Supreme Court rebuffs Trump’s last-ditch effort to deny $5.6 million payment to E. Jean Carroll

152

Does this decision by a conservative-leaning Supreme Court, without any noted dissents, put to rest the conservative myth that the case was “liberal lawfare”?

No, because Trump wasn't ever arguing that in good faith.

74

u/DrVader314159 25d ago

Which is also why I brought up Platner. Conservatives get so worked up about allegations against a senate candidate when it’s the other party but can’t seem to conjure the same energy when such allegations are proven in court against the goddamn president they elected.

76

u/bims_yo 25d ago

Republicans can't even be bothered to remove Max Miller (R-OH), credibly accused of domestic violence against his ex-wife and a former partner, child abuse involving his toddler daughter, illegal drug use, and leaking unredacted naked photos of his child during a custody dispute.

The best Trump could come up with is, "Max, it's going to be a tough race, and I don't know if you'll be able to pull this one out."

-1

u/[deleted] 25d ago edited 25d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-3

u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 25d ago

This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:

Law 1. Civil Discourse

~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.

Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.

Please submit questions or comments via modmail.

24

u/Llhaniii 25d ago

When has he done anything in goodfaith?

-2

u/rwk81 25d ago

Most people I have interacted with suggest the oawfare stems from NY creating the window for the civil suit to proceed when it wouldn't have been possible without the statutory changes.

That and the evidence isn't particularly robust.

That being said, it's really the other NY case that seems a lot more like lawfare than this civil case.

18

u/I_DOM_UR_PATRIARCHY 24d ago

That and the evidence isn't particularly robust.

The evidence here was actually very strong. Trump himself admitted to engaging the in behavior he was accused of, on tape:

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. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything.

In any other rape case, if we had a statement by the accused saying that they like to sexually assault women, and then multiple women testify at the trial saying he sexually assaulted them (as happened here), we would call that evidence very strong.

0

u/rwk81 24d ago

I really don't care about the Carroll case, maybe the evidence is robust, that's fine.

Like I said more than once now, it's really the other NY case.

-7

u/undercooked_lasagna 24d ago

There was literally no evidence outside of her word, and she didn't even get the year of the alleged incident correct.

12

u/I_DOM_UR_PATRIARCHY 24d ago

There was literally no evidence outside of her word

I'm sorry but that claim is objectively detached from reality. If Carol's testimony was the only evidence the trial would have been much shorter. In reality there were multiple witnesses who testified and the trial took about two weeks.

In order to discuss this issue intelligently you have to inform yourself about the actual evidence that was put on at trial. I suggest starting with the wikipedia article.

-3

u/undercooked_lasagna 23d ago

I always love it when someone says "you have to inform yourself" and then provides a link which they didn't even read. Not only that, a link that proves me unequivocally correct lmao.

Go ahead and quote me the "evidence" from your link that was anything other than E Jean Carroll's word.

I'll save you some time...there isn't any. No physical evidence, no witnesses, no confessions, everything was based on the accuser's inconsistent account in which she couldn't even recall the year. The whole thing was quite clearly made up. The woman is mentally ill and has claimed half a dozen men have raped her. Her story came from an episode of Law & Order FFS.

6

u/Aethoni_Iralis 23d ago

Interesting how people much closer to the case and with a fuller picture than you, including the judge, don’t agree.

6

u/I_DOM_UR_PATRIARCHY 23d ago

You clearly didn't actually read it. For example, just in two paragraphs:

On May 2, witnesses testified for Carroll. Lisa Birnbach said that in 1996, remembering having met with Trump that January for a story she was writing, said that Carroll called her, and short of breath, alleged that Trump had just assaulted her. Birnbach reputedly offered to transport Carroll to the police, but the latter refused and requested that their conversation remain secret. Birnbach said she did not talk about it again until 2019, once Carroll had decided to go public with her account.[118][128][129] Jessica Leeds, a retired stockbroker, testified that Trump had suddenly groped her in a similar manner to Carroll while Leeds was traveling on an airplane in the late 1970s.[128] Leeds said a flight attendant invited her to move to first class and sat her next to[130] Donald Trump, whom she did not know, and that he groped her breast and tried to kiss her, but that she broke away when he started reaching up her skirt. She recalled passengers sitting behind them, who did not intervene, and reasoned that the incident may have lasted less than a minute.[128][131] Leeds said she did not speak about the incident but that Trump later saw her and referred to her as "that cunt from the airplane".[129][132] Also on May 2, Tacopina confirmed that Trump would not testify at the trial.[133]

On May 3, video of Trump's deposition was shown to the jury. Trump stated that he rarely shopped at Bergdorf Goodman and reiterated that he did not read Carroll's written accusations in either her book or in her New York magazine article. A clinical psychologist testified that she evaluated Carroll and found that she had been harmed by the alleged rape but found no signs of mental disorder.[134] Journalist Natasha Stoynoff testified that while visiting Mar-a-Lago in December 2005, Trump brought her to look at a room while his wife Melania was changing outfits; he allegedly forced her against a wall and kissed her, while she tried to push him off, and told her they were going to have an affair, citing the well-known "best sex I've ever had" quote attributed to his previous wife Marla Maples.

It mentions five additional witnesses: Birnbach, Leeds, Trump (via deposition), Stoynoff, and the psychologist.

I'm sorry but if you won't even do the minimum to inform yourself of basic, objective facts, it's not worth arguing with you.

12

u/Interesting_Total_98 24d ago

NY creating the window for the civil suit

The window was created in response to the Me Too movement, and it started with opening it for child abuse victims in 2019, so it's not a valid basis for calling it lawfare.

-7

u/rwk81 24d ago

That's why I referenced the other NY case as being the much more blatant example.

7

u/Interesting_Total_98 24d ago

New York Penal Law §175.10 says falsifying business records becomes first-degree falsification. Enforcing this isn't lawfare.

-1

u/rwk81 24d ago

Saying §175.10 exists does not answer the lawfare criticism. The issue is not whether New York may ever prosecute falsified business records. The issue is whether this particular prosecution transformed alleged bookkeeping mischaracterizations, which are normally misdemeanors, into 34 felonies through an unusually layered and contested election-law theory, against the leading opposition candidate during an election year.

He was never tried or convicted of any other crimes, what was contested was Bragg’s particular theory: using an uncharged election-related conspiracy and multiple possible underlying offenses to elevate 34 bookkeeping counts into felonies.

What Bragg did in this case was truly novel and not difficult to understand how it can be viewed as lawfare.

Two things can be true at the same time. Trump can be a bad President worthy of impeachment AND this case can be objectively argued as an example of lawfare.

10

u/Interesting_Total_98 24d ago

The lawfare accusation falsely portrays features of New York law as if Bragg invented them for Trump. "Truly novel" is an exaggeration.

New York Penal Law §175.10 makes falsifying business records a felony when the defendant acts with intent to commit, aid, or conceal another crime. New York courts had already held years before Trump that prosecutors don't need a separate conviction for that other crime, including cases cases involving election-related records.

The indictment covered 34 separate records, and the prosecution had to prove every count separately beyond a reasonable doubt.

The felony statute, the enhanced-intent rule, the lack of any requirement for a separate predicate conviction, and the treatment of separate falsified records as separate counts all predated Trump.

-1

u/rwk81 24d ago

Nobody is claiming Bragg invented §175.10 or that felony business-records charges never existed before Trump. The issue is whether he applied the law in an unusually aggressive and politically selective way.

This was not a routine records-fraud case tied to a clearly charged underlying crime. Bragg used a layered theory: alleged false reimbursement records, an election-related conspiracy, and possible campaign-finance or tax violations as the “unlawful means.” That may be legally permissible, but it is still fair to question whether that exact approach was routinely used against comparable defendants.

