Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The E. Jean Carroll case against Trump shows our morally corrupt legal system
American Thinker ^ | 01/27/2024 | Andrea Widburg

Posted on 01/27/2024 4:22:21 PM PST by SeekAndFind

The headline is that a jury awarded E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million in her defamation claim against Donald Trump. What’s behind the headline is infinitely more important, for it shows how America’s leftist-run judicial system works.

I should explain that I come with a strong bias to this matter. I worked as a litigator for almost thirty years in the San Francisco Bay Area. That experience left me with an abiding hatred for leftist judges.

They routinely showed themselves to be disinterested in law and facts. Instead, they used their powerful positions to dispense “justice”—only their idea of “justice” was whatever comported with leftist ideology. That meant that landlords lost, banks lost, insurance companies lost, and anyone else whom the judges didn’t like lost—and they lost for dishonest reasons. I never minded losing a case I knew was weak; I resented losing a good case, and I became conservative for that reason.


Image: E. Jean Carroll. YouTube screen grab.

All of which gets me the judicial system in the case of Trump and E. Jean Carroll. Here are some pertinent facts:

In 2012, NBC’s Law & Order: Special Victims Unit had a scene in which a character talked about role-playing a rape fantasy in Bergdorf Goodman:

“Role-play took place in the dressing room of Bergdorf’s. While she was trying on lingerie I would burst in,” the character says.

In 2019, for the first time ever, Carroll said publicly that Trump had sexually assaulted her in 1994 in a dressing room in Bergdorf Goodman, an assault that lasted three minutes.

Also in 2019, Carroll explained on CNN that “most people think of rape as being sexy.” I don’t know those “most people.” Do you?

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: New York
KEYWORDS: corruption; defamation; donatefreerepublic; ejeancarroll; electiontampering; jimknows; lawfare; newyork; persecution; rape; trump; verdict
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

1 posted on 01/27/2024 4:22:21 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

When Trump heard Carroll’s claims, he denied them, which is what every man does when accused of rape, especially if he’s innocent. He also claimed that:

(a) he didn’t know Carroll and
(b) that he would never have gone near her as she was a “whack job” and wasn’t “his type.”

Carroll countered the claim that Trump didn’t know her by digging up a picture of her standing with Trump and Ivana at a party in 1987 as proof that they did know each other.

Under the standard of “having talked briefly at a party,” I know or have known George H. W. Bush, Brit Hume, Peggy Fleming, California governors Jerry Brown and Pete Wilson, violinists Pinchas Zukerman and Itzhak Perlman, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, all of whom are just some of the many famous people I’ve briefly talked to at parties. I can assure you, though, that none of them know me.

In 2019, because the statute of limitations for rape—a serious crime—had long since expired, Carroll sued Trump for defamation, claiming that his repudiation of the rape allegation harmed her professionally and hurt her feelings.

Given that she went into the stratosphere on the left after she attacked Trump, I’ve struggled to understand her claim of professional harm.


2 posted on 01/27/2024 4:23:09 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
She could not even remember the date or year when the supposed "assault" ( note the quotes ) occured.

The defamation claim works only if Carroll could prove that she was stating the truth when she accused Trump of rape. But as noted above, Carroll never pressed that claim in a timely criminal proceeding, when there might be physical evidence, and memories would be fresh—so fresh that Carroll would have remembered the year in which this traumatizing (or “sexy”) event happened.

Instead, Carroll admitted that the clothes she claimed to have worn when assaulted weren’t manufactured until a later date. Therefore, so she adjusted her allegations to say Trump’s assault occurred in 1995 or 1996.
3 posted on 01/27/2024 4:25:55 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
In 2019, because the statute of limitations for rape—a serious crime—had long since expired, Carroll sued Trump for defamation, claiming that his repudiation of the rape allegation harmed her professionally and hurt her feelings.

She wrote a book. IMHO, that makes her a public figure and the New York Times v. Sullivan "actual malice" burden of proof must apply. I don't know how she can write a book about Trump, which didn't sell well at all, and then claim she has been defamed when he denied her claims. If she didn't want a vehement denial, she shouldn't have made the claims in her book. Only a judge with TDS would have brought this claim to a jury. Trump should win on appeal.
4 posted on 01/27/2024 4:28:43 PM PST by Dr. Franklin ("A republic, if you can keep it." )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It’s New York. There is no justice in the commonly unederstood meaning of the word.


5 posted on 01/27/2024 4:29:26 PM PST by Bonemaker (invictus maneo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

In no other world (but Bidenworld) is this a two-decision $88.5 million dollar case.

Lawyers will be telling clients WRT the Trump defamation decision:
<><>regardless of how absurd an accusation may be,
<><>no matter the falsity of the charges,
<><>if you deny it, you can be dragged into court
<><>a politically weaponized judge and jury will rule against you bigtime.


6 posted on 01/27/2024 4:32:53 PM PST by Liz (Matthew 11.28-30: Come to me, all you who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give strength.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Is she lying now or was she lying then?


7 posted on 01/27/2024 4:34:18 PM PST by JohnnyP (Thinking is hard work (I stole that from Rush).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

They are so giddy and busy spreading lies.. you all run into those who hear the lies and believe them.. What they have done to this man who has not shrunk from duty to save our nation.. what they have done will one day be before them when they stand their judgment. And that may be sooner than later.

God is in Heaven watching all this... He knows what is His and what is spreading hate, division and lies.. to be in court before a judge... a human judge.. is but small things compared to standing before the Judge to be forgiven or sentenced...
He came as a Savior... next He comes as a judge..
These people will beg and cry..won’t do any good.. as in the Ark and the door closed..so will it be ONE DAY here on earth.

I don’t mean to preach.. I get through really tough times knowing God in Heaven is for the good and can destroy the bad. There is a lot of bad in the past years.


8 posted on 01/27/2024 4:34:29 PM PST by frnewsjunkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Franklin

RE: Trump should win on appeal.

Which trustworthy court is he going to appeal to?


9 posted on 01/27/2024 4:35:57 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I would think that EVERY Law Enforcement Agent (Judge, AG, Police, Sheriff, etc.) and American Bar member who does not strongly object to this decision is complicit.


10 posted on 01/27/2024 4:38:58 PM PST by HippyLoggerBiker (Always carry a flagon of whiskey in case of snakebite and furthermore always carry a small snake. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“ In 2019, because the statute of limitations for rape—a serious crime—had long since expired, Carroll sued Trump for defamation, claiming that his repudiation of the rape allegation harmed her professionally and hurt her feelings. ”

Worse than that. The civil case only proceeded because the New York government passed a law opening a one year window for people to go back decades to sue. It was passed at the lobbying of anti Trump people specifically to allow for this specific case.

A bill of attainder in all but name.


11 posted on 01/27/2024 4:46:31 PM PST by DesertRhino (2016 Star Wars, 2020 The Empire Strikes Back, 2024... RETURN OF THE JEDI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“The E. Jean Carroll case against Trump shows our morally corrupt legal system”

Oh, I think we’ve had a really good and solid grasp of how corrupt our legal system is for decades. Look at how they went after Clarence Thomas. And remember how the left lied about and demonized Bush for years, and the fake but accurate TANG memo? And then, their pulling bimbos out of the woodwork during the Kavanagh hearings. Lying bimbos that ALSO could not quite recall the exact year that the sexual abuse supposedly occurred.

No, even before Trump.... it has been glaringly apparent how corrupt the rabid, radical left has corrupted our legal system for some time now. We sat and watched Obama appoint rabid leftist after rabid leftist to the judicial branch for eight frigging years. That we have let things get this far and this bad is on us. We are now reaping what was sown, IOW... as we should have known all along we would at some point in time. The only thing surprising to me is that anyone is actually surprised at what’s happening.


12 posted on 01/27/2024 4:46:40 PM PST by Danie_2023
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
This is a four minute video by Alina Habba (Trump's lead lawyer in the Carroll case) outlining all of the things the judge prohibited the defense from using at trial.

Trump's legal team had both hands tied behind their backs and a gag on their mouth, to the point that there was no way to put on a reasonable defense.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1751015739568570666

If you're not boiling mad after watching the above, you don't belong on Free Republic.

13 posted on 01/27/2024 4:50:12 PM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /Sarc tag really necessary? Pray for President Biden: Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

There is a problem that Justice Kavanaugh denied Ford’s allegation and he might have to recuse himself.

That would make the Supreme Court likely to decide 4-4, leaving Trump to write a big check.

Only Congress can alter the tax code to tax the income and then hand it back to Trump.

The federal tax code might be made to require all judgements against current and former constitutional officers be taxed at 100%.


14 posted on 01/27/2024 4:51:38 PM PST by Brian Griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The Congress might tax all punitive damage award amounts at 100%.


15 posted on 01/27/2024 4:54:34 PM PST by Brian Griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

I’m boiling mad already without watching it! But will watch it anyway….


16 posted on 01/27/2024 4:55:50 PM PST by Rummyfan (In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

eventually, the original conviction for sexual assault will be thrown out for some reason, which will necessitate having to throw out the 2nd because the judge said guilt was already determined.


17 posted on 01/27/2024 4:57:44 PM PST by TexasFreeper2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

exactly. Eventually all of this will be thrown out.


18 posted on 01/27/2024 4:58:46 PM PST by TexasFreeper2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

RE: eventually, the original conviction for sexual assault will be thrown out for some reason,

I want to believe this to be so, but WHICH COURT will do it? That is the question.


19 posted on 01/27/2024 5:00:01 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Excessive jury verdicts might be federally taxed at 100%.

Plaintiff lawyers would be careful to prevent excessive verdicts.


20 posted on 01/27/2024 5:00:56 PM PST by Brian Griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson