Apr.28

electoral-vote.com

Dem 51

   

GOP 49

...And So Does E. Jean Carroll

E. Jean Carroll was on the stand yesterday for a second day of testimony in her civil case against Donald Trump. It was mostly cross-examination by Joe Tacopina and, although we were not in the room, it certainly looks like it did not go well for the defense.

The general purpose of cross examination is to poke holes in the plaintiff's argument; in general, Carroll seems to have gotten the better of Tacopina on virtually all counts. To wit:

• Timing: One of the biggest lines of attack for Tacopina, such that he's returned to it several times, is that Carroll is not entirely certain when the alleged rape took place. However, she was able to say yesterday that she thought it was probably on a Thursday in late 1995 or early 1996. As it turns out, Thursday is the one day when the store where the incident took place stays open late. So, that kinda passes the smell test. On top of that, if Carroll were making all of this up, why would she hesitate to make up a date? Her uncertainty on this point actually bolsters her credibility, we think. Though again, we don't know how it's playing in the courtroom.
  
  
• Memory: Tacopina has introduced into evidence a few e-mails written by Carroll 5-10 years ago. Her memory of the contents of those e-mails is fuzzy. The lawyer seized upon that, wondering how she could remember a rape from nearly 30 years ago if she is shaky on e-mails from less than a decade ago. As a sidebar, we can scarcely believe he would pursue such a stupid and counterproductive line of questioning. In any case, as you might guess, Carroll said that everyone forgets about e-mails, but you never forget about being raped.
  
  
• Motivation: Tacopina has also tried to raise doubts about Carroll's motivations for coming forward, implying that she saw a chance to cash in, or else to harm a prominent political figure. Her response to this was very believable; she said she buried the memory until being influenced by the #MeToo movement.
  
  
• Silence: Still another angle of attack from the defense was: If you were raped, how come you didn't make a bunch of noise? Yet again, what a stupid, boorish, clueless line of questioning. Only someone who has not been raped, and who has no real understanding of rape, would presume that there is some "standard" or "logical" response while being victimized. Carroll, for her part, said that she's not a screamer, and that her silence was a product of both shock and embarrassment.

Carroll also noted that she has not had sex, or any romantic relationships, since the alleged incident with Trump. This is unlikely to be a lie, as it would be pretty easy to disprove by calling one or more exes to the stand if she was not telling the truth. And if it is indeed accurate, then it speaks to someone who was really and truly damaged by... something very traumatic.

It would appear the Trumps know the case is not going well, as they have done what they do when they are scared and have gone on the attack. Specifically, they have posted comments to the family's boutique social media platform declaring that Carroll is lying and that she's just a puppet of Trump's well-heeled enemies, particularly LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman. Apparently, the Trumps did not do their research, because while the name Reid Hoffman could be Jewish, he's not. In any event, despite the very limited reach of the Trumps' social media site, Judge Lewis Kaplan told them to knock it off. After some carping about the First Amendment, blah, blah, blah, the Trumps promptly deleted everything.

Again, you never know how things are playing in court, but before the case started, the general presumption was that Carroll was a credible and compelling witness, while Tacopina was a bull in a china shop and ill-suited for a case like this. Nothing that has happened thus far would seem to contradict those presumptions. (Z)