E. Jean Carroll triumphed in her sexual assault case against the ex-president. But what does it mean for him—and his election prospects? Alan Dershowitz, Lara Bazelon, and others weigh in.
I want to be very clear with my comment. As a husband of 41 years, the father of two beautiful daughters, and grandfather to three little girls, all of whom I adore and would give my life for, I put rape and sexual assault right up there with a capital crime, such as murder. In some ways, it is worse because the victim has to live with the consequences forever. It is inexcusable and deserving of judicial punishment commensurate with the abominable nature of the crime. Having laid that groundwork, I am very troubled by what I see as a corruption of our legal system for the purpose of targeting an individual who we wish to destroy by any means necessary. lt is inarguable that the democratic party and the left will do literally anything to destroy Trump's chances at another term and preserve their hold on political power in the US. I believe that anyone who doubts that is naive, in denial, or simply part of that ideology. I am no Trumper. I intensely dislike the man and his bombastic, boorish personality. I detest the smarmy condescension and better-then-thou attitude of Obama, Clinton, and Biden more.. not to mention the latter's clear intellectual incapacity. I suffer from the same handicap that nearly everyone who reads this does. I was not in the courtroom, have not read the trial transcripts, and I certainly wasn't in that changing room thirty years ago. Do you wonder, like I do, how both came to be in that changing room, as Ms. Carroll alleges and Trump denies? I cannot crawl into the mind of Trump or Ms. Carroll any more than you can. I do not trust a single word written by the legacy media these days. All of it drips partisanship and bias, without even a passing attempt at objectivity. Like all he said/she said trials with no physical evidence, we will be left to wonder and our opinion on the matter will likely be the same after the verdict as it was before. Of all the commentaries above, Dershowitz's carries the most weight with me because he is looking beyond the damage done to two individuals at the damage done to our judicial system. Like the indisputaby politically motivated indictment of Trump by Bragg, this is the most worrisome to me. R. Bosshardt, MD, FACS
It’s hard to think of this as anything but lawfare, part of a DNC-coordinated campaign of legal and financial harassment designed to punish Trump for being president and prevent him from running again. After Christine Blasey Ford, it’s hard to believe any woman with a decades-old “he said, she said” allegation.
So, not one comment defending Trump? C'mon, give me a break. A mixed and perplexing verdict and not one word saying maybe they got it wrong?? I don't honestly know what happened in this case but I don't read The Free Press to get legacy media bile vomited all over me.
I assume the Free Press also feels the same urgency to immediately report on the House Oversight & Accountability Committee’s findings of nine Biden family members receiving over $10 million in payments from foreign nationals to their 20 different “companies” after their review of thousands of subpoenaed records and the Biden family’s attempts at concealing them. Should be hitting my inbox any minute now....
This is a lot like a white jury convicting a black man in the Deep South at the height of Jim Crow of, well, ANYTHING, but certainly sexually assaulting a white woman. The charges are thirty years old, and it is her word against his. What nonsense. It's a political hit job funded by left wing activists, like Reid Hoffman, whose funding was not allowed to be mentioned in the court: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-lawyers-cant-discuss-billionaire-funding-carroll-rape-lawsuit-judge-2023-4
When the Left cares about the VERY credible rape allegations made by Tara Reade against Joe Biden--she mentioned them immediately to her friends, and had been an enthusiastic Democrat and political supporter of Joe Biden, which is why he thought she was "into" him--then, hell, who are we kidding? When the Left cares about any principle whatsoever, then it will stop being the Left and become Liberal. That cannot be anticipated any time soon, and if they win, not in any of our lifetimes or those of our children, since we will all be living in a technologically airtight tyranny.
Bari, I see you still haven't figured out the meaning of "toady." Ask Joe Rogan, or better yet, Tulsi Gabbard. This article is anything but fair or balanced. It's undisguised toady-ism.
I came here to get away from the nonstop Trump Hate echo chamber. I came here for a respite from the noise. Yes, Trump is a rich self entitled asshat. Yes, New York State in their ever ending strategy to dig up every skeleton in Trump’s closet and “win” a political war so the headlines can read “we got him” race, essentially made it possible for a 30 year old disgusting act from a self indulged asshat to be turned into a real civil suit and be heard in our once renowned legal system. As if we all didn’t know the asshat we elected was an asshat. As if the NY Kangaroo show trial that just concluded was a “victory”.
I came here to get away from the echo chamber in the media…isn’t that the same reason you gave me this delicious place to come? Don’t ruin it by becoming everyone else. This Trump hating pile-on seems to be your tipping point. Find a better way to discuss this.
I'd be laughing if this weren't so sad and so destructive of our legal system. Because some women are sexually assaulted by rich and famous men, we're now supposed to believe that every crackpot claim is true? Even better if it can be used to destroy a former President whom the vast majority of New Yorkers despise. Carroll couldn't even remember the date Trump supposedly assaulted her. About as reliable as crazy Blasey Ford. But remember when every Democrat senator hung on her every word as if she were Moses delivering the tablets?
