Trump Loses to Carroll Yet Again

Yet again, a court affirms he committed sexual assault.

Via the NYT: Trump Loses Appeal of Carroll’s $5 Million Award in Sex-Abuse Case.

President-elect Donald J. Trump on Monday failed to overturn a $5 million judgment that he sexually abused the writer E. Jean Carroll in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid-1990s and later defamed her.

[…]

The appeals court rejected Mr. Trump’s request for a new trial in the case, which produced the smaller of two defamation judgments against him. “Mr. Trump has not demonstrated that the district court erred in any of the challenged rulings,” the opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said. It was unsigned but issued by a three-judge panel made up of Denny Chin and Susan Carney — appointed by President Barack Obama — as well as Myrna Perez, appointed by President Biden.

This is at least three loses in court on this issue and an ongoing affirmation that Trump sexually assaulted Carroll and that he was serious when he said the following.

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 them by the pussy. You can do anything.”

But, no doubt, his defenders will either just dismiss it all as fake or parse what it should be called instead of reckoning with the kind of man that they have helped put back into power.

Never mind he, himself, described the way he behaves. Never mind his clear record of womanizing. Never mind the multiple times he has now been found liable for this behavior in court.

Never mind the following.

The jury of six men and three women found that Mr. Trump had sexually abused Ms. Carroll but did not find that he raped her. It was unclear why jurors chose the lesser offense of abuse over rape, which is defined under state law as sexual intercourse without consent that involves any penetration of the penis in the vaginal opening.

The federal jury also found that Mr. Trump defamed Ms. Carroll when he wrote on Truth Social in 2022 that her case was “a complete con job” and “a Hoax and a lie.” The jury ordered him to pay Ms. Carroll $5 million in damages.

This year, another Manhattan jury ordered Mr. Trump to pay Ms. Carroll $83.3 million for defaming her in 2019 after she accused him of rape, and continuing to do so in social media posts at news conferences and even during the trial. Ms. Carroll’s lawyers argued that a large award was necessary to stop Mr. Trump from continuing to deride her.

On the issue of the word “rape” I would note the following via WaPo: Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll.

“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ” Kaplan wrote.

He added: “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”

Kaplan said New York’s legal definition of “rape” is “far narrower” than the word is understood in “common modern parlance.”

The former requires forcible, unconsented-to penetration with one’s penis. But he said that the conduct the jury effectively found Trump liable for — forced digital penetration — meets a more common definition of rape. He cited definitions offered by the American Psychological Association and the Justice Department, which in 2012 expanded its definition of rape to include penetration “with any body part or object.”

This was, of course, part of the discourse of the ABC News/Disney settlement over the usage of the word in question. But let me underscore that it should be disturbing that many people would prefer to have a side conversation about rape v. sexual assault via unwanted, forced digital penetration as if it somehow exonerates their preferred candidate.

If one is going to defend Trump or critique the precision of the discourse, please be mindful of what one is defending.

I would prefer to have major political parties that did not nominate persons of such low character for any office in the land, let alone for the most powerful office on Earth.

And yet, here we are.

Of course, the Trump camp’s response falls into the dismissal of it all.

Steven Cheung, Mr. Trump’s chief campaign spokesman, who is set to be his White House communications director, said Mr. Trump was re-elected with an “overwhelming mandate,” and he said the American people “demand an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and a swift dismissal of all of the witch hunts, including the Democrat-funded Carroll hoax, which will continue to be appealed.”

First, I am already tired of talk of “mandates.” While I fully understand why the winning party makes the assertion, the bottom line is that the concept itself is bogus as a general matter. Moreover, barely winning a plurality of the popular vote and having a razor-thin margin in the House does not even a rhetorical “mandate” make.

Second, and far more importantly, Trump could have won 60%-40% with an EC wipeout and it would have nothing whatsoever to do with the Carroll case.

FILED UNDER: 2024 Election, Law and the Courts, US Politics, , , , , , , , ,
Steven L. Taylor
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a retired Professor of Political Science and former College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter

Comments

  1. Matt Bernius says:

    Mod Message:

    Hey RyGuy–sack up and actually post under your personal email or continue to get instabanned. Posting under someone else’s email will always be a cowardly move.

    13
  2. Scott says:

    If you have money it seems as though you have an infinite number of bites at the same apple. No wonder people think the judicial system is corrupt.

    How long is this going to go on? Same with Giuliani.

    10
  3. Joe says:

    First, I am already tired of talk of “mandates.”

    And I am already tired of Steven Cheung.

    @Scott: The difference is Giulliani is staring down the barrel of some criminal contempt time in the pokey.

    5
  4. Paul L. says:

    @Matt Bernius:
    But the leftist feminist tactic (Marcotte/Pandagon) of using moderation to censor and bunker is valid good faith debate and refutation.
    If appeals courts actually did their job, the legal system would grind to a halt.
    I listened E. Jean’s testimony and she claims she was penetrated only once.
    Seems implausible and illogical but I am a rape apologist and accused sexually assault suspect so that can be dismiss and handwaved away.

  5. @Paul L.:

    l but I am a rape apologist

    Is that not what you are doing with your comment?

    13
  6. Lucysfootball says:

    @Paul L.: 1. What is implausible about the testimony that she was penetrated once? 2. What does the rest of your comment even mean?

    7
  7. wr says:

    @Lucysfootball: “What does the rest of your comment even mean?”

    It means that he hates and fears women. Same as all his messages on related topics.

    9
  8. gVOR10 says:

    “The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ” Kaplan wrote.

    For background, a neighbor of mine was assaulted in Texas in 1970 or 71. Penetration with a fingertip only. The cops were quite explicit that was rape under Texas law. Never heard it went to trial, I assume it was plea bargained. A finger was not rape in NY at the time. I believe it is now. Don’t recall the timing , may have been changed in reaction to the Carroll case.

    And yet ABC settled. I suspect not only to bend the knee to Trump, but also to send a message to the news division. Can you say Quisling?

    8
  9. Paul L. says:

    @gVOR10:

    The cops were quite explicit that was rape under Texas law.

    Sigh, another Tom Nichols. Cops and order state authority fluffer fangirl who believes that that police know the law better than lawyers and judges because they work with and study the law every day.
    Same Texas cops who did not understand the law that people are not required to ID unless they are arrested until their “right”, “officer safety” and qualified immunity was removed by Turner v. Driver.
    @Lucysfootball:
    E Jean believes she was subject to same abuse as Christina Eilman.
    Appeal courts don’t do their job and instead excuse and defend most abuse of authority and misconduct by the law enforcement caste of judges, prosecutors and police.

  10. just nutha says:

    @Paul L.:

    I listened E. Jean’s testimony and she claims she was penetrated only once.

    I’m not clear on something: Is your assertion that convicting someone of rape/ sexual assault/abuse requires more than one penetration?

    Follow up question: Is that the standard you would want applied if your daughter/wife/you were the victim?

    9
  11. just nutha says:

    @Lucysfootball: @wr: Pressing the link for his name takes one to a site called Kingdom of Idiots. Assess what ever meanings your muse leads you to make.

    2
  12. Scott F. says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:
    Paul L. is a Trump apologist.

    The mode can also be extended to violations of the Espionage Act, obstruction of justice, incited to insurrection, and felony business fraud. Paul L. is a full-service lick-spittle.

    9
  13. wr says:

    @just nutha: “Follow up question: Is that the standard you would want applied if your daughter/wife/you were the victim?”

    Seriously — you think Paul L — terrified of women — could ever have a wife, let alone a daughter?

    4
  14. Michael Reynolds says:

    @Paul L.:
    So, Paul, what’s your opinion of Weinstein and Diddy? I assume they’re both good men, wrongly accused?

    4
  15. Kathy says:

    Q: How many felon apologists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

    A: It’s a complete fabrication! He never raped that light bulb! It was consensual! It never happened!

    8
  16. Paul L says:

    @Michael Reynolds:
    Those are criminal cases.
    I remember being lectured here about the difference Criminal v. Civil when I bring up qualified immunity.
    I also remember being called a rape apologist when I pointed out discrepancies in previous frat gang rape cases that were portrayed by activists as showing a large problem on college campuses.

  17. One thing it seems all of the Trump allies who show up here: they all lack the ability/willingness to answer direct questions.

    10
  18. Michael Reynolds says:

    @Paul L:
    You are a rape apologist. It’s your pre-eminent issue, it’s the thing that summons you, the thing you can’t resist commenting on. It’s your obsession. Which begs the question, ‘why?’ And why are you still pointing to Duke Lacrosse to counter every rape accusation?

    Yes, there is a difference between a criminal case and a civil case which is the only reason Trump isn’t in prison for rape. A jury, which heard all the evidence, found him guilty. But you, on the grounds of an 18 year-old case, and having heard only the evidence you wanted to hear, declare Trump innocent. Again, why?

    11
  19. Michael Reynolds says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:
    Yes, and it goes to consciousness of guilt. They know they’re lying.

    8
  20. Paul L. says:

    @Michael Reynolds:

    And why are you still pointing to [VERBOTEN SUBJECT] to counter every rape accusation?

    Because those that got the case wrong refuse to admit it and still use those same discredited talking points and narrative for all sexual assault allegations.

    A jury, which heard all the evidence, found him guilty.

    Heard all the evidence?

    “Looks at every basic element of due process in a civil case and says “Yeah, we’re going to take the under consideration i.e ignore it. requiring Trump’s attorney to pre-vett questions to limit what he says. To limiting the questions they can ask of E. Jean Caroll. Limiting Discovery and just frankly looking at a bunch of inconsistencies that are not allowed to be pointed out in E. Jean Caroll’s story.”

    Strange E Jean didn’t read her testimony for that video. I would have liked to watch the trial but the law enforcement caste does not like to be transparent and allow hearings to be viewed by the public.
    @Steven L. Taylor:
    Repeat the direct question that debunks, derails and discredits my “Gish Gallop”.

  21. Michael Reynolds says:

    @Paul L.:

    still use those same discredited talking points and narrative for all sexual assault allegations.

    Thus all rape accusations are false. And there we have it, Paul.

    That was too easy.

    8
  22. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @wr: I don’t see him as terrified of women as much as the Idiot King. I give people the benefit of the doubt a lot. He could have the same attitudes about women as Trump, for example.

    I know that lots of macho types here like to attack the manhood of other men. I don’t flow that direction. It seems a touch toxic.

    2
  23. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @Michael Reynolds: Hey, don’t be so hard on him. My mom spent decades arguing that no one should ever be charged with murder ever again until that “poor girl Teddy Kennedy murdered on Chappaquiddick” got justice. Yeah, it’s flawed reasoning, but not necessarily disingenuous.

    4
  24. Paul L. says:

    @Michael Reynolds:
    The following elements will help convince me.
    Exact Date and time, report immediately to the police, the Tested Rape kit with accused suspect’s DNA.
    But as feminist sisterhood activists say Patriarchy rape culture finds a way to shame and blame the victim showing a large sexual assault problem on college campuses

    Hofstra University freshman Danmell Ndonye who had claimed she was raped by five men in a dormitory bathroom changed her story after prosecutors confronted her with the revelation that a video of the encounter may have been recorded…
    This is still where feminism collides with due process, when outrage butts up against the need for hard proof that’s almost never available.

  25. DK says:

    “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”

    Elon Musk’s fascist first lady Trump — also publicly sexualized his daughter and boasted of walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants — said the above of his bestie Jeffrey Epstein.

    Trump nominating crackhead Matt Gaetz for Attorney General makes sense once one understands that rapists of a feather flock together.

    8
  26. Rob1 says:

    @Paul L:

    I remember being lectured here about the difference Criminal v. Civil when I bring up qualified immunity.
    I also remember being called a rape apologist when I pointed out discrepancies in previous frat gang rape cases that were portrayed by activists as showing a large problem on college campuses.

    Squirrel!

    6
  27. Ken_L says:

    Last century, the Australian Liberal Party led by John Howard campaigned for re-election with a promise to introduce a goods-and-services tax to replace a raft of other taxes and cut income tax. It was strongly opposed by Labor and quickly became the central issue in the campaign. The Liberals won. I think it’s reasonable for them to have declared (as they did) that they had a mandate to introduce the GST.

    Otherwise, the idea that a party which wins an election has the approval of voters to implement every last item in its policy platform is nonsense.

    1
  28. Scott F. says:

    @Ken_L:

    Otherwise, the idea that a party which wins an election has the approval of voters to implement every last item in its policy platform is nonsense.

