E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!)

[Dave from down under]

Makes for interesting reading

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

He also rules, in a careful and strongly developed section, not without an undertone of relish, why Trump has waived this defense by not raising it earlier in the litigation, and why it would be extremely unfair to Carroll to allow Trump to amend his answer three years after he initially filed it.

[Ben-Prime]

He also rules, in a careful and strongly developed section, not without an undertone of relish, why Trump has waived this defense by not raising it earlier in the litigation, and why it would be extremely unfair to Carroll to allow Trump to amend his answer three years after he initially filed it.

I mean, we all know that relish will lead to ketchup.

[Dave from down under]

[Fiascoist]

He also rules, in a careful and strongly developed section, not without an undertone of relish, why Trump has waived this defense by not raising it earlier in the litigation, and why it would be extremely unfair to Carroll to allow Trump to amend his answer three years after he initially filed it.

I mean, we all know that relish will lead to ketchup.

[Reality Check]

New filing by the DOJ in Carroll v Trump II:

@ZoeTillman

NEW: DOJ says it will no longer certify that Trump was acting w/in scope of his office as president when he made allegedly defamatory remarks about E. Jean Carroll, meaning no absolute immunity as a federal employee -- major turn of events, more to come assets.bwbx.io/documents/user…

This is kind of a big deal and reverses an earlier DOJ position.

[Dave from down under]

Well worth reading the letter in the link.

https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/ ... t9ZWnH4/v0

[p0rtia]

So someone sat on Merrick Garland's head?

Good.

[Dave from down under]

It also makes it less likely that Donnie’s coup plotting would be considered under the Act.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Ketchup futures are up.

[raison de arizona]

IMG_5317.png (202.84 KiB) Viewed 14479 times

IMG_5318.png (199.19 KiB) Viewed 14479 times

IMG_5319.png (207.26 KiB) Viewed 14479 times

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Ketchup futures are up.

"Ketchup futures" should be added to the Lexicon and Snarksaurus!

[neonzx]

"I didn't Rape her (I won that at trial)"

I was only found guilty of Sexual Assault.

[somerset]

"I didn't Rape her (I won that at trial)"

I was only found guilty of Sexual Assault.

I gotta say, it takes a certain kind of chutzpah to claim "victory" on a rape charge because one's wee-wee is so small that the woman couldn't tell the difference between his wee finger and his wee mushroom

[Kendra]

"I didn't Rape her (I won that at trial)"

I was only found guilty of Sexual Assault.

I gotta say, it takes a certain kind of chutzpah to claim "victory" on a rape charge because one's wee-wee is so small that the woman couldn't tell the difference between his wee finger and his wee mushroom

[jemcanada2]

"I didn't Rape her (I won that at trial)"

I was only found guilty of Sexual Assault.

I gotta say, it takes a certain kind of chutzpah to claim "victory" on a rape charge because one's wee-wee is so small that the woman couldn't tell the difference between his wee finger and his wee mushroom

Especially when tfg is famous for having really tiny fingers/hands!

[Slim Cognito]

I'm having trouble consolidating the "I won" part with the millions o'dollars judgement she received part.

[Sequoia32]

"I didn't Rape her (I won that at trial)"

I was only found guilty of Sexual Assault.

This is probably not the right thread, but whatever happened to the dress?

Is it going to be evidence in some trial somewhere?

I want something, anything to shut him up.

[raison de arizona]

I want something, anything to shut him up.

Narrator: But there was nothing, not anything, that could shut him up.

[Sequoia32]

[chancery]

This is probably not the right thread, but whatever happened to the dress?

Is it going to be evidence in some trial somewhere?

I want something, anything to shut him up.

The recent posts on the DNA issue don't reflect its complexities, including that Trump made a squirrelly 11th hour conditional offer to provide DNA evidence, an offer with strings attached that would have likely delayed the trial for at least six months.

The whole story is laid out in Judge Kaplan's 21 page memorandum opinion rejecting Trump's proposal.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 5.56.0.pdf

Of particular note is this on p. 20

Nor is it clear that injecting a DNA issue into the case at this late date would be likely to produce any important evidence for several reasons.

First, even if there were a "match" between Mr. Trump's DNA sample and the mixture of DNA recovered on Ms. Carroll's dress, that would tend only to show that there was some encounter between Mr. Trump and Ms. Carroll on at least one occasion when she wore that dress. But it would not prove or disprove Ms. Carroll's rape allegation. [As the court noted earlier in the opinion, while DNA was recovered, no markers for semen were recovered.]

Second, even if a DNA analysis were to determine that Mr. Trump could be eliminated as a potential contributor to the mixture of DNA found on Ms. Carroll's dress, the probative value of such a determination would be very far from conclusive. It would not disprove Ms. Carroll's accusation. The alleged rape could have occurred without a sufficient quantity or quality of Mr. Trump's DNA to have remained on the dress since the mid 1990s.

Third, it is possible that the results of further DNA analysis using Mr. Trump's DNA sample would be entirely inconclusive.

So there's no likelihood that the dress and expert DNA testimony will play a part in the next trial.

[RTH10260]

E. Jean Carroll compares Trump’s defamation claim to something ‘by a writer at the Onion,’ asks judge to dismiss

MARISA SARNOFF
Jul 11th, 2023, 6:16 pm Updated Jul 11th, 2023, 7:09 pm

The New York writer who successfully sued Donald Trump for sexual abuse and defamation says that his latest claim — that it was he, in fact, who was defamed by the victim of his assault — should be dismissed.

In June, just weeks after a unanimous jury awarded $5 million to writer E. Jean Carroll, Trump countersued, alleging that Carroll’s continued insistence that he raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the 1990s amounted to defamation. He specifically pointed to a statement she made in a May 10 interview on CNN in which, when asked about the jury’s finding that he didn’t rape her, she said: “Oh yes he did,” Carroll said. “Oh yes, he did.”

On Tuesday, Carroll, through her attorney Roberta Kaplan, filed a motion to dismiss.

Her motion describes Trump’s defamation allegation as something akin to satire:

Trump’s “tit for tat” counterclaim is nothing more than his latest effort to spin his loss at trial. Trump alleges that Carroll defamed him and caused him “inordinate” harm by implying in a post-trial interview that when he sexually assaulted her, he not only used his fingers, but also his penis. While that might read like an article penned by Andy Borowitz in the New Yorker or by a writer at the Onion, it’s actually the theory of the counterclaim that Trump now purports to assert in this action. But here in federal court, where logic and reason rather than satire prevail, it is clear that Trump’s new counterclaim for defamation should be dismissed with prejudice.

Carroll’s motion provides additional key context to Carroll’s “yes he did” comment, explaining that she was telling the CNN interviewer what she was thinking at the time the jury made its finding to the contrary.



https://lawandcrime.com/trump/e-jean-ca ... o-dismiss/

[Foggy]

Instead of dismissing the case, the judge should allow it to go to trial on the condition that Trump himself take the witness stand. Otherwise, who is the plaintiff? Don't we hear a lot of sovcit screaming about how there has to be an injured party? So let Trump get on the witness stand and tell a jury with a straight face that he's the injured party. Then I look forward to Robbie Kaplan's cross.

[Sequoia32]

Thanks for the info, chancery.

So did they do DNA testing on Monica's dress?

[noblepa]

I want something, anything to shut him up.

Narrator: But there was nothing, not anything, that could shut him up.

The only thing that will ever shut him up is the Grim Reaper. NADT.

Even if he actually goes to prison, he will find a way to loudly and publicly claim that he is being persecuted and mistreated in prison. Probably via Junior and Eric.