Fleer, I wasn’t buying cards any more) pulled what they could out of circulation, but the “Fuckface” card is still more valuable than the airbrushed version

[Gandydancer]

Good to know, but the lesser Ripkin didn't invent it.

[David Nieporent]

Your spelling is as atrocious as your legal understanding.

[Gandydancer]

What are you going on about? 9 words, none of them misspelled. Since all you did is read them you can't even offer the excuse of having made a typo.

;

[David Nieporent]

R-i-p-k-e-n.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Including the police? Of course not.

[Nige]

...they do?

[AmosArch]

Well almost all the recent ones Biden, Trump, GWB, Clinton, GB, Reagan had high profile accusers. Obama almost certainly also had random women on the internet or in bars throwing around accusations too but he was too protected/not seen as not heterosexual enough to make the accusations credible enough so they didn’t ignite enough press to make even the third string journalist circuit.

[Nige]

Don't remember Biden, GWB, GB or Obama being accused of rape by the actual women they were supposed to have raped. Reagan either, but I was hardly paying attention at the time. Not saying it didn't happen, but nothing like with Clinton or Trump.

[AmosArch]

Well they were all accused of sexual assault and it was news for all except obama, your ignorance is no argument.

https://www.newsweek.com/how-many-presidents-have-been-accused-sexual-assault-692766

[Nige]

Now that they mention it, I do remember the thing with Selene Waters and Reagan. No Obama, but also no Biden, though.

[Mr. Bumble]

Tara Reade.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Who also had an eyewitness account and prior consistent statements. I wonder if DC will revise its statute of limitations.

[Nige]

D'oh! Interesting how these things go pre- and post- MeToo.

[Gandydancer]

Where is this rock that you live under?

[Nige]

Outside the fever swamp.

[Gandydancer]

You may think so, but it's still a rock which nothing inconvenient gets through.

[Nige]

Like you and pop culture references. And the law.

[Krayt]

Powerful men in Hollywood should not grab a pussy, but rather hold out their hand and hope a gold digger leaps onto it.

Wait, didn't someone just go to jail for that last month?

[Gandydancer]

Not getting the reference.

[Sarcastr0]

8 Reasons Why E. Jean Carroll Won Her Sexual Abuse and Defamation Lawsuit Against Trump (digested):

1. This was a civil trial.

2. Two of Carroll's friends, journalist Lisa Birnbach and former TV anchor Carol Martin, testified that she had told them about the incident shortly after it happened. In the spring of 1996

3. Two women, both of whom had previously told their stories publicly, testified that Trump had assaulted them, which Carroll's lawyers argued was part of a pattern.

4. Carroll's lawyers cited the notorious 2005 tape in which Trump bragged about grabbing women's genitals.

5. Trump did himself no favors during a deposition in which Carroll's lead lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, asked him about those remarks.

6. Trump insisted that he did not know Carroll, despite photographic evidence that they had met, and his denial of her charges hinged largely on his claim that "she's not my type"...Kaplan noted that when she showed Trump a picture of Carroll greeting him at a social event in the 1980s, he mistook her for Marla Maples, his second wife. "The truth is that E. Jean Carroll, a former cheerleader and Miss Indiana, was exactly Donald Trump's type," Kaplan told the jury.

7. Seventh, Tacopina argued that Carroll's accusation, which she first publicly lodged in a 2019 memoir that was excerpted in New York magazine, was financially and politically motivated. But the idea that she had suddenly invented the story to boost sales of her memoir was contradicted by Birnbach and Martin's testimony.

8. Although Trump complains that he was not allowed to present his side of the story, he chose not to take the stand or even attend the trial.

[AmosArch]

1. Doesn't make it true.

2. Wow so friends back up some shady person. Thats never happened before in history!

3. Multiple women accused clinton and bush of sexual assault so it must have happened. Its not like more than one person can get the same idea to do something in the whole of the united states let alone get together to make multiple accusations. That violates the laws of physics!

4. If you say some crude line once in your life that proves you're guilty of the Rape of one specific woman on July 6th 1987 at 4:35:O1PM in the Motel 6 at Dayton Ohio Room 543.

5. I don't like trump so he's guilty of rape/sexual assault

6. Trump doesn't remember every one of the thousands/millions of people he's met therefore he's guilty of sexual assault.

7. The only evidence we have that it wasn't made up before 2019 is her pals say so.

8. I don't like trump so he's guilty of rape/sexual assault.

[Nige]

'I like Trump so he couldn't be guilty of sexual assault.'

[AmosArch]

Thats not the way its supposed to work. Even in a civil case. The accused shouldn’t have to prove their innocence otherwise things default to the plaintiff. Although I guess you sure showed me with this particular case.

[Nige]

This isn't a civil trial, this is you responding to a comment that summarises a summary of a civil trial that found someone you like responsible for sexual assault and you're salty about it.

[Gandydancer]

This is ABOUT a civil trial in which Trump was found liable for committing an act where the only evidence that the improbable act (rape, she said, in a store with other customers and where good customers get personal shoppers who accompany them) took place is the word of the accuser.

Amos: "Even in a civil case. The accused shouldn’t have to prove their innocence otherwise things default to the plaintiff." Exactly.

[Nige]

And? The jury found Carroll credible. That's all it takes.

[Sarcastr0]

You are pointing out that there are ways any given bit of evidence can be faulty. And it could be!
But each is more likely than not true. And I’m the aggregate so damming even you know it. That’s why you are such a warpath.

You know.

[Gandydancer]

There is no evidence of Trump's guilt OF THIS ACT other than the accusation, which is weightless standing alone, as it does.

[MoreCurious]

An accusation by itself is weightless? Seriously? More proof that you never studied law or passed a bar exam.

[Gandydancer]

If studying the law or for the bar convinced you that evidence-free accusation of the improbable has weight then someone probably ought to take responsibility for your mis-education. And for letting you pass the bar, if you did.

[MoreCurious]

You can stop and get some rest now -- you've sufficiently proved to everyone here that you have no idea what you're talking about. And good luck in your new career as a Trump apologist. He can never have too many.

[Gandydancer]

6. Carroll (born 1943) wasn’t ever Miss Indiana. I’d guess she was pretty in 1964 when she was Miss Cheerleader at Indiana U., but the question is whether she was still Trump’s type in 1996, at age 53 or so. Trump complained about the blurriness of the photographs shown to him, which could easily explain the “Marla Maples” mistake. It’s not like he wouldn’t recognize who and who isn’t his former wife if he were shown a good photograph.

I will add that in this particular high-end store Trump, if not Carroll, would have been accompanied by a personal shopper. The judge consistently squelched letting the jury hear testimony to that effect. The idea that Trump could have raped Carroll in the store is absurd. And there is NO EVIDENCE for it, just he-said-she-said.

[Sarcastr0]

Holy shit shut up.

A jury did it’s duty. Your attempts to relitigate who Trump would want to rape is fucking shameful.

[Gandydancer]

Hey, shitface, you quoted the claim that Trump WOULD want to rape Carroll, as your point#6. Who the fuck do you think you are that you are exempt from rebuttal?

[Nige]

It became an issue because of what Trump said. Bit of a red flag, to be honest.

[Michael Ejercito]

The Carroll bitch could not even show the year in which this alleged event happened.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Trump bitch couldn’t muster the courage to testify at the trial he lost.

[Gandydancer]

You don't even know the meaning of the word.

[David Nieporent]

An issue that Trump had the opportunity to raise for the jury, which did not find that to be significant enough to outweigh the rest of the evidence.

[David Nieporent]

Um, the jury was shown the photograph, and it was not 'blurry.' Not even a little tiny bit.

You have your head so far up Trump's ass that you can't even be bothered to do a tiny bit of research before parroting his gaslighting insanity.

[David Nieporent]

And that's not even getting into the fact that a normal, sane, non-sociopathic non-rapist who is accused of rape says, "That's crazy; I would never rape anyone"; he does not say, "I wouldn't rape her because she's not my type."

[Gandydancer]

He also said the lawyer wasn’t his type, either. But earned contempt is what you have to swim in all the time, so no wonder it enrages you, NoPoint.

Feel free to link to the photo, btw. Us bitter clingers like to believe the evidence of our own eyes, not the characterizations of lying liars.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Then why did you mention Trump’s characterization of the photograph as blurry, which was the silly lie of a lying liar? I hope your job does not involve judgment.

[Gandydancer]

Because it was relevant and I have no reason to believe he was lying. Quite the opposite — if it were clear he would have known it wasn’t his former wife.

Now if YOU said “the sky is blue” J’d need proof beyond all doubt.

[David Nieporent]

I have no reason to believe he was lying.

Were his lips moving? That's the reason.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, you could just google Trump blurry photo and get many links to it yourself, but I suppose that mindlessly repeating what you heard on Newsmax would also work.

https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1654545769813221380

[David Nieporent]

Is that a high definition photo that one can take with the highest megapixel digital camera on the market in 2023? No. Is it remotely describable as "blurry"? No. Is it remotely so blurry that someone who knew one of the people shown in the picture would not be able recognize that person? It's beyond pathetic to even pretend to believe such a claim.

Trump is a true bullshitter. He just lies, and then says whatever comes into his head to explain the lie. He doesn't care whether people believe it; he just wants to say it so that his acolytes can pretend to believe it.

[Nige]

I'm sure the lawyer was delighted to hear that Trump wouldn't rape her because she isn't his type. This is one of those instances when Trump kept digging.

[Tilted]

I have little idea whether Ms. Carroll's accusations are true. But it seems to me President Trump's deposition did him in. I suspect for most defendants and in most other situations - i.e., in situations where the fight itself wasn't welcomed as another opportunity to reinforce the brand - that deposition would have meant settlement time. I mean, what a blundering idiot.

That said, it might have helped if he'd have bothered to deny the accusations in court. Then again, it's easy to see where a lawyer might think that putting him on a stand could be a total disaster. Who knows what might come out of his mouth; he might end up incriminating himself as the Golden State Killer's accomplice or something.

[Gandydancer]

How many times should he settle with how many proof-less accusers?

I agree that Trump is in some ways an idiot, but not for not settling this.

[Tilted]

I didn't mean to suggest he was a blundering idiot for not settling, though I can see where the way I ordered my points could create that impression. I meant to suggest that his deposition made him look like a blundering idiot.

I don't see where he had much to lose by going through trial, so long as he wasn't going to testify. He was very likely to lose, but so what? This decision probably isn't going to hurt him much politically. And it probably isn't going to hurt him where it matters most - in the wrestling-with-his-insecurity-demons department. Plus, as I suggested before, fighting it all the way through just helps reinforce his brand - i.e., the great victim fearlessly fighting all the evils of the modern world

[Gandydancer]

I don't think it'll hurt him at all politically. A NY jury has all the credibility of Bragg with anyone who was going to vote for him beforehand. But he might have done better to testify in person to tamp down the eagerness to bring this sort of crap by maybe winning the case. Relying on leaving the plaintiff-edited deposition as his only appearance was probably not the way to go. E.g., the judge kept out testimony about personal shoppers assigned to accompany good customers, but suppressing a Trump answer to a question about whether he generally had one (he said he had no memory of the exact date) would be hard to pull off.

[Nige]

It won't hurt him with his base. If anything they'll love him all the more for it, since he's supposed to be allowed to get away with things and they hate anything that thwarts him or holds him accountable, and it'll allow them to unleash their never-far-from-the-surface misogyny and hatred of their fellow Americans who live in cites. Everyone else? Not so much.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The dems would have done a Marc Rich instead...

[Artifex]

Hmmmm, I am thinking I don't understand how "preponderance of the evidence" works. In this case it looks like the totality of the evidence against Trump is her words and the totality of Trump's defense is his words. How does this work out to be "preponderance of the evidence"? How does this work out if both accounts are entirely unreliable ?

Does it all come down to who a jury believes in a civil case ? A popularity contest ? This seems very scary and subjective.

[Sarcastr0]

2. Two of Carroll’s friends, journalist Lisa Birnbach and former TV anchor Carol Martin, testified that she had told them about the incident shortly after it happened. In the spring of 1996

3. Two women, both of whom had previously told their stories publicly, testified that Trump had assaulted them, which Carroll’s lawyers argued was part of a pattern.

So that's like 5 people. Get a better talking point.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It's ironic, when that former Federal Prosecutor told the Democrat DOJ he had two witnesses to testify against Biden and his corruption, the Democrat DOJ did nothing except spy on the prosecutor.

But, that's the gold standard for you against Trump, just not for the Democrat DOJ against Biden.

[Sarcastr0]

You lie. Even to yourself.

[Gandydancer]

5 people with no evidence is 5 people with no evidence, two of whom don't even claim to have ever had more knowledge about what happened than hearsay. YOU need a better talking point.

[Sarcastr0]

Testimony is evidence you moron.

[Gandydancer]

Accusation is technically "evidence", but not in the same sense that the fossil record is evidence for the evolution of species. Pretending that you don't understand the distinction merely proves that you think we are ALL morons. But we're not, so we know what YOU are.

[MoreCurious]

More proof of your lack of a legal education. There is a difference between evidence and proof. The factfinder -- either the judge or a jury -- determines whether the evidence is relevant and credible enough to constitute proof of the matter asserted.

[David Nieporent]

Accusation is technically “evidence”,

Technically correct is the best kind of correct.

[Gandydancer]

It's often merely lying through obfuscation.

There is no evidence Trump did it. There is no proof Trump did it, either. Pretending that a legal education has any bearing on these observations merely proves that you are lying idiots.

[not guilty]

As I have observed time and again, IOKIYAR is not a rule of law.

[Gandydancer]

It hasn't made any impression, perhaps because you use the obscure acronym, but also because no one has said anything like that and probably no one ever has.

[Frank Drackman]

So somebody testifies that somebody else told them something, isn't there a legal term for that? C'mon, (Man!) you're supposed to be lawyers here, Judge Judy would have thrown this case out in 5 minutes.

[Gandydancer]

It’s evidence that Carroll didn’t make up the story out of whole cloth for her book in…. 2019? It’s not evidence that anything happened in 1996.

[David Nieporent]

Carroll's testimony is evidence that something happened in 1996.

[Gandydancer]

Carroll's testimony is stronger evidence that she is a fabulist.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose her telling the story IS something, and that is the something that it's evidence happened in 1996.

