Trump seeks to stop second E. Jean Carroll lawsuit

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: NBC News

Lawyers for Donald Trump are attempting to block a long-stalled defamation suit by writer E. Jean Carroll by using her successful $5 million verdict in a different case she won against the former president. The Manhattan federal court filing argues that Trump could not have defamed Carroll by denying her rape accusation in the pending case because a jury in the other case found him liable for sexually abusing her, but not rape.

The “operative question in this case is, and has always been, whether a rape occurred in the Bergdorf Goodman dressing room," the filing said, and the jury "found that one did not.” Carroll alleges that Trump raped her in the Manhattan department store in the mid-1990s. She filed a battery and defamation suit over the rape allegation and Trump's post-presidency comments calling her claims a "con job" last year. After a trial that featured live testimony from Carroll and videotaped deposition testimony from Trump, a jury last month awarded Carroll $2 million for the battery claim and $3 million for her defamation claim.

The battery claim included different elements, including one for rape and one for sexual abuse. Asked on its verdict sheet whether Carroll, 79, had proven “by a preponderance of the evidence” that “Mr. Trump raped Ms. Carroll,” the nine-person jury checked the box that said “no.” Asked whether Carroll had proven that “Mr. Trump sexually abused Ms. Carroll,” the jury checked the box that said “yes.” Jurors did not speak to reporters after the verdict to explain their decision.

Carroll had testified she was attacked from behind and did not see how Trump penetrated her. The case that went to trial was Carroll's second lawsuit against Trump. The first alleged then-President Trump defamed Carroll by calling her claims a "hoax" and a "con job" when she went public in 2019. That case — now identified in court papers as Carroll I — had been stalled in a Washington, D.C. federal appeals court over whether Trump was immune from liability because he was president at the time of the comments. The case was sent back to U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan — the same judge who presided over Carroll II — in April.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-seeks-stop-second-e-jean-carroll-lawsuit-rcna87921

[LetMyPeopleVote]

1. This stunt should not work

[spooky3]

2. Boy, those lawyers are really desperate. Nt

[BumRushDaShow]

4. Working hard for that money

that they will probably never see a dime of.

[spooky3]

14. Exactly. But they'll be able to attract other clients

By showing how they won cases for Trump. Oh, wait…

[BumRushDaShow]

15. ...

[Traildogbob]

3. 😰🥵😢😥🥵😶‍🌫️💦👶👍👌🖕

[thesquanderer]

5. re: "she was attacked from behind and did not see how Trump penetrated her"

What difference does that make? Non-consensual vaginal or anal penetration by anything is rape, isn't it? It doesn't have to be a penis, it can be any body part, or even some other object.

[Ocelot II]

6. Under New York law, rape is defined as a specific kind of penetration -

that is, with a penis. The only reason TFG wasn't found liable for rape, as defined by New York law, was that she couldn't tell for sure whether he penetrated her with his tiny fingers or his tiny penis. Most other states have other definitions; mine (MN) doesn't use the term "rape" at all but instead uses "criminal sexual conduct" in varying degrees, depending on penetration (with anything), use of violence, etc. "Rape" as the term is commonly used, can mean any penetration but NY law requires a dick. And TFG is one whether or not he used it.

[intrepidity]

9. So she was penetrated by a dick nt

[tanyev]

16. I hadn't paid attention to this level of detail in the case,

so this is the first time I’m reading that she couldn’t see what penetrated her. Fingers makes sense, though, given how he bragged about grabbing women by the p***y and “you can do whatever you want”.

I suspect he did “whatever he wanted” many, many times over the years.

[brooklynite]

7. Doesn't matter: its not an assault case; its a defamation case.

And Carroll's attorney has amended the complaint to focus on the comments Trump made AFTER the CARROLL II case was decided.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

8. And yet, despite the technicality involved in NY State law that led jurors to say 'No' on the rape

He was still found liable for defaming her.

So I'm not sure how his lawyers think this bullshit is going to fly.

To me it sounds like something they filed because IQ45 INSISTED they try to make this argument. He thinks he's smarter than everyone else, esp. his lawyers, and thinks he has come up with a 'gotcha' ... when it's really NOT one.

If this were a winning argument, seems to me he'd not owe $3M for defamation in the earlier trial.

[Ocelot II]

10. He was also found liable for sexually assaulting her, as defined in NY law.

So it's just another discussion of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

12. Of course I know that, we were all here together for it ...

I'm just saying that if a 'no' on the specific charge of 'rape' (under archaic NY law) was enough to get him out of liability for defamation ... he'd probably not have gotten a $3M levy for it the first time.

[marble falls]

11. I just bet he is. He should have kept his hands to himself years ago, and he should have ...

... shut his effin pie hole after the verdict. I hope it throws him off his feed.

[keithbvadu2]

13. Have you paid the $5M yet, Donald?