Post by Admin on May 10, 2023 20:29:16 GMT
What’s the case about?
Carroll says a chance meeting with Trump at Bergdorf Goodman suddenly turned into sexual violence in 1995 or 1996. According to her court complaint, Trump ushered her to a fitting room after they joked about trying on a bodysuit, and then he pinned her against the wall and forced himself on her as she tried to break free.
She said she ultimately kneed him away and ran out of the store. Two of Carroll’s friends have said she told them about the alleged attack soon afterward. She never informed police or anyone else until she recounted the story in a 2019 memoir and magazine excerpt. (The Associated Press typically does not name people who say they have been sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly, as Carroll did.)
What does Trump say happened?
Nothing whatsoever. “She said that I did something to her that never took place. There was no anything,” Trump said when Carroll’s lawyers questioned him under oath in October. He denies even bumping into her at the store and has accused her of making up the story to sell her book. When her account was first published, Trump said he had no idea who she was, shrugging off a photo that showed the two and their then-spouses interacting at a 1987 social event. When shown the picture again during his questioning in October, Trump misidentified Carroll as his ex-wife Marla Maples. His prior ex, the late Ivana Trump, is in the photo.
Are there eyewitnesses? Any video? Forensic evidence?
Carroll’s legal team says there were no eyewitnesses to the alleged attack, and any security video that might have existed is long gone. For years, Carroll sought to test Trump’s DNA against unidentified male genetic material found on a dress that she says she wore and never laundered. His lawyers long fought her request for a sample until February, when they offered a deal: To rebut her claim, he’d give the sample if her attorneys turned over the full DNA report on the dress. The judge said it was too late. Jurors won’t hear about the DNA and the dress at all.
Will Trump be at the trial?
His presence isn’t required and doesn’t appear likely. Trump’s lawyers have said that he wants to attend but that the security needed for such an appearance would burden the city and court. The judge, for his part, has expressed confidence that Trump can be protected in the lower Manhattan courthouse, where security already is tight.
Even if Trump isn’t there, jurors will hear from him via video of his questioning last fall. Carroll, meanwhile, plans to attend every day and to testify, according to her attorneys.
Then why is this civil case in court now?
It’s complicated. When Carroll first came forward, the time limit for suing over a rape had expired. But after Trump reacted to her allegations by saying she was “not my type” and “totally lying,” Carroll filed a defamation suit against him in 2019. That case ground along as Trump’s lawyers fought it in various ways, including by shifting it from state to federal court and asserting that Trump’s remarks were part of his job as president — an argument that could have sunk the defamation claim.
Carroll says a chance meeting with Trump at Bergdorf Goodman suddenly turned into sexual violence in 1995 or 1996. According to her court complaint, Trump ushered her to a fitting room after they joked about trying on a bodysuit, and then he pinned her against the wall and forced himself on her as she tried to break free.
She said she ultimately kneed him away and ran out of the store. Two of Carroll’s friends have said she told them about the alleged attack soon afterward. She never informed police or anyone else until she recounted the story in a 2019 memoir and magazine excerpt. (The Associated Press typically does not name people who say they have been sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly, as Carroll did.)
What does Trump say happened?
Nothing whatsoever. “She said that I did something to her that never took place. There was no anything,” Trump said when Carroll’s lawyers questioned him under oath in October. He denies even bumping into her at the store and has accused her of making up the story to sell her book. When her account was first published, Trump said he had no idea who she was, shrugging off a photo that showed the two and their then-spouses interacting at a 1987 social event. When shown the picture again during his questioning in October, Trump misidentified Carroll as his ex-wife Marla Maples. His prior ex, the late Ivana Trump, is in the photo.
Are there eyewitnesses? Any video? Forensic evidence?
Carroll’s legal team says there were no eyewitnesses to the alleged attack, and any security video that might have existed is long gone. For years, Carroll sought to test Trump’s DNA against unidentified male genetic material found on a dress that she says she wore and never laundered. His lawyers long fought her request for a sample until February, when they offered a deal: To rebut her claim, he’d give the sample if her attorneys turned over the full DNA report on the dress. The judge said it was too late. Jurors won’t hear about the DNA and the dress at all.
Will Trump be at the trial?
His presence isn’t required and doesn’t appear likely. Trump’s lawyers have said that he wants to attend but that the security needed for such an appearance would burden the city and court. The judge, for his part, has expressed confidence that Trump can be protected in the lower Manhattan courthouse, where security already is tight.
Even if Trump isn’t there, jurors will hear from him via video of his questioning last fall. Carroll, meanwhile, plans to attend every day and to testify, according to her attorneys.
Then why is this civil case in court now?
It’s complicated. When Carroll first came forward, the time limit for suing over a rape had expired. But after Trump reacted to her allegations by saying she was “not my type” and “totally lying,” Carroll filed a defamation suit against him in 2019. That case ground along as Trump’s lawyers fought it in various ways, including by shifting it from state to federal court and asserting that Trump’s remarks were part of his job as president — an argument that could have sunk the defamation claim.