Trump skal betale 83 mio Dollars til den tidligere dating rådgiver og skribent E. Jean Carroll, for at have kaldt hende en løgner og et “whackjob!” efter hun havde anklaget ham for en voldtægt engang i 90erne. Ja, det er en af den slags anklager. Den tidligere politiske rådgiver for Bill Clinton, James Carville, demonstrerede på MSNBC Demokraternes og mediernes mentalitet, ved at beskrive Trump som “a mortal threat”, “going after him with a meat cleaver”. Carrolls sejr var kun en del af den større kamp
You can not let him up! You can’t normalise him! You can’t let him of the canvas, not for one second. (…) We gotta keep the foot on this guy, right on his neck, take our heel and twist it – and never let it up.
“This trial is about getting him to stop, once and for all” sagde Roberta Kapland, E. Jean Carrols advokat, i sine afsluttende bemærkninger ifølge The New Yorker. Jep, lige ud af posen, og sladderbladet fortsætter
Five years ago, Kaplan’s client, the writer E. Jean Carroll, wrote an article in New York magazine describing how Donald Trump once forced himself on her in a Manhattan department-store dressing room. Since then, Trump has regularly attacked Carroll publicly, not only denying that the assault happened but calling her a “whack job” who should “pay dearly” for entering “dangerous territory.” Online, his legions of fans have subjected her to further threats and abuse, for daring to speak out against their supreme leader. On Friday afternoon, a jury of nine New Yorkers sided with her, saying that the former President had defamed her, and ordering him to pay dearly: $83.3 million in damages.
”Everyone who is accused and denies it can be sued?” spurgte Travis på X, hvilket var mere end medierne kunne svinge sig op til. Det blev fejret på TV showet The View og hos Rachel Maddow var Carroll selv ganske kålhøgen. Nikki Haley, der stiller op imod Trump i Republikanernes primærvalg, var helt på E. Jean Carrolls side og mener, som James Carville, ikke at Trumps vælgere er normale. En af hendes største donorer er Reid Hoffman, “the billionaire capitalist, and mega-donor to the Democratic Party and leftwing causes”, og som Victor Davis Hanson påpeger, så er Hoffman også pengemanden bag E. Jean Carroll
She, the alleged victim, did not remember even the year in which the purported sexual assault took place, nearly three decades ago. Observers have pointed out dozens of inconsistencies in her story.
It was never clear what were the preliminaries that supposedly (Trump denies meeting her) led both, allegedly, willingly to retreat together to a department store dressing room, where during normal business hours the alleged violence took place.
Moreover, the sexual assault complaint came forward decades post facto—and only after Trump was running for and then president.
Carroll eventually sued him for battery, but well after the statute of limitations had expired and thus the case seemed defunct.
Her claims of defamation injuries arise from being fired from her advice column job at ELLE magazine.
She claimed that Trump’s sharp denials and ad hominem retorts led to her career ruin. But the loss for anyone of a column at 76 does not seem such a rare occurrence, and the absence of a salaried job in one’s late seventies for four years does not seem to equate to a $83 million hit.
And note the allegation that her dispute with Trump led to her firing was strongly denied by the very magazine that cut her loose.
But then another strange thing happened. In 2022, a new law (“The Adult Survivors Act”) was passed in the New York legislature. It also post facto established a twelve-month window (beginning six months from the signing of bill) that permitted survivors of long ago alleged sexual assaults suddenly to sue the accused long-ago perpetrator—regardless of the previous statute of limitations.
That unexpected opening suddenly gave Carroll’s prior unsuccessful efforts a rebirth. And she quickly refiled with the help of arch-Trump hating billionaire Hoffman.
Yet the bill may have been introduced with Trump particularly in mind—given the legislator who introduced it, Brad Hoylman-Siga, was known as another Trump antagonist.
Raheem Kassam har en mere detaljeret gennemgang af forløbet og skriver om tilblivelsen af Carrolls anklager
Carroll has admitted that she first considered bringing a suit against Trump during a house party hosted by far-left blogger Molly Jong-Fast.
Jong-Fast, a writer for the viciously ‘Never Trump’ publications the Atlantic, the Bulwark, the Daily Beast, and Vanity Fair, is the daughter of feminist activist Erica Jong and anti-gun author Jonathan Fast. She is also the granddaughter of communist author Howard Fast.
On one evening in 2019, Jong-Fast held a celebration for Kathy Griffin at her New York home. Griffin had recently been in the news for holding up a bloodied, severed prop head of President Donald Trump, suffering public backlash which she claimed “broke” her.
But while Griffin was being pieced back together by Jong-Fast and company at the “Resistance Twitter come to life” party, lawyer George Conway, once married to Trump’s pollster Kellyanne Conway, was convincing Jean Carroll to sue Donald Trump. Conway has form in this area, once being involved with an effort to sue Bill Clinton.
According to reporter Byron York: “Conway even suggested a lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, who had co-founded a #MeToo legal defense nonprofit group called Time’s Up. Kaplan was apparently deeply committed to helping victims of sexual abuse but deeply committed to politics, too: In August 2021, she resigned from Time’s Up over sexual misconduct allegations against New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo. The problem was Kaplan was not standing up for victims but was “involved in an effort to discredit one of Mr. Cuomo’s alleged victims,” according to a New York Times report. The E. Jean Carroll case would be a mix of sex and politics but with a Republican villain.”
In other words, Kaplan was using Carroll as a means by which to repair her reputation, having attacked Governor Cuomo’s alleged victims. Kaplan – supposedly no relation to Judge Lewis Kaplan, who presided over the Trump case – indeed became E. Jean Carroll’s lawyer.
So, who would fund the case? Perhaps someone else looking to do damage control as it was emerging that he visited disgraced sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein’s notorious island. Enter LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, who Carroll even initially lied about, when she was asked if someone was funding the operation against Trump.
“Is anyone else paying your legal fees, Ms. Carroll?” she was asked during a deposition, responding: “No.” This lie soon fell apart, and Roberta Kaplan was forced to write a letter that stated: “During the course of preparing for her testimony at trial, Ms. Carroll has recollected additional information… While Ms. Carroll stands by that testimony about this case being a contingency case, she now recalls that at some point, her counsel secured additional funding from a nonprofit organization to offset certain expenses and legal fees.”
That funding was from Hoffman’s American Future Republic group.
But the coincidences don’t stop there. Recently, Reid Hoffman was found to be a major donor to the primary campaign of Trump’s only remaining competitor: Nimarata ‘Nikki’ Haley. What a small world. Hoffman even bragged to New York Magazine’s Kara Swisher: “I will spend as much as I possibly can… [to beat Trump].”
85% af Manhattans vælgere stemte på Joe Biden i 2020. Mange af dem, ser ham, som Carville beskriver ovenfor, som en livsfarlig fjende, en som ikke falder ind under normale regler. I et så stort bassin af Salem hysteri er det ikke svært at finde en blodtørstig jury og en dommer, der vil øve vold på retsstatens principper udi grov pligtforsømmelse grænsende til korruption.
On Saturday, the former president’s legal team learned of an “insane,” undisclosed “conflict of interest” between Judge Lewis Kaplan, who presided over the whispy-thin case, and Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan (no relation), that will become the foundation of Trump’s appeal.
According to the New York Post, “Trump lawyer Alina Habba said she was unaware Manhattan federal Judge Lewis Kaplan and Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan worked together in the early 1990s at the same powerhouse white-shoe law firm until Saturday, when asked about it by Post columnist Charles Gasparino, who was told by a source that the judge was once Roberta Kaplan’s ‘mentor.’”
According to her LinkedIn page, Roberta Kaplan spent more than 24 years between 1992 and 2016 at Paul, Weiss Rifkin, Wharton & Garrison in Midtown. In 2017, she became a founding partner of Kaplan Hecker & Fink.
“During her early years at Paul Weiss, she worked as [an] associate of the firm at the same time as Judge Kaplan, who was a partner there until 1994 when he was appointed to the federal bench by then-President Bill Clinton,” The Post reports.
“It was never disclosed,” Habba said. “It’s insane and so incestuous.”
Den Retfærdige Harme Viva Frei tilføjede
Kaplan, in a foot note, concludes AS A MATTER OF FACT that Trump “raped” E. Jean Carroll.
Despite the jury LITERALLY coming to the opposite finding.
He then granted SUMMARY JUDGMENT such that Trump had only a “trial” on damages for denying the rape.
