E. Jean Carroll testifies in her lawsuit trial that Trump raped her : NPR
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
April 26, 2023 12:10 PM ET
By The Associated Press
Former advice columnist E. Jean Carroll arrives to federal court in New York on Wednesday. Jurors have been seated in the trial over Carroll's claim that former President Donald Trump raped her nearly three decades ago in a department store dressing room.
Former advice columnist E. Jean Carroll arrives to federal court in New York on Wednesday. Jurors have been seated in the trial over Carroll's claim that former President Donald Trump raped her nearly three decades ago in a department store dressing room.
NEW YORK — A writer suing Donald Trump took the stand Wednesday to tell jurors that the future president raped her after she accompanied him into a department store fitting room in 1996.
"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," she testified.
Trump denies E. Jean Carroll's allegations. He hasn't attended the trial thus far, but his lawyers said Tuesday it's still possible he could decide to testify.
Carroll, 79, has said she crossed paths with Trump at the revolving door to Bergdorf Goodman on an unspecified Thursday evening in spring 1996. At the time, she was writing a long-running advice column in Elle magazine. Trump was a real estate magnate and social figure in New York.
She has said he asked her advice about selecting a gift for a woman, and she went along, thinking the experience would be funny. According to Carroll, they ended up in a lingerie department, joked with each other about who should try on a bodysuit and went to a dressing room.
Then, she alleges, Trump slammed her against a wall, yanked down her tights and raped her while she struggled against him. She has said she finally kneed him off her and fled.
Trump, 76, has said he wasn't at the store with Carroll and had no clue who she was when she first aired the story publicly in a 2019 memoir and accompanying magazine excerpt. In a post on his social media site Wednesday, he called the case a "made up scam."
"This is a fraudulent & false story — Witch Hunt!" Trump wrote in his Truth Social post.
In other developments, the judge said Trump made an "entirely inappropriate" online statement about the trial and warned the former president's lawyers that he could bring more legal problems upon himself.
As court was about to begin Wednesday, Trump — who has not attended so far — posted on his social media platform that the case "is a made-up scam."
He went on to call Carroll's lawyer "a political operative" and allude to a DNA issue that the judge has ruled can't be part of the case.
"This is a fraudulent & false story — Witch Hunt!" Trump wrote in his Truth Social post.
Lawyers for Carroll — whose suit includes claims that Trump previously defamed her by publicly calling her case a "hoax," "scam," "lie" and "complete con job" — mentioned his new statement to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan. He wasn't pleased.
"What seems to be the case is that your client is basically endeavoring, certainly, to speak to his quote-unquote public, but, more troubling, the jury in this case about stuff that has no business being spoken about," the judge told Trump's lawyers. He called Trump's post "a public statement that, on the face of it, seems entirely inappropriate."
Trump attorney Joe Tacopina noted that jurors are told not to follow any news or online commentary about the case. But he said he would ask Trump "to refrain from any further posts about this case."
"I hope you're more successful," Kaplan said, adding that Trump "may or may not be tampering with a new source of potential liability."
The trial comes as Trump again seeks the Republican nomination for president, and weeks after he pleaded not guilty to unrelated criminal charges that involve payments made to silence a porn actor who said she had a sexual encounter with him.
Carroll's federal lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and a retraction of his allegedly defamatory comments.
The suit was filed under a New York law that temporarily lets decades-old sexual abuse claims go to civil court. She never pursued criminal charges.
The Associated Press typically does not name people who say they have been sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly, as Carroll has done.
Tags
Who is online
402 visitors
I do believe E. Jean Carroll was raped by Trump...
What a shock!/S
"I do believe E. Jean Carroll was raped by Trump..."
Of course you would.
Any particular reason?
Any particular reason to not believe her?
What took her so long?
The fact that it's nearly impossible to disprove and she stands to benefit handsomely from the attention.
I didn’t say I didn’t believe her. For a case like this, at this early stage, I wouldn’t even try to come to a conclusion. I’m happy to wait for evidence and testimony.
On the other hand, JBB said he believed her. I’d like to know why.
Really, really curious - what will happen when Trump is found not guilty and he and his crew of many decide to file suit against all of the liars who have attempted to bury him while alive?
After all, someone on NT has been consistently banging their drum 'bout Trump standing in front of a microphone in HELSINKI claiming Putin is his brother and that they are good buddies.
False claims are called slander - and slander, in today's world, can cost a lot of money.
The only one who may be facing new slander charges is Trump.
Thats from the judge.
So why wait 30 years to make a report or file suit? Could it be another feeble bullshit distraction by the left to continue their hissy fit?
So it's a civil suit, where the burden of proof is significantly lower than a criminal court and would allow a decades old complaint be heard. The "temporary" piece raises some question as well.
she is looking for a payday.
seems if she were raped and had proof she would have reported it at the time.
maybe she wants something from Democrats?
Kind of like Ford during the Justice Kavanaugh confirmation.
It may be the Democrats want something from her. The timing makes sense; the smear campaign of a possible Presidential candidate. The same person they have feared for the last 7 years.
Doesn’t seem like his usual MO. You’d think he’d just have her up to a suite in one of his hotels and then pay her to keep quiet about it. Even if he were nervous about it now, he could still pay her off.
This could be tough for her to prove.
Hmmmm - never raped anyone - 'specially anyone wearing tights with their back against a wall being covered by a drapery - but, if rape includes forced entry, that would include the need to have the thighs open, even with tights on but down below their knees, so the perpetrator's penis could enter the vagina. So, where did the third knee that she "kneed him off her" come from???
And, of course the ol' "can't allow that DNA to be submitted for evidence 'cause it ain't his" mantra of a NY judge, right? After all, everyone knows how legal, upright and forthcoming those NY legal types are, right? (Ah - the memories of Epstein/Maxwell/others/etc. and their fair treatment/legal protection rumble through our minds.)
Curious minds want to know.
“Curious minds want to know.”
Close…spurious minds don’t want to know.
hard to imagine a woman being raped in a public place never screaming loud enough for store security or any workers to hear her.
doesn't make a lick of sense and remember what Judge Judy says " if it doesn't make sense it usually isn't true"
a truly curious mind would ask why she never pressed criminal charges since she was so traumatized by the alleged incident and why she never filed suit against the store
It seems equally difficult to disprove.
She's in a great situation here. If she wins the trial, she'll get some cash plus be the darling of the Trump haters. If she loses, she'll be a martyr for "me too" and a darling among the Trump haters.
The lecture circuit $$ alone should be quite nice.
The only way this goes wrong (that I can see) is if Trump's team proves she's making it up... which seems nearly impossible 30 years after the fact.
It is a he said-she said. On one side we have a woman who waited 25 or 30 years to seek justice. On the other side we have one of the great liars in human history. Beyond a reasonable doubt is not the standard in a civil case, it is preponderance of the evidence. I think she has a shot.
[deleted]
Sad - really sad.
Why dont you address the topic instead of trying to pick fights.
Except that Trump isn't showing up to testify, so it's more like she said-he ducked out. Juries generally do not look favorably on litigants who fail to appear for trial. They're required to be there, but he can't be bothered to come to court to defend himself.
That says it all, JR, thanks.
Trump has been coddled and protected his whole life. He survived on the specter of the threat. Everytime he was asked to produce or prove anything he ran to the courts for delay and protection. His access to wealth enabled him to avoid and hide everything about anything.
This Carroll case is a minor incident in his long trails of many inequities. But it is a start. And even on this one he is able to not appear in court for the proceedings. His time is coming.
sounds pretty standard for a civil case although there seems to be very little if anything civil about it.
I have trouble putting much credibility into 30 year old claims.
this is like the shit they tried to pull on Kavanaugh.