Judge Dumps Trump’s Retaliatory Defamation Suit Against The Winner Of A Sexual Abuse Lawsuit Against Him

Defamation

from the refusing-to-quit-even-when-you're-behind dept

While I can comprehend the fact that Donald Trump has access to money (even if it’s unlikely he’s playing with house money at this point), I cannot understand how he hasn’t been reduced to a pro se litigant at this point. This man has a headful of bad legal ideas and somehow — despite his regular refusal to pay them for their services — still finds lawyers willing to advocate on his behalf.

All Trump does is lose in federal court. Defamation suits. “Stolen election” suits. Whatever the fuck THIS is. All losses.

Trump continues to blunder into court like a luxury yacht piloted by frat boys on spring break. It’s big and impractical. It can do vast amounts of collateral damage. And it’s helmed by a person who never saw a “pussy” he didn’t think could be “grabbed.”

You would think a long streak of losses would be demoralizing. And even if you apply the megalomaniac discount, you’d think a guy who was on receiving end of a jury decision finding that Trump sexually assaulted writer E. Jean Carroll would just limp away from this decision and regroup his ego and waning libido.

Instead, Trump decided this lawsuit loss (in front of a jury, no less!) demanded nothing less than a retaliatory defamation lawsuit predicated on the threadbare legal definition of the phrase “sexual assault.”

This would be inadvisable under even normal circumstances. But Trump is an unusual defendant/plaintiff. His track record in courts should have pushed this past “inadvisable” into “no fucking way am I filing that” territory.

But Trump did decide to sue E. Jean Carroll for defamation despite the fact a jury decided her sexual abuse allegations were true. Not only that, the jury decided statements Trump made about Carroll after discovering he was being sued were defamatory.

Trump’s vengeful hubris has been roundly rejected by the federal court handling this asinine lawsuit. As CNN reports, Trump’s BS defamation suit is as dead as his 2020 election hopes. (I know. I felt as weird writing that as you’ll feel reading it.)

Of course, Trump will continue to believe both of these things are still alive, despite all evidence to the contrary. But we’re far more interested in actual facts than the internal machinations of man who thinks the survival of Schrodinger’s cat depends on the personal interests of the observer, rather than the knowns and unknowns on hand prior to observation.

But back to the facts, courtesy of CNN, which was kind enough to link to the ruling:

In an order Monday, Judge Lewis Kaplan said that Trump had not proven that Carroll’s statements on CNN the day after the jury awarded her $5 million after finding that Trump sexually abused Carroll and defamed her were false or “not at least substantially true,” which is the legal standard.

Trump sued Carroll in June based on her response to questions posed on CNN. Carroll was asked about the verdict finding Trump sexually abused Carroll, but did not rape her as defined under New York law and as she alleged. Carroll said, “Oh, yes he did.”

In throwing out Trump’s lawsuit, the judge wrote, “Indeed, the jury’s verdict in Carroll II establishes, as against Mr Trump, the fact that Mr Trump ‘raped her’, albeit digitally rather than with his penis. Thus, it establishes against him the substantial truth of Ms Carroll’s ‘rape’ accusations.”

How much of a shittily desperate person do you need to be to file a federal lawsuit because you’re upset about insinuations about what exact appendage you used to sexually assault someone? Well, you’d have to be Donald J. Trump, apparently — a person so belatedly upset about case specifics he couldn’t even be bothered to respond to any of Carroll’s assertions during her lawsuit.

Carroll II was tried in this Court in April and May 2023. Ms. Carroll testified that Mr. Trump assaulted her in the dressing room of a New York department store in what most likely was the spring of 1996 by, among other things, forcibly penetrating her vagina with his fingers and his penis. The essence of her account was corroborated by two “outcry” witnesses in whom she confided shortly and six other witnesses. Mr. Trump relied exclusively on trying to discredit Ms. Carroll’s proof and on portions of his deposition testimony that came in on Ms. Carroll’s case. He did not testify in person, attend trial, or present any defense evidence.

If you can barely be bothered to defend yourself fully against what you consider to be false allegations, you can hardly expect a court to view a hastily filed retaliatory lawsuit that’s long on Trump and short on actionable claims to receive a warm welcome from people already accustomed to your arrogance and indifference.

And then there’s the law itself, which says Trump loses. The court notes that there’s been plenty of court discussion as to whether the (sustained via jury verdict) allegations against Trump qualify as “rape” under the narrow definition provided by New York state law. But there’s little doubt the sustained allegations describe violations commonly described as “rape” by victims.

That’s the crux of this countersuit. Trump is upset because he digitally penetrated someone without their consent but did not actually insert his penis in E. Jean Carroll while sexually assaulting her in a New York city dressing room. Truly an amazing argument from someone who actually sat in the Oval Office for four years.

When it comes to defamation and public figures, it’s not whether or not allegations or statements are exactly on-point, completely pure distillations of the letter of the law. It’s whether or not the things said are “substantially true.”

Do you really need me to spell this out for you? I assume everyone reading this post is smarter — or at least, less obstinately stupid — than Donald Trump. (And that includes our worst trolls.) I won’t spell it out. You all know where this leads. I’ll let the court take it from here:

Mr. Trump accordingly fails to state a claim for defamation because (1) he fails plausibly to allege that Ms. Carroll’s statements were not true, and (2) in the alternative, Ms. Carroll’s allegedly defamatory statements were substantially true as a matter of law.

And that’s it. Trump’s argument is nothing more than “but I didn’t use my penis.” His biggest problem with Carroll’s statement is that she wasn’t clinically accurate about the details of this sexual assault. And that’s what Trump believes is a “smart” response to losing a sexual assault lawsuit.

And it’s the same reductive mindset displayed by his acolytes, who will no doubt make an appearance in the comment section. But when your best argument on behalf of someone who forced their way into a dressing room and forced their fingers into someone’s vagina is nothing more than “but it’s not technically rape under New York law,” you really need to start asking yourself some questions about the hills you’ve chosen to die on. More than that, you need to ask if your “hills to die on list” might be directly related to your inability to retain active social media accounts on platforms that aren’t run by delusional billionaires who’ve given you the “opportunity” to buy your way back into impolite society.

If you’ve been reduced to being pedantic about sexual assault, you’ve reached your personal nadir. But, don’t worry. Donald J. Trump is more than wiling to keep you company and court your vote.

Filed Under: defamation, donald trump, e. jean carroll, sexual assault