Now now. Trump did not say he would testify in an actual trial.
What he said was:
““I’m going to go back [to New York] and I’m going to confront this woman”
I did NOT take it to mean that he was going to actually testify under oath. Rather, I took it to mean that he was going to find her and attack her, verbally and/or physically. CONFRONT her.
Actually, I think he lacks the balls to do either of these things. I think he was just flapping his pie-hole as usual. He’s a bully. A cowardly raping bully.
At this point, how can a jury not find him liable? The legal standard in a civil case is “preponderance of the evidence”, and without any rebuttal, it seems that the greater weight of the evidence would have to favor the plaintiff.
Trump has stated that he feels entitled to force himself upon women, and he just assumes they let him and they like it. I have no doubt that he has tried it on multiple occasions.
Whether he did it to this specific woman, that is less clear. I have certain questions about her story. From what I’ve heard, I find it very plausible, but not certain.
Some accusations of rape turn out to be false. Trump is a disgusting waste of life who is guilty of multiple crimes, but every accusation should require proof. There is a non-zero possibility that she made this story up, based on hearing other, similar stories from other women.
Of course, I haven’t heard everything the Jury has heard. Maybe there is evidence that would make it more certain either way.
I really don’t understand why they couldn’t do a DNA match on the dress. That would eliminate doubt.
I would think the nail in the coffin was the witness (witnesses?) who testified that Carroll, in a terrible state, told them of the crime when it occurred. So, for this defense to be plausible, she had to make up a story 30 years ago, in anticipation of filing a suit when Trump slandered her decades later.
I also wonder why they didn’t test the DNA. The fact that Trump, late in the game, offered to provide a sample leads me to think there was some possible technicality it could lead to, so the defense decided they already had plenty.
But that’s just it: if you were on the jury, you wouldn’t be asked to determine whether this had been proven to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt.
Rather, you’d be told that you should find donald liable if, after considering all of the evidence, it’s more likely than not that it happened as the plaintiff described.
And that’s why - even if there is reasonable doubt that he committed a crime - I fully expect the jury to find in favor of Ms. Carroll.
As Moriarty has said, though, the question is whether, based on the available evidence, that non-zero possibility is greater than fifty point zerozerozerozerozerozero etc… one. More likely than not.
It is not impossible for the preponderance of the evidence to favor a defendant who doesn’t testify at all, but if the jury, as you’ve said, finds it “plausible,” it is hard to imagine that they could reasonably then conclude that the weight of the evidence favors Trump here. If Carroll said “he touched me in an offensive way” and then gave no other information at all, or information that was self-contradicting, that’s one thing. But if Carroll offered an account that seems pretty much legitimate, with some reasons for uncertainty, that is a slam-dunk preponderance case.
In this case, it’s NOT preponderance of the evidence. It’s defamation which is “clear and convincing evidence”. This is a higher legal standard than preponderance of the evidence but not as high as reasonable doubt. So more than 50.0001%. See the cite below.
Also it’s a nine person jury and, I’m pretty sure, must be unanimous.
Trump’s “truthiness” can also be assessed by the video of his deposition.
-After saying that Carroll is “not his type”, he mistakes her for Marla Maples (former wife) in a photo. Clearly Jean Carroll was “his type”
-The whole “not my type” repeated crap, as a defense to rape. As a jury member, I would be thinking “well, just what is “his type” to rape then?”
-Trump burbled on at one point about other “hoaxes” that are all pretty much factually accurate and not hoaxes at all.
-when asked about grabbing women by the pussy, Trump responded with “I guess that’s been largely true. Not always, but largely true. Unfortunately or fortunately.” If I were on the jury, I would be thinking - "well this is pretty much a confession Trump just made. He thinks assault of a woman is perfectly fine if you’re a “star”.
Maybe Carroll’s lawyer blew her magical moment with Trump in the deposition a little bit?
This is pure Monday-morning quarterbacking, and second-guessing, of course, but it seems to me that, good as that moment was for Carroll’s case, it could have been milked just a little bit further.
“…That’s my wife, Marla Maples.”
“I see. How would you describe Marla Maples, in terms of her attractiveness? Average? Better than average? Much better than average?”
“Oh, much better.”
“Would you describe Ms. Maples as being your type?”
“Sure. She’s a gorgeous woman, very tasty. Hubba hubba.”
And so on.
I think she got a little flustered and didn’t exploit the huge hole Trump had dug for himself there, and allowed him to escape admitting in so many words that he was, in fact, magnetically (in his terms) attracted to E. Jean Carroll.