Currently, a jury in New York is hearing testimony from a woman, Jean Carroll, who says she was raped by Donald Trump inside the Bergdorf Goodman department store in the mid-1990s. Carroll is not suing to recover damages for the alleged rape; the statute of limitations on that ran long ago. Rather, she published a memoir in 2019 in which she described the incident. Trump then denied it, called her a liar, and, if memory serves, insulted her looks as well. So the present case is for defamation.
You may not be paying a lot of attention, but the Washington Post is all over the case, posting live updates of Trump’s lawyer’s cross-examination of Carroll, which is going on this afternoon. The Post’s rooting interest is obvious, but that doesn’t mean we should blind ourselves to the significance of the proceeding.
Carroll made her accusations public in 2019. Testifying on Wednesday, Carroll said she has regretted her choice since then. By the time she accused Trump, he was in the White House, commanded enormous attention and had a throng of devoted supporters.
Carroll said some people sent her supportive messages but added that they were drowned out by angry notes and threats.
“People with no opinion now thought of me as a liar, and they hated me,” she testified on Wednesday, sounding anguished. “The force of that hatred was staggering.”
But she also testified about feeling a sense of elation at getting a chance to share her account in a courtroom.
“Being able to get my day in court finally is everything to me, so I’m happy,” Carroll said, as she lost her composure and blotted her face with a tissue. “I’m happy. I’m crying that I’ve gotten to tell my story in court.”
Jean Carroll has been on the stand for a couple of days, but Donald Trump is not expected to testify. I have not seen any explanation of this. Possibly his deposition was taken, and Carroll’s lawyer has agreed to allow excerpts from the deposition to be read, rather than calling Trump for cross-examination.
In any event, there is an obvious mismatch between a plaintiff who shows up and testifies under oath, and a defendant who can’t be bothered to tell the jury his side of the story. Juries don’t like being disrespected. I suppose anything is possible, and it certainly is true that Carroll’s story is inherently implausible. But I think it is highly probable that the jury will find Trump liable for defamation, and thus implicitly find that he did, in fact, rape Carroll. News stories about this will emphasize the fact that more than 20 women have accused Trump of some kind of sexual impropriety, although I am not aware of any other claims of actual rape.
So Trump is already under criminal indictment in New York, and in all likelihood will be found by a jury to have raped Jean Carroll. I believe the Democrats have at least one more criminal indictment in the works, and possibly two. But of all the baggage that Trump is dragging around as he seeks the GOP’s presidential nomination, the fact (if the trial turns out as I expect) that a jury has found that he committed rape–the only reasonable interpretation of a defamation verdict for the plaintiff–could be the heaviest.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.