My Daily Beast Article On Trump’s Counterclaim Against E. Jean Carroll
So Stupid That It Might Work
On Tuesday, Donald Trump filed a counterclaim against E. Jean Carroll in their second case, which is scheduled for trial in January 2024. The gravamen of his counterclaim is that Carroll defamed him in stating he was a “rapist”, when the jury in the first trial found him not liable for “rape”, when they found him liable for “sexual assault”.
Here is my Daily Beast article explaining it all. https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-e-jean-carroll-defamation-countersuit-could-give-him-leverage?ref=home?ref=home
Hey Mitch, there's nothing stupid about this. Let's take a walk down memory lane. Carroll claimed Trump raped her from the very start (she also claimed Les Moonves raped her in an elevator, but he was nice about it, even though he came at her "like an octopus"), you yourself wrote an article using the word "rape" in the title, the consciousness of the news media and general public is that Trump is guilty of rape even though he's been found liable for sexual assault based on no evidence, no eye witnesses that place him at the scene of the crime, no police report, but third party accounts unrelated to the incident and a tape of him going about being womanizer.
Wow. But a no vote on rape.
So which is it - did he rape Carroll or didn't he? Not kinda rape her, not almost rape her - did he rape her? Well if you take the jury's word, no. If you don't take the jury's word, then the sexual assault verdict should also be taken off the table. It's either one or the other.
So I ask you again - did he rape her? Rape is like murder - either it happened or it didn't happen. So did it happen? How many times do I have to ask the question.
And if Trump didn't rape her - why did she use the word rape, and what trouble is she in for using it? In order to answer that question, ask yourself first why you used the word rape when you wrote about the trial? There's a clear reason why the RAPE word is being used and you know it. But when a jury declares rape didn't happen - suddenly it's stupid for Trump to countersue. Is there no difference between rape and sexual assault? Is that what you're telling us?
That's why there's nothing stupid about this. Loose lips got Trump into this - calling her names - because, according to her, if he was nice about it, like Les Moonves, the head of CBS (imagine Trump and Moonves in one lifetime what are the odds?) - he would have gotten out. By the same token, the loose lips of Ms. Carroll also opened the door for Trump to countersue. He never raped her. And let me remind you, a sexual assault can be as innocent as an unwanted kiss. There is a difference between RAPE and Sexual Assault. Truth be told, Ms. Carroll's in trouble, she's never going to see a dime of that award. Trump's best strategy was to take the loss and lock her into a story where he can prove she's lying.
None of us know what happened, if anything at all. Even Les Moonves called her liar. If one can find Trump liable for sexual assault based on the testimony of someone who might have had a similar incident - why not do the same for Ms. Carroll?
Take your bias out of this and look at it from Trump's POV. Years of rape accusation - UNPROVEN! Now a NO VOTE as to RAPE and still the RAPE accusations continue.
What would you do, Mitchell? You know damn well what you would do.
If Trump were to win on this, it seems like something that would have a chilling effect on sexual assault accusers, wouldn't it?
Also, to prevail on his claim, is it required/assumed that her claim of rape must mean the NY state statutory definition of rape? As I understand it, the facts that led the jury to convict of sexual assault are consistent with the definition of rape in other jurisdictions. Must an assault victim consult the applicable statues in the relevant jurisdiction before making an accusation?