Voronwë the Faithful wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 8:16 pm
Yeah, as soon as I saw there was a quick verdict I was sure that she had won. There was no way they were going to find him not liable that quickly under these circumstances.
Now in the future every time you mention Trump, you can say, Twice-impeached former President Donald Trump, who was held liable for sexually assault ...
I see that notable online lawyers like Renato Mariotti and Elie Mystal likewise were predicting before the verdict was read that the speed with which it was returned indicated a finding in Carroll's favor. Kudos to the lawyers!
I appreciate the multiple outlets who are saying that Trump was found liable for battery or sexual battery, including Geraldo Rivera on Fox News.
Wondering how many other women will come forward now that the door's open. Enough have already made allegations that they could practically start a class action.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
I had a sobering glimpse of life outside my bubble today. I mentioned today's news to an acquaintance: an African American woman in her late 30s, college educated and in a professional career. I gather that she doesn't care for Donald Trump, but we have only barely discussed politics before. She had no idea about this case. She hadn't heard of E. Jean Carroll and didn't know that Donald Trump had been sued for assaulting and defaming her. She didn't know that more than a dozen women have made similar claims about Trump. More shockingly: she had never heard about the "Access Hollywood" tape from 2016. She never encountered Trump's phrase "grab 'em by the p----." (I didn't actually say the phrase itself: I wonder if that concern limited its dissemination.) She had heard the name Stormy Daniels in connection with Trump ("Is she a stripper?") but didn't know that Trump had paid her off or that he was recently criminally charged for doing so. (And she had definitely never heard of Karen McDougal.) And she had no idea that Donald Trump had paid $25 million, while president, to settle a lawsuit brought by victims of his Trump University scam. She didn't even know there was such a thing as Trump University.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
N.E. Brigand wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 10:51 pm
I had a sobering glimpse of life outside my bubble today. I mentioned today's news to an acquaintance...
In a shorter conversation, I just mentioned today's news to another acquaintance: a White woman in her late 40s, also college educated and in a professional career. She likewise hadn't even heard about this case, much less that that there was a verdict. She said she just doesn't have time to keep up with news, although she does feel guilty about it. (I assured her I wasn't judging her.) Both of these folks work in administrative positions in the performing arts; the latter has done so for many years.
Last edited by N.E. Brigand on Wed May 10, 2023 2:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
N.E. that your educated coworkers are so unaware is surprising. I wonder what their primary source of news is.
As for sexual assault in general, it is painful not to be believed. The shaming, the shunning, the bullying even of very young girls is heartbreaking. Girls are often accused of 'knowing exactly what they were doing' in tempting poor unsuspecting men who just couldn't help themselves. I'm proud of Ms. Carroll speaking up and I'm glad she was taken seriously.
Voronwë the Faithful wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 4:36 pm
This does not sound encouraging for a unanimous jury (one reason that I usually try to keep my cases out of federal court is the requirement for a unanimous jury in civil cases). Click on the tweet to see the full list, including the last one, a 31 year old security guard from the Bronx who claimed to avoid the news but is "informed mainly from podcasts such the one hosted by right-wing provocateur Tim Pool." Of course, there must be a reason why Carroll's attorneys didn't use a peremptory challenge on him, whether it is just that there were too many others that were even worse, or because there were other things that he said that made them more comfortable with him.
Tim Pool once was a left-wing activist who participated in Occupy Wall Street in 2011, but he grew reactionary over time, and in 2020 he supported the reelection of President Donald Trump (who later tried to overthrow the U.S. government). It appears that among Pool's other fans was the Nazi who shot fifteen people in Allen, Texas a few days ago, and Pool himself is pushing the claim that the killer is the product of a CIA psy-op. I hope Dave's source is right that this (potential?) juror was not selected.
Lisa Rubin says that Jose Pagliery was right: the Tim Pool listener was indeed on the jury, perhaps because to keep track of all the jurors who were questioned in the fast-paced voir dire, the attorneys needed to lean on the official court transcript rather than on juror questionnaires, which were not used -- and the transcript incorrectly reported Juror #77 as saying: "News basically I tend to avoid, but every now and then podcasts, mainly independent like Temple or some other people like that" (my emphasis). Fortunately for Carroll, his listening habits didn't prevent him from finding in her favor.
