As many people have already found out, On May 9, 2023, a federal jury in New York found former President Donald Trump liable for battery and defamation against author E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of raping her in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. This law, the “Adult Survivor’s Act” allows for trials where there is alleged sexual assault to be tried civilly even if they’ve fallen out of the statute of limitations for criminal trial.
While many will take this to mean a verifiably “Guilty” verdict for Trump, the truth as with most things is much more complicated.
ld like to be very careful as I proceed to talk about this as this matter is very sensitive to the REAL survivors of sexual violence and assault. While its important to understand that Carroll may have been the victim of something we cannot simply assign blame in the name of “believe all victims.” Lets start with the facts:
The jury awarded Carroll $5 million in damages, but did not find Trump liable for rape, only for sexual abuse.
Trump denied Carroll's allegations and called them a "hoax" and a "con job" on his social media website Truth Social.
Trump's lawyers did not call any witnesses and claimed that Carroll and her witnesses were conspiring to tarnish his reputation out of hatred for him.
Carroll's lawyers argued that Trump's statements were defamatory and that his sexual misconduct fit a pattern or "modus operandi" that was corroborated by other women and by the infamous "Access Hollywood" tape.
Carroll has had a history of allegations of sexual assault including Les Moonves. Found in her book “What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal” Moonves, while accused of sexual assault by other women, was never found guilty or even in the settlement paid by CBS itself found liable for any assault. (Not a defense, but just a notable inclusion.)
This effort was indeed funded by Reid Hoffman, a prominent political Mega Donor to Democrat causes and one who is also embroiled in his own controversy due to controversial ties, business, visits, reciprocal invites, and plans made with Epstein during his reign of terror. This casts doubt on the “apolitical” claims of this lawsuit.
Many parts of Carroll’s claims are inconsistent with verifiable facts that would corroborate a reasonable belief of assault like:
Bergdorf Goodman confirmed they had no such footage or report of any incident.
The claim that they were alone in the dressing room alone despite it being impossible to have been alone with no employee having seen or been around.
Her puzzling claim to Lawrence O’Donnel at the time that “She did not want to press charges as she would find it disrespectful to the women who are down on the border who are being raped around the clock down there without any protection.”
While handing the dress over to the NYT for DNA testing, having “Never washed it since the incident” the NYT declined to go ahead with the testing after receiving the dress claiming “It would not advance our reporting on the subject.”
In a filing on Friday, Mr. Tacopina said he and his colleagues noticed that the pages between 25 and 37 of Ms. Carroll’s DNA Lab report which would include the report index were missing. When requesting these files, Carroll’s lawyers refused.
Trump’s Lawyer had submitted that Trump would submit evidence in exchange for the missing pages in the aforementioned Lab Testing report by Carroll’s team in regard to genetic material but this was disagreed with this motion as an “attempt to taint the potential jury pool and upend discovery orders, and delay proceedings.” No pages were produced.
“All the while, the dress remained a noose held above Trump’s head—albeit a tenuous one. The lab report Carroll commissioned showed that scientists found skin cells on the outer surface of the coat dress’s sleeves, and the results were potentially difficult to ascertain. There was a mix of at least four people, and at least one was male. Complicating matters, Carroll donned the dress for a photoshoot to accompany the New York magazine article where she first made the explosive claims. Scientists didn’t seem to find what Carroll was looking for.
The Jan. 8, 2020 lab report, submitted in court, says that “acid phosphatase activity, a presumptive indication of the presence of semen, was not detected in any of thirty-three fluorescent stains tested on the dress.” Instead, they found “some apparent animal hairs.”
To take a second here to explain these, basically, Trump lost the case in what you could essentially consider a default judgement. Outside of the deposition (Which its clear that Trump was not taking it very seriously, he did not show nor attempt any defense. In a vacuum, this would be almost concession for many in the court of public opinion, because of how Trump is perceived and the highly political nature of the locality of the trial, it can be inferred that this was a position of defiance. According to the 5th amendment, silence is not supposed to be seen as an admission of guilt, yet in this case it is. Now, I know many of you will say that the 5th does not fully extend to civil cases, but in a lot of ways it does. The only non-applicable areas would be the right to a Grand Jury or the protections against double jeopardy. Outside of that, Trump’s silence or lack of wanting to testify against himself should NOT be seen as an admission of indefensibility as it was here.
Its very important to note that most of the verdict in this case relates to the “Damage” to Carrol’s reputation as is detailed in an article by the AP.
“I’m here because Donald Trump raped me, and when I wrote about it, he said it didn’t happen. He lied and shattered my reputation, and I’m here to try and get my life back,” Carroll told jurors.
Taking this into account, one must be extremely wary of claims going forward that characterize the former president as a rapist and cite this verdict as proof positive as such. The insidious spin of this even by the media is very much fueling weeks of doubt on Trump’s candidacy despite him treating this with very little seriousness. One could argue this is because of the frivolity of the claims and the fact that one cannot defend themselves against claims with no basis, time points, or corroborating evidence outside of hearsay.
What’s more damning to this entire case are the inconsistencies listed in the earlier section, but perhaps the fiasco surrounding the DNA testing of the dress and the willingness of the Trump Team to provide this DNA from Trump to match yet the unwillingness of Carroll’s team to accept it. To expound on this, there was a lack of evidence present on the dress to indicate semen which is integral to Carroll’s claims of what transpired in the dressing room. Evidence was also not found on shoes either.
To sum this up, the claims by Carroll thus far have been fantastical and slightly outlandish. Given what we know from DNA as well as the possibility that this event could have transpired in a dressing room unbeknownst to any employees for a total of 3 minutes without there being any footage or recollection, rape is highly unlikely. The fact that the Jury ALSO was unable to come to a determination of rape is likewise damning, instead opting for a nebulous “Sexual Abuse” claim with no further context. It is lamentable that our justice system is being used in such a manner and FAR more lamentable that trials of this nature, while not criminal, will only serve to weaken faith in FUTURE allegations of rape that may actually have merit or be credible. We’re on the precipice of cascade failure of America’s institutions and that failure begins with a loss of faith in them.
Trump V. Carroll, The Possible End of Legal Credibility