MONOKULTUR

“How goes the battle?” spørger Viva Frei altid sine samtalepartnere. Og hvis vi skal svare fra Trumpland, så er man på det meste af slagmarken allerede i gang med “bayoneting the survivors”. Flere opsigtsvækkende sager bliver i disse dage vendt på hovedet, som det medieskabte massehysteri er kollapset ved Trumps valgsejr – som Napoleon sagde, skal man vinde der, hvor slaget afgøres.

Forleden indgik ABCs George Stephanopoulos forlig med Donald J Trump. Stephanopoulos havde i en debat med den Republikanske Nancy Mace flere gange insisteret på, at Trump havde voldtaget klumme-isten, forfatteren og tv-personligheden E Jean Carroll. Carrol havde i forbindelse med en bog promovering insisteret på, at Trump havde forgrebet sig på hende engang i 90’erne. E Jean Carroll er et uheldigt menneske, der har været seksuelt krænket og voldtaget 7 gange førend også Trump kastede sig over hende.

Trump kaldte det løgn og Carroll stævnede hende for en civil ret i Manhattan, hvor 85% stemte på Hillary og Biden i ‘16 og ‘20, der fandt at Carrolls påstand lød troværdig, men at hun “kun” blev krænket og ikke voldtaget. “You can look at the verdict form — the jurors checked “No” on the rape question” skriver Byron York på X ”Instead, the jury found that Trump “sexually abused”” Carroll

That’s where Judge Kaplan came in. When Trump’s lawyers asked for a new trial, Kaplan denied the motion and used the occasion to express his opinion that the jury had, in fact, found Trump liable for rape. To make his case, Kaplan had to cast far and wide for definitions of rape that fit his purposes. He argued that the jury had “implicitly” found that Trump raped Carroll if one judges the question by: 1) the definition of rape in http://Dictionary.com; 2) the definition of rape in the Uniform Code of Military Justice; 3) the definition of rape accepted by the American Psychological Association; and 4) the definition of rape used in federal crime reporting statistics. Unfortunately for Kaplan, none of those standards was in effect in New York law, under which the case was brought and tried.

Nevertheless, Kaplan concluded that, “The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.’ Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump did exactly that.”

Stephanopoulos var endda advaret af sin producer, om ikke at bruge ordet ‘voldtægt’. Og uden at tage ved lære, leger også andre nyhedsstationer med ilden og beskriver Trump som en voldtægtsmand. Trump Library står til at få et ekstra anneks. Megyn Kelly mindede sarkastisk om, hvorledes Stephanopoulos udskammede kvinder, der anklagede tidligere præsidentkandidat og præsident Bill Clinton i en tirade af en hvis kvalitet. Victor Davis Hanson skrev på X

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.

Denne farce af en retssag blev til under en fest, skrev Byron York dengang, i en artikel i Washington Examiner, der ikke kan anbefales nok

That is where things stood when Carroll, by then a darling of the anti-Trump Resistance, attended a party at the Manhattan home of another Resistance figure, the writer Molly Jong-Fast. The party was in honor of yet another Resistance figure, the comedian Kathy Griffin. Among those in attendance was still another Resistance figure, the lawyer George Conway. The gathering was, in the words of a New York Times account, “Resistance Twitter come to life.”

Conway was someone important for Carroll to meet. A high-powered lawyer, back in the 1990s, he had been part of the so-called elves, a group of lawyers who secretly helped Paula Jones sue President Bill Clinton for sexual harassment. By 2019, Conway was in a far different position. His wife, Kellyanne Conway, ran Trump’s campaign and went to the White House as a top adviser. For his part, George Conway was originally interested in a big job in the Trump Justice Department. Later, when that did not happen, he became virulently anti-Trump, so much so that he would be invited to a party for Griffin at Jong-Fast’s apartment. At that party, Conway became an elf all over again.

As the guests enjoyed themselves — the catering was by Momofuku and was said to be excellent — Conway persuaded Carroll that she should sue Trump for defamation. The idea was that when Trump denied having met her and then said she was making up the rape accusation to sell a book and then said she, Carroll, was not his type, that was all defamation. Carroll could sue Trump for that, and then, of course, the case would focus on whether the alleged rape actually occurred, so it would be like having a rape trial for Trump even though the statute of limitations was long passed.

Carroll said she had never been interested in suing Trump, but the talk with Conway convinced her. 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.

(…)

A lawsuit was born. In November 2019, Carroll sued Trump for defamation. Trump, who had the protections of office as president of the United States, tried to get the suit thrown out. Legal wrangling ensued. Then two things happened that changed the case. First, Trump left office. Second, in 2022, the New York legislature passed what was called the Adult Survivors Act, which allowed people who said they were victims of sexual assault to sue their alleged assailants regardless of when the alleged attack occurred — even if the statute of limitations was long over. But the new law gave victims just one year to do it; that was called a “one-year lookback.”

The Adult Survivors Act went into effect on Nov. 24, 2022. Within hours, Carroll filed another suit against Trump. This time, she repeated the defamation charge and then added an allegation of battery under the Adult Survivors Act.

Carrolls forsvarer Roberta Kaplan (ingen relation til dommer Kapland!) sagde endda til CNN “E Jean actually helped get that law passed!”. En af lovgiverne bag ‘Adult Survivors Act’, Brad Hoylman-Siga, stod også fadder til en anden lov, der havde til hensigt at skade Trump: ““TRUST” act had empowered particular federal Congressional committees to have access to the New York State once sealed tax returns of high-ranking government officials—such as Trump.” siger Hanson videre.

Jimmy Doyle fortæller at dommer Kagan altid bliver hevet ind for at gøre det beskidte arbejde. I Ecuador vandt miljø advokaten Donziger på de lokales vegne over olieselskabet Chevron, der havde spildt for meget af det sorte guld i naturen. Og det kaldte på en hævn og den skulle Dommer Kaplan stå for at udmåle “Complaint signed by 37 organizations representing 500,000 lawyers worldwide details shocking violations of the code of Judicial Conduct by U.S. judge in long-running Chevron retaliation campaign”. 

The complaint alleges that the “statements and actions of Judge Kaplan over the last ten years show him to have taken on the role of counsel for Chevron … rather than that of a judge adjudicating a live controversy before him.” It added, “By these standards, he has violated his duty of impartiality under the canons of judicial conduct.”

The complaint concluded that Judge Kaplan since 2010 has “beyond all bounds of reason” tried “to destroy Steven Donziger, both personally and professionally” and “by extension has blocked the access to remedy for the 30,000 Indigenous clients from the Ecuadorian Amazon that he has represented since 1993.”

X-profilen TexasLindsey bemærker at “Judge Lewis Kaplan who infamously dismissed Prince Andrew’s s•xual assault claims made by one of Jeffery Epstein’s human tr•fficking victims—is the SAME judge that presided over E. Jean Carrol vs. Trump’s defamation case—as well as the now infamous SBF/FTX trial.” Det er ikke chokerende, som Doyle bemærker, at man vælger en korrupt dommer til at øve vold på retspraksis. Den slags er ikke for anstændige mennesker, så i sagerne mod Trump får man derfor anklagere som Fani Willis i Georgia, der ansatte sin ikke-kompetente elsker.

Statute of westminster fra 1275 slår fast “From henceforth none be so hardy as to tell or publish any false news or tales that might sow discord between the King and his people”