More stories

  • 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

  • in

    Video of Trump confusing E Jean Carroll with ex-wife in deposition is released

    Video of Donald Trump’s deposition in his civil rape trial in New York City was released to the public on Friday.The footage, from last October, included a previously reported but never publicly seen exchange in which the former president mistook a picture of his accuser, the writer E Jean Carroll, for a picture of his second wife, Marla Maples.“That’s Marla, yeah,” Trump said. “That’s my wife.”His questioner said: “The person you’ve just pointed to is E Jean Carroll.”Carroll says Trump raped her in a department store in New York in the mid-1990s. She is suing for battery and for defamation, over comments he made while denying the claim, which she made in a book in 2019.In one such comment, repeated in his deposition, Trump said Carroll was not his “type”.On Friday, Renato Mariotti – a former federal prosecutor now a columnist for Politico – pointed to the impact the footage could have in deciding the case.“Trump claims E Jean Carroll isn’t his type,” Mariotti said, “but he mistook a picture of her for a picture of his ex-wife. You don’t need to be a lawyer to understand why his testimony could [affect] the jury’s verdict.”In the clip, Trump called Carroll’s claim “the most ridiculous, disgusting story” which he said was “just made up”. An exchange followed about when Trump became aware of a picture showing him with his first wife, Ivana Trump, Carroll and Carroll’s then husband, John Johnson, at a public event in New York.Shown the picture, Trump said: “I don’t even know who the woman – let’s see, I don’t know who, it’s Marla.”His questioner asked: “You say Marla’s in this photo?”Trump said: “That’s Marla, yeah. That’s my wife.”Asked “which woman are you pointing to”, Trump said: “Here.”His questioner said: “The person you’ve just pointed to is E Jean Carroll.”“Oh I see,” Trump said, adding: “Is that Carroll? Because it’s very blurry”.Trump’s affair with Maples was a tabloid staple in the 1980s, one indelible headline, engineered by Trump, seeing Maples proclaim him the provider of the “Best Sex I’ve Ever Had”.In his deposition, he was asked if he had seen other women while married to his first wife. He answered: “I don’t know.”Trump was also shown repeating, “with as much respect as I can”, his contention that Carroll “is not my type. Not my type in any way, shape or form.”In rally footage shown at his deposition, Trump described Jessica Leeds, who accuses him of sexual assault on a plane in the late 1970s, as “not my first choice, that I can tell you … that would not be my first choice”. This week, Leeds testified for Carroll.Trump told Carroll’s lawyer she “wouldn’t be a choice of mine either, to be honest with you, I hope you’re not insulted, I would not in any circumstances have any interest in you”. He also called the lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, a “political operative” and a “disgrace”.Other footage showed Trump discussing the Access Hollywood, hot-mic footage which surfaced in 2016, briefly threatening to derail Trump’s election campaign.In that tape, Trump said: “I just start kissing them, it’s like a magnet, just kiss, I don’t even wait and when you’re a star they just let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.”In his deposition, he said: “Well historically, that’s true with stars.”He was asked: “It’s true you can grab them by the pussy?”He said: “Well, if you look over the last million years, I guess that’s been largely true. Not always, but largely true. Unfortunately or fortunately.”“You consider yourself a star?”“I think you can say that, yeah.”The jury saw the footage this week. Lawyers for Carroll rested on Thursday. For Trump, the lawyer Joe Tacopina said no witnesses would be called and Trump would not testify himself. Trump nonetheless has until 5pm on Sunday to change his mind.Trump faces other forms of legal jeopardy, including investigations of his election subversion, retention of classified records and business and tax affairs.In another New York case, he has pleaded not guilty to 34 criminal counts related to a hush money payment to the porn star Stormy Daniels, who claims an affair Trump denies.Politically, Trump has capitalised on his predicament, alleging persecution by Democrats, enjoying a flood of donations and surging to commanding leads in Republican primary polling. More

  • in

    Witness says E Jean Carroll called her ‘hyperventilating’ after alleged rape by Trump

    A close friend of E Jean Carroll has told a New York jury that she received a distressed call from the advice columnist within minutes of Donald Trump allegedly raping her.Lisa Birnbach testified at Carroll’s civil action against the former president on Tuesday that she was feeding her children at home when Carroll called “breathless, hyperventilating, emotional” in the spring of 1996.“She said: ‘Lisa, you’re not going to believe what happened to me’,” she said.Birnbach, a magazine writer and editor, described Carroll giving a brief description of meeting Trump at the entrance to the luxury department store Bergdorf Goodman and how they decided to shop together. Birnbach said that Carroll then described Trump pinning her to a changing room wall and assaulting her.“E Jean said to me many times: ‘He pulled down my tights, he pulled down my tights,’ almost like she couldn’t believe it had just happened to her,” she said.Birnbach said Carroll then described Trump forcing first his fingers and then his penis into her vagina.“As soon as she said that, even though I knew my children didn’t know the word, I ducked out of the room and I whispered: ‘E Jean, he raped you, you should go to the police’. She said: ‘No, no I don’t want to go to the police.’ I said: ‘He raped you. I’ll take you to the police,’” Birnbach recounted.Birnbach said that Carroll remained adamant.“She said: ‘promise me you will never speak of this again and promise me you will tell no one,’” Birnbach testified. “And I promised both of those things.”Carroll, 79, is suing Trump for battery for allegedly raping her in a New York department store changing room in 1996, and for defamation for calling her a liar after she went public about the alleged assault in 2019.Birnbach is one of two women expected to testify that the advice columnist told them about the alleged assault shortly after it occurred.Birnbach said she was stunned when Carroll described going into the dressing room with Trump.“I was surprised that she did that,” Birnbach said. “I thought it was kind of nutty.”But Birnbach added that she did not think at the time that Trump was dangerous.One of the questions that has hung over the trial was why Carroll chose to call Birnbach immediately after the alleged assault when the two were no more than “work friends”, although they now describe themselves as very close.Birnbach said she believes it was because a few months earlier she had visited Trump to write an article about his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.Birnbach said she met Trump at a party in 1995, and he asked if she would be interested in seeing Mar-a-Lago.“He called me about once a month for five or six months to make sure I still wanted to write the article,” she said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTrump flew Birnbach down on his private jet in January 1996, and she stayed two nights at the estate while he gave her a personal tour. The article was published the following month.“I believe E Jean called me, of all her friends and acquaintances, because she knew I had just been at Mar-a-Lago,” she said.Another of Carroll’s friends, Carol Martin, is also expected to testify that the advice columnist told her about the alleged rape at the time. Carroll has said that Martin advised her not to go to the police because Trump was a powerful businessman. Carroll said that was the advice she wanted to hear at the time.Birnbach said she never spoke to Carroll about the assault again until the advice columnist went public with her allegations against Trump in 2019.“It was her life, her story, not my story. She clearly didn’t want to tell anyone what happened and I honoured that,” she said.Birnbach said she “worked not to think about it”.“I buried it,” she said. “As life went on, it was easier not to think about it.”Birnbach acknowledged that she has been a fierce and vocal opponent of Trump over the years, calling him an “infection”, a “madman”, a “Russian agent”, and a “malignant sociopath”. She acknowledged feeling “hatred” for the former president.Asked why she was testifying, Birnbach said: “I’m here because I’m her friend and I want the world to know she’s telling the truth.”The trial continues.
    Information and support for anyone affected by rape or sexual abuse issues is available from the following organisations. In the US, Rainn offers support on 800-656-4673. In the UK, Rape Crisis offers support on 0808 500 2222. In Australia, support is available at 1800Respect (1800 737 732). Other international helplines can be found at ibiblio.org/rcip/internl.html. More

  • in

    E Jean Carroll says she sued for rape on advice of Trump adviser’s husband

    The advice columnist E Jean Carroll sued Donald Trump for rape after she was encouraged to take legal action by George Conway, the husband of a top aide to the then president.On her third day on the witness stand, Carroll told the jury hearing her lawsuit for battery and defamation over the alleged sexual assault in a New York department store changing room in 1996 that she did not intend to sue Trump until he called her a liar when she went public with her accusations more than two decades later.Shortly afterwards she met Conway, a lawyer who was at the time married to Kellyanne Conway, one of the Trump White House’s most visible officials. George Conway was a vocal critic of the then president, to the embarrassment of his wife.Carroll said that they spoke at a party where Conway laid out the difference between criminal case and civil cases.“George said: you should seriously think about this,” she told the jury of six men and three women.Two days later, Carroll filed her first lawsuit against Trump, for defamation, after he called her a liar in denying the alleged rape at the luxury Bergdorf Goodman store.Trump’s lawyer, Joe Tacopina, sought to characterise the lawsuit as politically motivated, in part through the association with Conway who went on to recommend a lawyer to Carroll.Tacopina contrasted that move – and a second more recent civil lawsuit for rape after a change in the law allowed for it – with Carroll’s decision not to take legal action against the former head of CBS, Les Moonves, who she also accused of sexual assault in an elevator.Carroll said that Moonves had not called her a liar.“He simply denied it,” she said. “He didn’t call me names. He didn’t grind my face into the mud like Donald Trump did.”Carroll said Moonves was accused of sexual abuse by a dozen women and that his denial of her allegation was one among many.Under cross-examination, Carroll defended her decision not to call the police after the alleged rape, as the typical response of women of her generation who are “ashamed” to have been sexually assaulted.She acknowledged that she frequently advised people to go to the police in her Elle column, Ask E Jean.“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,” she said. “I would never call the police about something I am ashamed of.”Carroll acknowledged she did call the police on one occasion, when she saw “loutish behaviour by some kids”.Tacopina responded: “So your testimony is you’ll call the police if a mailbox is attacked but not if you are attacked?”Carroll said it was.“I will never, ever go to the police,” she said.Asked why, then, more than two decades after the alleged rape she decided to go public, Carroll said that times had changed.“I reached a point in my life at 76 where I was no longer going to stay silent,” she testified.Tacopina pressed Carroll about her continued shopping trips to Bergdorf Goodman where she spent thousands of dollars in the following years.“Bergdorf’s is not a place I’m afraid to enter,” she responded.Tacopina also highlighted Carroll’s complimentary comments about Trump’s television show The Apprentice. Carroll said she was praising the construct of the programme as “witty”.On Monday afternoon, in re-cross-examination, Tacopina asked Carroll if she was happy now and she responded that she was “with undertones of unhappiness”.Then after three days of intense testimony, Carroll’s stint on the witness stand ended.Later this week, Carroll’s legal team is expected to call her friend, Lisa Birnbach and another woman, Carol Martin, to testify that Carroll told them about the alleged assault shortly after it occurred. Both have since corroborated the account.Carroll testified that Birnbach told her the alleged attack was rape and to call the police. But Martin advised her to keep quiet because Trump was a powerful businessman who would “bury” her.Carroll kept her silence for more than two decades but changed her mind as other women came forward to recount their experiences of sexual assault and harassment as the #MeToo movement swept the US. She wrote a book, What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal, detailing abuse of one kind or other by a number of men, including Trump. Excerpts were published in New York magazine in 2019.Trump called Carroll’s allegations “a complete con job” and said her book “should be sold in the fiction section”.“She completely made up a story that I met her at the doors of this crowded New York City department store and, within minutes, ‘swooned’ her. It is a hoax and a lie,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.Carroll’s legal team is also expected to call two other women. Natasha Stoynoff, a writer for People magazine, is expected to testify that in 2005 Trump led her into an empty room and forcibly kissed her until he was interrupted. Jessica Leeds accuses Trump of assaulting her on a plane in 1979 by grabbing her breasts and trying to put his hand up her skirt. More

  • in

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ‘not planning’ to run for Senate seat in 2024