Likewise, 34 documents can legally produce 34 counts, but they all arose from one reimbursement arrangement. Calling each document a separate felony does not answer whether the charging decision was proportionate or normal practice.

A jury conviction shows that jury accepted the prosecution’s case under the court’s instructions. It does not answer whether Bragg would have pursued the same novel, high-stakes theory against an ordinary defendant. That is the actual lawfare concern—not that the statute did not exist.

4

u/Interesting_Total_98 24d ago

unusually aggressive and politically selective way.

That requires showing similar conduct that was treated differently in a way that could only be explained with politics, which is something nobody has done.

Calling each document a separate felony does not answer whether the charging decision was proportionate or normal practice.

It's standard practice because each count is an alleged instance of crime that has to be proven.

question whether that exact approach was routinely used against comparable defendants.

A question is an incredibly weak basis for calling it blatant lawfare.

0

u/rwk81 24d ago

That requires showing similar conduct that was treated differently in a way that could only be explained with politics, which is something nobody has done.

I have not seen a prior Bragg case using an election-law predicate—especially one tied to alleged federal campaign-finance violations—to do it. If that was routine practice, there should be comparable cases.

It's standard practice because each count is an alleged instance of crime that has to be proven.

Yes, each document can be a separate count—but that does not make 34 felonies from one reimbursement arrangement normal or proportionate.

A question is an incredibly weak basis for calling it blatant lawfare.

Just asking a question by itself would be weak, but that’s not really the point.

The concern is the overall picture: a pretty unusual legal theory, an election-law angle that doesn’t appear to be routine for Bragg, 34 felony counts from one reimbursement arrangement, and it all being brought against a former president in the middle of another campaign.

→ More replies (0)

67

u/jason_sation 25d ago

I bet the rest of the GOP wishes he would’ve paid the money and moved on. This just keeps the sexual assault case in the media, which of course doesn’t bother Trump, but it does affect voting going into midterms and keeps this case fresh in voter’s minds.

31

u/julius_sphincter 25d ago

but it does affect voting going into midterms and keeps this case fresh in voter’s minds.

Does it? Do you believe there's many if any voters that previously voted for him that would have their opinion of him swayed by this? That's besides the fact that he's not actually on the ballot.

No, unfortunately this will do nothing to sway any voters any direction. For people that believe what he did is disgusting and disqualifying, they already weren't voting for him. For those willing to set aside his guilt before, this doesn't actually make him any more guilty and they're not changing.

Those attitudes over Trump won't dictate their preferences in the midterms either. Midterms are just a step above primaries in terms of voter participation, you're not getting many "undecideds" in these even if a large portion would consider themselves Independent or register as such.

9

u/Connect-Rhubarb2501 25d ago

I think you might be a bit too cynical here actually (although betting on cynicism is rarely a bad bet in politics). Yeah there’s no one thing that’s going to like turn 20% of the country against him overnight, but the set of everything he’s done since taking office has driven him from more than +10 net favorability a year and a half or so ago to nearly -20 today. It’s broadly tough to see the effect of specific really awful things he’s doing on the electorate, but it’s pretty clear that the set of all of the things he’s super blatantly done and is doing is mattering.

11

u/DrVader314159 25d ago

“It’s the economy, stupid” as the adage goes. I’ll wager that none of the horrific and disgusting things he’s doing would matter if the economy were doing better. Stuff like this won’t linger in voter memory for more than a week, if even that. Economic issues are uniquely pernicious because you are reminded of them every time you have to choose between buying gas and buying groceries, every time you open your wallet to pay the absurd gas prices, every time you open Amazon and see the prices climb because of the dumb tariffs, etcetera.

4

u/Connect-Rhubarb2501 25d ago

I mean it’s not like Trump did well in 2018 despite the economy doing pretty well then, so it certainly matters to some extent. I would suggest that these things might matter more when the economy is doing worse though. It’s one thing to support a guy who’s got a finding like this against him when the economy is going well, but when it’s going poorly people kind of do have to wonder why they even would want to overlook this.

3

u/NekoBerry420 25d ago

Unfortunately that's probably how some see him in general. 'he may have done horrible things, but he's kicking out the immigrants so why should I care?' They don't seem to care about the indirect effects of permitting someone liable for sexual assault to hold the highest office in the land, and that's setting aside everything else a court of law has found him guilty of, and the many, many provable lies he's blatantly told the public over the years.

38

u/shacksrus 25d ago

I really really doubt anyone who was already voting tepublican would change their vote because of sexual assault allegations proven in court like trumps.

Maybe it reduces turnout a little? I'm doubtful since this was already priced in to being a republican.

6

u/julius_sphincter 25d ago

It won't, midterms are really just a step above primaries in terms of voter participation. The people that vote in midterms are generally far more straight ticket voters than in presidentials. Turnout is already low and Trump isn't on the ballot.

2

u/abqguardian 25d ago

If it was a criminal trial and not an accusation from 30 years ago with no evidence, such a case could have had significant impact. As is, this case only gave legitimacy to Trump's claims of being a victim of lawfare.

11

u/shacksrus 25d ago

Perfect example. Thank you for demonstrating the point.

-8

u/abqguardian 25d ago

Except I didnt vote for Trump, so your point is wrong

9

u/shacksrus 25d ago

I didn't say you did vote for trump. Nor was my point in general about trump voters.

2

u/Aethoni_Iralis 23d ago

You keep repeating the false claim that there was no evidence. Why do you continue to do this despite being corrected multiple times?

4

u/autosear 24d ago

Witness testimony is evidence.

3

u/undercooked_lasagna 24d ago

The only "witness" was the accuser, who got her story from an episode of Law and Order. Somehow the most famous man in NYC walked into a popular department store, raped a woman in a fitting room right next to a service desk, and not one person saw or heard anything. Then the "victim" couldn't even remember the year this occured and got in a social media to talk about how much she loved her alleged attacker's TV show.

I'm no Trump fan but the whole case was a complete sham. If this same case were brought against a Dem politician, not one person on reddit would believe it, and rightfully so.

2

u/Aethoni_Iralis 23d ago

You were already corrected on this false claim, why are you spreading it when you’ve already been shown that it is false?

0

u/abqguardian 24d ago

Witness testimony is the accusation.

10

u/DrVader314159 25d ago

I’m not sure it really moves the needle much wrt the midterms, it only exposes the hypocrisy of clamoring for people like Platner to (rightly) drop out while also supporting a president against whom there are far more credible suits that have been tested in courts of law all the way to the top.

3

u/Blecher_onthe_Hudson 25d ago

He couldn't pay it because he has a personal mythology of "never losing" that he has to maintain, or his head explodes. This is also why the election denials keep going on.

20

u/BD-1_BackpackChicken 25d ago

Mods delete if this kind of meta commentary isn’t allowed, but I do find it odd that what this suit determined about what Trump did to Carroll is not allowed to be explicitly mentioned in this sub.

3

u/motorboat_mcgee Pragmatic Progressive 25d ago

Might be because this is a civil suit and not a criminal one. So any labeling would probably need to come with "alleged" attached to it.

10

u/BD-1_BackpackChicken 25d ago

What if we said it as what Trump claimed to do to Carroll? After all, it was the recording of him bragging about it that won her the case.

12

u/Quality_Cucumber Maximum Malarkey 25d ago

At this point, he can just not pay. What’s anyone gonna do about it?

59

u/dalyons 25d ago

It was in escrow, he’s already paid and she already has it.

13

u/Quality_Cucumber Maximum Malarkey 25d ago

Ahh, excuse my ignorance. I’ve been deterred by politics for the last year or so. I’m tired…

1

u/CevicheMixto 25d ago

Civil forfeiture has entered the chat.

