By Isabelle Wilson-
The world awaits the verdict in the Jean Carroll’s civil lawsuit about Donald Trump’s rape and defamation rape case.
Jean Carroll is suing the ex-US president, alleging he raped her in a Manhattan department store nearly 30 years ago. Mr Trump has consistently denied the accusation.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
Donald Trump’s lawyer, Joe Tacopina, told the judge the former president had waived his right to testify and was not expected to appear.
The former U.S president is currently the subject of defamation and battery charges at the civil rape trial in which the magazine columnist claimed he attacked her in a New York department store in the 1980s.
The revelation comes as attorneys for both Mr Trump and E Jean Carroll rested their cases in his civil rape trial on Thursday, following almost two weeks of testimony alleging that the former president raped the magazine columnist in the 1990s.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
Judge Lewis Kaplan subsequently left the door open for Mr Trump to make a last-minute decision to testify, giving his defence team until 5pm on Sunday to confirm whether or not the former president will appear.
Earlier on Thursday, Mr Trump said he was cutting short his trip to Ireland to “confront” Ms Carroll over the case.
Mr Trump, who has strongly denied the accusation, was questioned about his comments on the tape in which he said that “when you’re a star, you can do anything” to women, in October 2022.
His evidence was played to the jury in the case and made public on Friday, after both sides rested their cases after two weeks of testimony.
The suit claims that the incident “severely injured Carroll, causing significant pain and suffering, lasting psychological harms, loss of dignity, and invasion of her privacy” and seeks “redress for her injuries and to demonstrate that even a man as powerful as Trump can be held accountable under the law.”.
Ashlee Humphreys is amongst the final witnesses in the case, and said if the jurors find in favour of Carroll she would be entitled to up to $2.7m for reputational damage alone after Trump accused her of lying when she alleged that he raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in 1996.
The jury also heard from one of Carroll’s close friends, Carol Martin, who said the advice columnist visited her within two days of the alleged attack.
Carroll filed a civil lawsuit against Trump, alleging that he defamed her by denying the rape allegation and claiming that she was lying to sell books.
Trump has repeatedly denied her rape allegation and said he’d been outspoken while defending himself publicly because he was “offended at this woman’s lie.”
“She is a sick person, in my opinion. Really sick. There is something wrong with her,” Trump said.
In the deposition, Trump also mocked two other women who’ve accused him of sexual misconduct: Jessica Leeds, a retired stockbroker, and Natasha Stoynoff, a former People magazine reporter.
Carroll’s civil suit is based on two primary claims: defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In order to prove defamation, Carroll must show that Trump made a false statement of fact that harmed her reputation.
In this case, Carroll alleges that Trump falsely denied raping her and accused her of lying to sell books. She argues that these statements were defamatory because they implied that she was a liar and damaged her credibility as a journalist.
In the case of intentional infliction of emotional distress, Carroll must show that Trump engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct that caused her severe emotional distress. She argues that Trump’s denial of the rape allegation and his attacks on her credibility were designed to intimidate and silence her, and that they caused her significant emotional harm.
Trump’s defence in the civil suit is based on two primary arguments. Firstly, he claims that he was acting in his official capacity as President of the United States when he denied the rape allegation and attacked Carroll’s credibility. He argues that he is immune from civil lawsuits for actions taken in his official capacity under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
Trump argues that his statements about Carroll were not defamatory because they were his opinion, rather than statements of fact. He claims that he was expressing his view that Carroll was lying to sell books, rather than making a factual assertion.
The legal arguments on both sides of the case are complex, and there is considerable debate among legal experts about the strength of each party’s position. Some legal scholars have argued that Trump’s defence of sovereign immunity is unlikely to succeed because his statements about Carroll were not made as part of his official duties as President.
Others have argued that the question of whether Trump’s statements were defamatory or opinion is a difficult one, and that the outcome of the case may depend on the specific language used by Trump in his denials of the rape allegation.
The case has significant implications for both the #MeToo movement and the broader issue of presidential accountability.
If Carroll is successful in her lawsuit, it could set an important precedent for victims of sexual assault who are defamed by powerful men who deny their allegations. It could also send a message that the President is not above the law, and that he can be held accountable for his actions, even after leaving office.
However, if Trump is successful in his defence of sovereign immunity, it could limit the ability of victims of sexual assault to seek justice in civil courts. It could also set a precedent for future Presidents to use their official capacity as a shield against civil lawsuits, even in cases where they have engaged in wrongful conduct.
Jean Carroll’s civil suit against Donald Trump raises important legal and ethical questions about the nature of presidential accountability and the rights of victims of sexual assault.
While the outcome of the case is uncertain, it is clear that it has significant implications for the #MeToo movement and for the broader issue of civil rights in the United States. As the case proceeds, it will be important for legal scholars and activists to continue to monitor the proceedings and to ensure that the rights of all parties involved are protected.
Trump’s lawyers said Wednesday that he will not testify and that they are not putting on any witnesses .
Carroll has sued Trump for battery and defamation, claiming he raped her in the dressing room of a Manhattan department store in the 1990s and then falsely accused her of concocting a “hoax” after she went public with her claim in 2019.
In the excerpts played for the jury in federal court in Manhattan, Trump maintained that despite the Maples mixup, Carroll was “not my type.” Later, he was asked whether the three women he’d married were his type. “Yeah,” he answered.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar