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.
Let me explain why this is a stupid claim, even though it may (in part) survive to get to a jury.
1. Trump will have to undergo discovery on his reputation. The gravamen of a defamation claim is the assertion that the plaintiff’s reputation has been damaged by the allegation. For this reason, defamation plaintiffs have to provide very embarrassing discovery on their reputation. Virtually every complaint that has ever been made to or about Trump becomes fair game.
2. Trump will have to undergo discovery on his public perception. Defendant will be entitled to every poll, survey or focus group on Trump going back for years. He likely has hundreds (maybe thousands) of really embarrassing polls/surveys/focus groups that he commissioned that have been hidden from public scrutiny to date.
3. He will have to give complete discovery on his commercial prospects. Every time he was nixed for a proposal will have to be provided.
4. He will have to sit for a deposition on all of these highly embarrassing topics.
5. Even if he prevailed on liability (which is far from certain), I cannot see him proving any damages.
This is Trump we're talking about, right? Nothing embarrasses him, everything is spun to his advantage. After Carroll's testimony of Donald Trump at age 52 or 53 just randomly entering a high fashion 5th Avenue Clothier and randomly picking out a woman (one who was older than him by the way) to ask her to try on an article of clothing for another woman much younger than her (that alone has massive holes), the most recognizable face in America next to Michael Jackson then precedes to trick her into a dressing room - upstairs where nobody is - no security cameras - no sales people - no other shoppers - in the middle of the day on 5th Avenue - a place where every tourist in New York shops ... (do I need to go on?). This testimony has never been challenged. This is a lie! She's wasn't an innocent star-struck 23 -year-old - she was a mature savvy Manhattan columnist of gossip and smut in her fifties and when a man you only know as a celebrity asks you to try something on - I MEAN, stop right there!
And then after the attack - no police report. Amazing. The alleged incident took place during the years New York was gripped with a murder-rape of "The Preppy Murder" of Jennifer Levin committed by Robert Chambers. So whether Ms. Carroll was embarrassed or frightened or feared "no one would believe her," we're not talking about the 1950s when women simply said nothing.
She even had a public platform and ran her mouth like a heathen in one of most widely read magazines in the world but didn't even think to detail this absurd encounter with a world famous billionaire even as something "acceptable to the masses". 'My Dalliance With Mr. Big'. Even disguising Trump if need be.
Nothing. This is not the type of woman to be that shellshocked by an encounter of that nature that lasted, according to her testimony, a few minutes.
She's in trouble, Mitchell, these are lies he's expecting her to pay for. Or when was the last time two 50s year-olds were involved in a rape? Maybe we should start there. Because just to get it up while hustling around a store looking for a dressing room for someone who's closer to retirement age than his sexual prime - that alone is enough to make one laugh. Carroll did allege one time Trump ejaculated (that disappeared quickly), maybe we can revisit that. Because at age 52 - that's some remarkable sexual prowess. Why would anyone be embarrassed about getting it up on a dime at that age? In public, mind you. I mean, Trump just strolls down 5th Avenue with an erection looking for an older woman to try on something revealing. You could sell that tomorrow easier than selling E. Jean Carroll is a liar. People bought Russian whores peeing on him, so why not?
If this story has any basis in reality, this is something Sid and Nancy did in the Village back in the 1980s in their teens. And a magazine writer did a little remodel on it and a thirsty public, who will believe anything negative about public enemy #1, bought it.
Believe all women, except Tara Reade, who at least told her mother.
Between the Stormy Daniels settlement and the Epstein accusations, between the Piss Dossier and the Grab Them By Their Blanks - this isn't a normal man who hasn't been publicly humiliated so anything else out there we don't already know about him would have to be a little bit more convincing than "he pushed my arm off an airplane armrest in 1981." "Oh, I have tapes of Green Room conversations where he talked cheating on his wife" Or maybe the Steele Dossier is real somehow, the fake part of it is real, that is. I mean, WHAT haven't they thrown at this man and what hasn't he thrown back that could POSSIBLY be any more embarrassing than what we've seen in the last six years?
I'll wait.
As far as discovery about the E. Jean Carroll case - BRING. IT. ON. Especially the DNA results. This time Trump may be allowed to challenge them, because Judge Kaplan did not allow that.
On point 5. to get Carroll to public say "Donald Trump did not rape me" is worth $10 million dollar or whatever to Trump - it's publicity, he could care less about the money, it's campaign fodder that "they lied to get me" and - as I've laid out - there is enough evidence NOT TO CHANGE THE DEFAMATION VERDICT (that's done) - but to prove A RAPE NEVER OCCURRED.
And that's all that Trump needs to play the same game the press is playing. The press has been yelling RAPE from the beginning of this (you yourself have as well at least some of time) Trump wants his opportunity to yell NO RAPE! Because this is a lot more than just about RAPE now - just as the Piss Dossier was a lot more than just about a Hotel Romp with Call Girls - and that's why the press can not cover it fairly.
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?
These are good questions. I think there is a real chance that Judge Kaplan will allow at least part of this counterclaim to get to the jury. I have no idea how a jury will resolve these questions.
I also wonder whether Trump has thought through the consequences of bringing this counterclaim. In bringing a defamation claim, he has put his "character" and "reputation" into question. Carroll would be entitled to discovery on virtually all evidence in Trump's possession regarding his reputation and public perception, which I imagine will include decades of polling and focus group surveys. She also would be entitled to discovery on Trump's economic prospects. He may become the dog he catches the car he was chasing.