Med sådan en dommer, er det ikke mærkeligt at læse, at doms-processen var grotesk, som Kassam skriver
During the trial, it was also revealed that Carroll had deleted evidence of the alleged death threats she had received. The same death threats that formed part of the jury’s rationale for awarding her nearly $100 million. When Trump lawyer Alina Habba moved for a mistrial on this basis, she was rudely fobbed off by Kaplan. The judge. Not the lawyer. Such behavior was commonplace in the Manhattan courtroom over the course of the trial. Even when it was revealed that Carroll illegally owns a firearm in New York State, the global media paid no mind.
Trump, for his part, was barely allowed to say a word when he took the stand. The judge ordered no new evidence be admitted, and no new testimony was allowed. Just as is the case with Trump’s inability to defend himself from rape allegations in public, the judge insisted he was not able to make that claim in court, either. In which case, you might ask, what was the trial’s point? You would be correct to ask the question. The answer, of course, is “show.”
Sagerne imod Trump har alle det tilfælles, at de føres at groteske og skruppelløse mennesker. I dette tilfælde retter dommeren selv på præmisserne bag juryens ryg og er bon-kammerat med anklageren. At dommeren ikke på forhånd erklærede sig inhabil vidner kun om sinistre hensigter.
Det samme ser man i Georgia, hvor anklageren Fani Willis, valgte at tolke Trumps konfereren med sine advokater, som en kriminel sammensværgelse, som hun bruger RICO lovene til. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Acts oprindelige formål var at give mulighed for at retsforfølge den amerikanske mafia. Og fordi Trump måske vidste at Biden fik 81 mio. stemmer hjem til sin kælder, men påstod noget andet i offentligheden, så kan man måske presse ham og en masse andre ind i en konspiration om at skade USA.
En sådan afsindig tankegang skal der et afsindigt menneske til at føre ud i livet. Og Fani Willis er et sådant menneske, der ikke forstår, at man ikke skal skilte med sin egen åbenlyse korruption i en højprofileret sag. For Willis ansatte sin elsker som ekspert i RICO sager, skønt han kun havde erfaring med mindre civile erstatningssager. Han fik en bedre løn end hendes rigtige eksperter i RICO og for dem rejste de sammen på krydstogt, hvor alle kunne se dem. Da han blev afsløret, mente hun det var racisme. Hun er en postering for sig.
Tilbage i New York er de to anklagere Alvin Bragg og Letitia James begge gået til valg på at stoppe Trump, ud fra Beria tankegangen ‘vis mig manden og jeg skal vise dig forbrydelsen. Braggs sag handler om hvad Danmarks Radio kalder ‘tys-tys penge’, som han har betalt til den tidligere naturfilmsskuespillerinde Stormy Daniels for at at sværte hans gode navn og rygte med en historie om et tidligere seksuelt samkvem, hun påstår at de havde haft. Trumps handlinger er ikke ulovlige og sagen, hvis den havde eksisteret, er forældet. Men Bragg påstår at Trumps lovlige handlinger var et sinistert dække over en større føderal forbrydelse. En forbrydelse, hvis indhold han ikke ville delagtiggøre offentligheden i, thi det behøvede han ikke ifølge loven. Igen hviler anklageren på en ide om Trumps tanker. Hvis du tror ilde nok om Trump, er han sikkert skyldig for det kunne lige ligne en som ham. Han er jo ikke normal.
Således er det også med Letitia James, som mener, at Trump har svindlet i en ejendomshandel ved at overvurdere værdien af sit hjem Mara Largo i Florida i forbindelse med et lån. Ifølge James og dommer Engoron, fra New York, var Mara Largo ca 18 mio dollars værd og ikke den knap halve mia. dollars, som Trump og Deutsche Bank kom frem til. Banken selv var meget tilfreds med Trump som kunne og udtrykte ønske om fremtidige forretninger, da Trump passede sine afdrag og gjorde alle rigere – i branchen betegnet som en hval (en stor fangst).
Det er således retten i New Yorks påstand, at markedet i Florida ikke ved, hvad noget er værd i Florida.
Dommer Engorons kone har i øvrigt ofte svinet Trump til på sociale medier og ønsket ham retsforfulgt og fængslet. Engoron har heller ikke erklæret sig inhabil over at være i en situation, hvor han kan opfylde sin egen kones hysteriske begær på bekostning af retfærdighed. Sagerne imod Trump er så groteske, at kun groteske mennesker fører dem.
MONOKULTUR 
Skriv en kommentar