Lisa Rubin has an observation
about how the Tim Poole fan got on the jury and why it might not have made a difference.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Voronwë the Faithful wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2023 4:49 am
Lisa Rubin has an observation
about how the Tim Poole fan got on the jury and why it might not have made a difference.
Even if it was an accident, does this help take the wind out of the sails of any appeal based on claims of a biased jury?
Perhaps, although honestly I don't think that there is really a basis for an appeal on that basis. Not that whatever lawyer(s) Trump has file an appeal (almost certainly not Tacopina) won't try.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Now that Donald Trump has been found liable for sexual battery, Alyssa Farrah Griffin, who was White House Director of Strategic Communications in 2020 (after having been the press secretary for the Vice President and then the Dept. of Defense), tell CNN that she knew at the time that it was "problematic" for junior female staffers to be alone with President Donald Trump (perhaps best known as , and that she and other White House officials worked to make sure that didn't happen.
I had forgotten something that George Conway mentions today: following the 2016 election, it was reported that Donald Trump was telling Republicans that he believed the Access Hollywood recording was a fake. This was despite his previously having sort of apologized for it. He didn't deny the tape's veracity in his deposition in this case! He merely said that his comments reflected the truth of what famous men can get away with, "unfortunately or fortunately."
Edited to add the cover of today's New York Post, one of the nation's best selling papers and one that leans conservative:
Voronwë the Faithful wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 4:36 pm
This does not sound encouraging for a unanimous jury (one reason that I usually try to keep my cases out of federal court is the requirement for a unanimous jury in civil cases). Click on the tweet to see the full list, including the last one, a 31 year old security guard from the Bronx who claimed to avoid the news but is "informed mainly from podcasts such the one hosted by right-wing provocateur Tim Pool." Of course, there must be a reason why Carroll's attorneys didn't use a peremptory challenge on him, whether it is just that there were too many others that were even worse, or because there were other things that he said that made them more comfortable with him.
Tim Pool once was a left-wing activist who participated in Occupy Wall Street in 2011, but he grew reactionary over time, and in 2020 he supported the reelection of President Donald Trump (who later tried to overthrow the U.S. government). It appears that among Pool's other fans was the Nazi who shot fifteen people in Allen, Texas a few days ago, and Pool himself is pushing the claim that the killer is the product of a CIA psy-op. I hope Dave's source is right that this (potential?) juror was not selected.
Lisa Rubin says that Jose Pagliery was right: the Tim Pool listener was indeed on the jury, perhaps because to keep track of all the jurors who were questioned in the fast-paced voir dire, the attorneys needed to lean on the official court transcript rather than on juror questionnaires, which were not used -- and the transcript incorrectly reported Juror #77 as saying: "News basically I tend to avoid, but every now and then podcasts, mainly independent like Temple or some other people like that" (my emphasis). Fortunately for Carroll, his listening habits didn't prevent him from finding in her favor.
Voronwë the Faithful wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2023 4:49 am
Lisa Rubin has an observation about how the Tim Pool fan got on the jury and why it might not have made a difference.
It turns out that E. Jean Carroll's legal team, unlike the court clerk, didn't mishear "Tim Pool" as "Temple," and they tried unsuccessfully to have the juror removed because his "single choice of news source" is "an extreme right-wing podcaster who consistently, aggressively, and unreservedly espouses highly prejudicial views on social and political issues directly implicated by this case."
In response, the lawyers for former president and current insurrectionist Donald Trump argued that "a juror's political affiliation is not grounds for dismissal, even in cases involving a political figure." And it seems the judge agreed with them -- and it turned out they were right. I can't tell you how many Trump supporters I have seen who claimed that the jury was biased against him. He himself (via his attorneys) argued otherwise!
Ah, so that was the mysterious sealed motion! Very interesting. And completely contrary to Trump’s claim that he could not get a fair jury in NY.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
I moved a post about George Santos to the Chaos in the House thread where he is being discussed.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