The thing that kills her credibility in my eyes is not being able to identify when it supposedly happened. She's raped, and she can't pin down when it happened? Seriously? It wasn't worth a diary entry, or anything like that? All the details but that are seared into her memory?

It's cases like this that statutes of limitations exists for: If you wait 20 years before accusing somebody of something, the chances that they can prove they were somewhere else at the time are small, and if you refuse to identify exactly when it was supposed to happen, you've guaranteed they won't have an alibi.

So, this is exactly what you would do if you meant to falsely accuse somebody: Put it incident decades in the past, and be vague about when and/or where it happened, to guarantee they can't prove they weren't there. And we're supposed to ignore just how convenient this lack of precision is to the accuser?

Well, I won't ignore it. If you want to accuse somebody of rape, and have me take it seriously, accuse them publicly at the time, file a damned police report, or leave them be. If it wasn't important enough to report to the police at the time, it sure as hell isn't important enough to bring up twenty years later.

[CJColucci]

If you want to accuse somebody of rape, and have me take it seriously, accuse them publicly at the time, file a damned police report, or leave them be.

It's pretty close to certain that no one who claims to be a rape victim cares the least little bit whether Brett Bellmore takes the accusation seriously or not.

[Brett Bellmore]

But I am, still, completely in charge of what I take seriously, and I do not take this allegation seriously, despite the conviction, for the reason I gave.

Yeah, he got convicted. Don't expect me to give a damn under the circumstances.

[David Nieporent]

I assure you that nobody expected you to give a damn about Trump's wrongdoing regardless of the form said wrongdoing took or the strength of the evidence proving it.

[Brett Bellmore]

"3. Two women, both of whom had previously told their stories publicly"

Out of curiosity, how previously? 1996 previously, or 2021 previously? Before or after Trump announced he was running for President as a Republican?

[Sarcastr0]

If you were actually curious, you'd look it up.

But you're not. You'd rather use your telepathy to find more liberal bad faith so you can defend Trump.

Amazing how many people say they don't like the guy, and yet give up all dignity to defend his heinous shit.

[Vryedni]

Does it all come down to who a jury believes in a civil case?

Not all, but yes, assessing credibility is a lot of what juries do. When one side has corroborating witnesses, and the other debunks his own story in his deposition, it’s not a hard call.

[Gandydancer]

It's not a hard call if you hate Trump enough to not care about an absence of actual evidence for an unlikely story.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

In this case it looks like the totality of the evidence against Trump is her words and the totality of Trump’s defense is his words.

When I conducted a moot court program for ninth-graders I expected better than this from those students.

How does the Volokh Conspiracy, as ostensibly legal blog, attract such an . . . . unusual group of commenters?

(Spoiler: by design)

[Vryedni]

What's the evidence they attract these commenters by design?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You publish vile racial slurs habitually, you'll predictably attract bigots.

You offer incessant, cherry-picked, misleading swipes at the liberal-libertarian mainstream, you'll naturally attract downscale, disaffected right-wingers.

You publish a steady stream of Muslim-transgender-drag queen-transgender-white grievance-lesbian-transgender content, you'll purposefully attract roundly intolerant, obsolete, conservative readers.

You focus on gun nuttery, you'll intentionally attract a crowd that can't avoid talking about shooting wars, shooting liberals in the face, race wars, placing mainstream Americans face-down in landfills, civil war, sending people to Zyklon showers, shooting civil wars, hanging people from lampposts, and pushing educated Americans through woodchippers.

You fail to object to nonstop homophobic slurs, calls for partisan violence, racial slurs, misogynistic comments, antisemitic comments, Islamophobic comments, immigrant-hating comments, and the like, you'll signal that your target audience is . . . the audience of this blog.

[Theendoftheleft]

AIDS, you fucking moron. Your own comments PROVE that you’re wholly Islamophobic. You wish to destroy Islam and all other religious faiths!

You pretend that your stupid cultish dogmas are co-terminous, and/or predicated upon, science. They aren’t, at all. When confronted with evidence of this, you NEVER respond on the merits because you can’t!

You’re furthermore part of a totalitarian putsch infecting government, universities, and civil society. You don’t give a shit about basic civil liberties, freedoms of thought, speech, and inquiry. Instead, for years, you have fully adopted the delegitimization strategies of Jacobin France and the Soviet bloc and applied them to both the centre and the right! You think you’re just going to lock out any dissent and free thought, and try to punish non-conformity to your preferred (ever-evolving) speech codes. etc., in private businesses, in the media, in universities, and elsewhere. AND YOU’RE TRYING TO FORCE THIS DOWN THE REST OF THE WORLD’S THROATS. You’re fucking psychos! Even the French government thinks you’re fascists! YOU, not the Trumpians. YOU, not the GOP establishment. You.

YOU are furthermore the enemy of the global secular left, the religious left, the secular right, and the religious right. It’s no wonder that the whole world despises you. (The whole world sees, by the way, that all American media output for the last few years has been wholly dedicated towards propagandizing your identity politics, vomiting out unto the world.)

You’re also driving both your own country, and the Western world, into the ground. You’ve proven yourselves incompetent to lead, incompetent to run important institutions like universities, incompetent to preserve the key norms that make for a free, liberal society.

Like most Americans, you can hide behind vague labels that are used differently in other Western countries. But no one in their right mind should believe you when you claim to defend ‘liberal-libertarian’ values. You’re the antithesis of them, you fucking fascist piece of shit! Who the fuck are you to dictate how people must speak and think, and which words and thoughts are verboten? WHO THE FUCK IN THE REST OF THE WEST, LET ALONE THE WORLD, THINKS FOR ONE SECOND THAT YOU’RE A MORAL OR EPISTEMIC AUTHORITY ON SUCH MATTERS, you boorish, uneducated, ironically intolerant, American pig?

Why, in turn, should Americans sit idly by whilst you try to crush their core norms, police speech codes, impose McCarthyist DEI policies, exclude dissenting views? You’re ruining their homes, their lives, and their society. So why shouldn’t they kill you. YOU ARE EXACTLY THE SORT OF AUTHORITARIAN FOR WHICH THE AMERICAN FRAMERS INCLUDED THE SECOND AMENDMENT. That right exists to help free peoples defend themselves from assholes like YOU. You are an existential threat to the US constitution, and to the free world. The right and the moderates should LIBERALLY exercise their second amendment rights against you with extreme prejudice.

Sic semper tyrannis, AIDS, you moronic asshole. Your totalitarian bullshit will not be tolerated much longer. You don’t deserve to live after the damage you’ve done; so don’t pretend to act all surprised and offended when your fellow Americans and others note how you’re going to be slaughtered. Why should you and your lot be treated any differently from a Mussolini or a Ceaușescu?

[Theendoftheleft]

AIDS, in his imbecility, fails to appreciate that he -- a long-time clinger here -- falls squarely within the class...

[TwelveInchPianist]

In this case it looks like the totality of the evidence against Trump is her words and the totality of Trump’s defense is his words. How does this work out to be “preponderance of the evidence”? How does this work out if both accounts are entirely unreliable ?

The jury gets to assess the credibility of the witnesses, and can find one more credible than the other, based on demeanor or other subjective factors.

[Michael Ejercito]

Considering that the Carroll bitch coukld not even narrowe down the time of the alleged tort to the nearest year, considering the fact that by her own admission, she waited twenty years, the jury failed.

[Vryedni]

Considering that the Carroll bitch

The mask drops.

[David Nieporent]

Why exactly would her having picked a specific year have made it more credible in your eyes?

[Brett Bellmore]

It would have required her to have at least provided him with the theoretical possibility of an alibi. Just a year isn't good enough, though; Who gets raped and doesn't at least make a diary entry or something? It was seared into her memory to the point where she doesn't know when it happened?

This is the same game plan they used against Kavanaugh: Bring an evidence free accusation against somebody, and make it decades ago at on an unspecified date so that they can't prove they were elsewhere at the time. Then count on your partisans to believe you because they hate the target already for being of the opposite party.

Only now they've escalated from simple accusations to legal proceedings brought in places where the jury will be the partisans.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Everyone knew the outcome of this case already.

A Democrat billionaire funded a Democrat d-lister to make accusations in a Democrat district with a Democrat judge and a Democrat jury opened up by a law passed by Democrats in a Democrat state to facilitate this attack on a political opponent.

That’s just how “justice” works these days. Straight along party lines.

That’s why I find it so laughable, and frankly it’s kinda pathetic, to see so many “serious” people pretend our justice system is what it was 100 years ago.

It’s a tool of partisan oppression. Hopefully it’s in the pile of Democrat institutions that gets burned down.

[Vryedni]

What part of the conspiracy was the Democrat jury's finding that he didn't rape her?

[AmosArch]

Thats called overplaying. With this everyday dumb people will read/remember the headlines as ‘Donald Trump found guilty of raping whatsherface’ anyway without the need for extra paperwork and extending the manipulation too far. Already the progs are treating this as vindication that he did in fact rape her.

[Nige]

This is called 'tailoring the narrative to fit the facts.'

[Gandydancer]

What "facts"?

[Nige]

The outcome of the court case, Grampa.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

They found him libel for defamation and violating her rights by defending himself against her rape allegations which they also found him not liable for.

Trump Law! Democrat laws made for one!

[Gandydancer]

The sharp end.

[Nige]

'A Democrat billionaire funded a Democrat d-lister'

Hmmm.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

The confusing part for me is that the pre-verdict headlines I saw said this was a defamation trial because he called her a liar for saying he raped her. Now the verdict comes out and he's innocent of rape yet still owes $5M, and suddenly there's also a sexual assault charge which was not mentioned in the headlines.

I confess I read none of the stories, just saw the headlines. I really don't care much. Trump's an asshole and 30 year old he-said-she-said rape charges are too stale to reach a fair conclusion. The stories would all be too partisan to get any real idea of the situation.

* Can a civil trial find someone guilty of a lesser charge which wasn't in the lawsuit?

* Or was the sexual assault always a possibility and the pre-verdict headlines were just lazy at leaving it out? Heck, I didn't even realize from the pre-verdict headlines that rape was on the table, thought it was just defamation.

[Bored Lawyer]

Go with the "headlines tell you very little" theory. It's a truism. So it's true.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The defamatory comments did not occur 30 years ago. Indeed, they seem to continue to be spouted to this day.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Only in Democrat jurisdictions is it defamation to defend yourself against false Democrat accusations.

[Frank Drackman]

Coach Jerry Sandusky, experienced in getting defamatory comments.

[Mr. Bumble]

I am of the same mind as you as to your questions.
Which learned commentator will venture forth with an explanation.

[Gandydancer]

From the linked Sullum/Reason column: "The jurors notably did not accept Carroll's characterization of her encounter with Trump as rape, which under New York law requires "sexual intercourse," meaning penile penetration."

So why isn't she on the hook for libel for claiming Trump raped her?

I kid, of course. Rape is a criminal act, and crimes aren't prosecuted in a civil trial. What difference it could make in the damages whether Trump supposedly sexually assaulted her or raped her isn't remotely clear. I don't think there could be any relevant liquidated damages provisions.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Just like OJ's civil suit didn't find him guilty of murder?

Lawyerly quibbles don't enlighten anybody.

[Tilted]

From the (November 2022) complaint:

"Trump’s actions constitute sexual offenses as defined in Article 130 of the New York Penal Law, including but not limited to rape in the first degree (§ 130.35), rape in the third degree (§ 130.25), sexual abuse in the first degree (§ 130.65), sexual abuse in the third degree (§ 130.55), sexual misconduct (§ 130.20), and forcible touching (§ 130.52)."

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.1.0_2.pdf

[Gandydancer]

That's the claim, but what difference does it make to the claimed damages?

[Tilted]

I was answering an inquiry re: whether a sexual assault allegation was part of the lawsuit or something the jury came up with on its on.

[Gandydancer]

That's not the question. The question is: Why would the jury judge whether it was rape or assault? That the plaintiff so characterized it doesn't make it a question for a civil jury to settle.

[Tilted]

That may be your question, but it isn't the question I was responding to.

That said, the most direct answer to your question might be: Because the verdict form asked the jury to decide whether Ms. Carroll proved that President Trump raped, sexually abused (if no to the first), or forcibly touched (if no to the first two) her. The jury didn't just decide on its own that it needed to decide such things.

Further, I suppose it's possible that the amount of the civil battery award could be affected by which one of those things the jury found to have been proven. Is the fair compensation for forcible touching necessarily the same as that for actual rape?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Really?

No, a civil trial cannot find someone 'guilty' of a crime. It can however, find that someone's action constituted a crime as a matter of fact, despite not having been criminally charged with it.

Your cynicism aside, perhaps you should read the stories about the case and *then* decide what is partisan or not. If you can't get a grasp on what is currently happening in reality, I assure you that you can't possibly know the future.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Perhaps you can point to a non-partisan news article on this. I don't think there are any.

[Tom for equal rights]

Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf 15 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"The confusing part for me is that the pre-verdict headlines I saw said this was a defamation trial because he called her a liar for saying he raped her. Now the verdict comes out and he’s innocent of rape yet still owes $5M, "

Thats a valid point - the jury apparently did not believe that actual rape accusation, but Trump is liable for defamation/slander of calling her a liar for the accusation of rape. Hmm! Is it really defamation to call someone a liar for claiming something that did not happen?

fwiw, based on Trump's history , most of the accusations are likely credible, though the actual rape accusation seems implausible given the setting (time of day, location, proximity to other individuals etc).

[bevis the lumberjack]

The comment section in this one is gonna be 300 posts of sheer unadulterated hypocrisy. Watching the “impeached for a blow job” crowd celebrating this and the Stormy Daniels indictment while simultaneously watching the “Clinton was a rapist” crowd defend Trump’s behavior would be an epic display of unprincipled American politics in 2023.

This comment will need to be an exhibit in the Smithsonian so future generations can see how things were in this era.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Did some state pass a special law so those others could pursue lawsuits against them 30 years after the fact?

I mean for real. How can you think that’s normal or equivalent?

[not guilty]

"Did some state pass a special law so those others could pursue lawsuits against them 30 years after the fact?"

Uh, yes. New York did (in the case of sexual assaults), provided the suit was brought within the window specified by the statute.

[David Nieporent]

You misunderstood BCD's question. The MAGAts are convinced that New York passed this law special for EJC to sue Trump. It wasn't a general revival statute; it was just to get Trump.

[Michael Ejercito]

What other possible purpose would there be for the statute?

[Nige]

Trump's narcissism is so vast his supporters' narcissism is completely focused on him, too.

[David Nieporent]

What other possible purpose would there be for the statute?

None. The entire world revolves solely around Donald Trump. Before anyone left of MTG does anything at all, from cooking dinner to mowing the lawn to farting, they ask, "What decision can I make that will hurt Donald Trump?"

[Brett Bellmore]

To be clear, I don't particularly care whether they passed this law just to go after Trump, or they had in mind a half dozen different targets.

I think that that restoring liability after the statute of limitations has actually expired is a violation of the ex post facto clause. They shouldn't do it for one person, or one thousand people.

[David Nieporent]

As always: Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be.

[Tom for equal rights]

not guilty 12 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
“Did some state pass a special law so those others could pursue lawsuits against them 30 years after the fact?”

NY passed the "special Law" to capture the multitude of "me Too" claims, valid or invalid depending on ones perspective. I doubt the law was changed to target trump specifically. I would think it was designed to capture the Epsteins, Harvey W, Coumo, etc of the world.

[Sarcastr0]

You are saying your own comment belongs in the Smithsonian?

How Blackmanian.

[Gandydancer]

Clinton didn’t rape Lewinsky (other cases may be different} and wasn’t impeached for a blow job. He was impeached for, among, other things, lying under oath. Which he did.

[Aunt Teefah]

Compromise proposal: Bill Clinton and Donald Trump are both almost certainly serial rapists. Put them both in prison. Hell, make them share a cell.

There’s some bipartisanship that could actually do some good.

[Gandydancer]

You don't convict someone of being "almost certainly" a rapist. You convict them (or not) of committing a certain rape of a certain person on a certain date at a certain time.

Your offer to trade an out-of-the-running past President for a current candidate is crapulous for all the obvious reasons.

Not that I, too, wouldn't like to see Trump gone. I've seen his act and am past tired of it. DeSantis hasn't convinced me, but I want new dice. But that is neither here nor there.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Since I see we are doing the “no evidence” thing again, here are some pertinent excerpts from the pattern federal jury instructions that were almost certainly given to this jury and that are the same as or very similar to the instructions given to the juries in every state.

“The evidence in this case is the sworn testimony of the witnesses, the exhibits received in evidence, stipulations, and judicially noticed facts.”

“Testimony that has been stricken or excluded is not evidence and may not be considered by you in rendering your verdict. Also, if certain testimony was received for a limited purpose—such as for the purpose of assessing a witness’s credibility—you must follow the limiting instructions I have given.”

“It is for you alone to decide the weight, if any, to be given to the testimony you have heard and the exhibits you have seen.”

[Mr. Bumble]

You forgot the special instructions for Trump juries:
You are free to ignore any of these rules and any exculpatory evidence in order to find Trump guilty of something.

[LawTalkingGuy]

They don’t give those. They do give pattern witness credibility instructions however.

[Gandydancer]

Patterns should be given appropriate weight but are no substitute for evidence for specific acts. Here there is none worth noticing.

[LawTalkingGuy]

No. I mean the pattern instructions they give in literally every case.

[Gandydancer]

As a response to "Patterns should be given appropriate weight but are no substitute for evidence for specific acts. Here there is none worth noticing." "No" is not remotely an adequate response.

[Voize]

LTG's "pattern instructions" meant instructions following a pattern or template, not instructions about patterns (of behavior).

[David Nieporent]

Her testimony as to what he did to her is "evidence for specific acts."

[Gandydancer]

Absent other evidence it's weightless.

[Michael Ejercito]

Her testimony does not even rise to the level of probable cause.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do the law professors who attract this audience claim this is a legal blog?

[Gandydancer]

Your continued obnoxious presence certainly doesn't provide any evidence for it.

[Gandydancer]

Testimony with no corroboration or plausibility is no evidence of anything no matter what garbage is in the jury instructions.

[LawTalkingGuy]

That garbage in the jury instructions is and has been the law for forever. In fact, if you’re right about what evidence is, that’s going to be news to a lot of people who are or have been imprisoned over the last 1000 years or so.

[Gandydancer]

You mean the ones convicted on weightless "evidence" who didn't do it? They already found out that that's possible, if they were ever in any doubt.

[David Nieporent]

Testimony with no corroboration is evidence used every day in thousands of lawsuits nationwide. As for "plausibility," that's a question for the jury.

[Gandydancer]

We are perfectly capable of judging the judgment of the jury.

Well, since it requires judgment, you: Not so much.

[Michael Ejercito]

If the Carrol bitch could not narrow it down to the year, it is per se not plausible.

"I saw David Nieporent stab a girl and throw her into the Merced River in Yosemite in the 1990's; I'm not sure what year."

Should a judge issue a search warrant based on that statement alone?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Incels like to use that word a lot.

[Nige]

Make that claim under oath, see how it goes.

[David Nieporent]

If the Carrol bitch could not narrow it down to the year, it is per se not plausible.

Setting aside the misogyny, that's not what the word "plausible" means.

Should a judge issue a search warrant based on that statement alone?

Of course not. A search warrant for what? A judge should also not issue a search warrant based on the statement even if it said, very specifically, "I saw David Nieporent stab a girl and throw her into the Merced River in Yosemite on March 24, 1997, at 1:46 p.m." either. The standard for a search warrant is probable cause to believe that there's evidence of a crime in the place to be searched. It's hard to see how it's reasonable to think there would be any evidence in a location 26 years after a crime was committed.

[Tom for equal rights]

Comparing and contrasting -

In spite of the missing year, most everything about the Carroll accusation seems plausible (except the actual rape accusation)

Nothing in the Ford accusation of the attempted rape by kavanaugh seemed plausible.

[Kleppe]

I doubt this trial will result in anyone who previously supported Trump to stop supporting him. However, I would not be surprised if it results in his supporters turning out at a higher rate than they otherwise would have, as well as donating more. Trump may very well gain two dollars in campaign contributions for every dollar he pays as a result of this case.

[Michael Ejercito]

Two independently dispositive points:

– while not even criminal cases require that the time of the alleged offense be narrowed down to the microsecond, it must, at a minimum, be narrowed down to the nearest year. the Carroll bitch failed to do that. Tjhere is not even probable cause.

– the Carroll bitch only came forward in 2019, at least twenty years after the extremely wide timeframe. Real victims do nto wait that long. Ask Elizabeth Smart.

[not guilty]

"while not even criminal cases require that the time of the alleged offense be narrowed down to the microsecond, it must, at a minimum, be narrowed down to the nearest year. the Carroll bitch failed to do that. Tjhere is not even probable cause."

Where do you get that? The New York legislature waived the statute of limitations for sexual assault for civil suits filed within a specified time after enactment of the waiver statute.

FWIW Donald Trump is not the only defendant to be sued based on decades old allegations. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bob-dylan-sex-abuse-accuser-drops-lawsuit/

[Gandydancer]

It's a shitty law change. Admit it.

[Moderation4ever]

This is the second reference I have seen to Elizabeth Smart and the second is as stupid as the first. There is equivalency between Ms. Smart case and most rape cases. Ms. Smart was kidnapped and her return was a public event. There was no decision on her part to go public, as there must be for most rape victims. If Elizabeth Smart is your standard for reporting rape then your argument is bankrupt.

[Moderation4ever]

Most of the arguments about the case have been made at this site and Reason. Let me make two broad points. First this continues Trump string of loses. Second, we have seen that when woman win cases like this more woman who have experienced sexual abuse by the defendant come forward. I think Trump will likely know how Harvey Weinstein feels soon. I am not sure Trump has the legal exposure that Weinstein had, but he will have the same public exposure.

[Brett Bellmore]

There's certainly a pile on in progress, and the dynamic doesn't even require Trump to be guilty; The more he's found guilty of, the lower the threshold becomes for finding him guilty in the future, given that you don't actually have to prove the event happened, just persuade a jury that it's more likely than not, and they ARE going to take the prior court losses into account.

Eventually they'll just reason that he's a notorious rapist, and hand out automatic wins.

[Moderation4ever]

In a basketball game where your opponents have had a scoring streak, your coach call a time out and resets. Hopefully that helps. Trumps legal strategies are not working, the question is can he take the time out and switch strategies. Keep his mouth shut and let his lawyers talks. He is 76 years old and stubborn as a mule. But the old strategies are not working.

[Brett Bellmore]

Seriously, at his age, he doesn't have enough years left in his life to get a "reset". It's not like he's 30, and can just retire from public life for a decade or two.

On the contrary, he's managed to become the left's WhiteOrange whale, and they will pursue him to Hell's heart and beyond. The pile on will continue until one side or the other is utterly defeated.

[Moderation4ever]

You are referencing Moby DIck but failing to see the former President as Ahab. After the 2020 election many of his staff, supporters, and family saw that accepting the 2020 election was key to his legacy. He could have retired to Mar-a-Lago as the elder stateman. Three of the possible indictments he faces are directly resulting from his failure to accept the election results. In a similar way, he could have ignored Jean Carroll as he has with others. His lose was directly attributed to not his denial of her accusation, but the way he chose to make that denial. Trump has been on a losing streak, and each lose will likely precipitate the next. He goes into the next trial with juries having found him a corrupt businessman and a sexual abuser.

Let me suggest another book "Quit: The Power of Knowing When to Walk Away' by Annie Duke. Trump story would fit right in this book with other examples of people who did not stop themselves in time.