We’ve heard Trump say it relentlessly. “I don’t know that woman. I have no idea who that woman is. I’ve never met her. I don’t know who she is.”
He still is saying it, after the $83 million defamation judgement against him. Which followed up the $5 million defamation judgement against. All after having been found liable for, what the judge wrote, was the equivalence of rape. “I don’t know that woman. I have no idea who that woman is. I’ve never met her. I don’t know who she is.” Two things leap out. The first is obvious. Most everyone paying attention has seen the photo of Trump with E. Jean Carroll. Laughing with him, standing there at an event together with her then-husband and Trump’s then-wife. And when I say “most everyone,” I include Trump, who was shown the photo at his deposition. And famously mis-identified E. Jean Carroll as being his second wife. And still, after knowing that he saw the photo of him with E. Jean Carroll, Trump still says – “I don’t know that woman. I have no idea who that woman is. I’ve never met her. I don’t know who she is.” The second thing came to me the other day. And what struck me is that, as obvious as it is, I haven’t heard any legal analyst or news reporter address the point. Maybe someone has – after all, I haven’t seen every moment of TV commentary – but I haven’t. And it came to me the other day after hearing Trump once again say, “I don’t know that woman. I have no idea who that woman is. I’ve never met her. I don’t know who she is.” The thought was – It's my understanding that it is not a requirement for a rapist to actually know the victim he rapes. I’m sure some do. I’m equally sure that some, or many, or – for all I know - maybe even most don’t. And either way, it’s certainly not a requirement. Further, it makes one wonder how many women does a man have to rape for there to be so many you can't remember them all? Yes, that’s a little unfair to ask, I know, but only a little. Because if someone raped only one woman, and it was 30 years ago, I really do think the person remember. Sure, I assume it’s possible to emotionally block out your very worst, horrific moment in life and surround it with a protective wall. But given Trump’s Entertainment Tonight video bragging about women letting stars grab them in the p*ssy, and his many other comments on the subject about women accusers not being his “type” (mind you, I’m not sure what Trump’s “type” is to rape, because he’s never said), he doesn’t seem like the person who would block out rape as the worst moment in his life. He seems closer to a guy who’d write it down in his diary. Indeed, when asked in his deposition if he believed his “grab them” comment, what he answered was that, yes, he thought this was largely true over the last million years, “unfortunately,” he thoughtfully noted. But then bizarrely added “Or fortunately.” Fortunately?? Yes, he really said that. So, no, a guy who says it is “fortunate” that throughout history women let stars sexually abuse them is not someone who it would seem is likely to have blocked out his memory of sexually abusing a woman out of horrified regret. Which returns to the question of how many woman does a man have to rape for him to not remember them all? A question I ask because I do think it’s possible that he doesn’t remember raping E. Jean Carroll. After all, I sense that Trump has a great delusional capacity for convincing himself of almost anything he doesn’t want to be true. (That said, of course, it is also possible that Trump does indeed remember.) Not that “not remembering” who you raped is a requirement for being found liable for your action -- as the jury knew and determined. And fined him twice for a total of $88 million in damages. But, to be totally fair, for all we know, maybe E. Jean Carroll is just one of many woman Trump has raped, and so he simply doesn’t remember her. Or even, as he insists, doesn't know her. After all, he has been very insistent about that. “I don’t know that woman. I have no idea who that woman is. I’ve never met her. I don’t know who she is.” Which, in the end, returns us to my earlier comment that started this all – It's my understanding that it is not a requirement for a rapist to actually know the victim he rapes. And leads to a final thought. For all those Republicans who cry out "Witch hunt!" and "New York jury!!" and any other deeply-anxious insistence of Trump's innocence, in the end the clearest evidence that Republican officials get the point that Trump is liable of the equivalence of rape and very guilty of defamation is because -- unlike every other case Trump has been indicted for, when they've rushed to his defense and tried their best to explain away those indictments as Trump having done nothing wrong (even in a case of taking classified government documents where there are numerous photos of those documents actually lying around his property) -- not a single Republican official has cried out in mournful defense of Trump against E. Jean Carroll and insisted she is lying and Trump did nothing wrong and that, like he insists, that he doesn’t know her. Because what they know is that if they do that…they risk getting sued for defamation, too. And know they would lose. Because what they also know is it’s not a requirement that they actually know the victim they would be defaming either.
0 Comments
As has been widely reported, in yesterday's Appeals Court hearing on Trump's claim of "absolute immunity," Judge Florence Pan asked a hypothetical question about if a President who used the Navy Seals to assassinate a political rival could be criminally prosecuted. Trump lawyer John Sauer made the bizarre assertion that unless a president was impeached and convicted on a charge first, he couldn't be prosecuted later for it and be held accountable in any way, since it wouldn't be a criminal act. I refer to this as a "bizarre" assertion because -- well, it was the most polite adjective I could think of. The only thing that Mr. Sauer left out was saying that his client should henceforth no longer be referred to as Trump, but as "007," since in his mind he apparently has a license to kill. That would certainly fit in with Trump's egomaniacal fantasies about himself, after all, not to mention his acolytes' ongoing grandiose fan art. DOJ attorney James Pearce responded by asking "What kind of world we are living in if a President orders his Seal team to assassinate a political rival" and it's not a criminal act. Calling it a "frightening future," he offered the idea that under this Trump- Sauer theory such a President could simply resign from office before an impeachment, thereby evading prosecution and all legal accountability, since there would be no criminal act. I should add that another reason I refer to John Sauer's claim as "bizarre" is because even I could immediately think of two other ways a President could get away with murder, ploys that are even worse than what attorney Pearce suggested. And the closest I came to law school was walking past the School of Law building on campus when at UCLA for graduate school in screenwriting. One is the scenario where the House of Representatives is controlled by the President's own party and doesn't impeach him for the assassination -- or the Senate is controlled by the President's party and doesn't convict him -- in which case the President not only would get away with murder, but he would continue being President. No resignation necessary. And the other gambit would be even more basic -- that no one in Congress is even aware that the President was involved in ordering the murder, and it's not discovered until long after the Chief Executive finishes his or her term -- or perhaps is even re-elected -- and then leaves office. No impeachment, no crime. These aren't difficult situations to come up with. And there are three of them -- at least. And yet Trump and his lawyer (one has to suspect at Trump's bidding, since the suggestion is so utterly bizarre, horrifying and infantile) actually put them on the table in a court of law. Actually claiming that a President could order the murder of a political rival and that, unless impeached and convicted, it wouldn't be a crime. By the way, on top of this lunacy, there are two things they didn't seem to consider when making the "explanation." The first is that with the explanation offered being so monumentally childish, sickeningly unthinkable and devoid of legal thinking, it risks putting the Appeals judges in the position of discrediting all of attorney Sauer's subsequent arguments for having no clue about the law or what he's talking about. And the second is Trump here is arguing that, right now, Joe Biden could call in the Navy Seals to murder his political rival -- who, of course, is Trump! -- and not be prosecuted for it as a crime, either because Democrats control the Senate and (at least in Trump's fevered mind) wouldn't convict Biden in an impeachment trial, or it could be covered up and not discovered until long after the President leaves office. But…but…but here's one more reason why Trump's legal team is so weirdly incompetent. After the hearing, a small press event was held with Trump and his lawyers. And one of his legal team, John Lauro, in arguing how grossly illegal he believed the DOJ's prosecution of Trump was for his part in the Insurrection, stated for the cameras -- "Joe Biden could be prosecuted for trying to stop this man from becoming the next president of the United States." Now, stop a moment and consider that. Right after arguing in Appeals Court that Presidents have "absolute immunity," even if he orders a murder and isn't impeached -- it turns out that Trump lawyer John Lauro is saying he doesn't believe that a President has "absolute immunity"!! This yesterday was Trump's legal team. It turns out that another of his lawyers, parking garage attorney Alina Habba, was on to something when she suggested on Monday that she'd rather be pretty than smart because, as she put it, "I can fake being smart." Perhaps this is merely the standard of the only lawyers who will agree to work for Trump these days. And she was just talking about fitting in. Normally, I wouldn’t spend too much time on one of Trump’s lawyers, Alina Habba, but she had such an impressively mind-numbing day yesterday, it’s too difficult to ignore it. It began when the following RawStory headline and graphic caught my eye Remarkably, the interview she gave on the PBD Podcast was even worse than the headline. “I don’t think I’d be on T.V. or sitting here if I didn’t look the way I look,” Alina Habba said on the podcast. “It doesn’t hurt to be good looking.” When asked by the PBD Podcast host “How much of you being an attractive, smart, do you think played into that?", Habba then went into high gear. She noted that she is not a feminist -- which I'm sure has come as a total shock -- and added that "I can fake being smart." She then noted, “When you’re good looking, that’s great. “People think that President Trump hired me because I’m good looking. That is absolutely not the case.” In fairness, she's partly right about why Trump hired and party (by her own acknowledgement) wrong. But she's also wrong about the reason she thinks she's right. Trump did not hire Habba "because" she's pretty. He hired her because most of the attorneys he wanted to hire turned him down. So, he hired her because she was in the group that was all that was left. I mean, seriously now -- Alana Habba's background is that was general counsel for a parking garage company! Among her other clients are those suing nursing home, a college student who wanted a refund, a former participant on The Real Housewives of New Jersey who claimed Facebook blocked her account for wishing Melania Trump a happy birthday, and a vitamin supplement business suing Portuguese journalists. Oh, my, yes, that's exactly the level of expertise who a former U.S. president is looking for to represent him when his entire business empire is at risk for committing fraud by overvaluing his properties. A case, it should be noted, that Habba and the other lawyers have already lost and all that is being argued in court is the massive amount Trump will have to pay. Further, by her own words, it was when asked why Trump hired her that she said she would rather be pretty than smart. And we haven't even gotten to her saying, "I can fake being smart." In fact, you can fake being pretty: plastic surgery, implants, a dab of makeup, stylish clothes, a chic hairdo and more. Furthermore, "beauty" by her standards has a very short life span before wrinkles, gray hair and younger women appear -- and fake-smart pretty much always reveals itself. The only people "fake-smart" always fools are stupid people. On the other hand, being actual smart lasts a lifetime. But the thing is, Alina Habba didn't stop there. For reasons known only to her (perhaps it's a standard parking garage legal tactic), she went after Jack Smith -- an attorney who has successfully prosecuted dicatators at the World Court -- and his team of prosecutors: “They love having pressers," she suggested. "They love having press conferences. Getting in front. Having their moment. It’s almost narcissistic.” Before we go any further, a reminder that this was Alina Habba yesterday on the podcast when she said this about Jack Smith and narcissism. This is just a stunning, breath-taking utter lack of self-awareness. Combined with a Trumpian level of self-projection. There Alina Habba is, sitting in her angel-white flouncy clothes in a self-promoting podcast interview, talking about being pretty -- and how she can fake being smart -- slamming others for being narcissistic! This is a Saturday Night Live sketch come to life. Meanwhile, the idea of Jack Smith (and his team) having press conferences is almost non-existent. I can recall one press conference Jack Smith held, and I don't believe he took any questions, and it lasted fewer than 10 minutes. He may have held another, but I don't remember them. And I can't tell you who is on his team, since none of them would ever hold a press conference (sorry, "presser") without him. And the concept of Jack Smith going on a podcast transcends ludicrous. Most especially one where he'd talk about being so good-looking that that's the only reason he's been asked to be there. And this doesn't even include when later in the very same day Alina Habba made yet another media appearance, going on Fox as part of her Narcissism Tour 2024 -- loving to get in front, loving to have her moment, loving being narcissistic -- to provide what expert attorneys are describing could be perceived as either a threat or a quid pro quo to a Supreme Court Justice when she said -- "I think it should be a slam dunk in the Supreme Court. I have faith in them. You know, people like Kavanaugh, who the president fought for, who the president went through hell to get into place. He'll step up." Not even bothering to refer to a Supreme Court Justice by his full name. Assuming she knew it. But then, again, maybe this is how things work in the down and dirty world of parking garage law. And this is the face of the Trump defense team. For a case they already lost. Which may bring down his business empire. Well, that's a shock if it happens. Last week, after the Maine Secretary of State ruled that Trump was not eligible to be on the state’s ballot for president, Maine's Republican senator Susan Collins posted a comment that voting for a presidential candidate should be left up to the voters, and not the courts. It’s a sentiment that has been stated relentlessly by other Republican officials, as well as a great many party members.
In a perfect world, Trump would indeed be on the ballot and then lose so badly that his fascism is discredited at the polls. However, also in a perfect world, what's written in the U.S. Constitution would be supported. Like how we all accept that only natural born citizens are eligible to run. And only people at least 35 years old are eligible to run. Still -- putting aside for the moment why anyone who believes in democracy would ever even want to nominate someone to be president who incited an Insurrection to overthrow the government, let alone was indicted four times, and was found liable for the equivalence of rape -- I do at least understand Republican supporters of Trump wanting him on the ballot if they choose to nominate him, and not let the courts decide. However, using their logic, let me suggest a situation for them -- What if Democrats ever decide one day to again nominate Barack Obama to run for president? Republicans themselves insist a party should be able to nominate whoever they want, that the decision of who wins should be up to the voters. So, if Republicans don't think Barack Obama should be allowed to run for president again -- why not? “Well, that's obvious, he’s not allowed to!” Why not?? “It’s against the law.” I thought you said it should be up to the voters, though, not the courts. “But this is different, it’s actually in the Constitution.” So is the 14th Amendment. “But this is different!!!” How?? “A president can only be elected twice!!” Why? “Because it’s in the Constitu… It’s different!!” No, it's not, they're written both in the Constitution. And so, they're both matters of law. They're not merely something left for the voters to decide. If there's an interpretation needed, that's why it has to be decided by the courts. "The voters" aren't who interpret the law. “Well...well, but Obama was born in Kenya!” No, he wasn’t. But, hey, just for the sake of argument, let’s say he was born in Kenya. So what? “If he wasn’t born in the U.S., then he wouldn’t be eligible. Ha!!! Got you!” “Why would that matter?? “It’s in the Constitu…!! Oh. Jesus fuc…” Hey, let’s just say – and again, only for the sake of argument – that you’re right. But let's put Barack Obama aside for now. Okay? Fine, what if instead Democrats want to nominate Taylor Swift? She seems nice, and lots of people like her. And she gets lots of fans registered to vote -- and you're all for letting voters decide. So, that's good, right? And she hasn’t been elected president even once. And was born in the U.S. “But she’s only 34. She’s not eligible.” Says who? “It’s in the Constitu… I hate you!” Haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate. “And besides, she’s a woman!” Now, c'mon, you know that’s legal. “Yes…but it wasn’t in the original Constitution! Make America Great Again!” Actually the Constitution only said that women couldn’t vote. Not that they couldn’t be president. And besides, the womenfolk can vote now. And the Blacks. And the gays. I know that’s hard on you to deal with. But shake it off. “Oh, screw you!” Hey, I’m just quoting you. You’re who said that a party should be able to nominate whoever they want, and that it should be left up to the voters to decide, not the courts. “You’re twisting what I said!” So, you don’t believe in what you said? “No! I mean, yes. Wait, no, I don't. Er, yes! Now, you've got me all confused, what are you asking?? I…no, I don’t know what I believe in!!! Yes, that’s been very clear for an extremely long time. Obama for President in 2028!! “Can we please just stop this??” Yes We Can. The guest on this week’s Al Franken podcast is Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter David Fahrenthold. He currently writes for the New York Times, though he won his Pulitzer cover Trump’s finances when working for the Washington Post. He talks with Al about, as Al writes, “the Trump Organization’s long history of corruption” and “puts the current trial into perspective.”
|
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|