Re: E. Jean Carroll

1

Yes.

While the picture adds up sufficiently for anyone to see from all the established pieces, there's some reason to think the specific one about the 13-year-old is a spurious piece.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 05- 2-23 7:42 AM
horizontal rule
2

"Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything"


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 05- 2-23 7:47 AM
horizontal rule
3

If anyone hasn't yet read "Bear Head" by Adrian Tchaikovsky, now's the time - near future SF with one of the most realistically unpleasant villains I've ever read, based very closely on Trump. (Reading the predecessor, "Dogs of War", is not essential but also worth while.)


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 05- 2-23 7:53 AM
horizontal rule
4

3: Thanks. Haven't read that but I just finished his "The Doors of Eden" and liked it. I'll try to track those down.


Posted by: Cyrus | Link to this comment | 05- 2-23 8:03 AM
horizontal rule
5

Trump turns up unexpectedly as a villain in Sam Lipsyte's No One Left to Come Looking for You, which is also otherwise terrific.

Love the shout-out to You Must Remember This. It's my favorite podcast that I can never convince anybody to try.


Posted by: Yawnoc | Link to this comment | 05- 2-23 8:49 AM
horizontal rule
6

What happens if Carroll wins? Can newspapers call him a 'rapist' without putting 'allegedly' in front of it?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 2-23 9:08 AM
horizontal rule
7

He provides ever-refreshed evidence of the tedium and ugliness of depravity, contrary to the clichés about Milton's Satan etc.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 05- 2-23 9:20 AM
horizontal rule
8

Trump's wife testified that he raped her. Viciously and violently.

She recanted but apparently her alimony was in jeopardy.

Her story is very credible.

E.Jean Carrol's story is also credible.

The guy has so many allegations of sex assault it's unbelievable and has a recording of him crowing about sex assault.

Sex assault would have to be a kind of hobby if half of these allegations are true.

Not penetrative rape --he's not saying thst he committed penetrative rape. He has the attitude of someone who doesn't care about women's bodily integrity, personhood--which, one assumes, is the attitude of a rapist.

And people are still having this conversation.

What does this mean? Why can't we believe it?


Posted by: yaya | Link to this comment | 05- 2-23 9:38 AM
horizontal rule
9

I don't know! It's embarrassing and I think I'm personally starting to change my understanding of him, though.

I think part of it - for me - is that he looks too slow and lumbering to maintain an erection. I barely ever saw footage of him prior to his current state which seems exhausted/angry/asexual. Like he's mean towards women, but I can't imagine him doing anything more physical than tweeting or picking up a phone to call Fox.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 05- 2-23 10:14 AM
horizontal rule
10

9.2 I think is true. Based on allegation patterns he's most likely sexually assaulted around a hundred women (up to say a factor of two), but stopped around the time he got into politics. I think the hypothesis that he mostly stopped getting erections and started watching TV all the time instead and that's why he ran for president is reasonably well supported. (See also paying Stormy Daniels to watch Shark Week.)


Posted by: Unfoggetarian: “Pause endlessly, then go in” (9) | Link to this comment | 05- 2-23 10:30 AM
horizontal rule
11

I feel like there's a block around what we are prepared to maintain in our mental model of the President. Even with the massive weight of our contempt, with all the lies and fraud, the Presidency is still so bound up with our institutions and nationhood and collective self-image that we have trouble squaring that with him literally being a forcible rapist.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 05- 2-23 10:33 AM
horizontal rule
12

It's not like Thomas Jefferson ever raped anyone.


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 05- 2-23 10:35 AM
horizontal rule
13

5: It was definitely the recommendations here that got me to tune in!


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 05- 2-23 10:35 AM
horizontal rule
14

On a quick glance, there's just a constant stream of credible allegations until around 2006 and then very few after that. Like more just in the year 2006 than from 2006 to the present.


Posted by: Unfoggetarian: “Pause endlessly, then go in” (9) | Link to this comment | 05- 2-23 10:36 AM
horizontal rule
15

12: Well,m precisely.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 05- 2-23 10:37 AM
horizontal rule
16

Funny, I watch hardly any news TV, so I've managed not to really update my sense of him from the eighties and nineties. I know he's an ancient teetering obese wreck of a man, but my fundamental image of him is still the big strong healthy punchable douchebag from thirty years ago.

On this particular case, she seems credible and the accusations are in character. I wouldn't be stunned if there were evidence that it didn't happen -- ending his political career would be a pretty powerful motivation -- but in the absence of solid evidence contravening her story I'd have an easy time finding for her by a preponderance if I were on the jury.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05- 2-23 11:06 AM
horizontal rule
17

The Carroll allegations are from '95 or '96, so from the era LB remembers.


Posted by: Unfoggetarian: “Pause endlessly, then go in” (9) | Link to this comment | 05- 2-23 11:14 AM
horizontal rule
18

I've seen some takes suggesting that Trump is "really" only being tried for defamation, with the assault playing a related role. At the same time, it seems uncontroverted her causes of action are defamation and civil battery. Is there some way to fit these two things together? Maybe it was just someone thinking "It's civil so it's not as serious as being criminally tried for the assault would be."

Also, if he's not required to testify, is the jury also allowed to make an inference from his non-testimony?


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 05- 2-23 11:36 AM
horizontal rule
19

Of course he's not required to testify regardless. Make that if he's not required to testify Given it's a civil case...


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 05- 2-23 11:38 AM
horizontal rule
20

He's such a terrible person in so many ways that it would be impressive, if it weren't so appalling.


Posted by: E. Messily | Link to this comment | 05- 2-23 11:41 AM
horizontal rule
21

constant stream of credible allegations

I'm trying to imagine an allegation against Trump that I wouldn't find credible.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 05- 2-23 11:49 AM
horizontal rule
22

I can think of all sorts of things that I'd disbelieve as out of character -- like, I believe he doesn't drink. So any story where he's gotten drunk as part of it, I'm thinking isn't true.

But implausibly evil isn't a category that would lead me to disbelieve anything about Trump.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05- 2-23 12:03 PM
horizontal rule
23

21: Any accusation that involved him writing anything longer than a tweet?


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 05- 2-23 12:11 PM
horizontal rule
24

21 he donated a large sum to a charity that was on the up and up


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 05- 2-23 12:23 PM
horizontal rule
25

I'm contractually obligated to fondly reminisce that Trump once cashed a check for 13 cents.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 05- 2-23 12:24 PM
horizontal rule
26

God, I loved SPY. I'm still wondering what Trump did to keep whoever owns the rights from republishing all their coverage of Trump back in the day in convenient book form.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05- 2-23 12:28 PM
horizontal rule
27

26 I had a sub. Great mag that


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 05- 2-23 12:35 PM
horizontal rule
28

25: Now I owe you seven cents.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 2-23 12:35 PM
horizontal rule
29

24: I'd add "anonymously" to that. If that's the accusation, I'll laugh heartily and say "No way."


Posted by: Doug | Link to this comment | 05- 2-23 1:07 PM
horizontal rule
30

Yes, he might have done some bona fide contributions as a result of all the hectoring from Fahrenthold et al.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 05- 2-23 2:11 PM
horizontal rule
31

I'm trying to imagine an allegation against Trump that I wouldn't find credible.

I wouldn't believe an allegation of something like armed robbery. Walking into a bank with a sawnoff, that kind of thing. I don't think he has the courage.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 05- 3-23 12:38 AM
horizontal rule
32

31. True. Likewise, he wouldn't personally murder anyone; he'd pay somebody to do it for him.


Posted by: Chris Y | Link to this comment | 05- 3-23 4:51 AM
horizontal rule
33

Or even pay somebody to pay somebody. Hypothetically.


Posted by: Opinionated Michael Cohen | Link to this comment | 05- 3-23 5:11 AM
horizontal rule
34

'E'S NOT EVEN A PROPER FACKIN' VILLAIN. 'E COMES DAHN MY ENDS I'LL FACKIN' 'AVE 'IM.


Posted by: Opinionated Sarf London Face | Link to this comment | 05- 3-23 6:40 AM
horizontal rule
35

31/32: I wouldn't expect him to do gun crimes or murder, but I think I'd believe it if someone said it had happened. He's so unhinged & full of unpleasant surprises.


Posted by: E. Messily | Link to this comment | 05- 3-23 7:12 AM
horizontal rule
36

Yeah. Like kill-a-prostitute-in-a-fit-of-rage murder, then pay somebody to pay somebody for cleanup. Hypothetically.


Posted by: Opinionated Michael Cohen | Link to this comment | 05- 3-23 7:19 AM
horizontal rule
37

That reminds me of Tropic Thunder.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 3-23 7:21 AM
horizontal rule
38

Great movie.


Posted by: Opinionated Michael Cohen | Link to this comment | 05- 3-23 7:32 AM
horizontal rule
39

||

Observation-based estimates for the supply of sediment currently delivered to the Ganges-Brahmaputra delta range from 1,100 Mt/yr (Mt = Mega-tonnes or 106 metric tonnes), representing considerable uncertainty
|>


Posted by: Opinionated Michael Cohen | Link to this comment | 05- 3-23 7:56 AM
horizontal rule
40

Or even pay somebody to pay somebody. Hypothetically.

Or not pay somebody to pay somebody.


Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Link to this comment | 05- 3-23 7:57 AM
horizontal rule
41

||

Observation-based estimates for the supply of sediment currently delivered to the Ganges-Brahmaputra delta range from <500 to >1,100 Mt/yr (Mt = Mega-tonnes or 106 metric tonnes), representing considerable uncertainty
fucking html
|>


Posted by: Opinionated Michael Cohen | Link to this comment | 05- 3-23 7:58 AM
horizontal rule
42

35: oh, definitely agree gun crimes and murder wouldn't be surprising at all. I was meaning specifically a planned armed robbery, which does require a certain degree of courage - blagging a bank, or robbing a stash house a la Omar Little.


Posted by: Ajay | Link to this comment | 05- 3-23 11:58 PM
horizontal rule
43

She just won $5 million for battery and defamation. Didn't say he raped her but did say that he committed battery and defamed her when he disputed her story.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 05- 9-23 2:20 PM
horizontal rule
44

Juries are super weird. There wasn't any evidence before them other than Carroll's case. They mostly believed it. What the thought process was that led them to everything except rape is a complete mystery to me.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 05- 9-23 4:03 PM
horizontal rule
45

Juries are super weird. There wasn't any evidence before them other than Carroll's case. They mostly believed it. What the thought process was that led them to everything except rape is a complete mystery to me.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05- 9-23 4:03 PM
horizontal rule
46

I'd imagine not their required logical path so much as a form of compromise - "we agree she is trustworthy and is most likely correct about him assaulting her, but we're not going to call him an outright rapist on that evidence." Or perhaps you could put it as, they wanted a higher burden of proof for that particular charge.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 05- 9-23 4:08 PM
horizontal rule
47

Maybe they insisted that it's 'domestic sexual assault' unless it happens in the Rape region of France?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 9-23 4:11 PM
horizontal rule
48

Sparkling canola.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 05- 9-23 4:14 PM
horizontal rule
49

Wait, this was a federal case? How did I miss that? Usually such charges are state matters, surely, plus I remember all the stuff about it being facilitated by a NYS change in statute of limitations.

Is it federal because he was the president long after?


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 05- 9-23 4:19 PM
horizontal rule
50

https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/6/27/18761024/e-jean-carroll-donald-trump-accusation-rape

I'm not going to look at the instructions, or her testimony, but it won't shock me if we end up finding out that some jurors balked over the nature/extent of the penetration.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 05- 9-23 4:28 PM
horizontal rule
51

49 It's a civil case, so it could be filed in federal court if they were diverse. I don't remember whether it was filed in state court originally, but if it was, it could have been removed because he was a federal official.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 05- 9-23 4:31 PM
horizontal rule
52

I looked it up -- the case was filed in state court, and was removed the federal court.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 05- 9-23 4:36 PM
horizontal rule
53

52: Which party wanted that? Or both?


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 05- 9-23 4:37 PM
horizontal rule
54

Oh, whoops, that the first case. The one that just had a trial was filed in federal court, based on diversity.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 05- 9-23 4:41 PM
horizontal rule
55

Is that why Republicans don't like diversity?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 9-23 4:42 PM
horizontal rule
56

I'm not going to look at the instructions, or her testimony, but it won't shock me if we end up finding out that some jurors balked over the nature/extent of the penetration.

There's a Life in Hell single panel strip with two teenagers holding hands in front of a set of parents. The girl is very pregnant. Simultaneously she's saying "We're in love" and he's saying "I only stuck it in a little."

I went looking for it online and can't find it, but I find it so hilarious but also poignant.


Posted by: heebie | Link to this comment | 05- 9-23 4:50 PM
horizontal rule
57

Those are not necessarily conflicting.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 9-23 5:01 PM
horizontal rule
58

True love means sticking it in all the way.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 05- 9-23 5:02 PM
horizontal rule
59

If you happen to be keeping a spare donut on your penis, that will ruin the donut.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 9-23 5:03 PM
horizontal rule
60

Will it, though?


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 05- 9-23 5:07 PM
horizontal rule
61

If it's a cake donut, sure. Maybe not a rising dough one.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 9-23 5:13 PM
horizontal rule
62

In the archives, I've surely told the donut story of my brother's frat which I'm 90% sure Moby is referencing? But maybe not? Either way I can't type the whole damn thing out on my phone.


Posted by: heebie | Link to this comment | 05- 9-23 6:49 PM
horizontal rule
63

True love means sticking it in all the way the butt.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 9-23 7:07 PM
horizontal rule
64

62: I don't recall that. It's probably a universal thing.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 9-23 7:25 PM
horizontal rule
65

Then on the other hand, I forgot that "void where prohibited" was something I learned here from Stanley.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 9-23 7:27 PM
horizontal rule
66

Looks like it was removed because Trump was president when he defamed her, not because of diversity jurisdiction.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 05- 9-23 8:48 PM
horizontal rule
67

I'll just let it soak


Posted by: Opinionated Mormon | Link to this comment | 05-10-23 2:11 AM
horizontal rule
68

The Palmolive commercials of the 80s were really kinky.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-10-23 4:46 AM
horizontal rule
69

66 Yes, that was the first suit. Which is still pending, having recently been remanded from the Second Circuit. The second suit was filed after TFG left office, and that's the one that went to trial. The first suit was remanded for trial on whether or not his defamation was within the scope of his duties as President, thus making it appropriate for the USG to substitute.

I haven't spent the brain energy to work out what it actually means that the two cases co-exist -- and Judge Kaplan denied a motion to consolidate them in March -- but I think you can bet that there are further opportunities for legal argument, and maybe further Second Circuit involvement.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 05-10-23 6:13 AM
horizontal rule
70

Okay, I can't find the donut story in TFA, so here it goes: my brother is the president of his frat. They have a rival frat. The rival frat has a sister sorority. It is Greek Week, circa 1992.

My brother sends a box of donuts to the rival frat, with a note in feminine handwriting, saying they were from the sister sorority. "Good luck on Greek Week!" or whatever. Five days later, on the last day of Greek Week, my brother's frat sends over a stack of polaroids of naked crotch shots: each frat member's member wearing a donut.

On Friday, early afternoon, no one is around much at the frat, but my brother happens to be there and he's anticipating that the stack of polaroids are probably getting revealed and anger is going to mount sometime soon. So he's not surprised to get a call from a frat dude from the other frat saying, "WE'RE GOING TO KILL YOU! GET READY! Etc etc."

So my brother hangs up and calls the cops and tells them there's about to be a fight that they need to break up, and sits back and waits. Sure enough, a bunch of angry dudes show up and the yelling starts, and it's starting to escalate, and looks like it could turn violent.

A mildly annoyed cop then shows up and says, "What's going on here?" (I imagine him saying this very tiredly.)

The biggest baddest frat dude of them all points at my brother and says, "They put donuts on their dicks... AND WE ATE THEM!!"

To which the cop turns and says, "Now son, why would you do that?!"

And I don't really know what happens after that, because I consider the cop's visceral recoiling at the other frat dude to be the pinnacle of the story. THE END!


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 05-10-23 6:52 AM
horizontal rule
71

Heh. That's great and horrible.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-10-23 6:55 AM
horizontal rule
72

Hilarious


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 05-10-23 6:58 AM
horizontal rule
73

Albeit in the wrong thread.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 05-10-23 7:07 AM
horizontal rule
74

True


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 05-10-23 7:09 AM
horizontal rule
75

"Bone" Music?
Solid Work?
The american educational system?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 05-10-23 7:14 AM
horizontal rule