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.
Let me explain why this is a stupid claim, even though it may (in part) survive to get to a jury.
1. Trump will have to undergo discovery on his reputation. The gravamen of a defamation claim is the assertion that the plaintiff’s reputation has been damaged by the allegation. For this reason, defamation plaintiffs have to provide very embarrassing discovery on their reputation. Virtually every complaint that has ever been made to or about Trump becomes fair game.
2. Trump will have to undergo discovery on his public perception. Defendant will be entitled to every poll, survey or focus group on Trump going back for years. He likely has hundreds (maybe thousands) of really embarrassing polls/surveys/focus groups that he commissioned that have been hidden from public scrutiny to date.
3. He will have to give complete discovery on his commercial prospects. Every time he was nixed for a proposal will have to be provided.
4. He will have to sit for a deposition on all of these highly embarrassing topics.
5. Even if he prevailed on liability (which is far from certain), I cannot see him proving any damages.
This is Trump we're talking about, right? Nothing embarrasses him, everything is spun to his advantage. After Carroll's testimony of Donald Trump at age 52 or 53 just randomly entering a high fashion 5th Avenue Clothier and randomly picking out a woman (one who was older than him by the way) to ask her to try on an article of clothing for another woman much younger than her (that alone has massive holes), the most recognizable face in America next to Michael Jackson then precedes to trick her into a dressing room - upstairs where nobody is - no security cameras - no sales people - no other shoppers - in the middle of the day on 5th Avenue - a place where every tourist in New York shops ... (do I need to go on?). This testimony has never been challenged. This is a lie! She's wasn't an innocent star-struck 23 -year-old - she was a mature savvy Manhattan columnist of gossip and smut in her fifties and when a man you only know as a celebrity asks you to try something on - I MEAN, stop right there!
And then after the attack - no police report. Amazing. The alleged incident took place during the years New York was gripped with a murder-rape of "The Preppy Murder" of Jennifer Levin committed by Robert Chambers. So whether Ms. Carroll was embarrassed or frightened or feared "no one would believe her," we're not talking about the 1950s when women simply said nothing.
She even had a public platform and ran her mouth like a heathen in one of most widely read magazines in the world but didn't even think to detail this absurd encounter with a world famous billionaire even as something "acceptable to the masses". 'My Dalliance With Mr. Big'. Even disguising Trump if need be.
Nothing. This is not the type of woman to be that shellshocked by an encounter of that nature that lasted, according to her testimony, a few minutes.
She's in trouble, Mitchell, these are lies he's expecting her to pay for. Or when was the last time two 50s year-olds were involved in a rape? Maybe we should start there. Because just to get it up while hustling around a store looking for a dressing room for someone who's closer to retirement age than his sexual prime - that alone is enough to make one laugh. Carroll did allege one time Trump ejaculated (that disappeared quickly), maybe we can revisit that. Because at age 52 - that's some remarkable sexual prowess. Why would anyone be embarrassed about getting it up on a dime at that age? In public, mind you. I mean, Trump just strolls down 5th Avenue with an erection looking for an older woman to try on something revealing. You could sell that tomorrow easier than selling E. Jean Carroll is a liar. People bought Russian whores peeing on him, so why not?
If this story has any basis in reality, this is something Sid and Nancy did in the Village back in the 1980s in their teens. And a magazine writer did a little remodel on it and a thirsty public, who will believe anything negative about public enemy #1, bought it.
Believe all women, except Tara Reade, who at least told her mother.
Between the Stormy Daniels settlement and the Epstein accusations, between the Piss Dossier and the Grab Them By Their Blanks - this isn't a normal man who hasn't been publicly humiliated so anything else out there we don't already know about him would have to be a little bit more convincing than "he pushed my arm off an airplane armrest in 1981." "Oh, I have tapes of Green Room conversations where he talked cheating on his wife" Or maybe the Steele Dossier is real somehow, the fake part of it is real, that is. I mean, WHAT haven't they thrown at this man and what hasn't he thrown back that could POSSIBLY be any more embarrassing than what we've seen in the last six years?
I'll wait.
As far as discovery about the E. Jean Carroll case - BRING. IT. ON. Especially the DNA results. This time Trump may be allowed to challenge them, because Judge Kaplan did not allow that.
On point 5. to get Carroll to public say "Donald Trump did not rape me" is worth $10 million dollar or whatever to Trump - it's publicity, he could care less about the money, it's campaign fodder that "they lied to get me" and - as I've laid out - there is enough evidence NOT TO CHANGE THE DEFAMATION VERDICT (that's done) - but to prove A RAPE NEVER OCCURRED.
And that's all that Trump needs to play the same game the press is playing. The press has been yelling RAPE from the beginning of this (you yourself have as well at least some of time) Trump wants his opportunity to yell NO RAPE! Because this is a lot more than just about RAPE now - just as the Piss Dossier was a lot more than just about a Hotel Romp with Call Girls - and that's why the press can not cover it fairly.
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?
These are good questions. I think there is a real chance that Judge Kaplan will allow at least part of this counterclaim to get to the jury. I have no idea how a jury will resolve these questions.
I also wonder whether Trump has thought through the consequences of bringing this counterclaim. In bringing a defamation claim, he has put his "character" and "reputation" into question. Carroll would be entitled to discovery on virtually all evidence in Trump's possession regarding his reputation and public perception, which I imagine will include decades of polling and focus group surveys. She also would be entitled to discovery on Trump's economic prospects. He may become the dog he catches the car he was chasing.