Trump Is On Trial For Sexual Assault Today, And We Just Feel Tired

Trigger warning, for real.

Writer E. Jean Carroll, who's suing Donald Trump in federal court in New York for defamation and battery, began her testimony today with a straightforward declaration of what the trial is about: "I’m here because Trump raped me. He lied and shattered my reputation and I’m trying to get my life back."

Carroll sued Trump because after she wrote a book mentioning the alleged 1996 rape in a Bergdorf Goodman changing room, Trump called her claims a hoax, said that he'd never met her (of course, she'd been photographed with him), and, disgustingly, that he never would rape her since she wasn't his "type." Carroll also filed a second case against Trump after he was no longer "president," when he again claimed on social media that the entire case was false; that case includes a sexual battery claim against Trump under New York's Adult Survivors Act. More background on the lawsuits here:

In Case You Missed It!

E Jean Carroll Is Not F*cking Around

Trump's Lawyers Continue Pattern Of Bad Faith F*ckery In E. Jean Carroll Defamation Case

Trump Is A Filthy A-Hole. His Lawyers Hope Jurors In Carroll Defamation Case Never Find Out About It.

During her testimony today, Carroll, who acknowledges she's not certain of the exact date, said she was fairly certain it happened in the spring of 1996, because a friend, Lisa Birnbach, whom she told about the rape contemporaneously, had published an article about visiting Trump's Florida trash palace, Mar-a-Lago, in February of 1996.

Carroll testified, "I believe that Lisa never would have gone down to Mar-a-Lago if she knew what [Trump] had done to me." That drew an objection from Trump's lawyer, Joe Tacopina, but Judge Lewis Kaplan overruled it. Law Crime News editor Adam Klasfeld is live-tweeting the testimony, which he notes "mirrors her deposition" covering the events of that day.

Carroll said that the encounter began when she was leaving the store and Trump raised his hand up, imitating what she called the "universal" signal.

After Trump recognized her as the "advice lady," she replied: "Hey, you're that real estate tycoon," she says.

"You are so old," Carroll quoted him saying, calling his inflection "humorous."

After they went into the store to help Trump find a gift for a woman, Carroll says, Trump picked up a see-through, gray, body suit.

"It looks like a swimsuit, but this was see-through," she says. "It used to be called teddies."

She says Trump said: "Go put this on."

As she said in the deposition, Carroll said Trump's tone was joking, and she told him, "You put it on. It's your color." She considered the encounter at that point to be silly, something out of a Saturday Night Live sketch, and she agreed that she was flirting a bit with Trump, since it felt like a comedy.

Then once Trump got her into the dressing room, things suddenly changed immediately, as Trump "shoved" her up against the wall and she tried to push back. We won't go into the details of the assault here, because they'll be all over the news anyway and you don't want to read it every bit as much as I don't want to write it, even copy pasting. Carroll presented an unsparing, detailed account, testifying that "As I'm sitting here today, I still feel it."

Carroll said that afterward, she told Birnbach about it, thinking her friend might find it funny:

Asked pointedly why she ever would have thought that, Carroll replies: "I had not processed it. I had not processed what was going on."

Asked if she thinks any part of it was funny today, Carroll replies: “No, it was tragic.”

Carroll said that Birnbach, who is an anticipated witness, told her:

“He raped you. He raped you, E. Jean. You should go to the police."

"I said ‘No way.’"

"She said, ‘I’ll go with you.'"

Another friend, Carol Martin, who's also expected to testify, told her to "keep it to yourself" because Trump "has 200 lawyers. He’ll bury you.”

Carroll also said that she decided to stay silent, in part, because women who've been assaulted are treated as "soiled goods":

"People say, 'You're so brave. You're so brave,'" but also: "I don't know," questioning whether the woman should have been smarter, should have screamed, or shouldn't have flirted so much.

And of course Trump's defense will be that none of this ever happened and that Carroll is just making it all up for the fame and notoriety, although we'd note that most women who accuse famous powerful men of rape tend not to end up rich and famous so much as judged and publicly mocked. Honestly can't recall any rich famous rape victims who didn't get dragged for coming forward, honestly.

Also in court today, Judge Kaplan warned Tacopina that his idiot client should stop posting on social media about the trial, because of course Trump is exactly that stupid. On his pretend Twitter replacement site, Trump this morning mocked the very idea that he would have raped Carroll, who was then "almost 60," and tried to cast doubt on details of her account, insisting that he was so very famous that if anyone had seen him with a woman, it would have made "BIG PRESS."