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will not run for a seat in the US Senate next year, according to her office, clearing the way for incumbent New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a Democrat, to run for re-election unopposed by the progressive congresswoman.“She is not planning to run for Senate in 2024. She is not planning to primary Gillibrand,” Lauren Hitt, Ocasio-Cortez’s spokesperson, told Politico.Gillibrand, who launched her re-election campaign in January for a third Senate term, was widely believed to be facing a number of potential challengers in the state primary, including Ocasio-Cortez.The announcement follows indications from other New York progressives, including Mondaire Jones and representatives Jamaal Bowman and Ritchie Torres, that they are not considering a challenge.New York Democrats were hit hard in the midterm elections last year and the loss of four seats to Republican candidates is widely blamed for the party losing control of Congress. Avoiding an acrimonious challenge from the progressive wing of the party, and concentrating on recovering the 2022 losses, is considered to be Democrats’ political priority.“I think it’s divisive. And unless you think you can win, it’s divisive unnecessarily,” Jay Jacobs, chair of the New York Democratic party, told Politico. “It’s using up resources we need to preserve for more coordinated work and the rest.”Camille Rivera, a New York-based progressive strategist, said that an intra-Democrat contest “could be pretty bruising and give a Republican a leg up”.Signs of a deal between Ocasio-Cortez and Gillibrand came after rumors of a Senate seat challenge began to circulate last year. Gillibrand has faced criticism for her part in forcing former senator Al Franken’s resignation, accepting donations from indicted crypto king Sam Bankman-Fried and ties to Wall Street.But Ocasio-Cortez’s staff’s choice of language – “not planning to run” is not the same as “not running”. Bronx representative Jamaal Bowman told the outlet he heard AOC’s name “weeks ago or months ago maybe” as a primary contender but hadn’t heard it since.Ocasio-Cortez’s indication comes as high-profile progressives have said they’ll support Joe Biden’s re-election bid, despite misgivings about parts of his agenda. Ocasio-Cortez has said she “unequivocally” supports the party’s nominees.Since Biden’s re-election soft launch on Tuesday, the sitting president has received endorsements from congressional progressive caucus leader Pramila Jayapal, representative Ro Khanna, and squad members Ilhan Omar, Greg Casar and Delia Ramirez.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe endorsements come despite disquiet about Biden’s recent push to the middle on crime, energy policy and immigration.“I think that people are looking at the incredible accomplishments, particularly the investments in climate change and equity, racial justice, and seeing that this is night and day from what anyone else has been able to do,” Jayapal told the Hill.Senator Elizabeth Warren has said she’s “delighted” about Biden’s decision. “I’m in all the way,” she told the outlet. Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, who ran for the Democrat nomination against Biden in 2020, told CNN’s State of the Union Sunday: “If you believe in democracy, you want to see more people vote, not fewer people vote, I think the choice is pretty clear, and that choice is Biden.”But Sanders leaned on Biden to be stronger on working-class issues, and urged the president and the party “to make it clear that we believe in a government that represents all, not just the few; take on the greed of the insurance companies, the drug companies, Wall Street, all the big money interests; and start delivering for working-class people.”“You do that, I think Biden is going to win in a landslide,” Sanders added. More

