8 Reasons Why E. Jean Carroll Won Her Lawsuit Against Trump

Published

2 years ago

May 11, 2023

admin

Four years ago, when former magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll first publicly claimed that Donald Trump had raped her in a department store dressing room, she was not sure of the exact date or even the year when that happened. Her account, which described an assault that she said she had suffered more than two decades before, was not supported by direct evidence, eyewitnesses, or a police report. Yesterday a federal jury in Manhattan nevertheless accepted the gist of her accusation, although its $5 million judgment against Trump was based on sexual abuse rather than rape, plus the conclusion that Trump had defamed Carroll by calling her a liar.

Trump’s defenders dismissed the verdict as plainly irrational and politically motivated, suggesting that a fair assessment of Carroll’s claims was more than could be expected in a city that overwhelmingly favored Trump’s opponents in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections. “In New York you can’t get a fair trial,” Trump’s lawyer, Joseph Tacopina, complained. But there are several explanations for the outcome that do not hinge on assuming the jurors were so biased against Trump that they were determined to side with Carroll, regardless of what the evidence showed.

First, this was a civil trial, meaning the verdict was supposed to be based on a preponderance of the evidence, as opposed to the much more demanding standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is required for a criminal conviction. The question for the jurors was whether it was more likely than not that Trump had sexually assaulted Carroll.

Second, two of Carroll’s friends, journalist Lisa Birnbach and former TV anchor Carol Martin, testified that she had told them about the incident shortly after it happened. In the spring of 1996, Birnbach said, she received a distraught phone call from Carroll, who described a rape that was consistent with the account that she gave in 2019 and during the trial. Martin described a contemporaneous in-person conversation during which Carroll said “Trump attacked me” but did not use the wordrape.

Third, two women, both of whom had previously told their stories publicly, testified that Trump had assaulted them, which Carroll’s lawyers argued was part of a pattern. In the late 1970s, former stockbroker Jessica Leeds said, she was sitting next to Trump on a flight to New York when he “decided to kiss me and grope me,” putting his hand up her skirt. In late 2005, former People magazine reporter Natasha Stoynoff said, she visited Mar-a-Lago while working on a story about Trump’s first year of marriage to his current wife, Melania. Stoynoff testified that Trump suddenly pushed her up against a wall and began kissing her, leaving her “flustered and sort of shocked.”

Fourth, Carroll’s lawyers cited the notorious 2005 tape in which Trump bragged about grabbing women’s genitals. “You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful [women],” he told Access Hollywood’s Billy Bush during that conversation, which came to light the month before the 2016 presidential election. “I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.” You can “grab ’em by the pussy,” he added. “You can do anything.”

Fifth, Trump did himself no favors during a deposition in which Carroll’s lead lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, asked him about those remarks. “Well, historically that’s true with stars,” he said. “It’s true with stars that they can grab women by the pussy?” Kaplan asked. “If you look over the last million years,” Trump replied, “I guess that’s been largely true, not always, but largely trueunfortunately or fortunately.” When Kaplan asked if Trump considered himself “a star,” he said, “I think you can say that, yeah.”

Sixth, Trump insisted that he did not know Carroll, despite photographic evidence that they had met, and his denial of her charges hinged largely on his claim that “she’s not my type”as if he could imagine behaving as Carroll claimed he had with a woman he found more attractive. Kaplan noted that when she showed Trump a picture of Carroll greeting him at a social event in the 1980s, he mistook her for Marla Maples, his second wife. “The truth is that E. Jean Carroll, a former cheerleader and Miss Indiana, was exactly Donald Trump’s type,” Kaplan told the jury.

Seventh, Tacopina argued that Carroll’s accusation, which she first publicly lodged in a 2019 memoir that was excerpted in New York magazine, was financially and politically motivated. But the idea that she had suddenly invented the story to boost sales of her memoir was contradicted by Birnbach and Martin’s testimony. And if Carroll’s aim was to hurt Trump’s prospects as a presidential candidate, you might think she would have made the accusation in 2016. Carroll said she did not initially report the assault because she worried about the consequences of accusing a wealthy and prominent man, which was consistent with the advice that Martin said she regretted giving her at the time. Carroll said she was emboldened to come forward by the #MeToo movement, which is consistent with the timing of her public account.

Eighth, although Trump complains that he was not allowed to present his side of the story, he chose not to take the stand or even attend the trial. Michael Ferrara, one of Carroll’s lawyers, emphasized that point toward the end of the trial. “He just decided not to be here,” Ferrara told the jury. “He never looked you in the eye and denied raping Ms. Carroll.”

The jurors notably did not accept Carroll’s characterization of her encounter with Trump as rape, which under New York law requires “sexual intercourse,” meaning penile penetration. But they did conclude it was more likely than not that Trump had “sexually abused” Carroll, which involves nonconsensual sexual contact, and “forcibly touched” her, which involves touching “the sexual or other intimate parts of another person for the purpose of degrading or abusing such person, or for the purpose of gratifying the actor’s sexual desire.”

Tacopina argues that the distinction drawn by the jury makes the verdict “strange.” But you can also view it as a sign that the jurors were not as biased against Trump as his supporters claim and that they made a serious attempt to assess the evidence. While Birnbach’s testimony supported the rape claim, for example, Martin’s testimony was consistent with the characterization on which the jury settled.

Although the jury heard only from Carroll, Leeds, and Stoynoff, nearly two dozen other women have publicly accused Trump of sexual assault or harassment. In light of that history, a fair-minded person might reasonably conclude that he probably did something like what Carroll described, even without the benefit of the evidence presented during the trial.

According to Trump, of course, all of those women are lying. Like every other accusation against him, he says, their stories are part of a long-running Democratic “witch hunt.”

Even after a jury concluded that Trump had defamed Carroll by calling her story “a complete con job,” “a Hoax,” and “a lie,” he was undeterred. “I have no idea who this woman, who made a false and totally fabricated accusation, is,” he wrote on Truth Social this morning.

“Somehow we’re going to have to fight this stuff,” Trump added. “We cannot let our country go into this abyss. This is disgraceful.”

As usual, Trump conflates the country’s fate with his own. But he is right that the verdict against him is further evidence of something disgraceful, although not in the way he means.

Business

Reeves seeks outsider to run Britain’s banking watchdog

Published

3 hours ago

October 4, 2025

admin

Reeves seeks outsider to run Britain's banking watchdog

Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, is seeking a heavyweight outsider to run Britain’s main banking watchdog, with a senior Barclays executive expected to be among the top contenders for the job.

Sky News has learnt that the Treasury is to advertise the post of chief executive of the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), which oversees financial services firms such as banks and insurers, within days.

One source said the recruitment process could kick off as early as next week.

The process, which will run for several months, will lead to the appointment of a successor to Sam Woods, a long-serving official who has served two terms in the role.

This weekend, it emerged that Katharine Braddick, a former senior Treasury civil servant who joined Barclays in 2022, is expected to be among the applicants for the role.

Whitehall insiders said Ms Braddick would be a strong contender for the post if she decided to apply.

A former director-general, financial services at the Treasury, Ms Braddick has been Barclays’ group head of strategic policy and advisor to the bank’s chief executive for three-and-a-half years.

Prior to the Treasury, she worked at the Financial Services Authority and was heavily involved in political negotiations on financial services legislation relating to Brexit.

Barclays declined to comment on Ms Braddick’s behalf on Saturday.

In response to an enquiry from Sky News, a Treasury spokesperson said: “Growing the economy is the Chancellor’s number one mission.

“Every regulator has a part to play by regulating for growth not just risk.”

The chancellor is said to be keen to identify candidates from outside Britain’s existing regulatory set-up to head the PRA.

A small number of internal candidates is thought to include David Bailey, the Bank of England’s executive director for prudential policy.

Ms Reeves’s apparent desire for an outsider comes amid a wider push for Britain’s economic watchdogs to remove red tape and reorient themselves towards growth-focused policies.

Earlier this year, Nikhil Rathi, chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority, was appointed to a second term in charge following intensive discussions about the body’s five-year strategy.

Since then, both the FCA and PRA have removed rules relating to diversity and inclusion in the financial sector, while the former abandoned a plan to ‘name and shame’ companies which were the subject of enforcement investigations.

The Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) was abolished earlier this year as part of the government’s drive to reduce unnecessary regulation.

The search for the next PRA boss will get underway less than two months before the chancellor delivers an autumn Budget in which she is expected to have to raise tens of billions of pounds through additional tax rises.

Mr Woods’ next move will be closely watched in the City.

He has been seen as a potential candidate to succeed Andrew Bailey when the Bank of England governor’s term runs out in 2028, although it is unclear whether he covets the job.

As CEO of the PRA, Mr Woods is also a deputy governor of the Bank of England, a member of the Bank’s Court of Directors, and a director of the FCA.

The chancellor has shown a willingness to recruit from outside the Treasury, appointing Bank of America investment banking veteran Jim O’Neil as second permanent secretary to the Treasury earlier this year.

Mr O’Neil had also served as the head of UK Financial Investments, the agency set up to manage taxpayers’ stakes in Britain’s bailed-out banks.

Politics

Kemi Badenoch says Tories will quit ECHR if they win next election

Published

5 hours ago

October 4, 2025

admin

Kemi Badenoch says Tories will quit ECHR if they win next election

The Conservative Party will leave a key human rights treaty if it wins the election, its leader Kemi Badenoch has said.

Ms Badenoch announced the policy to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) ahead of the Conservative Party’s conference next week.

Despite many Tory MPs having expressed displeasure with the treaty, and the court that upholds treaty rights in recent years, it had not been party policy for the UK to exit it.

The move follows a review on the impact of the UK’s ECHR membership conducted by shadow attorney general Baron Wolfson.

Lord Wolfson’s nearly 200-page report said the ECHR had impacted government policy in numerous areas.

The report said this includes limiting government’s ability to address immigration issues, potentially hampering restrictions on climate change policy, and impacting government ability to prioritise British citizens for social housing and public services.

But leaving the ECHR would “not be a panacea to all the issues that have arisen in recent years”, Lord Wolfson said.

It comes after the Reform Party in August said they would take the UK out of the ECHR if elected.

The Conservatives have increasingly come under threat from Reform and are being trailed in the polls by them.

What is the ECHR?

The ECHR was established in the 1950s, drafted in the aftermath of the Second World War and the Holocaust, to protect people from serious human rights violations, with Sir Winston Churchill as a driving force.

It’s 18 sections guarantee rights such as the right to life, the prohibition of torture, the right to a fair trial, the right to private and family life and the right to freedom of expression.

It has been used to halt the deportation of migrants in 13 out of 29 UK cases since 1980.

A political issue

Leaving the ECHR would breach the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, the peace settlement deal between the British and Irish governments on how Northern Ireland should be governed.

Labour has in recent days said it was considering how Article 3, the prohibition on torture, and Article 8,
the right to respect for private and family life, are interpreted. The sections have been used to halt deportation attempts.

The Liberal Democrats and Greens are in favour of the ECHR.

A general election is not expected until 2029.

US

Trump tells Israel ‘stop bombing Gaza’ – as Hamas agrees to release Israeli hostages, and to parts of peace deal

Published

6 hours ago

October 4, 2025

admin

Hamas agrees to release all remaining Israeli hostages - but seeks further talks on rest of Trump's peace deal

Donald Trump has said Hamas is ready for a “lasting peace” after the Palestinian militants agreed to release all remaining hostages, as he called on Israel to stop bombing Gaza.

The US leader was responding to a statement by Hamas on Friday in which the group committed to returning all remaining hostages in Gaza, dead and alive.

Hamas also said it wants to engage in negotiations to discuss further details of the president’s peace plan, including handing over “administration of the enclave to a Palestinian body of independent technocrats”.

However, other aspects of the 20-point document, it warned, would require further consultation among Palestinians.

The Hamas statement came after Mr Trump warned he would unleash “all hell” if they did not respond to his peace plan, announced earlier this week, by Sunday.

Following the group’s response, the president said there was now a real chance of peace.

“I believe they are ready for a lasting PEACE,” Mr Trump posted on Truth Social. “Israel must immediately stop the bombing of Gaza, so that we can get the Hostages out safely and quickly!

