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
Leave a Reply. |
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
|