He also accused Carroll's attorney of being a "political operative," and said that the lawsuit was being funded by a "big political donor that they tried to hide." Returning to a point that was already ruled out of evidence, Trump also pretended that there was something very fishy about Carroll's attorneys not being willing to do a DNA test on the dress she'd worn that day. In reality, Trump refused to supply a DNA sample for years, and then Tacopina only offered to have Trump provide one shortly before the trial started, which would have required a delay of the trial.

NBC News reports that

Judge Kaplan suggested to Trump lawyer Joseph Tacopina that the former president could risk being sued or having sanctions imposed for the Truth Social posts he issued Wednesday morning.

“We are getting into an area in which your client could face a new liability and I think you know what I mean,” Kaplan said.

Judge Kaplan also pointed out to Tacopina that Trump "refused to get DNA sample and now he wants it in the case?” Tacopina said he would have a word with the shithead he represents, and would ask him not to discuss the case on social media. That should go really well, we bet. Get ready for the "Inside the Carroll Trial" reports in six months, in which we'll learn Trump threatened to fire Tacopina, threw ketchup at him, and finally pouted and shut up for a few days.

[NBC News / Adam Klasfeld on Twitter]

Yr Wonkette is funded entirely by reader donations. If you can, please give $5 or $10 a month to help us stay on this crazy thing.

Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons.

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)


This Week In Libelslander!

Sen. Mike Lee wants to make it so you can sue people for stating true facts.

It’s a big week for defamation cases — and threats!

In the wake of Dominion settling its incredibly valid defamation lawsuit against Fox News for $787 million, it’s important to remember that most defamation cases are stupid bullshit that waste the time of our courts and taxpayer money, all in an effort to stop other people from criticizing the rich and powerful.

Why Did Fox News Settle And Why Didn't They Do It Two Years Ago?

But remember we shall, thanks to three Republicans who couldn’t help but make fools of themselves in order to aid us all in our continuing civic education. In Texas, secessionists have filed a defamation lawsuit arguing that it’s illegal to call seceding from the union “seditious treason.” In Florida, a state legislator is threatening to sue her constituents for defamation for stating true facts to her face. And in Utah and/or DC, Senator Mike Lee continues to make us all wonder if he did, in fact, actually go to law school. (Maybe he attended with George Santos?)

So let’s dig in!

Keep reading...Show less

Federal Judge Takes Dump On Clean Water Act In 24 States

Now that water's not so clean.

A federal judge in North Dakota issued a temporary stay Wednesday on a key EPA rule that protects small bodies of water like streams, wetlands, and creeks that can feed into larger water supplies, in yet another fight between regulators who think it would be nice for water in this country to not be polluted, and business and Big Agriculture interests who think the Feds shouldn't be able to stop them from dumping nasty shit that can make its way into streams and rivers.

At issue is a December 2022 EPA rule defining what exactly the term "waters of the United States" means in the 1972 Clean Water Act, because how those five words are interpreted makes all the difference in whether particular damp spots on the map are subject to regulation by the federal government. EPA and Republicans have fought over the term through multiple presidential administrations, and you may be delighted to know that it's such a big part of environmental law that it's regularly abbreviated as "WOTUS."

Also I promise not to go too much into the weeds, or the reeds, since the details of "waters of the US" can be remarkably dry.

Keep reading...Show less

The Devil's Advocates of Easter

It's your Post-Arraignment Sunday show rundown!

This year, instead of the rise of a zombie messiah, we had some other things appear on Easter. So let's dive right into the Sunday shows and marvel at these very undesirable peeps.

Trusty The Clown

We briefly mentioned one of Donald Trump's lawyers, James Trusty, last week. But he really grabbed our attention in his appearance's this week on NBC's "Meet The Press" and ABC's "This Week."

Trusty, who's representing Trump in his whole dragon-like documents hoarding case, tried to defend his client by using a defense that he clearly won't make in court. Trusty kept trying to make a false equivalence between Trump's lying, hoarding, and obstruction versus President Joe Biden's transparent attempts at cooperation regarding classified documents.

It was so ludicrously stupid, in fact, that Chuck Todd's long dead journalistic spirit rose briefly from its grave.