“Right now, it’s far too dangerous to do that. We are already in discussions on details to be worked out. This is not about Gaza alone, this is about long sought PEACE in the Middle East.”

In a video later posted on his social media platform, Mr Trump called it a “very special day” and said the end of the war was “very close”.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel was prepared for the implementation of the “first stage” of Mr Trump’s plan, apparently in reference to the release of hostages.

Moshe Emilio Lavi, brother-in-law of Israeli hostage Omri Miran, told Sky News he “can’t wait” to see his family reunited.

“We’ve received necessary guarantees from President Trump and the wider international community and now we have to keep pressuring Hamas to ensure that they abide by the Trump framework, that they disarm and release all the hostages within the 72 hours the framework outlines.

“There should be no buts and no delays, there should be only a yes to President Trump’s vision to end the conflict and bring home all the remaining hostages.”

Starmer calls for ‘agreement without delay’

Sir Keir Starmer said Hamas’s partial acceptance of the peace plan was a “significant step forwards” and called for an “agreement without delay”.

The prime minister said Mr Trump’s efforts “have brought us closer to peace than ever before” and added: “There is now an opportunity to end the fighting, for the hostages to return home, and for humanitarian aid to reach those who so desperately need it.

“We call on all sides to implement the agreement without delay.”

He went on to say the UK was ready to support further negotiations and work “towards sustainable peace for Israelis and Palestinians alike”.

French President Emmanuel Macron said “the release of all hostages and a ceasefire in Gaza are within reach”, while a spokesperson for UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres urged “all parties to seize the opportunity”.

Hamas agrees to release hostages

The breakthrough came just hours after Mr Trump had set the Sunday deadline to respond to his proposals, backed by the Arab nations.

The US president and the Israeli prime minister unveiled the peace plan at the White House on Monday.

Israel agreed to the terms, which include an immediate ceasefire; the release of all hostages; Hamas disarming; a guarantee no one will be forced to leave Gaza and a governing “peace panel” including Sir Tony Blair.

And on Friday, a statement from Hamas confirmed “its approval to release all prisoners of the occupation – whether alive or the remains of the deceased – according to the exchange framework included in President Trump’s proposal”.

Israel estimates 48 hostages remain in Gaza, 20 of whom are alive.

Hamas official says group will not disarm ‘before Israeli occupation ends’

The group also said it was ready to engage in negotiations through mediators and it appreciated “Arab, Islamic and international efforts, as well as the efforts of US President Donald Trump”.

But, Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzouk told Al Jazeera news the group would not disarm “before the Israeli occupation ends”.

Hamas acceptance – but with major caveats

By Celine Alkhaldi, Middle East producer

Hamas has issued a carefully worded response to Donald Trump’s Gaza proposal.

The group welcomed international efforts to end the fighting, agreed in principle to the release of all Israeli hostages, and said it is prepared to begin negotiations on the details of an agreement.

It also renewed its commitment to handing over administration of Gaza to a committee of Palestinian technocrats formed by national consensus and backed by Arab and Islamic states.

That position has been consistent for months and was not part of Mr Trump’s plan.

On wider questions, Hamas said decisions must be taken within a comprehensive Palestinian framework, leaving the most sensitive issues for future discussion.

The statement appears to accept parts of Mr Trump’s proposal, but in some areas it does not match its terms.

Hamas made no mention of disarmament, avoided any pledge to withdraw permanently from governing, and linked any hostage deal to a complete Israeli withdrawal.

Taken together, the response shows a willingness to engage on humanitarian and political steps already familiar from past proposals, while deferring the core disputes to a broader Palestinian process.

Hamas does not know where all hostages are

Sky News Middle East correspondent Adam Parsons said the “most important part” of the Hamas response was that it showed a willingness to do a deal.

“The peace plan could have died – Hamas could have rejected it – but it is still alive.”

He said there were still “huge obstacles” which would prevent outright acceptance though.

In spite of a pledge to release hostages, he said Hamas did not entirely know where all of them were – some were even being held by other groups.

Hamas’s support for a new government for Palestine was positive, he said, but the specification in the Hamas response that it should be purely Palestinian and not, as Mr Trump had proposed, a “panel” that included external representatives, would be problematic.