New York Democrats opened the hunting season on Donald Trump on November 24, 2022 (CNN describes how the law was changed to open a one-year window with no statute of limitations for sexual assault) and E. Jean Carroll has now won $5 million despite no precise memory of when the life-changing attack occurred and no evidence that she and her defendant were ever in a store at the same time (New York Post).
The judge allowed multiple other survivors to testify about what they suffered at the hands of Donald Trump. What stops additional plaintiffs from coming forward, calling the survivors that E. Jean Carroll called at her trial and also E. Jean Carroll herself, and winning $millions? How tough is it to say “I also was at Bergdorf Goodman at some point in the mid-1990s, plus or minus 5 years, and was attacked by Donald Trump”?
Reid Hoffman, the LinkedIn founder who funded Ms. Carroll’s lawsuit, could himself claim to have been raped, for example. From the NYT:
To make the testimony more credible to a jury of nine Democrats, a plaintiff could assemble some friends and/or family members to testify that the survivor told them about the rape 30 years ago (plus or minus 5 years).
Related:
- “Reid Hoffman apologizes for funding a group that allegedly spread misinformation in Alabama Senate race” (MSNBC): “AET funneled money to a project that used a Facebook page where people pretended to be conservatives. Participants in the project used language to divide actual conservatives, encouraging them to write in a candidate to divert votes from Republican Roy Moore, who had been accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women.”
- “LinkedIn billionaire Reid Hoffman visited Jeffrey Epstein’s private island, planned to visit NYC mansion” (New York Post)
- Brogan v. United States, in which the Supreme Court held that saying “I didn’t do it” is itself a crime, separately punishable (Trump lost $3 million for “defamation” by denying that he raped the plaintiff)
- Department of #BelieveWomen… “She Wrote of Grief After Her Husband Died. Now She’s Charged in His Murder.” (New York Times): “Kouri Richins wrote a children’s book to help her three sons process their father’s sudden death, she said. Prosecutors said this week that she poisoned him with a lethal dose of fentanyl.”
Here’s video of totally-believable EJC recalling the details of the “rape”:
https://twitter.com/alx/status/1653866336609607683
Nothing sexier than being raped by a pack of n****s. Too bad for her it’s just an orange man bad.
You’re not correct Phil — there was evidence of the rape — her testimony. What you probably mean is corroborating evidence. But there was corroborating evidence — the testimony of her friend that she called right afterwards to tell the friend the details of the encounter. There is also the Donald’s “grab them by the pussy” statement which could be interpreted as “locker room talk” (his interpretation) but could also be interpreted as his view that women are pieces of meat to be pawed as one chooses. The lack of a “precise” memory could be held against the plaintiff but the jury didn’t. I mean I could tell you that I was in Rome, Italy in the spring of 1987 but couldn’t tell you precisely when. Should my lack of precision be held against me? The lengthening of the statute of limitations is a better issue as is the defamation claim — which will likely be reversed on appeal. I don’t know if the lengthening of the statute of limitations after the incident took place is a good grounds for appeal.
Fact check! According to the paper of record, the total context is (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/donald-trump-tape-transcript.html):
Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. 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.
Bush: Whatever you want.
Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.
Emphasis on “they let you do it“.
jdc: If you think that Democrat jurors in New York were and should be persuaded by the Access Hollywood tape, that supports the idea of people getting together to mine out Donald Trump with copycat lawsuits. As noted above, “a plaintiff could assemble some friends and/or family members to testify that the survivor told them about the rape”. If there is no need for physical evidence, credit card receipts, cell phone location records, etc., then each of these projects should be a slam-dunk. (The survivor and the corroborators can split the $millions.)
jdc said:
> there was evidence of the rape — her testimony.
If I can find someone who will say “jdc raped me” for a shot at 5 million dollars, would it be reasonable to say “I have evidence jdc is a rapist”?
The Access Hollywood tape was recorded off the record in a tour bus. My estimate is that 2/3 of American men and women have said worse things than that (yes, girls are good at that kind of talk as well when they are not in public).
Technically, jdc is right about the plaintiff’s testimony. It is, of course evidence. It becomes a “fact” when the “factfinder”, jury in this case, merely believes her evidence.
The friend’s testimony, most likely, cannot be accepted as evidence because it’s a herasay. I may be wrong on that one because hearsay rules are rather convoluted in some cases. Maybe it can be used as evidence of “emotional distress”, but not of what actually occurred, if at all.
Imagine yourself on a jury. Watch this video of a mom who says that her husband died “unexpectedly” and see if you’d infer that she was lying: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12061621/Utah-author-book-grieving-death-charged-murder.html
“There is also the Donald’s “grab them by the pussy” statement which could be interpreted as “locker room talk” (his interpretation) but could also be interpreted as his view that women are pieces of meat to be pawed as one chooses.”
That was simply a factual statement – that men have a much easier time attracting women when they are rich. That is not a controversial concept.
“He said participants stated they wanted to find someone like themselves — a socially acceptable answer. But once the sessions began, the men went after the more attractive women and the women were drawn to material wealth and security, setting their standards according to how they viewed themselves.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-dating-study/men-chase-beauty-women-money-when-picking-a-mate-idUSN0323405520070904
“Women are more likely to find men attractive if they think they have a bulging wallet, a new study has found – but for men it’s still all about the looks. The study suggests that women are four times as sensitive to salary when considering a male partner as men are when choosing a female partner. … Mr Speakman told The Times that if men want to attract women with such techniques they should splash the cash around them. He said: ‘This potentially explains a previous study that showed men give more money to charity when women are watching them than when other males are watching.'”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5238247/Women-really-fancy-rich-men-more.html
Obama always said if you like grabbing them by the pussy you can keep grabbing them by the pussy!
Now that E. Jean Carroll has won $5 million, what stops hundreds of other plaintiffs from mining out Donald Trump? Nothing! The reason she didn’t pick a date was so Trump could not have an alibi.
TS: That’s a great point. Being hazy on the exact date makes it much tougher on the defendant and, apparently, does not lead to credibility problems with New York Democrat jurors.
According to the “expert” talking heads on MSM, the reason Trump lost this case is because of his own statements, such as the “grab them by the pussy” as one example. There is no hard evidence or witnesses to back E. Jean Carroll allegation. Furthermore, this is a civil case, so the jurors are not required to look at this case as “beyond a reasonable doubt” and you only need 10 jurors to convict.
While I disagree with Trump on many things, especially his public mouth (he is not your typical snake oil, smooth-talker politician) I find this verdict very troubling. I don’t remember reading about any other high-profile civil hearing ending with a similar verdict when there is no hard evidence. If this is how civil cases will be rendered moving forward, then America has lost one of its most fundamental identities. Or those juries are so dumb, dumb, and reflect what America has become.
Looks like easy money in NYC are in targeting Trump with civil lawsuits. Damn, I probably have been to NYC while Trump was there as well.
Here is a good article about venture capital co-opting social movements from 2019:
https://thetech.com/2019/10/03/liberal-outrage-white-supremacy-epstein
Instead, the university establishment remained focused on cultivating its own progressive image. Seven months after MBS’s visit (merely weeks after Khashoggi’s murder), in November 2018, the Media Lab held its second annual “Disobedience Award” ceremony, funded by Silicon Valley mogul Reid Hoffman. The same people who hosted MBS were now presiding over a celebration of “dissent.”
Receiving a mark of “disobedience” from venture capitalists, in a setting resembling the “Billionaires’ Dinners” that Epstein regularly attended, is no feat of social justice. It is a transaction that elevates powerful donors who co-opt the language of social movements.
As a man with 3 daughters, this post and comments is repugnant. So is Donald Trump. I have enjoyed the blog (mostly) for years, but philg’s recent bitter turn is too much. I’m gone.
Bye Bye Dumb Dumb!
If the Old Testament warns about false accusations (Potiphar’s wife and Joseph) it is fine. Virtuous people cite it.
If philg does the same, he is “bitter”.
Related: https://time.com/5831100/joe-biden-tara-reade-allegation/
As a brother of two sisters, I can tell that sexual blackmail and molestation are much more common then what most of us think. Especially that of beautiful women in academic settings, it is almost a commonplace (at least it was 20, 30 years ago, nowadays I do not know). It is repugnant. But in civilized societies, we have presumption of innocence in legal system, and even most repugnant crimes must be proven. Non adherence to those principles, especially for obvious political reasons, helps no woman, and is repugnant itself.
Donald is betraying sexism by mentioning “daughters”. My question was not gender-specific. A plaintiff identifying as a “man” or any other gender ID could just as easily claim to have been attacked as could a plaintiff identifying as “female”. (And I don’t think that Reid Hoffman, my example plaintiff, identifies as a “woman”.) Why does Donald imagine that people who start out as “daughters” are more likely to pursue this avenue of financial success?
@Donald, will you be leaving CNN, ABC, NPR, and other liberal news media too? What about reality TV or very much any TV show such as Bachelorette, The Voice, America Got Talent, or very much any other TV sitcom show? They all present women and girls as sex objects, some far, far worse than others.
What about leaving the USA for our government telling all those lies about foreign affairs, not delivering on promises or tacking corruption from within, spending beyond its means, elective officers being suckers, letting our infrastructure and education system crumber way behind other nations, and so on and so forth?
I am far more afraid about how our nation is being governed than Philip truing bitter. At least on this blog, I get to read some constructive thinking and criticism vs being fed “politically correct” narratives.
Smug male superiority beats out trial by jury? Disappointing that you believe it, but good (for others) that you put your arrogance on display, I guess.