While the jury found that Trump sexually abused her, sufficient to hold him liable for battery, the jury did not find that Carroll proved he raped her. He does not face any jail time as a result of the civil verdict. i would be curious to know how a jury decided there was not enough evidence that trump raped her but there was enough evidence to believe he abused her (I know this ws a civil trial with lower standards). I mean it came down to word v word since this was in 1996 with no witnesses and word agaisnt word.
Probably some mental gymnastics akin to erring on the side of caution. Not that I agree, but that’s the only explanation I can come up with. The fly in that ointment of my theory, however, is that they deliberated so briefly. I would have expected a compromise to have taken longer to reach.
In wake of verdict, Trump rants about ongoing "witch hunt" and claims he has no idea who E. Jean Carroll is. Well, she writes books, so that claim tracks.
my exact thoughts but I didn't follow the trial. inb4: "deepstate dems to keep the best chance of Biden winning in the running"
What do they call it when you quit a job where you weren't going to get paid anyway? Trump lawyer in classified documents probe resigns Tim Parlatore’s departure is the latest example of tumult among Trump’s bevy of lawyers. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/17/trump-lawyer-in-classified-documents-probe-resigns-00097355
New evidence in special counsel probe may undercut Trump’s claim documents he took were automatically declassified https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/17/poli...s-special-counsel-declassification/index.html The National Archives has informed former president Donald Trump that it is set to hand over to special counsel Jack Smith 16 records which show Trump and his top advisers had knowledge of the correct declassification process while he was president, according to multiple sources. In a May 16 letter obtained by CNN, acting Archivist Debra Steidel Wall writes to Trump, “The 16 records in question all reflect communications involving close presidential advisers, some of them directed to you personally, concerning whether, why, and how you should declassify certain classified records.” The 16 presidential records, which were subpoenaed earlier this year, may provide critical evidence establishing the former president’s awareness of the declassification process, a key part of the criminal investigation into Trump’s mishandling of classified documents. The records may also provide insight into Trump’s intent and whether he willfully disregarded what he knew to be clearly established protocols, according to a source familiar with recent testimony provided to the grand jury by former top Trump officials. Trump and his allies have insisted that as president, Trump did not have to follow a specific process to declassify documents. At a CNN town hall last week Trump repeated the claim that simply by removing classified documents from the White House he had declassified them. “And, by the way, they become automatically declassified when I took them,” Trump said. According to the letter, Trump tried to block the special counsel from accessing the 16 records by asserting a claim of “constitutionally based privilege.” But in her letter, Wall rejects that claim, stating that the special counsel’s office has represented that it “is prepared to demonstrate with specificity to a court, why it is likely that the 16 records contain evidence that would be important to the grand jury’s investigation.” The special Ccunsel also told the Archives that the evidence is “not practically available from another source.” The letter goes on to state that the records will be handed over on May 24, 2023 “unless prohibited by an intervening court order.” A source close to Trump’s legal team told CNN that the former president has received several letters like this from the Archives over the course of the investigation. Trump’s team may challenge this in court, this person said, but claimed in the past the Archives has handed over documents before the Trump team has had a chance to challenge the release in court. Trump’s legal team would not reveal what was in the 16 records, but the source said the former president’s attempt to block the special counsel from accessing them is “more of a strategic fight about constitutional and presidential protections rather than keeping evidence from the special counsel.” The special counsel’s office and the Archives declined to comment. A Trump spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment Last year, after the FBI seized classified and top secret documents from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, the former president and his allies claimed that Trump had a “standing order” to declassify documents he took from the Oval Office to the White House residence. But 18 former top Trump administration officials said they never heard any such order issued during their time working for Trump, telling CNN that the claim was “ludicrous” “ridiculous,” and a “complete fiction.” NARA’s letter to Trump comes amid a flurry of activity by Smith’s team, including grand jury appearances by former national security officials who testified that they told Trump there was a process for a president to declassify material, according to a source familiar with the matter. The 16 records may help federal investigators overcome a significant obstacle to a potential prosecution of the former president. While presidents have ultimate declassification authority, the limits of that authority haven’t been tested in the courts. That means the various claims by Trump and his allies that he declassified material without going through the standard process cannot be completely dismissed by the Justice Department. In her letter, Wall says that NARA began searching for relevant records after receiving a subpoena from Smith’s team on Jan. 23, 2023. The Archives found 104 unclassified documents that matched what federal prosecutors had requested. When notified that NARA intended to provide those documents to the grand jury, Trump’s legal team raised privilege concerns over 81 of those records. The Biden White House was also notified but told NARA the incumbent president would not assert privilege to block those records from being shared with the grand jury. The special counsel was also given access to other records not challenged by the Trump team. Ultimately, the special counsel identified the 16 records in question as relevant to the grand jury investigation. In the CNN town hall last week, Trump misrepresented the Presidential Records Act, falsely claiming that he was “allowed” to take documents when he left office. In reality, the Presidential Records Act provides that as soon as a president leaves office, the National Archives becomes the legal custodian of the president’s records, which belong to the public. “I had every right to under the Presidential Records Act,” Trump said when asked by CNN’s Kaitlan Collins why he took documents when he left the White House. “You have the Presidential Records Act. I was there and I took what I took and it gets declassified,” he added.
