Jean Carroll's Libel Lawsuit Against Donald Trump for His 2019 Statements Can Go Forward

From Judge Lewis Kaplan's opinion today in Carroll v. Trump (S.D.N.Y.):

This is a defamation case brought by writer E. Jean Carroll against President Donald Trump, as he then was, for statements Mr. Trump made in June 2019 shortly after Ms. Carroll publicly accused him of sexual assault. In those statements, Mr. Trump denied Ms. Carroll's accusation, stated that he "has no idea who this woman is," and suggested that she fabricated her accusation for ulterior and improper purposes, including to increase sales of her then-forthcoming book in which she discusses having been sexually assaulted by Mr. Trump and other men.

In a second and very closely related case ("Carroll II"), Ms. Carroll sued Mr. Trump for the alleged sexual assault itself and for defamation based on a statement that Mr. Trump published on his social media platform in October 2022 that was substantially similar to his June 2019 statements. That case was tried in April and May 2023. The jury unanimously found that Mr. Trump had sexually abused Ms. Carroll and defamed her in his October 2022 statement. It awarded Ms. Carroll a total of $5 million in compensatory and punitive damages: $2.02 million for her sexual assault claim, and $2.98 million for her defamation claim.

In this case ("Carroll I"), Ms. Carroll seeks damages and other relief for defamation for Mr. Trump's June 2019 statements only. The matter now is before me on Mr. Trump's motion for summary judgment dismissing the action on four grounds:

1. Trump is entitled to absolute presidential immunity
2. Trump's statements were not defamatory per se and Ms. Carroll cannot establish special damages
3. the majority of Trump's statements were nonactionable opinion
4. Carroll consented to Mr. Trump's allegedly defamatory statements. He argues also that punitive damages in any case would be unwarranted on Ms. Carroll's defamation claim.

His arguments are without merit….

Roberta Kaplan, Michael Ferrara, Shawn Crowley, Trevor W. Morrison, Matthew J. Craig, and Joshua Matz (all of Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP) represent Carroll.

Comments

[AmosArch]

Wow I guess 5 million isn’t enough. Gotta beat the golden goose some more.

I’d let Trump (or Biden) grab my genitalia for a fraction of the amount you’re apparently allowed to milk from this.

What a racket the modern sex accusation and alimony industry is. Its like a gigantic infinite bag of money you can poke at any time you want if you don't have any morals. But I suppose women are still the oppressed disadvantaged sex somehow.

[Estragon]

“I’d let Trump (or Biden) grab my genitalia for a fraction of the amount you’re apparently allowed to milk from this.”

LOL! Bookmarking for posterity. What fraction? 1/10?

[AmosArch]

Yeah sure. Plenty of harder ways to earn 500k-1.5 million bucks.

[Estragon]

See— but you’re willing. So, it’s worth less. I bet you could get 1-5k though.

[AmosArch]

It doesn’t work that way, except maybe in the world of sex crime law due to simping for feminists.

If I stole a single grape from the grocers they shouldn’t be allowed to arbitrarily inflate the damages to 10 billion dollars simply because they personally hate me and wouldn’t want to part with a grape when it comes to me specifically.

[Nige]

Amos seems confused as to whether he wants to be the victim of sexual assault or a sex worker.

[Bored Lawyer]

Give credit to Winston Churchill for that one.

“Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?"
Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... "
Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"
Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!"
Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.”

Some attribute this story to George Bernard Shaw.

[Nige]

'I’d let Trump (or Biden) grab my genitalia'

If she'd *let* him this wouldn't be happening.

[AmosArch]

How do you know she didn’t let him? Were you there watching them when it supposedly happened?

[Nige]

Wasn't there a whole court case about that?

[AmosArch]

Which didn't do anything but take the accuser's word for it which is the default 'solution' modern western society has adapted to solve the problem that sex assault cases inherently are difficult to prove or even show strong evidence either way.

[Nige]

I'm sorry Trump is now a sex offender, that must be difficult for you.

[jimc5499]

You really don't have a clue, do you?
It was a BS Civil trial that the New York State Government waived the Stature of Limitations to harass Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

The jury found Trump did a sex crime to a lady. This really has you put out. You should think about what the fuck is wrong with you that you're going to ignore this.

And also wrong - the statute of limitations change was not waived, it was the Adult Survivors Act, passed in the wake of #MeToo, and no sign it was aiming at Trump. Plus a separate defamation claim you have also ignored.

[Estragon]

I believe “groped her?? I hardly knew her!” Was the defense

[Brett Bellmore]

So, I'm confused: Exactly when did this attack she recalls so vividly, and her friend so helpfully recalls her immediately calling her about, happen? I don't need the exact hour, a day would be good enough.

[Nige]

Do you? Well how nice for you. I'm sure heaven and earth will be moved to clear up youtr confusion.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett working hard to find ways to discredit a victim of sexual assault, despite a jury.

You don't need to be like this.

[Purple Martin]

"I’d let Trump (or Biden) grab my genitalia for a fraction of the amount you’re apparently allowed to milk from this."

There's an old joke that seems applicable here. I believe the punch line ends:

...now we're just haggling over price.

[RhymesWithRight]

You are, of course, willing to let him do it. Ms. Carroll was not. That's the difference.

[RhymesWithRight]

Every judge in every Trump case should have the line "His arguments are without merit." set up as a macro in their word processing software.

[Bored Lawyer]

They have law clerks for that.

[AmosArch]

This is a defamation case. The bag is being “poked at” again because there’s an additional alleged defamation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This wouldn’t have gotten nearly the mileage it has if it didn’t involve sex. Still a lot of mileage given it involves trump but not as much.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most men aren’t on tape boasting of going up to and grabbing women’s crotches. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I guess if you’re ever recorded bragging how you got something ‘for a steal.’ anywhere anytime in your life that automatically proves you robbed an orphanage in galveston texas in Sept 11th 1990 3:45:23PM if the management decides to accuse you after being bribed specifically to do so with a huge payday and incentivized further with the possibility of tens of millions of additional dollars.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump wasn't doing an idiom in that quote.

He also was like the worst witness to ever be deposed in the original case. I guess you didn't really look into that; huge chip on your shoulder about women got in the way?

[Nige]

'if it didn’t involve sex.'

Hey, that's on Trump.

[AmosArch]

If you call grabbing genitalia gay porn sure.

[AmosArch]

I don't think saying you grabbed a pussy automatically equates to rape, I think plenty of consensual relationships have genitalia grabbing. But I suppose you know better being psychic and all.

[David Nieporent]

He also was like the worst witness to ever be deposed in the original case.

"I've never seen this person before. Also, she's not my type. Also, that picture of her where she's standing right next to me looks to me just like my ex-wife."

[David Nieporent]

I don’t think saying you grabbed a pussy automatically equates to rape,

Which is perhaps why the jury didn't find him liable for rape, but only sexual abuse.

[Bored Lawyer]

The point here is that, whatever it was, it was not consensual. Which makes Trump a Grade-A human waste disposal orifice.

[Bored Lawyer]

In the other thread, someone, not you, commented that it was not credible that Trump was only boasting that he had secret plans (the "Bravado Defense" aka the "I Make S--t Up Defense") when he reference the Iran-invasion docs.

Trump is a serial liar and BS-er. He lies as easily as most of us saying Good Morning. Whatever at the moment he thinks will make someone impressed with him or get him something he wants. His life experience is that he can BS his way out of anything, including citations to his prior statements. (Note how may times his companies were in bankruptcy, and how many time he still convinced investors to give him money.)

So, yes, it is entirely plausible that Trump was BS-ing when he told someone he had secret plans to invade Iran. Also entirely possible that he is lying now to save his sorry behind, as he has done 10,000 times in his life. Which the jury believes remains to be seen. But in Trump's case, "I Make S--t Up" is an entirely truthful statement in general, even if not in its particular application.