Unsealed E. Jean Carroll lawsuit transcript shows Trump getting tripped up on the very first question

He just can't stop being an idiot.


​
Donald Trump has sued E. Jean Carroll for defamation after a jury found he sexually abused the former magazine columnist and defamed her.​
​
In a counter claim filed Tuesday night, Trump alleges that Carroll defamed him when she appeared on CNN the morning after the jury awarded her $5 million in damages. Carroll was asked about the verdict finding Trump sexually abused Carroll but did not rape her as she alleged. Carroll said, “Oh, yes he did.”​
​
In response to the new claim, Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan said in a statement, “Donald Trump again argues, contrary to both logic and fact, that he was exonerated by a jury that found that he sexually abused E. Jean Carroll.”​
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Zeedox
1687964363232.png


www.newsweek.com

Exclusive—Trump made shocking comments about Ivanka, says ex-staffer

"Aides said he talked about Ivanka Trump's breasts, her backside, and what it might be like to have sex with her," a new book by Miles Taylor says.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

"He's a pervert, he's difficult to deal with," the source told Newsweek. "This is still the same man and, incredibly, we're considering electing him to the presidency again."

Miles Taylor, a former Trump administration official, describes former president Donald Trump's "undisguised sexism" in his upcoming book.MILES TAYLOR
Taylor, a longstanding member of the Republican Party until he left in 2022, said it's important to think about the types of people Trump would bring into a second term.

"This man is closing the door to all kinds of potential talent, so you would expect even more dangerous people in a second term," he said.

"He's setting a very vile tone within the Republican Party, and in a sense has normalized pretty derisive views towards women in general. I mean, it's why we've seen other MAGA candidates that carry such baggage, like Trump. That's why we've seen copycats pop up around the country."
Click to expand...
 
  • Puke
Reactions: Gomez Adams
  • Like
Reactions: Gomez Adams
The case has been held up on appeal over what constitutes the scope of an employees’ duties until a Washington, DC, court provided guidance this spring, sending the case back to the judge. The DOJ was given until Thursday to state its position. Trump’s and Carroll’s lawyers will also have an opportunity to weigh in.

In addition, in a separate lawsuit brought by Carroll last year under a New York law allowing a one-year lookback for civil claims involving sexual assaults, a federal jury in May found that Trump sexually abused Carroll in a luxury department store dressing room in the spring of 1996 and awarded her $5 million for battery and defamation. Trump, who is appealing the decision, does not face any jail time as a result of the civil verdict.
Click to expand...



In light of the developments, the Justice Department said its position had changed.

Justice Department lawyers said they took into consideration Trump’s deposition that was played in the battery and defamation trial, as well as statements Trump made last October repeating the denials long after he left office, as an indication that he was not motivated to protect and serve the US when he first made the comments.

Lawyers for the Justice Department wrote that after balancing and weighing the evidence “from Mr. Trump’s deposition, the jury verdict in Carroll II, and the new allegations in the Amended Complaint, the Department has determined that there is no longer a sufficient basis to conclude that the former President was motivated by ‘more than an insignificant’ desire to serve the United States Government,” lawyers for the Justice Department wrote.

“And a jury has now found that Mr. Trump sexually assaulted Ms. Carroll long before he became President. That history supports an inference that Mr. Trump was motivated by a ‘personal grievance’ stemming from events that occurred many years prior to Mr. Trump’s presidency,” the Justice Department wrote.
Click to expand...

Just because you became President doesn't allow you to freely re-slander people. What he did had nothing to do with the government or governance.
 
From what I gather they needed him to be found guilty of the prior crime before they could say no. They had already been looking into what was actual service and what wasn't but didn't get a decision on that issue until spring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back