The jury in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case against Donald Trump has been kept anonymous. This is to keep Trump's vengeful MAGA hordes from terrorizing them.
But now that the trial is over the jurors are free to do whatever they want. However, it's appropriate that on the 50th anniversary of Cher's "Dark Lady," the judge basically gave them this warning:
My advice is that you leave this place
Never come back and forget you ever saw my face
Don't worry about me. I'm just amusing myself.
But while we're on the subject, it's also sort of amusing to watch Trump in court. It's like an irresistible force meeting an immovable object. Trump's schtick is to act like an absolute monarch of old, the man who sets the rules and never, ever backs down. But courts are one of the few places in America that really do have absolute monarchs. Judges are allowed—nay expected—to rule their courtrooms with an iron fist, and that means even Trump has to bend the knee.
So who wins in this contest of wills? Inside the courtroom, the judge. Outside the courtroom, Trump. Time will tell which ends up being the most important.
Trump is a jerk but you know.. he hasn't been proven to be a rapist, not even for a civil trial. This is a perfect example of a NY jury. I'm not even MAGA.
There's no evidence or corroboration that Trump even knows ms. Carroll.
At trial, several women testified to being groped by Trump, that's not evidence that Trump raped ms. Carroll.
ms. Carroll's friend recall having been told at the time about the alleged assault. This too is not evidence or corroboration. An example of corroboration would be someone who saw something. Hearing of the complaint is not evidence or corroboration of the complaint.
"There's no evidence or corroboration that Trump even knows ms. Carroll."
Except that picture...
"Hearing of the complaint [at the time of incident] is not evidence or corroboration of the complaint"
It is evidence the complaint was not fabricated later.
Boo Tucking Fad for Fatso. He's been Mafia-ing everyone in his vicinity for 77 years. Time for a little score settling from the Universe.
The jury (and judge) who heard the case certainly disagreed with your conclusion.
But, gosh....what do they know? I am definitely going with what random guy on internet thinks about this one. He knows best. He always knows best.
Sometimes juries get it wrong....but thankfully random guy on internet never gets it wrong. We are all thankful for the deep knowledge and overwhelming analysis put forward by random guy on internet who isnt even MAGA.
There was a judgement, that is the legal proof. Simple as that, jury trial, finding of law. Blithering on further is utterly besides the point (whether factually grounded or not, quite beside the point for this last judgment). He does not get a do-over on his first loss.
This judgment is with respect to defamation - in the end Trump had merely to comport himself within the bounds of common decency, but he could not contain himself. Or comport himself reasonably in the court room - getting up and walking out in front of jury, anyone of a reasonable control of own-self should know this is a bit of self-harm when you are in jury trial about disrespect and legal defamation.
So now 83 mln USD pain.
It wasn't "rape" on a technicality: he jammed his hand into her, not his nasty bits.
That goes well beyond "groping." Consider your own feelings if, say, some prominent Democrat did the same to your little girl.
It would probably have been difficult to find a witness inside the dressing room with them. Ms. Carroll provided many details that made her claim believable.
Trump had the opportunity to testify and deny that it happened. Or that he knew her. He chose not to, so Carroll's testimony was unrefuted. Without a contradiction, the jury believed her.
Trump is on tape bragging about how he loves to grope women's genitalia without asking. He thinks it's his right because he's a "star."
Countless women, including Carroll, say he did just that to them. In the exact same way Trump bragged about.
She told her friend about it.
Trump said she wasn't his type, insinuating she's too ugly to rape. Then, he thought he was looking at a photo of his wife, who he thought was pretty enough to marry.
There are two conclusions to find with this info:
1. Donald Trump is a fucking rapist. You support a rapist, you fucking creep.
2. You're so fucking stupid and deluded that you think you can convince normal people to go along with you and also be creeps who support a fucking rapist.
In short, you're a stupid fucking creep.
How can a trial be considered 'fair' if your accuser can't even give us a timeframe for the alleged incident? That's not fair to the accused. That's not fair at all.
If a timeframe is presented, then the accused MIGHT be able to offer a rebuttal.
A rape trial, even a civil trial should not be decided by testimony. Juries are extremely imperfect creatures, letting them decide who's 'believable' is meaningfulless.
Only actual evidence should be determinative. REAL evidence, or physical evidence, or testimony from people who saw something.
Your opinions and what Common Law and centuries of evidentiary rules are not the same thing, rather simple as that.
Unlearned assertions about what should be are fairly boring.
Why are some people against the justice system?
Because they're against the restoration of justice?
Why are some people against the restoration of justice?
Because they're benefitting from injustice.
QED
She gave a timeframe, she just didn't remember an exact date.
You apparently are unaware of how trauma and memory work. I can give you details about each of the three times I was sexually assaulted by my classmates in junior high school. I could not give you a date for any of them, or which floor of the school I was on for one of them.
right; most people have been in car accidents but they can't tell you the exact date
but that doesn't mean it didn't happen
Yep. My brother was in a car accident where he was thrown through the windshield and knocked unconscious. That was more than 30 years ago. He'd have a hard time telling you the exact date, but we have a hospital admission record, x-rays, and a funeral announcement for his friend who was killed in the accident. Pretty sure it happened.
Thing is, mister, rapists don't usually perform for an audience.
And if you had ever been raped & reported it, you might not try again. Some know this from experience & some know this from others' experience. That's one reason that some jurisdictions extended the reporting time & Aldo the reason that exact times cannot be remembered, let alone proven.
LOL....This is laughable Mr rogerdalien. Of course trials, most trials, are determined by testimony....The Model Jury Instruction as follows:
"1.5 DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence, that is, it is proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact.
