Friends, I may not be the world's biggest fan of Donald J. Trump, but there's no question but that he's been railroaded in the E. Jean Carroll case. A woman who can't even recall in what year the assault occurred accused DJT of raping her. She did so in the context of selling her recently published book. A top Democratic donor took up her cause and bankrolled her. Trump protested his innocence. A New York City jury found him liable for defamation and sexual assault...and now the media and much of the nation considers the matter closed, and a New York judge and jury are forcing Trump to pay Carroll over $83 million because he continues to deny his guilt of an outrageous crime. How did we become a country in which to defend one's reputation and to declare one's innocence is effectively forbidden??? It boggles my mind that our justice system sets such a low value on Trump's right to free speech. It's one thing to find him liable, although that too is absurd, under the circumstances -- it's another thing to muzzle him for life. The BBC says that Trump was convicted by his "peers", but that is a nonsensical claim. The residents of New York City available for jury duty are not his "peers". They are a select group of mostly fanatical Trump haters. If Joe Biden was found liable for, say, Biden family corruption, or the collapse of the southern border, by a jury of his "peers" in, oh, West Virginia or Oklahoma, would Democrats and the media assume so naively that Biden must be guilty, and he should pay through the nose every time he claims his innocence? Of course not. What has been done to Trump in this case is a travesty, and, as we all know, it's the first of many travesties to come in 2024.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68114676
Nicholas, you are being very selective in your analysis here. First, Trump didn't just question his guilt -- he set out to destroy the woman's reputation, calling her everything from being crazy to being a liar to being ugly.
ReplyDeleteIn a "he said, she said" trial, the case is generally decided by the credibility of each side. Carroll had told two friends right after the incident with Trump happened about the assault. Trump claimed he never met her, yet there were photos of him with Carroll and her then-husband. He mistook a photo of his second wife Marla Maples and Carroll for one another. His video deposition showed him in a very bad light.
The finders of fact -- the jury -- found him liable for assault and defamation. Rather than stop defaming Carroll, he continued to do so, while being sued for her for a different case of defamation. This jury decided to send a message with the punitive damages.
It is unlikely that the punitive damages will stay at $65 million. It will probably end up being a quarter to a third of that. But, once Trump appeals, he'll need to put up the previous $5 million judgment, the $18.3 million in compensatory damages, and the $15-20 million in punitive -- about $40 million. I am sure he will try and use campaign funds to cover.
As far as the jury, Biden doesn't have to worry about OK or WV because 1) he has not committed any crimes, but 2) the crimes he has been alleged to have done were not committed in OK or WV. Biden would be tried in DC if he committed any crimes. Trump's crimes were committed in NYC. If he's worried about the juries there, he should not engage in crimes there. Besides, what does it say about Trump that the city that knows him best likes him least?
Dr. Waddy from Jack: We became this kind of country because of the catastrophic rise of the far left and its characteristic corruption of part of a justly evolved legal system to an institution for the forced establishment of totalitarian rule. The 20th century of course offers many examples of this role in its monstrous dictatorships.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: I wonder, if DJT loses the election, will the legal onslaught on him continue apace? I certainly do not mean to minimize the antiamerican left's vindictive outrage at DJT for insolently tasking them and their irrefutable virtue and justice but . . . . ? Should they succeed they would of course hasten to institutionalize this totalitarian outrage but if he is elected, they will have shot the bolt to little avail. He would use the pardon power to right many wrongs. And as for the
ReplyDeleteNY AG's lawless misuse of her elected office in order to work a profound wrong on both DJT and his supporters in the NY state citizenry, good luck on doing that to a sitting President. NYC? Its a unique place. Who can account for whoever they admire or disdain and why should it be considered exemplary of the flyover country which so much of NYC considers the rest of the country to be? Besides, there are no doubt lots of common sense people in NYC who would maintain of him "he says what I want to say!"
Maga and Trump - Abbott for America! Jack
ReplyDeleteDrs. Waddy and Carveth: The principle that when a citizen is taken to law, the trial procedure must be technically sound, is firmly established in our legality. There are myriad examples of verdicts thrown out for violations of this maxim assumed by definition to have caused an unfair trial.The purpose of a principle yet amply demonstrated to have exonerated defendants factually certain to be guilty is to go to sometimes painful lengths to ensure fairness , even at the cost of criminals being excused. Too, we see increasing use of attack on the fundamental fairness of a trial because of ambient factors sometimes held to be definitively unfair: eg. all white juries in trials of minority members. The standards of such doubt are ever evolving through trial and error as it were. Too, there is the always the relevant truth of Slick Willy having escaped his deservings for very serious offenses proven or for which credible evidence went untried , enabled by a Democrat party which went to the wall for him (including ever the harpy Schumer). But DJT is HELD TO IT isn't he! The dem party blatantly expresses and demonstrates consummate and ultimate hatred for DJT in all settings of our public life. The political purposes of dem prosecutors and judges taking him to task is highly suspect and in the cases ,for example, of the DA in Georgia and the NY State AG, unmistakeably political and vindictive.Their purpose is almost certainly to so destroy him by a "legal "
ReplyDelete"death of a thousand cuts" that no reprise of his insolence toward the elect , the elite, the unassailably just, will ever be dared again. NYC is overwhelmingly Democrat. Ehh, isn't a fair trial for him to be doubted there?Where is the passionate concern for "fairness" and "justice"demonstrated by the American left, in this probably coordinated legal onslaught which nonetheless brings to mind the legal sham universally practiced by 20th century totalitarian regimes?!
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Holding a person liable for defamation for denying that he committed an alleged offense reminds me of the trials depicted in films like A Man for all Seasons and those showing the trial of Anne Boleyn. Much very prolix form was followed in condemning the defendants but summary denunciation of the defendants' insolence in raising a defense and in dismissal of their claims was all the defendants were afforded in these already decided procedures. The prosecutors' arguments would not have survived reductio ad adsurdum but this practice, perhaps known to them from the medieval and early rennaissance university, was not available to the accused, surprise, surprise.
ReplyDeleteAgain, denying that he committed an alleged defense was not why Trump was found liable for defamation. Trump also called Carroll crazy, and otherwise "sick." He questioned her motivations by accusing her of lying to sell a book. He suggested she wasn't attractive. He launched a number of attacks on her that were unrelated to his commission of an offense. To focus merely on his denial of guilt is highly misleading as to Trump's actions.
DeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: It was noted on radio today that Biden was accused of a sexual offense, denied it and was not legally tasked further. Oooops! I wonder if he and Slick Willy traded notes.And how about the "ME too" advocates, some of whom demand automatic condemnation of accused men.
ReplyDeleteBiden wasn't pursued because his accuser (Tara Reade) didn't file suit. Carroll did file suit. She was willing to put her reputation on the line in a legal proceeding. Reade was not.
DeleteRod from Jack: But why did Tara Reade not file suit? Perhaps she was subjected to the vicious personal intimidation endured by W. Clinton's accusers.
ReplyDeleteTara Reade accused Biden. What does that have to do with Clinton?
DeleteRod from Jack: In your first comment above you have raised a very plausible counter to the view that DJT was judged simply for having denied the accusation against him and it gives me pause. Has Carroll been similarly personally and publicly derogatory toward him? If so, perhaps he should countersue. Still, I continue to see in the Democrats, who have enabled Carroll, a comprehensive intent to use our legal system to destroy him politically. If her accusation is true, they have reprehensibly misused it for partisan advantage and to feed their disgraceful hatred of him and his supporters.
ReplyDeleteRod from Jack: It has to do with Clinton since it is plausible to consider that Reade may have been threatened and, yes, defamed as were people like Paula Jones and Linda Tripp, no doubt at the behest of partisan Democrats.Some people can endure the kind of morally, mentally , socially and physically debilitating anxiety that personal attack from the very seat of government generates in anyone but many cannot. Its got to be terribly frightening . Its getting to be a reflex on the left and why not, it works, which is all they ask of it.
ReplyDeleteJack, would this harassment be committed by people connected to Clinton, or to Biden? It's possible that Reade felt she was harassed to the point that she didn't want to face the scrutiny that a trial would bring. Certainly, Carroll got pummeled from the right wing media (and is continuing to be).
DeleteRod, I accept your argument that Trump could have presented his case more persuasively, and his lawyers could have served him better, but that doesn't change the fact that the evidence that Carroll can bring to bear is certainly no stronger than that that Tara Reade can muster against Joe Biden, and we all know how the media and the Left and the Democratic Party feel about Tara Reade. Your case and Carroll's rests on one central assumption, which unfortunately half the country buys into: when Trump claims to be innocent of anything, he's presumptively lying, and when, by contrast, someone accuses Trump of wrongdoing, they're presumptively credible. That's not how American justice is supposed to work.
ReplyDeleteJack, I would say that ALL the Trump trials and charges have always been based overwhelmingly on the Left's ongoing fear of Trump as a political threat. The legal onslaught escalated immeasurably as soon as Trump declared his candidacy, and it will reach a crescendo precisely as the 2024 campaign builds to a climax. If he loses, many of the charges may go up in smoke, although I would suspect he'll end up in prison anyway, as an example to the rest of us who might consider defying the powers-that-be. If he wins, I would guess all the lawfare will vanish, but then again if he won and the Left handed over power to him (which I doubt it would) then the measures to hem him in could become incredibly desperate. How that would play out I'm not sure. I suppose the Left could even be distraught and wrong-footed enough to try conciliation? You do catch more flies with honey, or so I'm told...
To Jack's point, I find it doubtful that Donald Trump could receive a fair trial anywhere in America. The passions he stirs, positive and negative, are just too overwhelming.
Rod, how exactly can you refute an accusation of rape WITHOUT defaming your accuser? I mean, yeah, you can be polite about it, but if you deny that the rape happened, you are strongly implying that your accuser is either crazy or evil...
Rod makes a good point: why HASN'T Tara Reade filed suit? She should get to it. Maybe living in Russia is a handicap.
Anyone accusing a prominent politician of assault or rape is going to be harassed by his supporters. That's inevitable, whether or not they file suit. Seems to me that you might as well go all the way and take the matter to trial. The problem, of course, is that, if you can get a sympathetic judge and jury, the sheer number of such trials could become dizzying and even paralyzing to our political system.
Nick, while half of the country will default to believing Trump is guilty, half will automatically default to believing Trump is innocent, even if the evidence is to the contrary.
DeleteAs far as having to defame an accuser when you deny a charge, Trump did not have to question her motives, looks or sanity. He could just deny that he did not engage in any such action. When you do things like say you never met her, and there is photo evidence that you have, it really undercuts your credibility.
One thing has surprised me and it's that there's been little coverage about the poor legal representation that Trump has received. The lawyers, particularly Alina Habba, have made legal error after legal error, and have made it worse by antagonizing the judges. Maybe Trump is trying to appeal due to ineffective assistance of counsel.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Your continuing very plausible concern that the dems may well not turn over power after an election loss makes that in my view a distinct possibility. If they were to fail in this I think it also possible that a sizeable faction of the antiamerican left would choose to abandon its grudging 1972 - decision to work within the hated "system" and go underground, perhaps even turning to terrorism. That would of course sunder the dem party. I think conciliation, except in the most consciously insincere, expeditious and deceptive tactical manner , is unthinkable anathema to the America haters. Perhaps the rump dem party (i.e. those of relatively good will ) would choose to try to rebuild itself into a loyal force. A radio commentator said recently that the lawfare onslaught has proven how very, very much more nasty the dems are than the GOP. If Tara Reade were to excite the vindictive antipathy of the far left by tasking their compliant marionette there would be no place for her to hide. Who knows what else might restrain her; family, illness, financial concerns? Lawfare must be utterly discredited or our politics will become ever more byzantine
ReplyDeleteor gangsterishly chaotic. This would of course be celebrated by the Critical Legal Studies School, which considers our legality to be unjust to the core but which would, if completely empowered, make haste to impose very certain standards, enforced in draconian fashion. Our present lawful Scotus will probably be weighing in on some of the issues raised by this present infamous try at prostituting our legal system for partisan advantage; I think they will turn a gimlet eye on it. Too, a Trump administration, perhaps even further motivated by unlawful antiamerican left tactics this year, would no doubt determine to disable this desperately presumptuous, totalitarian injustice. A GOP Congress probably could be counted on to cooperate in this vital corrective task.
Rod from Jack: I was thinking of the covert harassment probably directed by Hillary Clinton to save her "husband" and her power and suggesting a comparison between that and what might be intimidating Tara Reade now. Apart from advising the far leftists who regretably influence the President so, I wouldn't think the Clintons to be directly involved (for once). Certainly the right wing media is far more powerful than it was when W. Clinton was on the hot seat and it cannot be denied that its overall motives are as political as the MSM. In this though, I think the right wing media has forced a beneficial balance and that is reflected in the advent of some apparently affirmatively balanced news networks now.
ReplyDeleteRod, yes -- the public's reactions to any potential convictions of Trump are mostly baked in. Truth to be told, the election will likely be decided by a small number of voters for whom the Trump trials are a matter of indifference. Maybe a few of them will refuse to vote for a "felon", but what ultimately moves the few "undecideds" can be a lot more complicated than that -- and a lot less rational.
ReplyDeleteIf insulting someone who has charged you with wrongdoing is a crime, or automatically incurs legal liability for defamation -- assuming one is Republican/conservative/has the last name of Trump, and is therefore presumptively guilty of all wrongdoing -- then it seems to me that there is no end to the number of people who can sue Trump, and who can can take a good-sized bite out of his assets.
Jack, I am a lot less optimistic than you are that there is a policy or a legal solution to the problem of "lawfare". The law is always open to subjective interpretation. Prosecutions are always opportunistic and inconsistent. As you point out, what's really at the heart of these efforts is narrow-mindedness, vindictiveness, and meanness. Give legal authority to those who possess these traits, and "lawfare", as well as its counterpart, which is an unwillingness to enforce the law, especially against one's friends and allies, is bound to escalate. These are the symptoms of a democratic polity coming apart at the seams. If Trump wins (a very big "if"), I believe it would be more his style to try to give the Dems a taste of their own medicine than to initiate some vast, principled purge of lawfare from the justice system. Actually, it would be even more Trump's style to talk about doing both and do neither.
Tara Reade (and all those like her) can naturally expect very polarized responses to her accusations. Many will vilify her, and even seek to harm her. Others will praise her, and may seek to reward or protect her. These dynamics apply more or less regardless of the veracity of the allegations, although a credible accuser is obviously more threatening AND more valuable, simultaneously. Bottom line: there are plenty of people out there willing to endure a lot of abuse in return for the financial, psychological, and status rewards that flow from helping to "take down" a prominent politician. There will never be a shortage of people willing to make salacious and outrageous claims, which is exactly why all of them, including Reade's, should be taken with a grain of salt -- and this is also why a jury verdict for or against a particular accuser isn't the last word.
Nick, it's not just insults. An insult in and of itself is not defamatory. To win at defamation, the plaintiff must show the statement was false, that the statement was damaging to the victim's reputation, and that it demonstrated reckless disregard for the truth. That's what the jury found.
DeleteDrs. Waddy and Carveth: But isn't it also necessary, in order to complete the tort of defamation, for the defendent to have demonstrated intent to wrong or harm the plaintiff instead of defending himself by discrediting the plaintiff.? Is established intent to harm the defendent rather than to seek of him "being made whole"not a ground for failure of the suit or of consequent countersuit by the defendent? The hyperbolic personal antipathy toward DJT amply and publicly displayed by the Democrats certainly must be considered a major fault in any legal effort against him enabled by Democrats, yes?
ReplyDeleteRod, I might argue, based on that standard, that pretty much every lefty who talked nonsense about Trump-Russia collusion owes The Donald a great big check -- and I can talk about it all I like, because it's just hot air until Trump brings a successful lawsuit against a leftist who lives in a sufficiently red area. He ought to, and I'm not sure why he hasn't. Bottom line: civil lawsuits are all about what you can get a given jury to believe. The truth is VERY secondary.
ReplyDeleteTwo things here. First, according to the criteria set out in New York Times v. Sullivan, Donald Trump is a public figure. The bar for him to win a libel or defamation suit would require him to basically have a memo from the defendant saying "I am saying these things in order to destroy Trump's reputation." E. Jean Carroll was not a public figure, so the bar for her to prove defamation was lower (that Trump showed a reckless disregard for the truth).
DeleteSecond, the Mueller investigation sought to see if the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government, not Russia. There were plenty of instances of collusion with Russians, just not specifically Russian government officials. So, even if the public figure standard did not trip up Trump, those who claimed Trump colluded with Russia in 2016 likely would win as truth is an absolute defense against libel.
What??? Trump colluded with "Russia", just not the government? Then, by that logic, Christopher Steele and his dossier colluded with "Russia" too, insofar as some of his sources were Russian. Gimme a break. Trump was the target of endless and grossly irresponsible accusations of treachery, based on nothing more than unverified claims that you lefties chose to believe because, well, you ALWAYS believe the worst about your enemies on principle. And E. Jean Carroll isn't a "public figure"? Her book deal would seem to suggest otherwise.
ReplyDelete