Trump Loses to E. Jean Carroll, Not a Home Run

The jury did not find E. Jean Carroll proved Donald Trump raped her.

The jury, in returning its verdict shortly after 3 p.m. said Ms. Carroll had not proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Trump had raped her, as she had long claimed.

It found he sexually abused her and defamed her causing her damage.She was awarded $5 million in damages. [More...]

The jury also found that Ms. Carroll had proved that she was injured as a result of Trump’s publication of his denial of her accusations on his Truth Social account in October 2022.

The jury determined that Ms. Carroll had proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mr. Trump knew his statement was false when he said her accusation was a hoax, a legal standard known as “actual malice.”

Her whole story was about the rape - how she never had sex again because of it and lost out on the best joy of an adult life. Clearly it wasn't not knowing the date that held the jury back. Preponderance of the evidence is a low standard -- 51%, more likely than not.

It's still a win for her, just not a home run. Trump will appeal of course, and he won't have to pay until the appeals are over and he loses, assuming both of them live that long. Hopefully they will now settle, since interest on the judgment will be accruing. I'm sure her lawyers, who are almost certainly on a contingency, will want to get paid sooner than later as well.

< Sunday Open Thread | R.I.P. Tina Turner and Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Maybe there was (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 09, 2023 at 03:59:38 PM EST
    one or more jurors who couldn't deny the evidence of abuse and assault but decided to save him from being convicted of rape.
    That would have been a bad sound bite. Sexual abuse is easier to shrug off.   He kind of own that already.

    It still hard to frame this as a loss for her.

    My theory (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by MKS on Fri May 12, 2023 at 07:48:57 PM EST
    Two witnesses said that Trump similarly accosted them in semi-public, but did not apparently penetrate them to complete a rape.  These witnesses were testifying as to Trump's pattern or practice.

    So, the jury felt that there was corroboration for s*xual assault, but not rape.


    But he will spin it as a win. The jury found (none / 0) (#8)
    by Peter G on Tue May 09, 2023 at 04:14:57 PM EST
    he did not commit rape, as she had charged, and imposed only a 1% punitive damages premium ($20,000 vs. $2 million). He can keep beating that drum and not even have to lie (except by omission) in doing so.

    Sure (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 09, 2023 at 04:25:35 PM EST
    But I think the lies are becoming more embarrassing for a small group of persuadable voters.

    Characterizing this as a win is defining winning down.


    It's (none / 0) (#13)
    by FlJoe on Tue May 09, 2023 at 04:43:38 PM EST
    the full circle for the Access Hollywood tapes.

    It has been proven that tRump is indeed a Pu**y grabber(but not a rapist!)

    His voters already knew this, any sentinent being knew this.

    It will probably change nothing.


    I agree. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 09, 2023 at 07:00:40 PM EST
    I think Jack Smith is the only case that is going to do any damage and even then it won't end his chances of getting the GOP nomination.

    I think (none / 0) (#25)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 09, 2023 at 08:02:47 PM EST
    this will make a difference.  Of course, not with the fascists, but with a number of voters.  And, in close elections which we have these days, that is important..  Significantly, Fox is carrying this story and not in a good way for TFG.

    Angels on the head of a pin (none / 0) (#19)
    by BGinCA on Tue May 09, 2023 at 05:49:20 PM EST
    Did he penetrate her with his penis or just his fingers. Are any votes contingent on one or the other. T**p will spin anything any way he wants. The saddest situation is that almost 50% of American citizens could care less that the president is a sex offender. Or for that matter, two of nine Supreme Court Justices.  `Locker room talk' indeed!
    If I recall correctly Thomas testified that he never in his life discussed Roe v Wade with anyone. Such a bald faced lie. A complete sham. Thank you Joe Biden

    How many times (none / 0) (#42)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 11, 2023 at 07:26:37 AM EST
    can a person sue someone for defamation if they continue after the initial case has been won?

    Each repetition of the defamatory statement (none / 0) (#53)
    by Peter G on Thu May 11, 2023 at 10:14:19 AM EST
    -- if it causes new harm to the subject -- could in theory give rise to a new right to sue.

    And now, Santos... (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by desertswine on Tue May 09, 2023 at 05:02:57 PM EST
    Justice Department prosecutors have charged Rep. George Santos with federal offenses, three sources familiar with the matter tell NBC News, the most significant escalation in a growing pile of investigations that have plagued the first-term lawmaker since before he even took office.

    No court documents associated with the case were immediately available.

    Campaign finances, I would guess.  It's turning out to be a pretty good day.

    13 charges. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Chuck0 on Wed May 10, 2023 at 01:45:45 PM EST
    Including stealing unemployment insurance.

    Santos co-sponsored (none / 0) (#29)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 10, 2023 at 02:55:57 PM EST
    a bill on Covid unemployment insurance fraud, which is one of the charges he now faces.

    Who could know better than Santos about Covid fraud---from the inside out.


    I think that George... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by desertswine on Wed May 10, 2023 at 10:17:11 PM EST
    will look really good in designer orange.

    Santos' response, via telephone interview (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jack E Lope on Thu May 11, 2023 at 01:42:28 PM EST
    I'm sorry, you must have the wrong number. There is nobody here by that name.

    Not every rival is staying silent (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 09, 2023 at 05:03:40 PM EST
    Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R), a presidential candidate, said a jury's Tuesday verdict finding former President Trump liable for sexual abuse is another sign of Trump's "indefensible behavior."
    "Over the course of my over 25 years of experience in the courtroom, I have seen firsthand how a cavalier and arrogant contempt for the rule of law can backfire," he said. "The jury verdict should be treated with seriousness and is another example of the indefensible behavior of Donald Trump."

    The Hill

    It might not be Asa (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 09, 2023 at 05:23:02 PM EST
    but I don't think it will be DeSantis or Trump.

    This is seems (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 09, 2023 at 07:01:59 PM EST
    to be the lane Chris Christie is taking too. However are there any voters in this lane? I would guess some but not enough to get the nomination.

    I (none / 0) (#24)
    by FlJoe on Tue May 09, 2023 at 07:13:35 PM EST
    think Asa is in the "nice guy" lane, Christie would stay more in the "bully" lane if tRump and meatball flame out on that side.

    I think the money boys might see Asa as worth a look right now, Christie might get some traction with the base if he is the only loudmouth left standing but otherwise he is toast.


    Since this was a civil case (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 09, 2023 at 05:34:49 PM EST
    Trump will not be required to register as a sex offender. Inquiring minds may inquire.  Otherwise, I could see Rhonda Santis building an elementary school within 1000 feet of Mar a Lago.

    The verdict made my day. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 10, 2023 at 09:41:49 PM EST
    To distinguish between rape and sexual battery at this point is to offer most of the general public a legal distinction with only a minutia of difference. Donald Trump's deposition, with the near-horrific arrogance he projected, is what probably sunk him.

    No small wonder the jury took only three hours to find unanimously that Donald Trump sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll, and that he then defamed her by calling her a liar. And so, it's no surprise that they awarded the plaintiff $5 million, too.

    She won. Cased closed. Now, on to Georgia, where the stakes are far higher for the prospective defendant and his coterie of cronies.


    I have to assume the distinction between (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Peter G on Thu May 11, 2023 at 10:13:05 AM EST
    "rape" and "sexual battery" that the judge gave the jury was based on New York state statutes as they were written at the time of the incident. There is no inherent distinction between the two that would be general, multi-jurisdictional, or timeless in American law.

    I wonder whether Giuliani really had (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Peter G on Tue May 16, 2023 at 07:35:31 PM EST
    a pardon-selling scheme going with Tr*mp, which would be a very serious bribery case, or only claimed to have one, which would be a fairly serious wire fraud case if he took money from would-be pardon-seekers under false pretenses that he could fix their cases. I have not read whether he got any clients for that pitch. I thought the would-be fixer pipeline ran through Jared K. (and not corruptly, as far as I know).

    Another couple of million in punitives (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Peter G on Tue May 23, 2023 at 08:08:29 PM EST
    ... each day, for each new stupid Truth Social post repeating the denials that the jury already found to be knowingly false and defamatory

    A Tiny Explanation (none / 0) (#1)
    by RickyJim on Tue May 09, 2023 at 03:29:12 PM EST
    Judge Lewis A. Kaplan said that for the jury to establish that Trump raped Carroll, she had to prove that Trump engaged in sexual intercourse with her, and that he did it without her consent. The judge said that sexual intercourse includes "any penetration of the penis into the vaginal opening."
     In other words, just fingers won't do.

    Recalling (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 09, 2023 at 04:07:26 PM EST
    Senator Marco Rubio's assertion during the 2016 Republican presidential primary, the jury may have concluded that Ms Carroll was unable to discern to more than  50 percent likelihood.

    She claimed both (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 09, 2023 at 03:41:23 PM EST
    fingers and his johnson

    From CBS (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 09, 2023 at 03:45:24 PM EST
    "Carroll said Trump pushed her against the wall, her head slamming against it. She said Trump forcefully penetrated her with his hand, causing severe pain, and then penetrated her with his p*nis.

    Carroll said she managed to force her knee between them, pushing him away before leaving as fast as she could."


    We May Never Know the Jury's Thinking (none / 0) (#5)
    by RickyJim on Tue May 09, 2023 at 04:00:28 PM EST
    But a guess is that Ms Carroll only testified what she felt rather than saw penetrating so there were a few jury members who couldn't get past 50% on the rape charge.

    Someone on MSNBC just said (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 09, 2023 at 07:10:39 PM EST
    she also at some point testified that she was "not sure if he fully penetrated her"

    With the thing


    That would explain it too (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by MKS on Fri May 12, 2023 at 07:50:26 PM EST
    Can't see how this will work for the appeal (none / 0) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 09, 2023 at 04:13:26 PM EST
    Former President Trump is claiming he was silenced during the trial involving author E. Jean Carroll, who is suing the former president for sexual battery and defamation, saying that he will appeal the case over its "unconstitutional silencing."

    He had ample opportunity to have his voice heard as a witness for the defense at the trial. He chose not to avail himself of that opportunity.

    He was silenced in the way that matters to him (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Peter G on Tue May 09, 2023 at 04:21:03 PM EST
    that is, he was told not to rant (on his own social media platform, and only during the trial) to the fools who give him money. But that did not limit his right to speak to the jury in the only way that matters, that is, under oath, in the courtroom, and subject to cross-examination. So he was not "silenced" in any way that could affect the verdict (that is, affect the verdict properly). Thus, it is not an issue for appeal.

    This is just Trump being Trump. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 09, 2023 at 04:55:55 PM EST
    For consumption of the deplorables and other rubes.  As he did in Ireland, he was coming home to confront that woman. Sure.

     Next will be send money for my appeal or to pay this disgraceful penalty, just endorse your social security check.

    The judge advised the jurors not to reveal their names, and if they do, to not reveal the names of fellow jurors for their safety..  What a situation where citizen jurors may be at risk from serving on a civil trial  of the former president of the USA.


    Is there any chance that.. (none / 0) (#10)
    by desertswine on Tue May 09, 2023 at 04:24:53 PM EST
    E. Jean will actually ever see any money from Tr*mp out of this?  

    Heard today she might (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 09, 2023 at 04:27:41 PM EST
    apparently she has good lawyers

    E.J. Carroll's lead attorney, Roberta Kaplan (none / 0) (#26)
    by Peter G on Tue May 09, 2023 at 08:54:40 PM EST
    is the lawyer who took the Edie Windsor estate tax case to the Supreme Court and won, striking down the Defense of Marriage Act and laying the legal groundwork for Obergefell. IOW, no slouch.

    Jury Form Available (none / 0) (#20)
    by RickyJim on Tue May 09, 2023 at 06:42:18 PM EST
    I didn't understand why questions 7 and 8 were to be determined by clear and convincing evidence while the other questions only by a preponderance of evidence.  This is the "statement" referred to in the Defamation section.

    The Supreme Court has long held (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Peter G on Tue May 09, 2023 at 09:02:02 PM EST
    that the First Amendment requires a "clear and convincing" standard of proof, more than a mere preponderance but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, to impose civil liability for defamation.

    I'm torn about the Trump town hall (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 10, 2023 at 05:04:28 PM EST
    I hate the idea of giving CNN the ratings but I think it might be a Trainwreck  

    Everyone involved including Trump is saying it could be.  Supposedly CNN has a friendly audience.

    Might be worth it for the chance to see him self immolate on live TV


    See what happens! (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 10, 2023 at 05:15:02 PM EST

    Donald Trump promoted his town hall meeting tonight: "Could be the beginning of a new and vibrant CNN with no more fake news or it could be a total disaster for all -- including me!

    As far as (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 10, 2023 at 05:57:22 PM EST
    should they do this?

    IMO he is leading in the polls by 40 points.  He's not going away.  What they ask him and how they ask him will be the test of should they have done it.