Willis' Actions Suggest There Will Be Charges Filed in August https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2023/Items/May22-1.html This could be the biggie. If Donald Trump is convicted in New York by Alvin Bragg, many people will see it as a dumb accounting mistake and nothing more. After all, if his campaign had directly paid Stormy Daniels from its own money and fully reported it as "services rendered for helping the campaign," it would almost certainly have been legal. Paying her to keep quiet was not a crime. It was the incorrect reporting that was the crime. Similarly, many people are not going to understand why a former president can be charged with holding classified documents when he finally gave them back (well, the FBI took them back). Again, here, the politics are different from the law. The insurrection case Jack Smith may bring is tricky since it hinges on whether giving a speech telling people to go to the Capitol is insurrection. But the Georgia case Fulton County DA Fani Willis is looking at is crystal clear. Willis is very likely going to indict Trump for trying to intimidate state officials into reversing an election he lost. That is something people can understand. Also, unlike the two likely federal cases, there is no possibility of Trump pardoning himself if he is convicted. Only the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles can pardon people for violations of Georgia law. Presidents can only pardon people who commit (or are planning to commit) federal crimes. For these reasons, a conviction in Georgia might well do the most damage to Trump, both because the crimes are clear (multiple statutes are likely to be cited in an indictment) and Trump can't campaign on "Vote for me so I can pardon myself." Consequently, all eyes are on Willis. Specifically, she has asked judges in downtown Atlanta not to schedule any trials from August 7 to August 20. She also told most of her staff to work from home in that period. For the ones who will have to work in the office then, she ordered bullet-proof vests for them. She clearly wants to protect her staff from a potential firestorm. She also warned Georgia law enforcement to be ready for trouble. The Georgia grand jury that would formally bring indictments has a term from July 11 to September 1. Any indictments it issues would come in that period, but now Willis has narrowed the window to 2 weeks in the middle of August. There is no way in the world she would tell judges to clear their dockets, buy bullet-proof vests for her staff, and tell law enforcement to get ready for trouble unless she was planning multiple high-profile indictments. So, we're going to go out all the way on a limb here and predict that she is going to indict Donald Trump for one or more Georgia crimes. We are also going halfway out on the limb and predict that she is also going to indict Rudy Giuliani for something or other, probably committing perjury when he addressed the state legislature. There are likely more indictments as well (possible for those fake electors who did not make a deal with her). If there is going to be only one indictment, there would be no reason to ask all the judges to clear their dockets for 2 whole weeks. That request suggests that one or more judges is going to have plenty of work to do in August. Of course, it may not be the case that she will bring so many indictments that all the judges will be working until midnight for 2 solid weeks. It could be that she made this request for security reasons. That way nobody except herself and a couple of staff members will know when the axe is going to fall and no ordinary defendants will be around if all hell breaks loose when she indicts Trump. That seems more likely to us than that she is going indict 100 people. Trump's lawyers are no doubt already preparing motions for the judge to throw the case out. Good luck with that. It is hard to imagine a more solid case for someone trying to interfere with an election. She has interviewed all three people present in the room when Trump made his infamous phone call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and she has the recording of the call itself. No judge is going to dismiss the case out of hand. And remember, it will be a state judge appointed by Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA) or one of his predecessors. It won't be a Trump appointee since presidents don't appoint state judges.
It is going to be appealed and President Donald Trump will win it. The statute of limitations has already lapsed and what do the Democrat geniuses in New York came out with? They created a law specifically, to target President Donald Trump by extending the statute of limitations an extra year, just so, they can sue him. When President Donald Trump wins, I will urge him to sue the state of New York for huge damages as well as E. Jean Carroll as well!
Special Counsel Jack "not f@cking around" Smith just subpoenaed the Trump Organization for all business records concerning business dealings with China, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Oman from 2017 onward. Special counsel subpoenaed Trump Organization for potential foreign business records: Sources https://abcnews.go.com/US/special-c...-potential-foreign-business/story?id=99523066 The special counsel investigating former President Donald Trump's handling of classified documents previously requested documents from the Trump Organization related to potential business dealings with multiple foreign countries, ABC News confirmed. The subpoena seeks details on any of the company's possible dealings with China, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Oman, according to sources familiar with its contents. The timeline on the subpoena goes back to 2017, the sources said. News of the subpoena was first reported by The New York Times. Representatives for the Trump Organization declined to comment when contacted by ABC News. The office of special councel Jack Smith did not immediately respond to a request for comment. As part of Trump's pledge prior to taking office in 2017, he promised to separate himself from his company's foreign business dealings while he was in office. The Trump Organization in November announced a licensing deal in Oman. It's also been hosting Saudi-backed LIV Golf tournaments at Trump-owned clubs since last year, including one this week in Virginia.