TODD: [...] In this case, not only is he [Trump] not cooperating, he is actively not cooperating. And, again, he did not comply with the subpoena. That’s – the end of the day, that’s the obstruction charge. Why didn't he comply with the subpoena? There was a subpoena for all classified documents. He did not comply with the subpoena. He was caught not complying with the subpoena because of the — the search warrant ending up turning up more classified documents. How do you explain him defying a subpoena?

TRUSTY: Chuck, the Democratic narrative, which you're touting right now to try to draw a distinction —

TODD: It's just a set of facts.

TRUSTY: Well, let me finish. Let's —

TODD: I mean, why call it a Democratic narrative? It's a set of facts.

TRUSTY: Because you're ignoring —

TODD: He defied a subpoena.

TRUSTY: You’re ignoring a set of facts. Let's talk about Delaware. You've got a vice president that has documents for decades in these — in this Chinese-funded Penn Biden Center, right? You've got absolute obstruction there because we don't even have any sort of —

TODD: How is that obstruction?

TRUSTY: Because he had no right to have those documents. He didn't have any ability —

TODD: Right. And did he refuse to turn them over when he found them?

TRUSTY: Well, I don't know. It was hidden for so many months.

I'm not an attorney, though Wonkette has some very brilliant ones who write for us, but I'm pretty sure that "but they broke the law, too" might not be a great defense in court. But to answer Trusty's very dumb question: No, Biden did not refuse to turn anything over and has been as cooperative as possible with NARA to comply with proper archiving and record keeping. That, in essence, is the difference. Because as much as Trump likes mentioning Nixon's $18 million payment for records, which Todd also pointed out he said in that Sean Hannity interview, the former president and his lawyers seem to miss the lesson from Watergate: The cover-up is always worse than the crime.

On "This Week," Trusty was asked about Trump's targeting of the judge's family overseeing his case and tried to excuse it.

TRUSTY: I don’t have any experience with this judge, and, again, my practice as somebody who has been in the criminal justice lane for about 35, 36 years is to not, you know, jump on to any bandwagon when it comes to criticizing. I think the criticisms of the family were not something personal. It was pointing that they have a bias. That they have a political interest that is contrary to President Trump’s.

If Trusty wants to talk about biases and political conflicts involving judges, we have a neat story involving some Nazi memorabilia. That said, considering his zealot followers and that whole case involving a certain day in January 2021, maybe it would be best if a criminal defendant did not put innocent people in harm to intimidate a judge.

Lowering The Barr Again

ABC's "This Week" with Jonathan Karl had on Bill Bar, the former attorney general and the answer to "what would happen if Carl Fredricksen became evil like his idol?"

If you are feeling deja vu from last week, it's understandable. Barr even tried making the same point again about the New York state case being a political prosecution.

BARR: Well, it's a crime — falsifying a business record is a crime if it is part of a fraudulent scheme, if it was a fraud, it was committed in the course of fraud. And I don't see anywhere specified in here exactly what the fraud was.

Based on this and his Mueller Investigation summary, are we sure Barr has decent reading comprehension?

Unlike Trusty, Barr could at least point out the obvious bad strategy of criticizing/targeting the judge and prosecution on his case.

BARR: I don't think it’s appropriate or wise. I mean, the president is notoriously -- lacks self-control and he frequently gets himself into trouble with these midnight tweets and other things. The thing with the baseball bat, for example, was very imprudent of him to do in the middle of the night, and, you know, these are gratuitous comments and aren’t particularly helpful. [...] the president, unfortunately, has a penchant for engaging in reckless and -- and self-destructive behavior that brings these kinds of things on him. In many respects, he is his only -- he's his own worst enemy. [...] And also on the January 6th stuff. That was reckless behavior that was destined to end up being investigated. So it doesn't surprise me that he has all of these legal problems.

If only there was a warning sign that Trump did not respect the Constitution or the law and that anyone who assisted him made it worse ...

But if you think Barr cares for our country, it's made clear his real fear is the idiocy of the Republican base.

BARR: [...] I think part of the reasoning behind it is that they know this is a red flag to a big portion of Trump's base. And that they're going to rally to him because they feel that this is persecution. And that will strengthen Trump's hand throughout the process. I also think though, as far as the general election is concerned, it will gravely weaken Trump. He is already, I think, a weak candidate that would lose. But I think this sort of assures it.

The prospect of Republican primary voters continuing to elect the worst general election candidates is honestly the most schadenfreude ending for a political party's viability since the Whigs.

Have a week.


How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)


©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc