I must admit I was surprised at how quickly the jury came to its verdict that Donald Trump had sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll and defamed her by accusing her of perpetrating a hoax. I had predicted that he might get off simply because he was an ex-president and am glad to have been proven wrong. The fact that they took less than three hours to bring in their verdict means that they had no doubts or major disagreements about their decision on the actual charges. Most of their time was likely spent on deciding what the size of the financial penalties should be.
This case shows that convicted sex offender Trump’s constant lying has finally caught up with him. In cases like this where there is no physical evidence and adjudication depends on which side the jury finds more credible, the indisputable fact that convicted sex offender Trump has not only boasted of sexually assaulting women but also lies shamelessly had to have swung the jury in Carroll’s favor.
Convicted sex offender Trump will of course appeal, if only because he has to, to try and save face. It will be interesting to see on what grounds he will appeal. The strategy to do so on the basis that he was denied the chance to testify got torpedoed when the judge allowed him to apply at the last minute to testify but he failed to do so. His lawyers may try to argue that the judge made biased decisions against them. They may also try to argue that some kinds of evidence (such as the infamous Access Hollywood tape) should not have been allowed. They may also object to the fact that women who were not part of the case were allowed to testify about convicted sex offender Trump assaulting them in order to show a pattern of behavior by him.
The verdict will have major political ramifications. Up until now, convicted sex offender Trump has managed to avoid being personally held accountable for his actions, even as his businesses and associates have been found guilty of various crimes. This verdict has damaged the image of him being Teflon-coated.
As usual, we have the claims of MAGAts that this, like all the other negative things that have occurred, will actually be good for convicted sex offender Trump because it will energize his supporters and get them to contribute money. The rabid members of his fan base will no doubt rally round but I just cannot see how this will not hurt him with those who are not as firmly committed to him. The steady accumulation of damaging events has to take a toll on all but the most blinkered of his fans.
Already some Republican leaders are slowly edging away from him.
Senator John Thune from South Dakota said the outcome of the trial has a “cumulative effect” on how Trump is viewed within Republican circles as a candidate.
“People are gonna have to decide whether they want to deal with all the drama,” Thune told CBS News.
Senator John Cornyn from Texas said that he doesn’t believe Trump can get elected as the next US president in 2024.
“You can’t win a general election with just your base,” he said.
Meanwhile, the New York Times reported that Asa Hutchinson, the former governor of Arkansas and one of Trump’s rivals in the Republican primary ahead of the 2024 election, said that the jury verdict should be treated with seriousness.
“It is another example of the indefensible behaviour of Donald Trump,” Hutchinson said.
Some Republicans are still gutting it out while others are dodging giving their opinions.
“You never like to hear that a former president has been found in a civil court guilty of those types of actions,” the South Dakota senator [Mike Rounds} told reporters Tuesday. When asked if he could support somebody who’s been found liable for sexual battery, he said: “I would have a difficult time doing so.”
The verdict “creates concern,” Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said, but whether or not it disqualifies the former president from his current presidential bid will be up to the voters.
But not all Republicans had the same hesitation. Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), who served as ambassador to Japan under Trump, said the verdict was the latest act in the “legal circus” surrounding Trump.
“I think we’ve seen President Trump under attack since before he became president,” Hagerty said during an interview on Fox News. “This has been going on for years. He’s been amazing in his ability to weather these sorts of attacks and the American public has been amazing in their support through it.”
“This won’t be the last,” Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), who has endorsed Trump this election cycle, said of the case. “I mean, people are gonna come at him from all angles… People are gonna try and convict him on the papers in Mar-a-Lago. [They] Can’t have him win.”
The case and the jury were both “a joke,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said, and Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) said he believes it is “very difficult” for Trump to get a fair trial “in any of these liberal states.”
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy dodged a question about the verdict during a stakeout with reporters following his meeting with President Joe Biden over the debt limit. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Trump’s foe in the chamber, declined to comment, as did Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), an ardent supporter of Trump, and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who has endorsed Trump.
Florida governor Ron DeSantis must be pleased because the only hope he has of getting the nomination is if convicted sex offender Trump’s campaign implodes. But the resentment of convicted sex offender Trump and his followers at DeSantis’s perceived disloyalty may prevent them from rallying to him even in that case. I still feel that DeSantis would have been much better served by having enthusiastically supported convicted sex offender Trump this time around, whatever happened, and seeking the nomination in 2028.
I’m liking the new styling -- “convicted sex offender Trump” has a nice ring to it, don’t you think?