You are to consider both direct and circumstantial evidence. Either can be used to prove any fact. The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. It is for you to decide how much weight to give to any evidence."
There is further direct proof that Mr Trump's testimony, such as it is or was, is unreliable. There is at least one, if not more, photographs of Mr Trump with Ms Craroll...once you are caught out in this kind of lie, all other testimony from that witness may be discounted or even totally dismissed.
I personally think the Punitive Damages Award is excessive, and this is why whenever I am called to Jury Duty I am dismissed....I would not be a normal Juror. This is a valid and legitimate objection to me being a juror.
So, in summary, you are wrong, Mr rogerdalien in this instance. If you want to dispute modern sexual politics, what does "no" mean, what does "yes" mean, what is overbearing behavior and what is not, (which is what I think you are really saying)...sure, let's do it.
But as to Mr Trump and Ms Carroll, you are just wrong, as to the facts and the law. Best Wishes, Traveller
Thank you for this. Traveller.
I was surprised by the verdict. One juror's sudden illness earlier in the week, just when Trump wanted an adjournment, seemed all too convenient. My suspicious nature was obviously mistaken.
You know, this is another interesting distinction between Ms Carroll's testimony and that of Mr Trump...you complain that she did not give a date, etc....but she's telling the truth if she say's she doesn't know with the specifically you require.
To the contrary, this makes here a good witness as to other things she testifies to...on the surface she is saying something that looks to be harming her case...but if she doesn't remember, she doesn't remember....and it is true, and so very helpful to her credibility.
Mr Trump says he has never met Ms. Carroll when there are photographs of them together...and so hurts his credibility.
This is just bonehead poor witness preparation...this is first year law stuff, I can see where is plays well with the base, but it is just bad lawyering. Best Wishes, Traveller
Trump claimed the photograph showed him meeting Carroll in a receiving line at a charity event, but he had no idea who she was at the time. So maybe not bad witness preparation given that he had already said publicly that he had never met her.
While checking that I was struck by Trump's threat that, “I will sue her after this is over, and that's the thing I really look forward to doing. And I'll sue you too...”--with “her” referring to Carroll and “you” referring to Carroll's lawyer. As with his previous threat to sue Carroll, I doubt he will follow through.
Anyone familiar with civil trials and disputes (I shall count myself here) could follow that Ms Habba was a walking disaster of basic incompetence in civil trial practice. Perhaps she has other legal competencies but clearly not in these areas.
Well Trump stiffing lawyers and generally having a wide reputation of being a bad-payer as well as a loose cannon as a client has gotten himself into a worse position than even the basic fact set need have been.
I suppose uncontrolled ego and early stage dementia do buy oneself that result.
Maybe Ms Habba has horizontal competencies?
more likely trump has fantasies regarding said competencies
As a trial attorney, Ms. Habba makes a mediocre public relations specialist.
Mr Lovell, (I am taking up the NYT's style of addressing people...lol, why not?). Be that as it may...Mr Trump's walking out of the courtroom today probably cost him $20,000,000.00 Million Dollars or more...Geeze, that has to be the stupidest thing I have ever seen in a courtroom.
(not actually, I saw a police officer say that he wished he could kill wife's attorney while on the witness stand...Insane, he was immediately arrested, taken into custody, no child support for the kids anymore, no support for her...lots of lives ruined with that simple phrase).
Well, enough, I apologize. Best Wishes, Traveller
Trump is an idiot in many, many ways. One, he committed the original offense (yeah, I believe Carroll, who has a good reputation, against Trump, a known liar and sexual abuser), two, he slandered and libeled Carroll in public, three, after being found guilty of sexual assault, kept up slandering Carroll, knowing the defamation trail was coming up, four, hiring TV lawyers (lawyers who look good on TV) but who couldn't find their legal asses with both hands.
This judgment will not shut him up, as his ego is one that will never admit any sort of rebuke or defeat. She can keep playing this lucky number into a Trump bankruptcy.
I'm sure he's sending out fundraising emails on this right now.
Having no strong opinion on the base facts (i.e. Ms Carroll) it was avoidable idiocy to keep slandering her, completely and utterly avoidable.... and indeed he is likely to be unable to control himself and keep digging deeper.
One may take as a benefit that his fundraising on this will suck money out of the MAGA political donation pool to direct into the pockets of lawyers rather into practical real political action for MAGA things.
So likely to have rather vampiric effect, self-harming (to MAGA agenda).
For which one may see a benefit.
….Fuck that guy
"So who wins in this contest of wills?" - Kevin Drum
"Culture eats strategy for lunch." - Peter Drucker
"Strategy eats culture for supper." - Jim Carey
I was on a so called "NY jury", a criminal case involving a Democratic political operative who stole money from a reelection fund and didn't pay taxes or file tax returns for a decade. Even though the defendant was a person of color, as were many of my fellow juries, we had no issue convicting him on all counts. While the evidence was overwhelming, I was impressed with the diligence that we all went though to check every element of the charges, including technical items, to make sure that all the points in the charges were proven.
That said, it is a sad commentary that the Judge had to recommend that all juries remain confidential, unless they want to put themselves and their families in grave danger or minimally, subject themselves to the abuse sustained the plaintiff.
As far as Orange Jesus, that lying sack of shit rapist, fuck him.
For those who don’t know, what Kevin is joking about with the Cher song is the judge’s advice to the jury to never reveal themselves. He said that for their own safety. I, for one, would never want to be on a Trump jury in the same way that I wouldn’t want to be on a jury trying a mob boss. It is extremely scary what Trump has done to this country.