Jury finds that Donald Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll in civil case

[Torie]

Alan Dershowitz's essay of the day appeared in my morning's in box.

"It is also hard to reconcile the jury’s finding that he did not rape her with its finding that he maliciously defamed her by essentially saying that he did not rape her. 

'Accordingly, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to which this case will be appealed, will have its work cut out for it. There will be other substantial issues as well on appeal. They include the extension of the statute of limitations, after it had already expired, which allowed the plaintiff to bring a quarter-century-old case. This may well constitute denial of due process as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. Other appellate issues will include the judge’s strange ruling that the names of the jurors will remain anonymous even to the lawyers, thus denying them the ability to research them and determine whether any hidden biases may have existed. This may violate the defendant’s constitutional right to trial by jury guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment."

The bolded bit had popped into my own mind immediately after I read the verdict. That is just weird.

The denial to the defense's attorneys to do research on the juror's is troubling under the American law (in Britain they have no voir dire of jurors at all),  as well as the reanimation of criminal exposure after a statute of limitations has expired.

Dersh thinks it more likely than not that this verdict will be reversed on appeal, and from what I know as a non expert in the field, I agree with him.

The Bragg indictment against Trump is problematical too. The hunt for the case that will really nail Trump remains a work in progress.

I don't think it's hard to reconcile the jury's findings. Trump he said he never even met her. Not that he sexually assaulted her but did not penetrate.

But how do you find that Trump was defaming her by denying he raped her, when the jury found that he did not rape her? That is the conundrum Dersh was discussing.

[emailking]

Because he said a whole lot more than just he didn't rape her. And I don't think he even said that.

[Inmate Trump]

Has Fuzzy commented yet about Trump being a sexual abuser?

He comments so much about Biden being immoral, I must believe he’ll be highly disappointed in Trump.

[afleitch]

Has Fuzzy commented yet about Trump being a sexual abuser?

He comments so much about Biden being immoral, I must believe he’ll be highly disappointed in Trump.

Only one blue avatar has posted here. Calling it a 'nothing burger.'

[Landslide Lyndon]

Alan Dershowitz

I stopped reading right there.

[Torie]

Because he said a whole lot more than just he didn't rape her. And I don't think he even said that.

Here is what she said:

""I am here because Donald Trump raped me, and when I wrote about it, he said it didn't happen," Carroll said on the stand. "He lied and shattered my reputation, and I am here to try to get my life back."

[Torie]

Alan Dershowitz

I stopped reading right there.

Not your type?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Alan Dershowitz

I stopped reading right there.

Not your type?

Definitely.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/30/alan-dershowitz-controversial-trump-impeachment-argument/4618461002/

Also, I wouldn't quote approvingly in a case of sexual assault the guy who defended Jeffrey Epstein, got him a slap on the wrist, wrote a letter defending Ghislaine Maxwell and has spoken out against age of consent laws.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

But how do you find that Trump was defaming her by denying he raped her, when the jury found that he did not rape her? That is the conundrum Dersh was discussing.

C'mon Torie.

You are smart enough to understand the difference between a jury finding that someone did not commit rape and a jury not finding that someone committed rape. The former is a finding that it was sufficiently proven, the latter is a finding that it wasn't. The finding that something was not sufficiently proven is not a finding that it didn't happen, although of course it does mean that it may not have happened.

https://www.npr.org/2023/05/09/1174975870/trump-carroll-verdict

The nine jurors, who deliberated for barely three hours before reaching their unanimous conclusion, did not find that Trump raped Carroll.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/05/e-jean-carroll-verdict/674001/

A jury, after fewer than three hours of deliberation, concluded that the former president had sexually abused and defamed the writer E. Jean Carroll, though jurors also concluded that her accusation of rape wasn’t proven.

If I were on a jury, I would treat that difference with care, as I am confident you would too.

The various news reports seem to make clear which of those 2 possibilities the jury found, unless you are trying to say that they are misreporting.

[emailking]

Because he said a whole lot more than just he didn't rape her. And I don't think he even said that.

Here is what she said:

""I am here because Donald Trump raped me, and when I wrote about it, he said it didn't happen," Carroll said on the stand. "He lied and shattered my reputation, and I am here to try to get my life back."

I'm not seeing an issue here.

Also I've heard other legal experts say that his appeal is actually weakened because they did not find him liable for rape, because it shows the jury probably carefully considered the evidence and did not rule against him just because he is Trump.

Trump very clearly said the entire incident never happened, that he doesn't even know who she is, that she's mentally ill for saying this happened at all. That's the defamation.

[Hermit For Peace]

Score one for the women in America. Sometimes they need to be listened to without accusing them of "asking for it."

[Torie]

But how do you find that Trump was defaming her by denying he raped her, when the jury found that he did not rape her? That is the conundrum Dersh was discussing.

C'mon Torie.

You are smart enough to understand the difference between a jury finding that someone did not commit rape and a jury not finding that someone committed rape. The former is a finding that it was sufficiently proven, the latter is a finding that it wasn't. The finding that something was not sufficiently proven is not a finding that it didn't happen, although of course it does mean that it may not have happened.

https://www.npr.org/2023/05/09/1174975870/trump-carroll-verdict

The nine jurors, who deliberated for barely three hours before reaching their unanimous conclusion, did not find that Trump raped Carroll.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/05/e-jean-carroll-verdict/674001/

A jury, after fewer than three hours of deliberation, concluded that the former president had sexually abused and defamed the writer E. Jean Carroll, though jurors also concluded that her accusation of rape wasn’t proven.

If I were on a jury, I would treat that difference with care, as I am confident you would too.

The various news reports seem to make clear which of those 2 possibilities the jury found, unless you are trying to say that they are misreporting.

The above is an heroic effort to find daylight between the two where I don't think any exists. If the jury found it more likely than not that Trump did not rape (which must have happened since Trump was found to have committed but an assault short of rape), then how it nevertheless found it more likely than not that Trump defamed her by denying he raped it per her testimony on the stand, would be a challenge for even the most talented of "philosophers" to square.

In due time, the court of appeals will help us all work through this.

[TheReckoning]

Has Fuzzy commented yet about Trump being a sexual abuser?

He comments so much about Biden being immoral, I must believe he’ll be highly disappointed in Trump.

Only one blue avatar has posted here. Calling it a 'nothing burger.'

This will have no impact on the political situation of the USA. Hence, it is a nothing burger.

[emailking]

This is one of the statements they found was defamation.

This “Ms. Bergdorf Goodman case” is a complete con job, and our legal system in this Country, but
especially in New York State (just look at Peekaboo James), is a broken disgrace. You have to fight for
years, and spend a fortune, in order to get your reputation back from liars, cheaters, and hacks. This
decision is from the Judge who was just overturned on my same case. I don’t know this woman, have no
idea who she is, other than it seems she got a picture of me many years ago, with her husband, shaking
my hand on a reception line at a celebrity charity event. She completely made up a story that I met her
at the doors of this crowded New York City Department Store and, within minutes, “swooned” her. It is a
Hoax and a lie, just like all the other Hoaxes that have been played on me for the past seven years. And,
while I am not supposed to say it, I will. This woman is not my type! She has no idea what day, what
week, what month, what year, or what decade this so-called “event” supposedly took place. The reason
she doesn’t know is because it never happened, and she doesn’t want to get caught up with details or
facts that can be proven wrong. If you watch Anderson Cooper’s interview with her, where she was
promoting a really crummy book, you will see that it is a complete Scam. She changed her story from
beginning to end, after the commercial break, to suit the purposes of CNN and Andy Cooper. Our Justice
System is broken along with almost everything else in our Country. Her lawyer is a political operative
and Cuomo crony who goes around telling people that the way to beat Trump is to sue him all over the
place. She is suing me on numerous frivolous cases, just like this one, and the court system does nothing
to stop it. In the meantime, and for the record, E. Jean Carroll is not telling the truth, is a woman who I
had nothing to do with, didn’t know, and would have no interest in knowing her if I ever had the chance.
Now all I have to do is go through years more of legal nonsense in order to clear my name of her and her
lawyer’s phony attacks on me. This can only happen to “Trump”!

It's not just "I didn't rape her."

[Torie]

Thanks for the quote. I was looking myself for the texts of what Trump said. The problem for me is that the plaintiff said on the stand her stress came from trump denying that he raped her, not that he never met her, never assaulted her, etc. My take is that the jury badly wanted to bag Trump despite the fact that they did not believe that he raped her by the preponderance of the evidence.