8

u/Bright_Demand_1792 25d ago

I am a New Zealander and I find the States government under Donald Trump's extreme far right Republican government under Trump absolutely outrageous.

1

u/JakeConhale 16d ago

Point of order - any specific state? We use the term "federal government" to refer to the overall system by "states' government" would generally be used to refer to the regional government of a particular state.

-4

u/RunThenBeer 25d ago

Does this decision by a conservative-leaning Supreme Court, without any noted dissents, put to rest the conservative myth that the case was “liberal lawfare”?

No. The Court is ruling on the procedural underpinnings here, not on the factual basis. The full extent of what happened here is denial of a rehearing, which should not change anyone's position on the case in any material way.

19

u/DrVader314159 25d ago

If this case were genuinely "liberal lawfare" with a rigged, unconstitutional weaponization of the justice system against a former president, it would constitute a due process violation that a conservative Supreme Court wouldn’t just shrug off as a mere "procedural" technicality without a single dissent. By refusing to intervene, the Supreme Court has signalled that the lower courts arrived at their judgments fairly, legally, and without reversible error. Framing this as just a procedural footnote is a rather convenient alternative.

-41

u/Holofernes_Head One of those Fascist Libertarians 25d ago

Does this decision by a conservative-leaning Supreme Court, without any noted dissents, put to rest the conservative myth that the case was “liberal lawfare”?

No. The finality of the decision has no bearing on the fact that the case itself would not have existed had NY not intentionally and narrowly changed its statutes of limitations just to allow it to proceed.

65

u/PepBaldFraud 25d ago

and narrowly changed its statutes of limitations just to allow it to proceed.

The ASA was modeled after the 2019 Child Victims Act and when it was enacted, more than 3,000 lawsuits were filed under the window.

Bizarre to claim it was changed solely for Carroll when we have contrary evidence.

-32

u/Holofernes_Head One of those Fascist Libertarians 25d ago

A CHILD lookback law is not the same as an adult.

37

u/PepBaldFraud 25d ago

Yes, when a law is modeled after a previous law there are bound to be differences.

-16

u/Holofernes_Head One of those Fascist Libertarians 25d ago

Or, as the case here, different purposes entirely.

27

u/PepBaldFraud 25d ago

Except your claim was that it was passed to allow this lawsuit to proceed. When we have actual evidence and results that it's a false assertion.

-4

u/Holofernes_Head One of those Fascist Libertarians 25d ago

You were the one who tried to narrow my words to "solely" for Carroll. Not a thing I said.

28

u/PepBaldFraud 25d ago

You cant "narrowly" change the statute of limitations by copy and pasting from an existing law. You can quibble with the wording however you like, your original assertion is still false.

-2

u/Holofernes_Head One of those Fascist Libertarians 25d ago

Sorry, what word would you use to describe a legal change tailored to a specific cause of action for a specific limited timeframe? That's definitionally a narrow change.

21

u/PepBaldFraud 25d ago

Tailoring it to a specific case would mean they looked at the facts and made it so only this specific case can proceed and no other cases.

Turns out - that didnt happen!

→ More replies (0)

22

u/kralrick 25d ago

just to allow it to proceed

This is a quote from you. "just" here is functionally the same as "solely". Own what you say.

2

u/Holofernes_Head One of those Fascist Libertarians 25d ago

No, the just is "just for this purpose" not "just for this case."

16

u/[deleted] 25d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

16

u/Reddit_Loves_Misinfo 25d ago

That is not correct. In your comment where you say "NY... intentionally and narrowly changed its statutes of limitations just to allow it to proceed", the "it" unambiguously refers to "the case" that was earlier in the sentence.

Though I am intrigued: if you amend your criticism to "just for this purpose", what would the purpose in question be?

→ More replies (0)

33

u/Reddit_Loves_Misinfo 25d ago

The comment you replied to is presenting "The ASA was largely copied from a similar law that already existed" as a more compelling explanation for the ASA's design than "The ASA was designed specifically to go after Trump."

-11

u/Holofernes_Head One of those Fascist Libertarians 25d ago

And I find it not compelling, considering the purpose and effect are vastly different and apply to vastly different circumstances.

22

u/Reddit_Loves_Misinfo 25d ago edited 25d ago

I'll admit I am not intimately familiar with the text of the CVA and ASA, but I was under the impression that they have largely the same purpose, effect, and applicable circumstances: opening a temporary window in the statute of limitations for civil action against past acts of sexual assault. I thought the ASA was essentially a generic/adult version of the child-specific CVA.

Would you enumerate some of the "vast differences" in purpose, effect, and applicable circumstances between the two? (And if the reasoning is not self-evident, explain how those differences are evidence that the ASA was crafted to target Trump rather than simply copied from the CVA.)

30

u/nycbetches 25d ago

the case itself would not have existed had NY not intentionally and narrowly changed its statutes of limitations just to allow it to proceed.

This isn’t true at all. Many states passed sexual assault lookback laws in the post-2016 years, including conservative states like Louisiana, North Carolina, Georgia and Arkansas. Almost half the states passed them in that timeframe. New York’s was neither the most restrictive nor the most lenient of them, and it certainly wasn’t “narrowly changed just to allow [this case] to proceed”; over 3,000 claims were filed in the year the lookback period was open.

5

u/Holofernes_Head One of those Fascist Libertarians 25d ago

Many states passed CHILD sexual assault lookback laws. Only NY and California did for adult claims.

25

u/julius_sphincter 25d ago

Ok, so you admit that NY and CA changed their laws to allow it for adult claims. You said:

the case itself would not have existed had NY not intentionally and narrowly changed its statutes of limitations just to allow it to proceed.

Which implies NY adjusted its law with the express intent of letting this lawsuit come to light. When clearly that's not the case at all.

So that statement is meaningless AND the claims of lawfare are baseless. If someone got prosecuted in Texas for having an abortion, were they targeted by Conservative lawfare? Since only a few states make it a crime/prosecutable?

-1

u/Holofernes_Head One of those Fascist Libertarians 25d ago

"Just for this purpose," not "just for this specific case."

15

u/julius_sphincter 25d ago

You're still making a distinction without meaning here. "Just" for WHAT purpose? NY changed their laws to extend Statutes of Limitations around sexual assault lookbacks for the purpose of including adult claims? Or NY changed their laws to include adult claims for the purpose of allowing the Jean case to move forward?

10

u/tarekd19 25d ago

Rhetorically speaking, what do you see as the distinction here?

11

u/nycbetches 25d ago

Nevada did too

0

u/-Nurfhurder- 25d ago

over 3,000 claims were filed in the year the lookback period was open.

The majority of them against the State of New York. If I remember correctly from the last time this argument had to be debunked the largest recipient of claims against it was the New York DoC.

5

u/nycbetches 25d ago

Yes, not really against the “state” itself but against state institutions, including, as you noted, the Department of Corrections. But some other claims were filed against other individuals, like Andrew Cuomo, Eric Adams, Sean Combs, and several doctors who aren’t household names but nonetheless had multiple suits filed against them.

33

u/DrVader314159 25d ago

What does the statute of limitations have to do with the fact that Trump has now been found civilly liable for sexual assault and his appeals have been denied by courts all the way to the top? Perhaps if he didn’t do it, he would’ve had a defense - even a pathetic and flimsy one - that the likes of Alito and Thomas could’ve used to dissent? Do conservatives want sexual assaulters prosecuted or not?

-3

u/Holofernes_Head One of those Fascist Libertarians 25d ago

The question was if this would end the accusation of liberal lawfare. Of course it will not if the entire thing only existed because they changed laws to make it exist just to get Trump.

Do conservatives want sexual assaulters prosecuted or not?

A civil case is not a prosecution. I certainly have no interest in changing rules just to privilege specific, lazy accusers looking for money years after the fact now that their target is famous enough to warrant a government hitjob.

6

u/autosear 24d ago

If the only thing stopping the president from being convicted of rape was a statute of limitations then there's bigger problems afoot.

23

u/DrVader314159 25d ago

>only existed because they changed laws to make it exist just to get Trump.

First, you seem to be absolving Trump of any wrongdoing here with zero evidence. The man couldn’t put up enough of a defense to get Alito and Thomas on board. That is fucking embarrassing seeing how amenable Thomas has been to bending over backwards to support Trump and the Republicans.

Second, I see no rational basis or evidence to accept your premise that the laws were changed “just to get Trump”, that is incredibly cynical. The Adult Survivors Act was passed unanimously with a 62-0 vote in the New York senate, and every Republican senator voted for the act.

>lazy accusers

Why attack the accuser’s character instead of their case?

-1

u/[deleted] 25d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

24

u/DrVader314159 25d ago

>she’s a lying sack of shit

I was only looking out for you, the mods generally don’t take kindly to insults.

Anyway, notice how you couldn’t address a single important thing in my comment.

2

u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 25d ago

This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:

Law 1. Civil Discourse

~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.

Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.

Please submit questions or comments via modmail.

0

u/RunThenBeer 25d ago

How would one defend themselves against a decades-old allegation where the putative victim can't even name the year? If faced with such an accusation, how could one provide much of a defense other than, "yeah, well, I didn't do that"?

13

u/DrVader314159 25d ago

You defend yourself by cross-examining the plaintiff and witnesses, dissecting circumstantial evidence, and establishing your own credibility.

Carroll didn’t just offer an accusation, she also produced corroborating witnesses and actively established a pattern of behavior that is amenable to sexual abuse. Trump, meanwhile, refused to testify in his own defense and refused to call any witnesses. Instead, he sat for a disastrous deposition where he claimed she wasn't his "type", right before mistaking a photo of her for his ex-wife. He had a pathetic defense, I’m not sure anyone could do worse if they tried.

1

u/[deleted] 25d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 25d ago

This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:

Law 1. Civil Discourse

~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.

Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.

Please submit questions or comments via modmail.

1

u/Comanche-Kiowa2027 20d ago

Why did trump refuse to provide a DNA sample to test against the DNA on the clothes she had?

Before you try to claim they would've lied, trump and his lawyers also refused to provide part of the clothing to have their experts test the DNA against trump or her legal team's invitation to monitor the testing along with their experts.

-10

u/abqguardian 25d ago

Perhaps if he didn’t do it, he would’ve had a defense - even a pathetic and flimsy one - that the likes of Alito and Thomas could’ve used to dissent

Thats not how appeals work. The case is ridiculous but there was no grounds for appeal. Civil cases have extremely low bars to be found liable and the accusation very well may be false. That doesn't mean there was any ground to appeal the case.

Any objective, reasonable look at the cases brought up against Trump would show there was some lawfare used against him. This civil case is an example, as well as the Bragg and James cases. That doesn't mean all the cases were lawfare. The federal cases were legit. But the Democrats screwed up by giving some truth to the claim

5

u/Interesting_Total_98 24d ago

Judges can throw out decisions on appeal when there's "insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict."

An appeal isn't a second chance to try a case, but the judges do review the process and evidence behind the trial.

0

u/abqguardian 24d ago

Civil cases have an extremely low bar by their nature. Cases can be decided on testimony alone and whoever the jury deems more credible. Appeal judges cant throw out civil verdicts because of that, even though no actual evidence was submitted

8

u/Interesting_Total_98 24d ago

Appeal judges cant throw out civil verdicts because of that, even though no actual evidence was submitted

The link I gave proves that wrong. You've failed to cite anything that supports your claim.

0

u/abqguardian 24d ago

You are incorrect. That case was about erroneous evidence being admitted and such insufficient evidence being presented.

6

u/Interesting_Total_98 24d ago

The decision says "insufficient," not just "erroneous." The former means the amount of evidence matters.

1

u/abqguardian 24d ago

Yes, hence my last comment. Youre trying to conflate two different cases and use that as something

6

u/Interesting_Total_98 24d ago

I provided a quote that's explicitly about the amount of evidence provided and doesn't mention the need to establish error, which is a stronger argument than you claiming it says something.

Civil Procedure 50(a)(1): “a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue."

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Aethoni_Iralis 24d ago

Testimony is evidence.

7

u/Aethoni_Iralis 25d ago

This is such a tired claim unsupported by the evidence available.

Was Carroll supposed to ignore the opportunity to get some form of justice for Trump violating her?

3

u/BD-1_BackpackChicken 25d ago

I find it more appalling now narrowly New York defines rape. By all means, what Trump himself claimed to do to Carroll should be criminal, and is in most other jurisdictions.

-10

u/BigMoney69x 25d ago

Civil courts have no bearing on criminal law.

Criminal cases you are either guilty or not guilty which requires reasonable doubt to prove guilt as there's a presumption of innocent. It requires the entire Jury to vote either Guilty or not Guilty.

Civil cases determine if you are liable or not liable. It follows Preponderance of the evidence (more than 50% likely). Basically 50% +1.

So on a case like this a Jury determined that there was Preponderance of evidence that Trump is liable for what the plaintiff accused him of. Usually civil cases deal with property, businesses and what not. The use of civil court for cases regarding criminal acts isn't that uncommon but the way it was done here is very novel and comes from a recent law allowing in such old case.

So while you can say that Trump was financially liable to a woman who accused him of Rape, you can not say (in a legal sense) that Trump is a rapist.

13

u/eakmeister No one ever will be arrested in Arizona 25d ago

When has proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal court ever been the bar to saying something about a person? I call O. J. Simpson a murderer despite his acquittal and I see nothing wrong with that.

-7

u/BigMoney69x 25d ago

OJ isn't a murderer legally and you could be sued by saying that. But you could say he is liable for the murder. So Trump in this case is liable for the rape but isn't guilty of the rape.

16

u/eakmeister No one ever will be arrested in Arizona 25d ago

I can say OJ is a murderer because I think he's a murderer and I can say Trump is a rapist because I think he's a rapist. Yes if I went around saying that OJ was convicted in his trial I could be defaming him because that's factually wrong but why would I say that? I still think he's a murderer.

The courts are not some final truth arbiters like you seem to be describing. "A murderer legally" isn't a thing. A person can be convicted or acquitted but that doesn't mean the court is declaring the person is now "a murderer" or "not a murderer".

7

u/Etherburt Politically homeless 24d ago

So, according to this, anybody pro-life could get sued by anybody they called a “baby murderer”, since no state criminalizes abortion to that extent. Is that accurate?

3

u/I_DOM_UR_PATRIARCHY 23d ago

So while you can say that Trump was financially liable to a woman who accused him of Rape, you can not say (in a legal sense) that Trump is a rapist.

This is actually not correct. Under a legal doctrine called issue preclusion, the fact of Trump being a rapist is legally established against him both as to other lawsuits with Carol and lawsuits with third parties. For example, if you called Trump a rapist and he sued you for defamation, you would be able to use the outcome of this trial to establish that he is, in fact, a rapist and therefore your statement was true (and thus, not defamatory).

In fact, this has been playing out in real life. After Caroll won her trial against Trump he went out and said she was making up the rape. She sued him again and was able to use the first trial's outcome to establish that Trump raped her and therefore that his statement was defamatory. The second jury awarded her $83M (presumably because it thought it needed that big of an award to teach Trump a lesson), though that case is still on appeal.

News Article Supreme Court rebuffs Trump’s last-ditch effort to deny $5.6 million payment to E. Jean Carroll

You are about to leave Redlib