One fly in the ointment, although only if you’re a Republican, now, I think/hope:
The opinion of the assembled grandees of the Republican party is irrelevant. Never forget -- they did their absolute level best to destroy Trump in 2015. They all, from Bush and Cruz and Rubio on downwards, evidently and loudly fucking hated him. And we all remember how much difference that made, right? The voters -- Republican voters -- clearly liked him more than they liked any of the other swamp-dwellers the GOP could dredge up. And like it or not that’s still true.
I just hope that convicted sex offender Trump is indeed the candidate, and that Biden calls him that (or a variation on that) at every single opportunity, including during their televised debates, and I hope the election result goes even more convincingly in Biden’s favour next time as a result.
Re your last point -- if I understand correctly, DeSantis can’t still be Governor of Florida in ’28. It’s much easier to run from a position of power, and if he waits, he can’t. It’s now or never. Shit timing, Ron.
Mano, while this post is otherwise good, I’m disappointed you didn’t mention Trump is a convicted sex offender.
Is convicted the correct term for the outcome of a civil trial? If so, will he have to register as one? Can we protect ourselves from his presence by opening more schools?
Unfortunately, Trump was not convicted of anything, as ‘convicted’ refers to a finding of guilt in criminal law. God, I wish.
Mano: Florida and Texas may be two sides of the same coin based on their governmental policies, but Ron still lives in Florida, not Texas.
[Corrected. Thanks! -- Mano]
@4, Holms; Yes, but “Found liable sex offender Donald Trump” just doesn’t roll off the tongue in the same way.
I feel that “convicted” will work well for colloquial use. Sometimes style is more important than accuracy, and there is a good argument to be made that “convicted” communicates the message to people not familiar with criminal vs. civil law better than any alternative.
I’m thinking Mano may added a keyboard shortcut for that phrase… and I approve.
That’s how I want him to be referred to in the future.
I’m unsure of the protocol here. Would it be correct to introduce DJT as “Convicted sex offender former president” or would Former president convicted sex offender” be correct?
It’s unlikely I will ever have to introduce him, but I like to be prepared.
What next for convicted sex offender Donald Trump?
That’s easy: Grift off of it. Plenty of his followers will cough up money to help him “right this wrong”, or some such. Heck, I drive by enough houses that have Trump signs out front after all that has happened. But there is a bright side: Those houses with the signs usually also have signs for local candidates (like the school board), and that makes them the perfect reverse barometer.
Rather than worrying about ‘convicted’ or ‘found liable’, why not just use “Proven Sex Offender Donald Trump”?
And “Proven Sex Offender Donald Trump” is remarkably close to being abbreviated as “POS Donald Trump,” which also ought to be our SOP for referring to him.
“Adjudicated Sex Offender?” Marking him as an AS-O?
Finding a pithy label to describe what he was found guilty of is not easy. It is true that ‘convicted is not quite accurate but neither is ‘proven’ since in civil cases one only requires a preponderance of evidence, not proof.
I could call him ‘confirmed sex offender’. That may work but I feel that ‘convicted sex offender’ is close enough to what was decided to justify its use.
I’m kind of partial to Former President Sex Offender.
I would note that despite this verdict, he’s still managed to avoid the usual penalties for his actions, confirming he still retains his status as a rich asshole. If he had been convicted of these actions in a criminal trial he’d probably have three additional consequences. Jail time, a felony conviction, and his own personal spot on the sex offender registry. The latter two would be mere inconveniences to him as he’s got enough money to mostly ignore them. They’re mostly there to torment poor people. And the sex offender registry is… not great. It’s been used as an additional punishment for other crimes.
I suggest there could also be a term for those that object, on technical grounds, to Mano’s formulation, specifically that it may not be an accurate legal term, and we could loosely, though not necessarily with scientific accuracy, use the term, “fucking dickheads”.
All those in favour…
What amazes me is that CNN immediately gave him a pulpit from which to preach that the woman he’d literally just been judged to have defamed was a “wackjob” and that the judge was biased.
Isn’t CNN now jointly liable for his lies? Can’t he be sued again for repeating what he’s literally just been judged guilty of?
How is the being allowed to continue???
@sonofrojblake @1
There was a BBC article asking Republican women(!?) about what they thought of the verdict and 3 out of 4 had some variation of Trump’s innocent , he would never do such a thing and the only worrying thing is how much of an impact this may have in the general election. the 4th one had already turned against Trump after Jan 6th.
It still manages to shock me.