    Steven Cheung is arguing for something more pernicious than a mandate to implement every last item on its policy platform. Remember that “political weaponization of our justice system” and “lawfare” are Republican shorthand for ANY criminal or civil allegations or indictments or verdicts pertaining to Trump or his allies. Therefore, Cheung is saying that by virtue of the EC count and the popular vote, the People have given their approval for Trump and loyal Republicans to be above the law. Policy has nothing to do with it.

    2
  29. @Ken_L: The mandate concept works in a parliamentary system.

    2
  30. @Paul L.:

    Repeat the direct question that debunks, derails and discredits my “Gish Gallop”.

    Direct questions don’t debunk, although the answer to the question might (and the unwillingness or inability to answer can be revealing).

    But the point of questions is dialog. And understanding can only come from interaction.

    A series of semi-coherent to often utterly incoherent assertions (i.e., your style of posting) does not lead to understanding. It is a central core of human interaction that to be understood, and to understand others, some level of intelligible capacity to articulate positions is necessary. This includes providing evidence and answering and asking questions.

    As I have tried to demonstrate to you before, and had told myself I wouldn’t try again (but here we are): if you want to be understood, you need to acquire better communication skills.

    It is kind of depressing the degree to which so many of these interactions feel like I am trapped in the Monty Python Argument Sketch.

    7
  31. Jay L Gischer says:

    @Paul L.:

    I would like to give you some life advice – which for me was very hard-won. It is extremely rare for anyone to say, “I was wrong”. When you find someone who does say that, it’s a very unusual event, and you should pay attention.

    When people are more normal, and avoid saying it, the best course of action, for me, is to just drive on. Pushing at them for something more never makes anybody happy, including me.

    3
  32. steve says:

    Some people have made false rape accusations. That doesnt make them all false. Yes, I guess it would be nice if instances of rape were immediately reported but it’s pretty common in all cases of sexual abuse that there is a delay. Few cases of abuse of minors are reported right away and it’s pretty common they take years to come out. In the case of rape, rich powerful men are treated much differently and, like Epstein, can go years without facing charges.

    Steve

    2
  33. Paul L. says:

    @Jay L Gischer:
    In the past here, I admitted I was wrong that the final Bush deficit included 1.7 Trillion for TARP and the Obama stimulus instead of 500 million.

    A series of semi-coherent to often utterly incoherent assertions (i.e., your style of posting) does not lead to understanding.

    Unless the assertion is Trump is a convicted felon and adjudicated rapist.
    So instead of addressing my assertions, You just deflect by labeling them as semi-coherent to often utterly incoherent, hurtful, bigoted, sexist, racist, toxic, insulting and hurtful.
    This is the tactic Angela Rye used when she was confronted that there was no video of tea party protestors yelling racial slurs at the congressional black caucus minus Doug M’s. stupid and hated war criminal and present deadly Covid variant incubator Col Allen West.

  34. Jay L Gischer says:

    @Paul L.: By “you” I think you mean “you commenters”. I don’t recall ever calling you incoherent. Sometimes, I don’t understand what you are getting at, and in those situations I usually just drive on. If I do understand something to be hurtful (because it’s racist, etc.) I might well say something, though. Because it is hurtful.

    So. Did you have a beef with me in particular?

  35. joe says:

    Nobody believes Trump raped or sexually assaulted anyone. Like Kavanaugh there is zero point zero evidence and the story is absurd. But, it’s even worse than that because the woman is obviously nuts; having accused several other men with similar stories.

    Fortunately the country saw through all of this Third World lawlessness and dirty tricks.

    1
  36. Pylon says:

    The Trump apologists are funny.

    a. They nit pick between sexual assault and rape like there’s a whole lot of difference. In fact, a lot of jurisdictions don’t even use the word “rape” in their criminal statutes – it’s ALL sexual assault.

    b. They ignore that the judge, in a later decision, said that “rape” was an accurate desription, in a non-NY criminal law context, of what Trump did.

    c. Laughably, they ignore that the only reason the jury found insufficient evidence of rape was because E Jean Carroll couldn’t confirm whether Trump used his penis or his finger (because he attacked her from behind). Which isn’t exactly complementary to Trump, if you get my drift.

    1