Trump files suit for defamation

maybe, just maybe, trump doesn’t tell the truth and every single woman who spoke up are not complete liars. Just because they dare speak about Dear Leader.

“Two former Trump White House officials said Tuesday that they reported instances of what they described as the ex-president’s improper behavior toward women to other senior staffers,

She said that she feared what could happen to the unnamed staffer, taking measures to ensure that the woman didn't go on trips with Trump and staying with her when she was left alone with him.“

Trump White House Aides Say They Told Higher-Ups About ‘Inappropriate Behavior’ Towards Women

https://www.salon.com/2023/05/10/it...x-aides-say-they-witnessed-harassment-in-the/

 

Makes sense to me that the parties could be collaterally estopped from re-litigating the jury's findings in the other case, though I'm not sure what the impact the pending appeal in the other case may have on this case.

In any event, I don't see how the elements here are undisputed. In the Counterclaim, Trump alleges that Carroll made statements with actual malice and ill will and with an intent to harm Trump's reputation. So those appear to be part of the elements of the cause of action. They are not undisputed, and he has the burden of proof as the counter-claimant. Not sure what the NY case law may say, but in my experience, a party's state of mind and intent are often considered questions of fact which preclude summary judgment and require a jury to make findings of fact. Adding to that, "rape" can have a broader dictionary definition than is more narrowly defined under state laws to require genital penetration as opposed to penetration by a hand or object.

Could a jury find that she made statements with actual malice by saying Trump raped her as opposed to saying that he sexually abused her? I can't rule that out, but I think the odds of Trump prevailing on summary judgment are very low.

 

Reiterating my previous statement while the merit or lack thereof regarding Trump's counterclaim against Carroll make for interesting discussion in the end it's almost certainly another publicity stunt by Trump intended to gin up his supporters and he will undoubetly drop it. Although this lawsuit by Trump involved a completely different issue I'm predicting that his lawsuit against Carroll will end up with a similar outcome.
Trump drops Florida lawsuit against New York attorney general
And then there was Trump's defamation lawsuit against Bill Maher:
Trump withdraws "orangutan" lawsuit against comic Bill Maher
And keep this in mind.
Why Donald Trump Has Never Won a Libel Case

 

Trump's real problems are only beginning. The more consequential criminal trials coming up will reflect how little regard he has for our country and democracy and the danger he presents to our country. His strategy seems to be solely focused on using his criminal/legal issues to attack DOJ/legal institutions to gain support. Very authoritarian and not a viable vision for a democracy.

 

The elements of collateral estoppel in New York make it very obvious why you're totally full of it:
"(1) the issues in both proceedings are identical, (2) the issue in the prior proceeding was actually litigated and decided, (3) there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the prior proceeding, and (4) the issue previously litigated was necessary to support a valid and final judgment on the merits."

The issues in both proceedings are not identical. A defamation claim against a public figure is not identical to a rape claim against him. And the issue of whether she lied was not actually litigated and decided, nor was it necessary to support a valid and final judgment on the merits.

Don't come on here, spew bullshit, and expect nobody to push back on it.

 

I don't know all of the facts or law either, and that's fair. But I'm a bit confused. You said that Trump will likely win summary judgment since the elements of his claim are undisputed. That seemed to be based on the jury's verdict in the other case. I explained why I don't think that's accurate, why I think any collateral estoppel would be limited, and why I think the chances of Trump winning summary judgment are very low. You responded that you're not necessarily disagreeing with me. That's fine, but you're still insulting others for pointing out some of these same issues with your analysis.

 

The jury didn't issue an affirmative finding that Trump did not commit rape; it did find that there wasn't sufficient evidence to support Carroll's allegation. Although similar there is a difference and they did find that he sexually abused her. In any event this entire thread is essentially an intellectual exercise based on a hypothetical since the case will never come to trial. I'm willing to make an offer to the OP. If the case ever gets to the point where there is a trial based on the facts I will refrain from posting on this board for six months. If Trump voluntarily dismisses the lawsuit (the most likely outcome since he isn't actually serious) or if the court dismisses it with prejudice or enters a summary judgment in favor of Carroll would you agree to refrain from posting for a similar 6-month period.

By the way this was the result of another lawsuit in which Trump sued for defamation.
How it began
Trump Sues Writer and Book Publisher (Published 2006)
And how it ended.
Millions, billions: Judge tosses Trump's lawsuit over his worth

 

The Counterclaim is in the link.

Beginning on page 24, they do reference statements of hers beginning in 2019, although it's not clear to me if their position is that those earlier statements are actionable by themselves or not. They seem to be focusing on her alleged post-trial statements, saying she should be held liable for not walking back her characterization of the sexual abuse as rape and because she continues to say it was rape even after the trial.

If I'm reading it all correctly, Trump's core theory of liability against her then (at least post-trial) is actually the reverse of what you were suggesting might get her into trouble.

Trump sues E. Jean Carroll for defamation over CNN comments, says that rape 'clearly was not committed'

 

Speaking hypothetically even if another jury finds that Trump didn't commit rape it's rather difficult to accept that his reputation had been damaged by the CNN interview. He was already held in rather low esteem by a significant percentage of the population prior to the interview and those who do worship Trump didn't consider Carroll's allegations against him credible prior to the interview and undoubtedly didn't change their opinion of him as a result of the interview. My guess is that Trump's favorability rating as measured in a number of polls was virtually unchanged from what it was prior to Carroll's interview to what is was subsequent to the interview.

 

I would concede that hypothetically Trump could win the suit and if he does the jury will almost certainly award him nominal damages since he didn't suffer any real harm. Still predicting that the lawsuit will go as far as his lawsuit against Bill Maher.
Trump withdraws "orangutan" lawsuit against comic Bill Maher

 

The notion that she'd be in trouble for walking it back but also be in trouble for not walking it back sounds like a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation where Trump could have sued her and prevailed either way. That doesn't sound right to me.

I disagree that the jury in the other case made a finding that Trump did not rape her. She had the burden of proof, and the jury found that she did not meet her burden based upon the evidence and however "rape" is defined. The jury verdict itself asked the jurors to state whether she proved each level by a preponderance of the evidence. The jury checked "No" as to the rape. That's not the same as finding that it didn't happen or that it was malice for her to use that word or claim it did. Hypothetically, the jury could have thought the likelihood that it was rape was the same as the likelihood that it did not constitute rape. If the jurors were 50% on that both ways, she still didn't meet her burden.

Maybe not as relevant here, but practically, if the jury in the other case thought the accusation of rape was really out of line and was made in bad faith, I wouldn't have expected the jury to award her millions of dollars, but that's speculation on my part. The arguments about what she's said post-trial are I think at least a little more interesting.

 

Just read the alleged statements talking about Ivankas body