    Simple (none / 0) (#33)
    by FlJoe on Wed May 10, 2023 at 06:21:13 PM EST
    formula for me, if they let him get away with lies then it is a failure on CNN's part.

    It's a town hall format so I think most or all of the questions come from the audience, as I understand correctly it's a group of probable primary voters so theoretically there will be a decent number of tRump sceptics.

    It's possible that he may get a hardball question or two but it really doesn't matter because he will lie no matter what.

    I think it is incumbemt for the moderator to fact check in real time, pretty easy since the lies always remain the same.


    I could not do it (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 10, 2023 at 07:15:56 PM EST
    I tuned in just now

    He looks like an orange toad.  But the makeup is toned down from the deposition

    He is predictably rolled my over the host.


    Predictably (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 10, 2023 at 07:17:02 PM EST

    A (none / 0) (#37)
    by FlJoe on Wed May 10, 2023 at 07:21:24 PM EST
    firehose of lies, doubling, tripiling down on all his greatest hits, with the audience hooting and hollering.

    Still (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 10, 2023 at 07:46:39 PM EST
    It's kind of a train wreck.  

    I think it's good for the remaining persuadeables


    I hope (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 10, 2023 at 08:37:55 PM EST
    cNN takes serious heat for their irresponsible decision to give this sorry excuse for a human being an unfiltered platform for his lies.  As bad as TFG was the fascists in the audience were even worse.

    I'm upset that they found out about the babies. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Chuck0 on Thu May 11, 2023 at 10:38:11 AM EST
    Now what I'm going to have for dinner?

    That was a disgrace (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 11, 2023 at 07:55:56 AM EST
    CNN needs to be made to pay for it.  But the most horrific part was the audience reaction.  And bussing in all those fascists was probably Trumps idea but it was a mistake.

    Everyone is used to Trump lying.  People who don't watch his rallies might be more alarmed by the reaction than his standard script.

    It was a nightmare.  But maybe not for Jack Smith.  He made some pretty heavy admissions about documents and overthrowing the govt.

    It definitely did not helphis general electoral prospects. Either.



    Also (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 11, 2023 at 08:05:50 AM EST
    going to be interesting to see how his fellow candidates say about that performance.  

    It's hard to imagine they think it was good for them.


    I (none / 0) (#45)
    by FlJoe on Thu May 11, 2023 at 08:54:54 AM EST
    also thought the audience was the worst part, it definitely gave him a homefield advantage.

    I just spoke to my older brother (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 11, 2023 at 09:24:08 AM EST
    who voted for Trump at least once.

    He was appalled and embarrassed by the performance last night.  I can't help but think this won't be unusual.  


    You know (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 11, 2023 at 09:48:18 AM EST
    I just don't get this and probably never will. This is the same Trump from 2016. He hasn't changed. Why is it a problem now and not in 2016 are my thoughts.

    Plenty of people (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 11, 2023 at 10:38:19 AM EST
    voted for Trump the first time who only knew he was not a democrat.  

    Not that hard to understand why you might regret that.  

    One of the biggest things keeping Trump afloat is unwillingness to admit you made a horrible mistake.

    Let's not rag on the ones who get it.


    This is why (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 11, 2023 at 02:51:18 PM EST
    I don't discuss it at all. I have family members that voted for Trump. Most of them have gone radio silent. A friend of mine's husband voted for Trump and was all upset about him fundraising off of indictments in NY. My friend said to her husband well, you voted for him and he proceeded to blame Hillary for his vote. It is who they are. It's like a cult and there's no point.

    I will however when they are attempting to lecture me on who I should vote for tell them that I take no advice from people who voted for George W. Bush and Donald Trump, 2 of the worst presidents in the history of the country.


    It was nothing (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 11, 2023 at 09:32:49 AM EST
    short of a disaster for CNN. Collins was terrible. Both she and Licht should be let go. Can you imagine how Medhi Hasan would have handled that situation?

    While it did probably turn off more swing voters if they watched it had to probably increase his chances of getting the GOP nomination.


    I (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by FlJoe on Thu May 11, 2023 at 09:46:52 AM EST
    kind of feel sympathetic towards Collins as she was more or less set up, because of the makeup of the audience any one on one questioning became one against two hundred

    She was well prepared on certain things like the election fraud bs, and pushed back on several fronts and persisted in trying to get striaght answers on others.

    However she seemed unprepared to stem the tsaumi of lies that everyone knew was coming, to be truthful nobody has really ever done that.

    Bottom line, CNN allowed tRump to shape the battlefield to his advantage ... same as it ever was.


    Everybody (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 11, 2023 at 09:54:07 AM EST
    literally everybody knew it was going to turn out this way. Maybe that is what CNN wanted. However Licht has said this was going to rebrand CNN and get back to what they were. The only way they can get back to the powerhouse they were is to have Ted Turner buy it back at a fire sale price and fire a lot of people.

    Well, CEO Chris Licht was certainly right ... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 11, 2023 at 04:08:01 PM EST
    ... regarding his prediction that CNN's Trump town hall broadcast would rebrand his network. Only one day afterward, we're already hearing colorfully descriptive terms like "disgrace", "shocking", "travesty", "disgusting", "grotesque", "shameful", "stupid", "what the f*ck were they thinking?", "disastrous", &etc.



    She could have walked off (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 11, 2023 at 10:24:53 AM EST
    Sure, not likely.   But the only appropriate response to him yelling over her.

    Not letting her off so easy.


    one person (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 11, 2023 at 02:45:54 PM EST
    on social media said she should have found someone in the audience that believed Trump lost the 2020 election and ask Trump if htat person was stupid since he said anyone that doesn't believe it is stupid.

    I agree that Collins was not up to the job but then she learned her trade on the Daily Caller.


    one person (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 11, 2023 at 02:45:54 PM EST
    on social media said she should have found someone in the audience that believed Trump lost the 2020 election and ask Trump if htat person was stupid since he said anyone that doesn't believe it is stupid.

    I agree that Collins was not up to the job but then she learned her trade on the Daily Caller.


    It was, as if, (none / 0) (#57)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 11, 2023 at 11:30:28 AM EST
    Collins was only permitted."tough questioning" on the topic of the 2020 election being rigged or stolen.  

    What probably annoyed me the most ... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 11, 2023 at 04:10:39 PM EST
    ... about last night's CNN sh!tshow was Ms. Collins' insistence on addressing Trump as "Mr. President."

    Wow (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 11, 2023 at 05:01:51 PM EST
    Did not notice that

    Peter Baker (NYT). (none / 0) (#71)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 11, 2023 at 05:33:01 PM EST
    says "Collins was a true pro and shows what a srellar journalist she is".   Baker is always a good barometer for me-- if he thinks something is good, it was a diasadter,

    In addition to fodder (none / 0) (#58)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 11, 2023 at 12:13:35 PM EST
    for Jack Smith, the  hard to find Republican Platform was uncovered:

     Coups  will be part of the electoral process; forced birth  is to become the law of the land, convicted insurrectionists, seditionists, and other rioters and vandals  of the US Capitol will be honored and pardoned-- J6 will become a national holiday so as to observe that "beautiful day", misogyny and racism will be highlighted as  Republican Party values, Ukraine will be abandoned to Russia and a green light will be given to whatever Putin would like to do in Europe, the debt ceiling will never be raised so we can "see what happens"  the free press will be jettisoned save for those not nasty to the leader,.and the mocking of sexual assault victims will be encouraged.

    The only utterance made by Trump that was not a flat-out lie was his claim to be among those responsible for the Dobbs decision and the overturning of Roe.  So, the Republican platform will be to have hacks like Gorsuch,, Kavanaugh and Barrett at the Supreme Court  And, for the lower courts, jurists like Judge Aileen Cannon and Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk.


    There has been much (none / 0) (#74)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 11, 2023 at 09:53:39 PM EST
    weeping and gnashing of teeth by the media about how to "cover" Trump when his lies and unconventional interviews make covering him a challenge to effective journalism.

    Trump's history as a candidate and knowledge of his presidency along with his anti-democratic and authoritarian pledges for his future governance, if elected, make it clear that "how to cover" him is the wrong question.  The right question is "why should he be covered?".  

    A Trump candidacy should be covered at an arms distance from him---analysis of speeches, position papers, if any, campaign ads and literature and his comments. No live coverage, only videotapes.

    i A candidate who does not recognize election results and was the ringleader of the an attempted over-throw of the government  is anti-Democratic. The media is under no obligation to provide their resources to facilitate the fascist takeover of our democracy.

    So much of the country is in denial of what the Republican Party has become and what it has in store for it.. The media should not normalize Trump's fire hose of lies, sexual abuse conviction, impeachments, indictments and corruption.


    Kudos (none / 0) (#72)
    by FlJoe on Thu May 11, 2023 at 05:46:04 PM EST
    to CNN, after some brave and gritty journalism they have discovered that tRump is a big fat liar, just like they did last month and the month before that and in a few weeks when they forget their own reporting they will be on the case again.

    They got the viewers (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 11, 2023 at 06:40:23 PM EST
    That is all they care about. I can no longer watch CNN since they decided to go right.

    I could not do it either... (none / 0) (#70)
    by desertswine on Thu May 11, 2023 at 05:18:53 PM EST
    I could not watch that orange monster eat that CNN spokesmodel.

    Only the best (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 10, 2023 at 07:02:36 PM EST
    Take the Win (none / 0) (#51)
    by john horse on Thu May 11, 2023 at 09:58:13 AM EST
    Like Donald from Hawaii, this also made my day.  Trump continues his losing streak, in elections and in the courts.


    RE: CNN's town hall with Trump. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 11, 2023 at 01:10:30 PM EST
    In director Sidney Lumet's now-eerily prophetic black comedy "Network" (1976), executives at the fictional UBS TV network debated the ethics of allowing a manifestly irresponsible man to go on the air because he's a potential ratings magnet.

    47 years later, life imitated art, with CNN CEO Chris Licht assuming the role of UBS TV's maniacally ambitious CEO, Frank Hackett (Robert Duvall), who greenlighted amoral programming director Diana Christensen's (Faye Dunaway) complete revamp of the network's 6:00pm news show to showcase the unhinged anchorman Howard Beale (Peter Finch) because that "mad prophet of the airwaves" was, in Hackett's own words, "a big-t!tted hit."

    While Licht's appalling decision to platform the likewise-manifestly irresponsible Donald Trump for 90 minutes in prime time may have garnered a large ratings share for CNN, it also placed sexual abuse victim E. Jean Carroll at potential risk for more personal harm as Trump continued to rhetorically pummel her on the air to the delight of his MAGA audience, which laughed at her with Trump's urging.

    Last night's broadcast certainly has to be one of the most shameful moments in CNN's 40+-year broadcast history.

    It was gross.

    If I was Carroll, (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 11, 2023 at 02:46:28 PM EST
    I would definitely have my lawyer threaten to sue again if he doesn't cease defaming me.

    Yes that (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 11, 2023 at 02:58:26 PM EST
    As Peter G noted above: (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 11, 2023 at 03:36:41 PM EST
    "Each repetition of the defamatory statement -- if it causes new harm to the subject -- could in theory give rise to a new right to sue."

    So, I agree with you. Personally, I think Trump's near-complete inability to comprehend the growing legal risks he faces and keep his big mouth shut at inopportune moments is ultimately going to be what does him in. He's become his own worst enemy in a court of law.

    And as a result, he's offering prosecutors and plaintiff's attorneys alike a smorgasbord of unhinged word salads to choose from when making their respective cases against him.



    An insurance "reform" (none / 0) (#78)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 22, 2023 at 11:19:22 AM EST
    law was passed quietly by the Florida legislation and signed by DeSantis. The new law makes it more difficult for Florida citizens to sue their insurers.  This was in addition to a previous bill that curbs litigation against property insurance companies.  

    Trumps lawyers request a meeting with the AG (none / 0) (#80)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 23, 2023 at 08:57:31 PM EST
    I think this is the best indication so far something is about to happen.

    Trump's Lawyers Send Cryptic Letter to Merrick Garland to `Request a Meeting at Your Earliest Convenience'

    I would describe that letter more as (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by Peter G on Tue May 23, 2023 at 10:22:22 PM EST
    "lunatic" than as "cryptic." It reads like Tr*mp's federal criminal defense lawyers let their client edit the letter, if not fully draft it. But yes, an indication that they have reason to believe that Special Prosecutor Jack Smith is about ready to make a presentation to A.G. Garland.

    I heard a few times yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 24, 2023 at 09:46:39 AM EST
    that possibly this is because it's common for a prosecutor to invite a person about to be charged, or the attorneys involved, to come in and tell us your version.  A last chance.

    But they don't want to talk to him.
    Trumps lawyers treat it like a child playing one parent off another.  Wanting to talk to Mom because Dad is on the warpath.

    It's funny because it seems totally in character for Garland to say something like, 'go ask your father'.