  • in

    Guiliani admits using ‘dirty trick’ to suppress Hispanic vote in mayoral race

    Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani has admitted to a “dirty trick” that his campaign used to suppress the Hispanic vote during the city’s 1993 mayoral race.On Tuesday, Giuliani revealed his voter suppression tactics to the far-right Donald Trump ally Steve Bannon and Arizona’s defeated Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake during a discussion on his America’s Mayor Live program.In the conversation, Giuliani – who was central to Trump’s efforts to subvert the result of the 2020 presidential election – lamented that he had been “cheated” during the 1989 mayoral race in which he lost before explaining his 1993 campaign strategy, saying: “I’ll tell you one little dirty trick,” to which Lake replied: “We need dirty tricks!”“A dirty trick in New York City? I’m so shocked,” Bannon sarcastically responded. Giuliani then interrupted the former Trump adviser, saying: “No, played by Republicans!”“Republicans don’t do dirty tricks,” Bannon said before Giuliani enthusiastically said: “How about this one?” Bannon replied: “Okay give it to me.”Giuliani explained that he spent $2m to set up a so-called Voter Integrity Committee which was headed by Randy Levine, current president of the New York Yankees baseball team, and John Sweeney, a former New York Republican congressman.“So they went through East Harlem, which is all Hispanic, and they gave out little cards, and the card said: ‘If you come to vote, make sure you have your green card because INS are picking up illegals.’ So they spread it all over the Hispanic …” said Giuliani, referring to the now defunct US Immigration and Naturalization Service before trailing off.“Oh my gosh,” Lake replied as she raised her eyebrows.Following its closure in 2003, the INS transferred its immigration enforcement functions to other agencies within the Department of Homeland Security, including US Immigration and Customs Enforcement.Giuliani went on to reveal that following the election, which he won against then incumbent mayor David Dinkins by around 53,000 votes, then president Bill Clinton’s justice department launched an investigation into him.“[Then-attorney general] Janet Reno is coming after us, we violated civil rights,” Giuliani recalled his lawyer Dennison Young telling him. Giuliani then reassured Young, saying: “What civil rights did we violate? They don’t have civil rights! All we did was prevent people who can’t vote from voting. Maybe we tricked them, but tricking is not a crime.”“In those days, we didn’t have crazy prosecutors. Nowadays, they’ll probably prosecute you for it … and that’s the way we kept down the Hispanic vote,” Giuliani said.“Not the legal vote, the illegal vote,” Lake interjected.“Of course! The Hispanic illegal vote, which takes away the Hispanic legal vote,” Giuliani responded.The Huffington Post compiled a handful of media reports from the time which collectively point towards Giuliani’s voter suppression tactics during the election.A 1993 New York Times article published at the time of the election reported that Dinkins had called for a news conference to “accuse the Giuliani camp of waging ‘an outrageous campaign of voter intimidation and dirty tricks’”.One of the charges included English and Spanish pro-Dinkins posters that were allegedly put up at the time in Washington Heights and the Bronx, predominantly Hispanic and Black areas. “The posters suggested that illegal immigrants would be arrested at the polls and deported if they tried to vote,” the New York Times reported.An article published in the socialist journal Against the Current months after the election also mentioned the posters.“Cops put up phony Dinkins posters in mostly Dominican Washington Heights, saying the INS would be checking voters’ documents at the polls. In some cases police themselves asked Latino voters for their passports,” wrote labor and social activist Andy Pollack.Similarly, a Washington Post report published days after the election cited complaints surrounding voter suppression in the city.“Among the complaints are the placing of signs on telephone poles and walls in Latino areas warning that ‘federal authorities and immigration officials will be at all election sites … Immigration officials will be at locations to arrest and deport undocumented illegal voters,’” the Post reported.A statement issued by the then justice department on 2 November 1993 said: “The Department of Justice is aware that posters have been placed throughout New York City misinforming voters about the role of federal officials in today’s elections … Federal observers are in New York to protect the rights of minority voters. They are not there to enforce immigration laws.”Speaking to the Huffington Post, Sweeney dismissed Giuliani’s claims as “nonsense” and said that he ran a “legitimate” operation alongside Levine. Levine echoed similar sentiments to the outlet, explaining that the purpose of the operation was “getting poll watchers and attorneys when there was a dispute”.He added that he had “no knowledge” of the trick Giuliani described.Since the 1993 mayoral elections, voter suppression tactics have continued to be carried out in various ways across the city.In December 2021, the New York City council approved a bill that would have allowed for non-US citizens to vote in local elections. However, the law was struck down months later in June 2022 after state supreme court judge Ralph Porzio of Staten Island ruled the law “unconstitutional”.The same month Porzio struck down the law, the Democratic New York governor Kathy Hochul signed the John R Lewis Voting Rights Act into law, which seeks to prevent local officials from enacting rules that may suppress voting rights of individuals as a result of their race.In addition to local governments or school districts with track records of discrimination now being required to obtain state approval before passing certain voting policies, the new law expands language assistance to voters for whom English is not a first language, as well as provides legal tools to fight racist voting provisions.“We’re going to change our election laws so we no longer hurt minority communities,” Hochul said as she signed the bill into law. More