Remember , too, when half of America had the completely innocent Duke lacrosse players as rapists? Or Smollett as an assault victim (looking at you, Joey). If not for DNA evidence and a fortunate ATM photo, Crystal Mangum and her sleazy handler Nifong would have likely gotten a conviction. All as a result of the Greek chorus of "public opinion." Was there any evidence to corroborate that Trump and Carroll were even at Bergdorf's together? To corroborate the date of the supposed assault? No. Trump was convicted because he commented that rich and powerful men can do what they want with women? Ask the wives of athletes and actors about the groupies that target their husbands and boyfriends. This is not a one-way street. The "evidence" in this case seems laughable. The "law professor," Bazelon, who said Carroll's evidence was "exceptionally strong" was equally laughable but only in a scary way; such have the standards of that calling fallen. Because just as when you practice political medicine, you're practicing politics not medicine, the same is true of the law. We have dumbed down the law to the point that we might as well just dispense with trials and just have the juries vote in a bizarre version of Survivor. God help us when the legal and medical professions have become nothing more than high priests of political lunacy.
Move on and appeal. At this point, the left has made a mockery out of the legal system. Better yet, time for Tara Reade to get her day in court.
Whatever the truth of Trump's interaction (or lack thereof) with Carroll, this seems like a very, very dark day for our legal system. Bazelon, given pride of place near the top, says Carroll had an "exceptionally strong case." Huh? How can a plaintiff have an exceptionally strong case without anything more than an unevidenced accusation and a defendant liberals detest? How can the jury legitimately conclude Trump to be guilty of some specific allegation based on nothing more than the defendant's insistence that the allegation is true? And how can the jury conclude with any force of justice that Trump defamed Carroll when he speculated as to her motives? If defamation is truly a concern here, how is it not *Trump* who has been far more seriously defamed, since an unprovable accusation of rape is far worse than an unprovable insinuation of lying to juice book sales?
There's no way to look at this objectively and fail to see a garishly politicized and unjust verdict. And yet The Free Press has managed to compile the opinion of only one person who even partially sees it that way.
What's going on here? Why is Goldberg's hackneyed and biased strategic frame even included, much less placed first? Why is Bazelon's biased framing treated as serious analysis? Why is the writer who spends her entire word count projecting her own experience with assault onto this case being treated as if she has anything relevant to say? Why is The Free Press, in including that response, suddenly treating 'believe all women' as an intellectually or morally serious proposition, which of course it is not? Why include the response of the last writer, who spends her whole word count womansplaining (as if the vast, vast majority of men don't already know that biological urges don't justify sexual coercion)? Why did Bari, according to her own account, introduce the absurdly gender-biased framing of "why it matters... for any woman faced with the daunting prospect of bringing a powerful man to account"?
I ask again: What the hell is going on here?
This is not an even handed approach. It starts with the basic assumption that women don't lie and manipulate to get what they want (money, power, fame etc). All humans do, including women. A plausible explanation of the motives could well be that Carroll saw an opportunity for something she wanted and used the current power structure to move in that direction. Who knows. Maybe Trump was a pushy bore and grabbed her but didn't rape her. Once again, who knows. What I do know is that if you assume white as the driven snow motives on one side, it's a Mickey Mouse thought process and goes in the trash.
An evolutionary biologist? Huh? I don’t love Trump, but many things about the case seem trumped up. They changed the statute of limitations - its 30yrs old? There has to be a little bit of skepticism when the alleged victim cannot remember the year, doesn’t report it and has no witnesses only hearsay. I don’t know what happened between the two of them 30yrs ago, but I do believe that you don’t get a pay day for bringing it up 30yrs later. I do wonder WHY she would go into a dressing room with him to begin with. This seems like a piece in the never ending Get Trump playbook. It seems you can’t and shouldn’t “believe all women” all of the time.
The change in the statute of limitations was ex post facto, so the verdict will be thrown out. Everyone knows this, making the whole case a DNC hit job.
I’m sorry, why was she in a dressing room with a strange man she just met? Isn’t that a signal she is “up for the adventure”? I mean the only reason I would go to a private room with a man I just met is if I wanted to have a sexual experience with them. And, no, it’s not blaming the victim. There is no other plausible reason to do it. So why doesn’t anyone allow a premise that she consented to all this and then turned this around against him? What makes this version impossible? I’m just trying to be fair here. There is supposed to be a presumption of innocence in our legal system.
Bari - you wrangling to get back into the NYT"s?
Right or wrong, movie on NETFLIX to come soon about the brave fight of this women. Yet you and the main street press ignore the Democratic issues on women abuse, like the Biden aide. She's a wack job and never happened. This is not law, this is simply politics and NY voters are the sheep used to get verdicts as the Democrats want. Remember the Me Too Movement? Yet it ignored the claims of women against the woke liberals. This is garbage that someone who doesn't remember the date or day when something happened 30 years ago. Really? Sorry I just find it hard to believe as I think a women would absolutely remember that kind of abuse. The Democratic playbook now consists of our policies suck, so get a women to claim the judge, politician, actor, or whoever we hate did something 30 years ago. This is a sad, sad commentary on society.
I make no defense of Trump, Biden, Gore, and all of the other men who think they are superior and can use women like a new tie. Respect for humankind is just so lacking. Yet 30 year old claims I find hard to believe no matter what the case is. So, can I sue LBJ's estate over a fake war for re-election and get paid for two years in the made-up war. Where does this stop?
Apparently the truth offends a lot of people. What Trump said in that tape was that if you’re famous women would let you do certain things. Was it crude? Certainly. But if you think it’s not true you are hopelessly naive. You should see how groupies behave with rock stars.