54/ Tac: Ms. Carroll wrote under her FB post, DX CU, Not taking off orange jumpsuit until Weinstein, Spacey & certain other hideous men are in jail. Defense Exhibit AW [Carroll about women down on the border getting raped around the clock.]
Tac shows this photo of a smiling EJean Carroll "gleefully" posing w, as he puts it, the likeness of her rapist.
(This is a plaintiff exhibit, from Carroll's "Most Hideous Men in NYC walking tour.)
Context: How Carroll explained her reaction.
55/ [From April 26: Showing her same photo, her atty asked her: "Why are u smiling next to someone who's dressed like Trump?"
"It's funny. He's not Donald Trump."]
[Re: FB post...[Carroll about women down on border getting raped around the clock.]
Tacopina: There was no border crisis in the mid 1990s. You know why she didn't go the police? Bc they would have investigated. A civil case is easy. There's no investig. Here, there's no diary entry. She said, She only writes about ball to the dog
56/ Tac speaks about lack of any entry in diary about Trump allegedly raping her.
Carroll said that she never made negative entries in her diaries. He says that a stip shows she wrote 3 negative entries.
Context: That's astonishingly few neg entries for her diary.
Stip also states:
Carroll turned over 3 diaries, each betw 234 and 266 pages.
3 neg. entries.
Those negative entries were about:
* being "distraught by political developments."
* her brother-in-law's death
* hurting her back.
57/ Tacopina: This was about selling her book. She claimed she didn't know what a signing bonus was- that was just wrong. She swore to tell you the truth, and didn't. She had a watch party for her lawsuit, like it was the NFL draft. She said status is important to her
Tacopina plays the Anderson Cooper interview, to "we have to take a break" and "You're fascinating to talk to," then tells jurors, You decide what that means. In this case, most of her crying was on direct examination
58/ Wow, Tackypina, just wow:
Tacopina: i"m the father of two daughters. I would never tell a rape victim what she should do - it's that she asked herself that question, about not screaming. She became a star. After the CNN interview she told friends that was having a wonderful time.
59/ Tac plays one of Carroll's podcast interviews for jurors.
In it, Carroll describing her getting her "revenge" on Elle for firing her bc she's more successful going independent on Substack.
Tacopina: She said she got her revenge on Elle with her Substack, she said "I'm back, so long Elle." Let's consider their reputational harm expert, 👉 not that she matters.👈 [ME: But matters enough to quote?] She didn't even weigh Ms. Carroll's work on her own reputation. She had a political motivation
60/ Tacopina: They took this out of her book, because it went too far: He's trying to kill me and poison my air. I asked her, Did you write that in your initial draft? It showed the political bias.
She wrote, Why isn't a rape allegation worthy of impeachment?
[ME: I've asked that very same question, but I digress...]
61/ Tacopina claims that Carroll, Birnbach and Martin "colluded" to make up false accusations against Trump.
[ME: NO COLLUSION! NO COLLUSION! HOAX! WITCH HUNT! Sorry, I had to. #Bygones ]
Tacopina: Ms. Birnbach told you she thinks Donald Trump for what he has done politically should be held accountable. So she's tried to hold him accountable, E. Jean Carroll's given her the opportunity. Carol Martin said she wasn't even asked to remain silent.
62/ Tacopina notes that both Martin and Birnbach testified they never told anyone else about it. He noted that Martin never even brought it up on election night, 2016.
She didn't say: "Oh, my God. He's going to win. He raped my friend,"
Tac: Here's another exhibit-
[Shows it on screen, has not released or tried to justify]
about "Matthew Craig referred me to a lawyer called Noam" [Biale] and that they have to get together." Then they are watching Trump be elected, no mention of Trump & rape
63/ Tacopina mocks Birnbach's testimony that she wasn't thinking of Trump allegedly raping E. Jean Carroll on election night 2016.
"I wasn't thinking about it," Birnbach said.
He says there's "no way that's truthful testimony."
Tacopina: Lisa Birnbach said she needed Ms Carroll's permission to think about it- is it believable? Then there's the envelopes with the blue ribbons. Ms. Birnbach said she didn't open or read it because it sounded heavy. And she's a writer. Does that make sense?
64/ Tacopina: So the NYT reporter Megan Twohey is going to interview the two - Ms. Carroll tells them to say they never read the chapter, because it might seem they got the story FROM the chapter. Ms. Carroll was lying to you about this too
[ME: You wanna talk liars, Tackypina? You represent one. You are one. Next.]
65/ Tacopina: They were just work friends until bk came out. But we're supposed to believe Ms. Carroll called Lisa Birnbach &essentially dictated the chapter from her bk, w details like a revolving door & "you're the advice lady." Right.
Tac flags Carroll's message to Birnbach in 2019, abt her convo w NYT journalist Megan Twohey.
Carroll says she told Twohey: "That I turned over the entire book to you when I got sick, and we agreed you would publish it when I croaked, and you never read it."
66/ Tacopina tells jurors that Carroll never planned to sue Trump until Geo. Conway
"got his hooks" into her. Tacopina flags a reference to "George" in Carroll's testimony:
"George is George Conway: archenemy of Donald Trump"
Tacopina: Ms. Carroll never intended to sue until Mr Conway told her to seriously think of suing Donald Trump. First she told me, & you, no. But from her deposition, she said "Wherever I went, people said, Are you going to see him," I said no. Then George said...
67/ Tacopina hits an email between E. Jean Carroll and Carol Martin, where the latter wrote the former on Sept. 23, 2017:
"As soon as we're both well enuf to scheme, we must do our patriotic duty again."
Martin referred to Trump as "Orange Crush" higher in the chain.
68/ Tacopina: Here is the scheming email [schemail?], about Nambia. I asked Ms. Carroll about this. She said she had no idea what it was about. But she remembers from 27 years ago revolving doors and hats. She says scheme means plan. No it doesn't.
Let's try using that in a sentence. Let's scheme to go get pizza. Let's scheme to go to the Yankee game. It doesn't work. OK. That's doesn't make sense.
69/ Then when Ms. Martin knows they'll be subpoened she write, no more texts & chats until further notice. That's Cripp [cryp?] talk. That's not how people who have nothing to say talk. Now something lethal to them - a message, trying to thread the needle. "Scheme' is exactly what you think it means.
Tacopina: Carol Martin to her friend, about E. Jean Carroll: it's gone to another level, she's going to sue T, WTF, I can't relate to it.
[Pause]
Tacopina: That's it: game, set and match.
70/ ME: This is his case. It's desperate and ludicrous, yes, but if one juror buys into it...& yes, I'm aware it's a civil trial with lower bar. I get it, folks. But I never count on anything, esp. jurors.
Tacopina: Ms Carroll made this up, from an episode of Law & Order. She brought Ms. Birnbach and Ms. Martin along. They got in too deep and couldn't get out. Folks, I'm coming to an end. Let me show you a chart, a timeline. Donald Trump is elected- then this story
73/ He says E. Jean Carroll's story is "not worthy of your belief."
Tacopina:
This is an absolutely outrageous case. It's an outrageous case.
E. Jean Carroll was not raped at Bergdorf Goodman. And we know reality from fiction. She is asking you to condemn another citizen as a rapist, the worst thing you could ever be called, on evidence that couldn't stand up in any credible fact investigation
74/ More:
Tacopina: This is an absolutely outrageous case. She had a political reason, she desired status & sucked her friends in. What about the rule of law? It's everything for us. On the facts, this is your courtroom. Just you. Not some journalist who comes in for a day
Tacopina's closing line asks jurors to "please" have the "courage" to do what is "right" here.
ME: YOU WANNA TALK COURAGE, TAC? SEE: CARROLL, E. JEAN. Game. Set. Match... asshole.
78/ They're back.
Judge Kaplan: Mr. Ferrara?
Ferrara tells jurors Tac is a "very good lawyer." Tacopina offered argument, he continues. But there's a difference between argument and evidence.
Ferrara skewers Tac's rhetoric about respect for legal system "when his own client didn't have enough respect" to come into court.
You heard Mr. Tacopina say, Who could you call as a witness?
👉 It's a little late, but..
Donald Trump. He never looked you in the eye and denying raping E. Jean Carroll👈
79/ [REMINDER: My quotes are sometimes a hybrid of 2 reporters' accounts]
Ferrara: Let's look at Ms. Martin's email, it's Plaintiff's Exhibit 122.
[Note: This was not among the exhibits plaintiff's counsel put on DropBox on May 5 - then didn't filed by May 6 at noon to justify withholding some exhibits
80/ Ferrara: You'll recall, Ms. Carroll published her account in 2019. Mr. Trump was elected after the Access Hollywood video. Why is this important? America voted for Trump despite hearing it. So what about the scheme? They are so stupid they need to steal from Law and Order?
🎯
81/ Ferrara: Why would people turn over damning messages if they were willing to perjure themselves? So these prove nothing.
Let's step back. The Trump team's theory is that three intelligent women based their scheme on an episode of TV that 6 million people have seen
🎯
83/ Of the messages Tacopina calls "lethal," Ferrara: "Which is it? Are they in on grand conspiracy to take down the pres—" or was Martin gossiping & saying unkind things abt her friend. Ferrara says defense theory doesn't pass the "smell test."
..On what defense calls inconsistencies.
"Here's my pt: No one lies like this." Birnbach testif she put the rape claims out of her mind, even on election day.
If she were lying, Ferrara said: "She would tell you that she thinks of the assault often."
84/ Ferrara:
"That's easier to understand — and who could prove her wrong?"
Birnbach said she put it out of her mind because "She told you the truth, not what you want to hear," he says.
Ferrara argues that the question of screaming is only relevant if Trump argued Carroll consented, but he didn't.
"If you're in the jury room asking whether Ms. Carroll consented, then she wins."
👉 "They didn't put on a defense case because they don't have a defense."👈 🎯 💪
85/ 👉 Ferrara notes that the defense "didn't call Mr. Trump to testify," and says jurors should conclude that he would have hurt their case, if he tried.👍 🎯
THIS:
Ferrara: If their defenses conflict with each other, it means they have no defense. We have carried our burden. If someone accused you of rape and you didn't do it, you run to the courtroom. Mr Trump didn't come. Ms. Carroll was here everyday
86/ Ferrara again praises Tacopina as a "good lawyer," adding that he knows how to "cherry pick" 🍒 the transcript and exhibits.😉
[Me: Nailed it again, Ferrara]
Tacopina called George Conway a "Democratic party lawyer." (He's a conservative.)
Carroll called him a "Republican lawyer."
"You don't need to be a Democrat to dislike that guy," Ferrara said, adding that 👉 "every time" Tacopina showed jurors something "it was out of context."👈 🎯
87/ Reminder: Some of this is redundant tooting bc I'm quoting 2 diff. reporters on the same trial:
Ferrara: Trump raped Ms. Carroll and didn't want to testify about it. Mr. Tacopina said Garbage in, Garbage out- but Dr Lebowitz, a specialist, *believed* Ms. Carroll. Page 896. On Mr Conway. Mr. Tacopina called him a Democratic party lawyer. But he's a Republican
88/ Ferrara: Ms. Carroll said, it's not about money, it's about getting my name back. If she was all about the money, why would she tell you she wasn't? The defense says it's a lie they didn't read the book. But they were interviewed together
If that were true, Ferrara said, they would have asked for exorbitant damages. They haven't specified a damages award request, and Ferrara says the lawsuit's about Carroll getting her name back.
89/ Ferrara calls the "Access Hollywood" tape 👉 Trump's "confession." 👈 🎯
"Locker room talk can be crude. I get it," Ferrara says, adding this goes beyond it.
Ferrara: Let's talk about the Access Hollywood tape. I'm not going to play it again. But Trump never said it wasn't true. It was a confession. It was not just locker room talk. 👉 I've been in locker room and I've never heard about furniture shopping. 👈 Go to 25-T
90/ Ferrara: Trump said, "I move on her like a B-I-T-C-H." Like in Bergdorf's, shopping. Grabs them by their genitals. 👉 That's not locker room talk, when Donald Trump says it. He did exactly that.👈
Ferrara scoffs at arguments about Carroll going back to Bergdorf Goodman:
"If I get mugged outside the office, am I supposed to never go to work again because it'd be too triggering?"
91/ Ferrara: Ms. Carroll is entitled to find happiness in her life.
He says that the defense is setting up a picture of a "perfect rape victim."
💥 "That's the defense's out-of-date, out-of-touch view. It's offensive. It's wrong."💥
Ferrara: In their version a perfect rape victim burns whatever clothes they were working and never laughs again, never tries to hold their rapist accountable. It's the defense's out of date view, as wrong as it is offensive. 3 Trump victims told you the same thing
92/ Ferrara ends with saying this isn't a 'he said, she said' case:
👉 "There's not even a 'he said,' because Donald Trump never looked you in the eye and denied it," 👈
adding that the jury should find him liable.🎯
Ferrara: Trump needs you to believe all these people are liars. He needs to you to believe that he was lying on the Access Hollywood tape. There wasn't even a "He said." Find him liable. Thank you.
Judge Kaplan: 10 am tomorrow, instructions and you get the case
93/ That last part? That's why I was telling people in replies that the jury won't have a verdict today.
They don't go running back to the jury room & instantly reach a verdict... Instructions always come 1st.
Nor do they reach verdict w/out having some sort of deliberation bc, at the very least, it looks biased. I mean, even an hour, folks. Or 20 minutes. But not without some conversation & reviewing a few facts. Thorough, fair deliberations for every case, hopefully.
Kthxbye.
Laffy
Jenny Fx