More stories

  • in

    Trump rages after sexual abuse verdict but legal woes have only just begun

    If the outcome of Donald Trump’s sexual assault trial wasn’t a foregone conclusion, his response to a jury finding he attacked the writer E Jean Carroll was all too predictable.The former president lashed out at the judge as biased and the jurors as “from an anti-Trump area”, meaning liberal New York, after they believed Carroll’s account of the millionaire businessman attacking her in a department store changing room in the mid-1990s. The jury ordered him to pay $5m in damages for “sexual abuse” and for defaming Carroll by accusing her of “a made-up SCAM” for political ends.Trump has taken a similar tack against the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, after pleading not guilty last month to 34 criminal charges over the payment of hush money to the porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election. Trump called Bragg, who is Black, an “animal” and a psychopath, and characterised the prosecution as purely political.All of this goes down well in sections of America.An audience of Republican voters at a CNN town hall with Trump on Wednesday laughed when he described his assault of Carroll as “playing hanky-panky in a dressing room” and called her a “whack job”.But in the coming months it’s going to get a lot harder for the former, and possibly future, American president to spin his legal problems as political persecution by Democratic elitists. Investigations against him are mounting, and even more troubled legal waters lie ahead for Trump – and some of his acolytes.Indictments in conservative Georgia are coming down the line and many of the key witnesses against Trump will be his fellow Republicans, including some who helped him try to rig the 2020 election.Similarly, investigations by a justice department special counsel into Trump’s actions leading up to the 6 January 2021 storming of the Capitol, and the stashing of classified documents at his Florida mansion, are being built on the accounts of aides and political associates who are potential witnesses against him.Norman Eisen, a former White House special counsel for ethics and government reform, said that as a result Trump’s legal troubles have only just begun.“He’s running into a buzzsaw and it’s called the rule of law. So he can go on and rant and rave up to a point but the legal authorities are in the process of holding him accountable,” he said.Leading the way is a prosecutor in Atlanta who is stacking up witnesses against the former president, almost all of them Republicans, over his attempt to rig the 2020 presidential election result in Georgia. They include some who tried to help Trump steal the vote but who have been persuaded to give evidence against him to save their own necks.The Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis, has spent more than two years investigating the “multi-state, coordinated plan by the Trump campaign to influence the results”.Willis convened a special grand jury that sat for eight months and heard evidence from 75 witnesses before it recommended charges against more than a dozen people. The grand jury forewoman, Emily Kohrs, strongly hinted to the New York Times in February that Trump was on the list.Asked if the jurors recommended prosecuting the former president, Kohrs said: “You’re not going to be shocked. It’s not rocket science.”“It is not going to be some giant plot twist,” she added. “You probably have a fair idea of what may be in there. I’m trying very hard to say that delicately.”Willis had been expected to charge Trump and others this month, but indictments are not now likely before mid-July as prosecutors put together immunity deals to lure the former president’s Republican co-conspirators to testify against him and his top aides. Kohrs said prosecutors offered one witness immunity from prosecution in return for cooperation right in front of the grand jury.Then there are the Republicans who do not have to be coerced to tell the truth in court.Willis’s investigation initially focused on a tape recording of Trump pressuring Georgia’s Republican secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to “find” nearly 12,000 votes to cancel out Biden’s win in a state that, at the time, looked as if it might decide the outcome of the entire presidential election.Trump has called the Georgia official an “enemy of the people” because he wouldn’t commit electoral fraud. But a jury might find Raffensperger all the more credible because not only is he a Republican, but he voted for Trump.The Georgia secretary of state spoke to the special grand jury for several hours, including about a call he recorded from Trump at the beginning of January 2021 pressuring him to manipulate the vote. While he has not commented publicly on his testimony, Raffensperger wrote a book, Integrity Counts, in which he details Trump threatening him.Other witnesses are more reluctant but may be all the more credible for that reason, including Georgia’s governor, Brian Kemp, who also came under pressure from Trump and his allies to overturn the election result. One of those on the phone to Kemp was Mark Meadows, Trump’s former chief of staff, who was also summoned to answer the grand jury’s questions.Willis expanded the investigation as more evidence emerged of Trump and his allies attempting to manipulate the results, including the appointment of a sham slate of 16 electors to replace the state’s legitimate members of the electoral college who do the formal business of selecting the president. The fake electors included the chair of the Georgia Republican party, David Shafer, and Republican members of the state legislature who have been warned that they are at risk of prosecution.Earlier this month it was revealed that at least eight of the fake electors have done a deal to give evidence in return from immunity from prosecution, although Shafer is not included.Eisen said the immunity deals are a sign that charges are in the offing.“We know that multiple fake electors have received immunity. That is another indication of trouble for Donald Trump because those deals are extended by prosecutors typically when they are preparing to bring a case, and they believe they have a case to bring,” he said.“So it’s a sign of prosecutorial seriousness. And it’s a sign that the district attorney can mount an effective case because these immunised fake electors can serve as tour guides for the jury into the plot, which we know ran all the way up to the Oval Office.”Ronald Carlson, a leading Georgia trial lawyer and professor at the University of Georgia’s law school, said prosecutors do not offer immunity lightly and any deal signals that witnesses will provide significant testimony against Trump and his team.“This is very, very much a straw in the wind. Immunity almost always comes with a requirement that the immunised witness provide testimony in a future criminal trial,” he said.“I think the electors will be very descriptive on how they were called together, what they did during their meeting, and then the end result, which was certifying a result for Trump.“Willis’s investigation also probed a seven-hour hearing at the Georgia state senate a month after the election orchestrated by Rudolph Giuliani, the former New York mayor and Trump’s personal lawyer and adviser.In what Georgia Public Broadcasting called “a series of fantastical claims and statements from various and sundry people touted as experts”, Giuliani led the way in falsely claiming that the state’s voting machines were rigged, thousands of votes were illegally cast, and suitcases of fake ballots were used to tilt the count in favour of Biden.Giuliani also urged the Georgia legislature to create the slate of fake electors, providing a direct link between what prosecutors are expected to portray as a criminal attempt to steal the election and Trump. At the same time, Giuliani led a blitz of legal challenges to the election result in courts across the country, all of which failed.Kohrs said that when Giuliani appeared before the grand jury he invoked attorney-client privilege to avoid answering many questions.Another Trump lawyer, John Eastman, was called as a witness to a plan to pressure the then vice-president, Mike Pence, to block the declaration of Biden’s win by Congress. The grand jury also called Sidney Powell, a Trump lawyer and conspiracy theorist who pushed false allegations that voting machines were rigged for which Fox News paid nearly $800m to settle a defamation suit.Several witnesses tried to avoid testifying. Senator Lindsey Graham went all the way to the US supreme court in a failed attempt to avoid appearing. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, who attended meetings about invoking martial law and seizing voting machines, had to be ordered by a Florida judge to answer the grand jury’s questions.Carlson said that a parade of Republican witnesses, reluctant or willing, could prove very damaging to Trump.“As a prosecutor, if you can call witnesses who were close to the crown, so to speak, that impresses the jury,” he said.“What happens very, very frequently, especially in a mob case, is they’ll give immunity to one of the lower-echelon people to testify against the big boss. He doesn’t want to do it, but he’s got immunity and if he continues to resist, he can be held in contempt of court. Whether they want to do it willingly, or whether they are forced to do it under a grant of immunity, Willis is building a case that has a host of witnesses.”Eisen said the Georgia case is likely to be all the stronger for being largely built around the evidence of other Republicans.“The fact that his overtures were rejected by staunch Republican officials, Brad Raffensperger, the secretary of state, Brian Kemp, the governor, makes a difference. Just the sheer weight of the evidence of election interference in Georgia is material. The Georgia case is a very powerful one, the most powerful we’ve seen to date,” he said.Meanwhile, the special counsel appointed by the US justice department, Jack Smith, is conducting two criminal investigations involving Trump that again draw in Republicans whose testimony could be condemn the former president.The New York Times reported earlier this month that investigators probing Trump’s mishandling of classified documents have won the cooperation of someone who worked for him at his Mar-a-Lago mansion in Florida.Like Willis, the justice department is using subpoenas to force grand jury testimony from those who witnessed Trump’s actions including whether he had classified documents moved in order to hide them once it because known they were illegally stored in Florida.Again, Trump’s team has dismissed the investigation as a “politically motivated witch-hunt” aimed at keeping him from returning to the White House. But the former president didn’t help himself at the CNN town hall when he undercut his own lawyers by claiming that he had “every right” to take the documents from the White House.“I didn’t make a secret of it,” he said.So will Trump be a convicted criminal by the time of the presidential election in November 2024?“That is entirely possible,” said Eisen. “It’s also possible that with court delays and appeals, he may not face incarceration until after the next election. But what matters is that the charges are being brought. And that cues the issue up for the jury of the American people in the primaries and then in the general election.” More

  • in

    George Santos signs deal to avoid prosecution over stolen checks in Brazil

    A day after New York representative George Santos pleaded not guilty to charges in the US, he signed an agreement Thursday with public prosecutors in Brazil to avoid prosecution for forging two stolen checks in 2008.“What would have been the start of a case was ended today,” Santos’ lawyer in Brazil, Jonymar Vasconcelos, told the Associated Press in a text message. “As such, my client is no longer the subject of any case in Brazil.”Asked about the details of the non-prosecution agreement, Vasconcelos demurred, citing the fact the case proceeded under seal. The public prosecutors’ office of Rio de Janeiro state also declined to comment.Court records in Brazil, first uncovered by the New York Times, show Santos was the subject of a criminal charge for using two stolen checks to buy items at a shop in the city of Niteroi, including a pair of sneakers that he gifted to a friend. At the time, Santos would have been 19. The purchase totaled 2,144 Brazilian reais, then equal to about $1,350, according to the charge prosecutors filed in 2011.That followed an investigation opened in 2008 and Santos’ signed confession, in which he admitted to having stolen the checkbook of his mother’s former employer from her purse and making purchases, including in the store, and recognizing the fraudulent checks as those he had signed, according to the court documents reviewed by the AP.A judge accepted the charges against Santos in 2011, but subsequent subpoenas for him to appear personally or present a written defense went unanswered and, with authorities repeatedly unable to determine his whereabouts, the case was suspended in 2013. That changed after he won a US congressional seat and the subsequent flurry of media attention focused on his dubious credentials. Rio state prosecutors then petitioned to reopen the case.According to the terms of the non-prosecution agreement, Santos will pay 24,000 reais (about $5,000), with the majority going to the shopkeeper who received the bad checks and the remainder to charities, newspaper Folha de S.Paulo reported, without saying how it obtained the information. Santos attended the meeting virtually, the paper reported.Resolution of the case removes the possibility Santos might have been obliged to travel to another country to resolve pending charges; that could have been been complicated after he was forced to surrender his passport after recent charges in the US.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionOn Wednesday in New York, Santos pleaded not guilty to charges he stole from his campaign and lied to Congress about being a millionaire, while collecting unemployment benefits he didn’t deserve. More

  • in

    ‘We’re living in madness’: George Santos’s constituents on federal charges

    “It’s like we’re living in madness,” said Danielle Gentile at a Brazilian restaurant in Long Island’s Westbury, one of a cluster of towns close to the eastern border of the fabulist Republican congressman George Santos’s third congressional district.“I know politicians lie all the time, but you’ve got to at least try to keep up,” Gentile added. “But what’s he going to say? I didn’t mean to lie? He’s like the Brian Williams of politics.”The hostess’s comments came just hours after Santos was hit with 13 criminal counts in federal court. The 34-year-old politician, flanked by just one defense lawyer, was pitted against five attorneys wielding the power of the government.But Santos did not appear overly fazed, later boasting that he had surrendered earlier in the day to authorities so that his entrance to the imposing criminal justice complex would not happen “under the noses” of the media.He pleaded not guilty to charges alleging financial fraud at the center of a political campaign built on a résumé touting his personal wealth and business success that began to unravel six weeks after he won office.Outside the court, Santos appeared almost to relish the attention of a large number of media that gathered. He refused to answer questions until a podium was produced, and then called the investigation and the charges that followed a “witch-hunt”. He was asked if he would resign (he wouldn’t), and if he would campaign for re-election next year (he would).But within the third congressional district, a typically Democratic suburban district north-east of New York City, the first-generation Brazilian American, who ran as a member of a “new generation of Republican leadership”, is received as a deeply oddball figure.The first five people approached by the Guardian – in a diner and a burger joint – professed to be unfamiliar with Santos or his alleged crimes. “Never heard of him, I’m not into politics,” said one woman crossing the street.A sixth approach – to Jerry Spitzkoff, a gas station manager – elicited a response. “He’s a liar and a thief, and he should go to prison,” Spitzkoff, 70, said. “But I blame both parties and the media. No one looked into him. He’s not the first politician to lie, but this is a beauty: he lied about everything.”Santos’s fabrications were the stuff of a committed fantasist. He had not, in fact, worked at Citigroup or Goldman Sachs, graduated from a New York college, or run a pet rescue charity, and his mother had not been in the 9/11 attacks as he claimed. Nor had he been a producer on the Broadway Spider-Man musical. He had, though, perhaps been a Brazilian drag queen called Kitara Ravache.Not surprisingly, Santos’s tall tales made him a laughingstock and fodder for late-night comics.Life-story embellishments do not produce criminal charges, but material wrongdoing can. On Wednesday, the government charged Santos with crimes ranging from duping donors and stealing campaign funds to lying to Congress and illegally collecting unemployment benefits. He was released on a $500,000 bond about five hours after he surrendered to authorities.“It’s absolutely crazy, but for whatever reason George was able to get through all the traditional checkpoints,” said Joshua Sauberman, who ran for Congress in the district on a Democratic ticket in 2018. “There was no vetting and you had the Democratic candidate saying she couldn’t afford it because they needed to run TV ads. Voters did not have the proper information.”Many in his district maintained a broader distaste for politics of which Santos was a symptom, but not the cause of a political system that has produced two roughly octogenarian presidential frontrunners for 2024.“I wouldn’t trust one word from a politician ever again,” said a tow-truck driver who said his name didn’t matter because he had no intention of getting involved in the business of politics. “I think their job has become to demoralize us. If you listen to them, you just be upset. They bring you down.”But others said Santos’s alleged dishonesty did matter and he would be held accountable for it.“They took his word for it and didn’t check him out because they didn’t think he’d win,” said Rafael Joseph at a restaurant in Mineola. “But nobody knows who he is, and I think they’re going to get rid of him.”On Wednesday evening, the House speaker, Kevin McCarthy, said he would not support Santos in his re-election bid. “No, I’m not going to support him,” he told CNN. “I think he has other things to focus on in his life other than running for re-election.”But Santos said he was determined to fight. “I appreciate everyone’s patience with my presence in Congress and allowing this process to play out. I believe in innocence until proven guilty, and I have my right to prove my innocence just as the government has a right to try to find me guilty.”However this plays out in the coming days, there was little question that voter anger lies with the system, and not necessarily Santos, whom one local voter described as self-starring in a fictitious remake of the 2022 con artist film Catch Me If You Can.Meanwhile, back at the Brazilian restaurant, Gentile was beginning to seat diners.“He’s a little crazy,” she said. “There’s nothing wrong with wearing drag but it seems a little hypocritical to wear it and support a party that opposes it. Everything about him is lie. At least be who you are.” More

  • in

    Santos claims ‘witch-hunt’ after facing fraud charges in New York court – video

    The Republican congressman George Santos, exposed for lying extensively about his background and campaign finance disclosures, emerged from the federal courthouse in Long Island using Donald Trump-like rhetoric to attack the criminal case against him as a conspiracy to damage him politically. After pleading not guilty to charges of fraud, money laundering, theft of public funds and making false statements, Santos said he was ‘going to fight the witch-hunt’. ‘I am going to take care of clearing my name, and I look forward to doing that,’ he said More

  • in

    ‘The more women accuse him, the better he does’: the meaning and misogyny of the Trump-Carroll case

    Donald Trump has boasted about grabbing women by the pussy without their consent. He has made innumerable misogynistic comments. He has been accused of sexual misconduct by at least 26 women. He has suggested that some of the women who have accused him of misconduct were too unattractive to assault. And, until this week, he has managed to get away with all of it. Trump has faced no meaningful consequences for his actions; he has given every impression of being above the law.Until this week. It may have taken decades, but the law has finally caught up with Trump. On Tuesday, a jury in New York found that the former president sexually abused the advice columnist E Jean Carroll in the changing room of a department store 27 years ago. It was a civil case, so Trump hasn’t been taken away in handcuffs, but his reputation and his wallet have suffered a blow. While the jury did not find that Trump raped Carroll, its verdict brands him a sexual predator. Carroll was awarded $5m (£4m) in total: $2.02m in compensation and damages for her battery claim and $2.98m in compensation and damages for defamation, as a result of Trump calling her a liar.“I filed this lawsuit against Donald Trump to clear my name and to get my life back,” Carroll said on Tuesday. “Today, the world finally knows the truth. This victory is not just for me but for every woman who has suffered because she was not believed.”It is hard to overstate just how profound it is to see one of the world’s most prominent men finally held accountable for his actions – and at a time when women’s rights in the US seem to be going backwards. “The verdict in this case is important to survivors of sexual abuse,” says the trailblazing equal rights lawyer Gloria Allred. “It will cause many of them to believe that if they are sexually abused and defamed by a rich, powerful and famous man that they may be able to fight back and win in a civil lawsuit, even if it is too late for a criminal case to be filed or even if no police report is ever made.”The activist Shannon Coulter says that the verdict feels deeply personal. “Ever since the release of the Access Hollywood tape [in which Trump made his “Grab ’em by the pussy” remark], I’ve been on this journey of understanding my own rage around the words Donald Trump said on it,” Coulter says. “This journey included confronting the sexual assault I experienced as a younger woman at the hands of a powerful man. With E Jean Carroll’s victory today, something has come full circle for me. I feel more peaceful. Less angry. I feel that some small amount of justice has, at last, been served, not just to Donald Trump, but to any man who believes that power eclipses consent.”Carroll’s victory came at a high price. First, there was the assault itself: the panicked minutes spent trapped alone with Trump, struggling as she tried to push him off. When she spoke publicly about the assault for the first time, in an article in New York magazine in 2019, Carroll wrote: “I have never had sex with anybody ever again.” Then there was the aftermath: being forced to relive the assault again and again, having every detail poked, prodded and scrutinised.Why did she take so long to come forward? Because, Carroll wrote in her essay, she knew exactly what the response would be; every woman does. “Receiving death threats, being driven from my home, being dismissed, being dragged through the mud, and joining the 15 women who’ve come forward with credible stories about how the man grabbed, badgered, belittled, mauled, molested, and assaulted them, only to see the man turn it around, deny, threaten, and attack them, never sounded like much fun,” she wrote.Of course, everything that Carroll expected to happen when she came forward happened immediately. Trump’s defence was steeped in sexism and victim-blaming; it was a masterclass in misogyny. In video testimony in October, Trump claimed that Carroll was a “nut job” who had “said it was very sexy to be raped”. In fact, what she had said was that some other people “think rape is sexy”. Meanwhile, Trump’s lawyer Joseph Tacopina called Carroll’s case “a scam” and accused the writer of “minimising real rape” and trying to profit from her accusations.What constitutes “real rape”, according to Tacopina? Well, it’s not rape if there is no screaming, he appeared to insinuate. At one particularly gruesome point in the trial, Tacopina repeatedly asked Carroll why she didn’t scream during the assault. “I was in too much of a panic to scream,” Carroll replied. Tacopina kept pushing the issue. Why hadn’t she screamed? Why hadn’t she behaved in the manner that he, Trump’s lawyer and an apparent expert on assault, expected a rape victim to behave? “I’m telling you he raped me whether I screamed or not,” an exasperated Carroll replied. “One of the reasons women don’t come forward is because they’re always asked: ‘Why didn’t you scream?’ Some women scream. Some women don’t. It keeps women silent.”“Rape myths – myths that allegations of sexual assault are uniquely untrustworthy, that women have to perform victimhood in a certain way to be credible, or that women should not be believed if they are imperfect human beings – are still powerful in our culture,” says Emily Martin, a spokesperson for the National Women’s Law Center Action Fund. “They often show up in courtrooms. We saw some of them in this trial. E Jean Carroll’s courage reaffirmed the power of survivors’ voices to create change. But no one should have to be this courageous or face the misogynistic vitriol she has faced in order to get some measure of justice. Our legal systems – and our media narratives – often fail survivors.”This trial is over, but the misogynistic vitriol directed at Carroll isn’t. Trump doesn’t take losing well and responded to the verdict in his usual restrained and eloquent manner, smearing Carroll as a liar. “I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHO THIS WOMAN IS. THIS VERDICT IS A DISGRACE – A CONTINUATION OF THE GREATEST WITCH HUNT OF ALL TIME!” he wrote on his social media platform.Trump has repeated the assertion that he doesn’t know who Carroll is multiple times, despite the fact that a photograph taken in 1987 shows them together with their then spouses. He has also said that she isn’t his “type”, despite once mistaking a picture of her for his second wife, Marla Maples.What does Trump plan to do now? Hours before the verdict was announced, Trump said he would appeal. He repeated this intention to Fox News Digital after the verdict. “We’ll appeal. We got treated very badly by the Clinton-appointed judge,” Trump complained. “And [Carroll] is a Clinton person, too.” He then added: “I have no idea who this woman is.”If Trump does appeal, his argument will probably be that the case was an attempt to stop him from winning the presidency in 2024. A statement sent to reporters by the Trump campaign, for example, alleged that the trial was a “political endeavour targeting President Trump because he is now an overwhelming front-runner to be once again elected President of the United States”. That last bit isn’t bombast: Trump is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination and a Washington Post/ABC News poll released this month showed Biden trailing Trump by six percentage points in a theoretical rematch. Some analysts have questioned the methodology of that poll, but the fact remains: Trump should be taken seriously as a 2024 contender.Could the Carroll verdict hurt Trump’s political future? In a sane world, this wouldn’t even be up for debate. In a sane world, having a jury of nine people deliberate for just three hours before finding unanimously that you sexually assaulted a woman and defamed her should end your career. But, as has been demonstrated time and time again, the rules work differently when it comes to Trump. During the trial, Carroll’s attorney Michael Ferrara asked the writer why she didn’t go public with her allegations when Trump first ran for president. “I noticed that the more women who came forward to accuse him, the better he did in the polls,” she said.“Trump has always made the ability to have anyone he wants and do anything he wants with impunity part of his brand,” says Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a historian who writes about authoritarianism, democracy protection and propaganda. “When the Access Hollywood tapes came out right before the 2016 election, most people thought that would be the end of him – but it was the opposite.”This verdict won’t necessarily hurt Trump, Ben-Ghiat believes; he will just spin it so that it fits the tried-and-tested narrative that he is a victim of the liberal elite. “Trump is a superb propagandist and for years he’s pushed the narrative of himself as the victim of a witch-hunt and pushed the idea that the deep state is after him,” she says. It’s important to remember, Ben-Ghiat says, that “Trump is not a normal politician – he’s a cult leader. We’ve already seen how he managed to indoctrinate tens of millions of people into discarding the facts in front of them and believing that he didn’t lose the 2020 election.”If you need any more evidence that Trump isn’t a normal politician, look at the extraordinary advice that the US district judge Lewis Kaplan gave jurors in the Trump-Carroll case. They have had their identities kept secret, due to Kaplan’s concerns that they might face “harassment … and retaliation” from Trump supporters. After the verdict, Kaplan told the jurors that they were now allowed to identify themselves if they wished, but strongly suggested that they didn’t. “My advice to you is not to identify yourselves. Not now and not for a long time,” Kaplan said.To repeat: a judge warned a jury that they might face violence from Trump supporters. It’s the sort of warning you expect in the trial of a mob boss, not a former president. “These jury instructions show again that he’s not a normal politician – he’s a violent cult leader,” Ben-Ghiat says.Of course, while Trump may have a cult-like following, he is not omnipotent. The manner in which he is able to spin the Carroll verdict to his followers depends on what media platforms he is given and how journalists challenge his narrative about the trial. The first big test of this will be Wednesday’s live town hall forum on CNN, the first major television event of the 2024 presidential campaign. In a social media post on Tuesday, Trump seemed ambivalent about his big return to primetime. “Could be the beginning of a New & Vibrant CNN, with no more Fake News,” Trump wrote. “Or it could turn into a disaster for all, including me. Let’s see what happens?” More

  • in

    Wednesday briefing: How a jury concluded Donald Trump is a sexual predator

    Good morning. When E Jean Carroll, a magazine writer, came forward to describe how she was sexually assaulted by Donald Trump in a Manhattan department store in 1996, Trump called her claim “a complete con job” and accused her of making it up to sell books. But yesterday, a New York jury – in a civil, rather than criminal, case – disagreed. They found that he was liable for sexual abuse and defamation – and ordered him to pay her $5 million in damages.The jury did not find that Trump had raped Carroll, as she alleged. But it said that he was shown by a preponderance of the evidence to have sexually abused her, and then told a malicious falsehood about her that did serious damage to her reputation. After years of credible allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump, yesterday’s verdict is the first time that a court has said that such a claim has been proven to be true.Step back from the circus that invariably surrounds Trump and his behaviour, and the fact that the leading Republican candidate for president has been found by a jury to have been liable for sexual abuse – defined as subjecting a victim to sexual contact by physical force – appears extraordinary. Today’s newsletter explains the complex legal process that led to this point, and what it might mean for Trump’s prospects of returning to the White House. Here are the headlines.Five big stories
    Science | The first UK baby created with DNA from three people has been born after a groundbreaking IVF procedure that aims to prevent children from inheriting incurable diseases. The technique, known as mitochondrial donation treatment (MDT), uses tissue from the eggs of healthy female donors to create embryos free from harmful mutations carried by their mothers.
    Pakistan | Internet services have been suspended across Pakistan after violence erupted when the former prime minister, Imran Khan, was arrested at a court appearance in Islamabad and dragged into an armoured vehicle by security forces in riot gear. Khan’s arrest came after he repeated allegations that Pakistan’s powerful military establishment had tried to assassinate him twice.
    UK news | One of the UK’s most prominent business leaders, the Tesco chair John Allan, faces claims of inappropriate and unprofessional behaviour from four women, the Guardian can reveal. John Allan denies allegations of inappropriate touching and remarks in three cases but apologised for comments about a woman’s appearance at a CBI conference in 2019.
    Protest | Conservative MPs have condemned the use of new laws to hold anti-monarchy protesters for up to 16 hours during the coronation after the Metropolitan police admitted “regrets” over some of the arrests. Meanwhile, Labour leader Keir Starmer declined to say whether he would tear up the public order bill under which six members of the protest group Republic were arrested.
    Brazil | Brazilian politicians, celebrities and social activists have paid tribute to the vivacious, loving and combative former congressman and campaigner David Miranda, who has died in Rio de Janeiro aged 37. The death of Miranda, also a columnist for Guardian US, was announced by his husband, the American journalist and lawyer Glenn Greenwald.
    In depth: ‘He lied and shattered my reputation. I’m here to try and get my life back’E Jean Carroll (above), a writer and advice columnist, first went public with her accusations against Donald Trump in 2019, in the aftermath of the revelations about Harvey Weinstein that sparked the #MeToo movement. In a book excerpt published in New York magazine, Carroll wrote that after a chance encounter at the Bergdorf Goodman department store, Trump forced her against a wall and pulled down her tights before pressing his fingers into her vagina and raping her.She had never come forward before, she said, having seen the treatment handed out to other victims and concluding that it “never sounded like much fun”. And, she said, “I run the risk of making him more popular by revealing what he did.”Because the statute of limitations had expired, there was no prospect of Trump facing criminal charges over her allegations. But last year, New York state passed the Adult Survivors Act, allowing victims a one-year window to file a sexual assault lawsuit over older cases. That is how the case wound up in a Manhattan courtroom for the last two weeks.The case against Trump – and what the jury saidAgain, the trial in New York was a civil rather than criminal case – which means that Trump faces only a financial sanction and has not been convicted of anything. Carroll’s lawsuit sought damages for battery – a technical term for her claims that he “forcibly raped and groped” her – as well as for defamation after he responded to her 2019 allegations by calling her a liar. A summary of the key evidence heard by the jury is here.Carroll told the jury: “I’m here because Donald Trump raped me, and when I wrote about it, he said it didn’t happen. He lied and shattered my reputation. I’m here to try and get my life back.”The jury was asked to reach a decision on the basis of the “preponderance of evidence” standard that applies in civil cases – that is, that the claims were more likely to be true than false. (You can see how her lawyer defined that here.) The judge told them to put “beyond reasonable doubt” out of their minds.The jury of six men and three women found that Carroll had not proved rape by that standard. But they said that she had shown that Trump had sexually abused her, and that she was injured by his conduct.They also found that Trump defamed her by claiming that her allegations were a hoax. And they ordered him to pay her just over $2 million in damages over sexual abuse, and almost $3 million over the defamation.In a piece from inside the courtroom, Chris McGreal wrote that after the verdict, Carroll “stopped, on the edge of tears, to hug friends and supporters at the front of the public gallery. Then she walked into a small conference room with her legal team where, finally, they could let out cries of delight.”E Jean Carroll’s evidenceIn her testimony, Carroll gave a detailed account of the incident, and how it has affected her life. Ever since, she said, she has found it impossible even to smile at a man she was attracted to, adding: “It left me unable to ever have a romantic life again.”Carroll’s case was bolstered by evidence from two friends of hers confirming her account that she had immediately told them about the incident. Another significant plank of Carroll’s case was the evidence from two other women who say that they were sexually assaulted by Trump, Natasha Stoynoff and Jessica Leeds, who described incidents of forcible groping and kissing 36 years apart.The jury were also played the infamous Access Hollywood tape, made public during the 2016 election campaign, in which Trump said: “when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything … Grab ‘em by the pussy.” Carroll’s lawyer argued that the evidence revealed that Trump was a “predator” with a “playbook” for sexual assault.Trump’s evidenceDespite claiming that Carroll was the perpetrator of a malicious hoax against him, and saying on a visit to Scotland that he was “going to go back and I’m going to confront this woman”, Trump did not testify in the case. Nor did his lawyer, Joseph Tacopina (above), call any witnesses. Tacopina claimed that this was because “Donald Trump doesn’t have a story to tell here, other than to say it’s a lie.”While Trump didn’t appear in person, the jury did see footage from a deposition he gave in the case. (You can watch it here.) He denied Carroll’s accusations by saying that she was “not his type” – but also mistook her in a photograph for his ex-wife, Marla Maples. Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan – who Trump volunteered was also “not his type” – suggested that his confusion undermined his claim that he was not attracted to Carroll. On his remarks in the Access Hollywood tape that famous men can grab women’s genitals, Trump said that “historically, that’s true with stars … unfortunately or fortunately”, and said that he considers himself a star. Roberta Kaplan said he had effectively been “a witness against himself”.When cross-examining Carroll, Tacopina took an approach which Chris McGreal wrote had “​​raised more than a few eyebrows in the legal community and left some spectators in court aghast”, casting doubt on the plausibility of her evidence not to have screamed or have called the police. Carroll replied: “One of the reasons women don’t come forward is because they’re always asked: ‘Why didn’t you scream?’ Some women scream. Some women don’t. It keeps women silent.”The consequences for Trump’s political careerIn 2016, Trump famously boasted: “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters.” Now a version of that question appears central to his prospects of another shot at the White House.In the aftermath of the verdict yesterday, Trump’s supporters variously focused on the fact that he had not been found liable for rape, ridiculed the standard of proof applied in the case (as is quite typical in civil suits), and made dark claims of political conspiracy. Trump himself claimed that he got “treated very badly by the Clinton-appointed judge”, called the case “a continuation of the greatest witch hunt of all time”, and said he has “no idea who this woman is”.Trump is now likely to appeal, though most legal analysts see few plausible grounds to do so. The first live forum in which he is likely to face questions over the case comes tonight, in a town hall event for CNN.Given Trump already has a variety of other legal cases hanging over him, and has faced multiple allegations of sexual misconduct in the past, it seems unlikely that his avowed supporters will see much in the verdicts to persuade them to change their minds. Even his rivals for the nomination will likely perform verbal gymnastics to avoid directly criticising him over the outcome, lest they alienate the Republican base.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThere was “no chorus of Democrats and Republicans calling for Trump, 76, to drop out of the primary”, David Smith writes in his analysis. Trump is seven points ahead of Joe Biden in the most recent poll. But there is already plenty of electoral evidence that swing voters have been put off by the allegations that have long been attached to him – and the jury’s finding in this case is arguably the most concrete proof of bad character that he has ever had to face.What else we’ve been reading
    Barbara Speed’s piece on our collective obsession with having the right kind of sleep is incisive. She points out that getting a good night’s sleep is usually not a result of personal will but rather because of physical conditions or economic inequality: “Our sleep reflects not the bedtime tea we drink or what type of light our phone screen emits, but what is demanded of us in our waking lives.” Nimo
    After the leader of anti-monarchist group Republic Graham Smith was arrested at the coronation, he’s bullish in this interview with Daniel Boffey: “If they were trying to diminish our publicity in order to enhance theirs, it massively backfired, in a spectacular way.” Archie
    Andrew Gumbel’s dispatch from Los Angeles makes for bewildering reading as he unpacks the blunders that led to the LAPD publicly releasing the names and photos of 9,000 cops, including undercover officers working on dangerous assignments. Nimo
    Jon Henley has a very useful explainer on this weekend’s election in Turkey – where Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is facing a serious challenge to his decades-long tenure as president. And Ruth Michaelson and Deniz Barış Narlı report on the mood in Antalya: “Even if the price of onions reaches 1bn lira, our choice won’t change,” one voter says. “Always Erdoğan.” Archie
    ICYMI: The Atlantic’s Caitlin Dickerson won a Pulitzer prize this week for her meticulously detailed 2022 investigation into how the US government’s family separation policy at the southern border materialised, tracing its inception all the way back to 9/11. Nimo
    SportFootball | A stunning second-half goal from Kevin De Bruyne cancelled out Vinícius Júnior’s opener to leave the semi-final poised at 1-1 before the second leg in Manchester next week. Barney Ronay wrote that despite Erling Haaland’s impact, De Bruyne “is still City’s best, most forceful, most alluring creative player”.Rugby | The Rugby Football Union has banned Alex Murphy, a distinguished former council member, from Twickenham for making racist comments including using the N-word during a Six Nations match last year. The news comes just after an investigation by the Rugby Football Union that concluded that racism exists at every level of the game in England.Cricket | Jofra Archer has been ruled out of the remainder of the Indian Premier League season and is returning to England to improve his chances of participating in the Ashes. Ali Martin writes that “there are few more alluring fast bowlers” than Archer – but now “concerns over his involvement in the Ashes are inevitable”.The front pagesWednesday’s front pages are dominated by the news of advice columnist E Jean Carroll’s court victory over former US president Donald Trump. The Guardian leads with “Trump sexually abused writer in 1990s, New York jury finds,” and the Telegraph has an almost identical headline: “Trump sexually assaulted writer, US jury finds”. The Daily Mail has a slightly different angle with “Is this the end of Trump’s new bid to be president?” while the Daily Mirror baldly states “Trump the sex attacker”.The Times splashes on “Britain set to blacklist Russia’s Wagner group”. The top story in the Financial Times is “Blood-scandal compensation scheme expected to cost taxpayer up to £10bn”. The Metro looks back on Russia’s Victory parade, labelling it “Stark raving Vlad,” while the i says it has an exclusive with “Archbishop clashes with No 10 on migration”.Today in FocusDid distress calls go unanswered in the run-up to a fatal Channel disaster?In November 2021 a dinghy crossing from France to the UK overturned, and at least 27 people drowned. Questions are being asked over whether distress calls were effectively ignored in run-up to worst Channel disaster in 30 yearsCartoon of the day | Ella BaronThe UpsideA bit of good news to remind you that the world’s not all badThe 90s are enjoying another resurgence and this time one of the most beloved toys of the era is getting a refresh: the Tamagotchi. The keychain-sized gaming devices instantly exploded in popularity 30 years ago, but disappeared from the playground just as quickly. Now they are back in the form of Peridot, from Pokémon Go creator Niantic.Players are invited to hatch and care for their own unique digital pet, just like a Tamagotchi, but this time it works via an augmented reality app, meaning that your new friend appears in your real-world surroundings – so you can take it for walks in the park or play with it in your home.Sign up here for a weekly roundup of The Upside, sent to you every SundayBored at work?And finally, the Guardian’s puzzles are here to keep you entertained throughout the day – with plenty more on the Guardian’s Puzzles app for iOS and Android. Until tomorrow.
    Quick crossword
    Cryptic crossword
    Wordiply More

  • in

    E Jean Carroll: seesawing emotions before jury says it believes her

    For a moment, E Jean Carroll appeared stricken.Not a single member of the jury looked at her as they filed back into court, verdict on her rape case against Donald Trump in hand.The foreperson handed the decision to the court clerk, who read the answer to the first question: “Did Ms Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr Trump raped Ms Carroll?”The six men and three women on the jury answered: No.Carroll’s face fell. Had her three days on the witness stand describing in graphic detail how Trump “rummaged around in her vagina” after pinning her down in a department store changing room failed to convince the jurors after all?Had the 10 other witnesses, including the friends who testified that she told them about the attack when it occurred in 1996, been dismissed as conspiracists against Trump, as his defence claimed?The clerk moved on to the second question: had Trump sexually abused the advice columnist?The jurors unanimously said: Yes.Carroll’s face lit up. She was believed after all. One of her lawyers, Shaun Crowley, beamed next to her. Some of the jurors caught her eye.There were more questions to be answered but Carroll had already won.A group of New Yorkers sat through all the evidence and believed the 79-year-old advice columnist when she described how the former and possibly future president, now 76, lured her into danger with his charm and then, in an instant, became a “monster”.Trump called her a liar and a “nut job” and described her accusations as a hoax. But the jury decided that he was the liar, and much worse. It made the former president pay to the tune of $5m for the sexual assault and for defaming Carroll while denying it happened.The jury’s job done, Trump’s lawyer, Joe Tacopina, who subjected Carroll to nearly two days of at times gruelling cross-examination, walked over and shook her hand.Then the former Elle advice columnist turned and headed towards the back of the courtroom.She stopped, on the edge of tears, to hug friends and supporters at the front of the public gallery. Then she walked into a small conference room with her legal team where, finally, they could let out cries of delight.The judge, Lewis Kaplan, gave the jurors several options in reaching a verdict. He said that in order to establish that Trump raped her, Carroll must prove he engaged in sexual intercourse involving any penetration, however slight, of the penis into the vaginal opening. It must also have been the result of “forcible compulsion”.The jurors could not unanimously agree that Trump had indeed forced his penis into Carroll’s vagina, given that she described it as relatively fleeting. But, given that the verdict came back in less than three hours, it appears they had little trouble agreeing the second option on the form, of sexual abuse.The judge said that finding required that Carroll prove Trump subjected her to sexual contact without consent by use of force, and that it was for the purpose of sexual gratification.Tacopina repeatedly tried to shake Carroll’s account in which she described Trump pinning her against a wall with his shoulder, forcibly kissing her, ripping off her tights then pressing his fingers into her vagina. But the former president’s lawyer achieved little more than giving Carroll the opportunity to repeatedly recount the details of the attack.Neither did Tacopina’s attempts to challenge her veracity by questioning why she didn’t scream or call the police play well for his client.At the beginning of the trial, Carroll testified that Trump’s attack destroyed her romantic life. She told the jury she had not had sex in more than quarter of a century because she could barely look at a man she was interested in. And then the former president destroyed her reputation when he called her a liar, leading Elle magazine to fire her after 27 years.“I’m here because Donald Trump raped me and when I wrote about it, he said it didn’t happen,” she said. “He lied and shattered my reputation. I’m here to try and get my life back.”On Tuesday, the jury granted her wish. More

  • in

    Jury finds Donald Trump sexually abused columnist E Jean Carroll

    A New York jury found on Tuesday that Donald Trump sexually abused the advice columnist E Jean Carroll in a New York department store changing room 27 years ago.The verdict for the first time legally brands a former US president as a sexual predator. But as it is the result of a civil not criminal case, the only legal sanction Trump will face is financial.In explaining a finding of sexual abuse to the jury, the judge said it had two elements. That Trump subjected Carroll to sexual contact without consent by use of force, and that it was for the purpose of sexual gratification.The jury deliberated for less than three hours. It did not find Trump raped Carroll, but did find him liable for sexual abuse.It awarded about $5m in compensatory and punitive damages: about $2m on the sexual abuse count and close to $3m for defamation, for branding her a liar.Before the verdict in the highly charged case, the judge, Lewis A Kaplan, warned the courtroom: “No shouting. No jumping up and down. No race for the door.”After the verdict, as she was escorted to a car, Carroll said: “We’re very happy.”George Conway, a conservative lawyer and Trump critic who encouraged Carroll to sue, said on Twitter: “God bless E Jean Carroll and congratulations to Roberta Kaplan [Carroll’s attorney] and her team for a job well done.”Trump used his Truth Social platform to say: “I have absolutely no idea who this woman is. The verdict is a disgrace – a continuation of the greatest witch hunt of all time.”In his deposition, released to the public last week, Trump mistook a picture of Carroll in his company for a picture of his second wife, Marla Maples.On Tuesday, lawyers for Trump issued a statement deriding the case as “bogus” and saying they would appeal “and … ultimately win”.Politically, Trump has capitalised on his legal woes, leading by wide margins in polling regarding the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. Nonetheless, he faces mounting legal danger.In New York last month, Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 criminal charges of falsifying business records over a hush-money payment to the porn star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 election.Trump looks likely to face criminal charges over attempts to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia, and is also the target of a federal investigation into his actions around the election, including his incitement of the US Capitol attack.A federal special counsel is also investigating the stashing of secret documents at his Florida estate. In New York, Trump faces a civil suit over his business and tax affairs.In the Carroll case, a jury of three women and six men was persuaded by Carroll’s testimony over three days, describing events in a New York department store changing room in 1996.Trump’s lawyer, Joe Tacopina, said he would use Carroll’s own words to disprove her allegation, showing the former Elle magazine columnist conspired with friends to falsely accuse the former president because they “hated” Trump and his politics.But in seven days of testimony, he failed to do either.Carroll testified that the attack left her unable to have a romantic relationship. She said Trump “shattered my reputation” by denying the attack when she went public in 2019, after which Elle sacked her in months. Trump repeatedly called Carroll a liar, including after her first day of testimony when he claimed a “made up SCAM”.Carroll told the trial she ran into Trump as she was leaving the Bergdorf Goodman department store one evening in spring 1996.“He said, ‘I need to buy a gift, come help me,’” she said. “I was delighted.”Carroll said she suggested a handbag or a hat but he wasn’t interested.“He said, ‘I know, lingerie,’” she said. “He led the way to the escalator.”Carroll described herself as “absolutely enchanted” and “delighted” to go to the lingerie department. She told the court Trump “snatched up” a bodysuit and told her to try it on.“I had no intention of putting it on. I said, ‘You put it on, it’s your colour’,” she said.Carroll said Trump suggested they both try it on, and motioned toward the dressing room. She said she thought it was all a joke. The mood changed rapidly.“He immediately shut the door and shoved me up against the wall. He shoved me so hard my head banged. I was extremely confused,” she said.Carroll said the situation “turned absolutely dark”.“He leaned down and pulled down my tights,” she said. “I was pushing him back. It was quite clear I didn’t want anything else to happen.”Speaking quietly and slowly, she said Trump raped her.Carroll said she will always regret going into the dressing room with Trump. She shed tears as she explained that since the rape she found it impossible to even smile at a man she was attracted to, and that it marked the end of her sex life.Two of Carroll’s friends told the trial she confided in them immediately after the attack but swore them to secrecy.Tacopina challenged Carroll during nearly two days of cross-examination. The lawyer focused on her actions during and immediately after the attack, questioning why she didn’t scream or call the police, and why she waited more than 20 years to publicly accuse Trump.But the questioning backfired as Carroll gave confident and credible explanations, saying her inability to give a single cause for not screaming was not evidence she was lying.“One of the reasons women don’t come forward is because they’re always asked, ‘Why didn’t you scream?’ Some women scream. Some women don’t. It keeps women silent,” she said.Carroll said she was too “ashamed” to go to the police, even if that was the advice she gave in her Elle column.“I was born in 1943. I’m a member of the silent generation. Women like me were taught to keep our chins up and to not complain. I would never call the police about something I am ashamed of.”“I was never going to talk about what Donald Trump did,” she said.But she was motivated to speak as the #MeToo movement took off and women across the US related experiences of sexual assault and harassment.Carroll also sued Trump for defamation, having expected him to say they had a consensual encounter, not deny it altogether.“It hit me and it laid me low because I lost my reputation. Nobody looked at me the same. It was gone. Even people who knew me looked at me with pity in their eyes, and the people who had no opinion now thought I was a liar and hated me,” she said.Carroll said she considers Trump “evil” and a “terrible” president but denied bringing the lawsuit because of her political views.“I’m not settling a political score. I’m settling a personal score,” she said.Asked if she regretted accusing Trump, given the consequences, her voice broke.“I regretted this about 100 times but, in the end, being able to get my day in court finally is everything,” she said, through tears. More