How that plays out upstairs remains to be seen. It is not my specialty.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

The above is an heroic effort to find daylight between the two where I don't think any exists. If the jury found it more likely than not that Trump did not rape (which must have happened since Trump was found to have committed but an assault short of rape), then how it nevertheless found it more likely than not that Trump defamed her by denying he raped it per her testimony on the stand, would be a challenge for even the most talented of "philosophers" to square.

In due time, the court of appeals will help us all work through this.

I am pretty surprised that you say that tbh. It is true that it was a civil case, so there was a lower standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt) than would have been the case in a criminal case, but that doesn't mean there is no difference between "not guilty" and "innocent." The Jury did not find Trump was "innocent" of the alleged rape with a preponderance of the evidence, the jury found that Trump was "not guilty" of the alleged rape.

I didn't follow the details of the case, but I can easily imagine some hypothetical jurors may have thought something like this:

"Trump may well have done it and probably did. But since it was a long time ago, we really don't have clear evidence, and I am not entirely sure. I wouldn't want to tar Trump with something as consequential as being a rapist if I were not quite sure (even if still short of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' since this is a civil case)."

If that was the thought process, it would be quite reasonable for a jury to find that it wasn't sufficiently proven, even if they thought he maybe or probably did it. I can imagine thinking something like that myself if I had been on the jury.

[Badger]

Alan Dershowitz's essay of the day appeared in my morning's in box.

"It is also hard to reconcile the jury’s finding that he did not rape her with its finding that he maliciously defamed her by essentially saying that he did not rape her. 

'Accordingly, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to which this case will be appealed, will have its work cut out for it. There will be other substantial issues as well on appeal. They include the extension of the statute of limitations, after it had already expired, which allowed the plaintiff to bring a quarter-century-old case. This may well constitute denial of due process as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. Other appellate issues will include the judge’s strange ruling that the names of the jurors will remain anonymous even to the lawyers, thus denying them the ability to research them and determine whether any hidden biases may have existed. This may violate the defendant’s constitutional right to trial by jury guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment."

The bolded bit had popped into my own mind immediately after I read the verdict. That is just weird.

The denial to the defense's attorneys to do research on the juror's is troubling under the American law (in Britain they have no voir dire of jurors at all),  as well as the reanimation of criminal exposure after a statute of limitations has expired.

Dersh thinks it more likely than not that this verdict will be reversed on appeal, and from what I know as a non expert in the field, I agree with him.

The Bragg indictment against Trump is problematical too. The hunt for the case that will really nail Trump remains a work in progress.

Oh come on Torie. Appellate courts in Heavenly rule along the lines of whose Ox got gored for these type of inconsistent verdicts. I don't buy it'll be reversed.

[Joe Republic]

Has Fuzzy commented yet about Trump being a sexual abuser?

He comments so much about Biden being immoral, I must believe he’ll be highly disappointed in Trump.

Only one blue avatar has posted here. Calling it a 'nothing burger.'

This will have no impact on the political situation of the USA. Hence, it is a nothing burger.

What does that tell you about your party?

[Sol]

Important point:

https://twitter.com/GBBranstetter/status/1656629123480010752

[Landslide Lyndon]

Important point:

https://twitter.com/GBBranstetter/status/1656629123480010752

That's the same point we were making after the 2016 election when the New York Times were saying that Hillary Clinton should shut up and learn knitting.

[the artist formerly known as catmusic]

It's just good to see Trump found guilty of something honestly. He's a f-ing creep and I hope this makes a difference. Probably won't but, hopefully a few more people couldn't take it anymore and won't support him.

[GP270watch]

Important point:

https://twitter.com/GBBranstetter/status/1656629123480010752

 He's not even denying the assault really, just being made accountable for it. He called it "hanky panky" and even said in the deposition that "stars" have had the right to force themselves on women for "millions of years".

[emailking]

He's denying it. Hanky panky is his description of her story. He says he never met her outside of the photo.

[GP270watch]

He's denying it. Hanky panky is his description of her story. He says he never met her outside of the photo.

 He said he never met her and then was confronted with a photo and changed his story. He said she was unattractive and he wouldn't rape her because she's not his type and then when shown a photo of E. Jean Carroll he identified her as Marla Maples, then when this was pointed out he said the photo was "blurry"

[emailking]

Oh he's lying for sure.