Trump vs. Carroll: A Gavel of Bias in the Court of Public Opinion?

Could the justice system be subtly swayed by the celebrity and political status of those it seeks to judge? Join Tim the Skinner as we unravel the complex legal entanglement involving Donald Trump and E. Jean Carroll, where accusations, defamation, and a battle for reputation intertwine. This episode navigates the murky waters of Carroll's allegations against Trump, highlighting the puzzling inconsistencies, the timeline confusion, and the stark lack of hard evidence that have fueled this high-stakes legal showdown. Skepticism takes center stage as we examine the ripple effects on the media landscape and the justice system itself, raising the question: When public figures clash in court, does the scale of justice remain balanced?

Expect a rigorous dissection of the incongruities and potential biases in the legal proceedings against the former President. This conversation isn't just about one lawsuit; it's a critical look at the broader implications of holding public figures accountable, contrasting Trump's real estate valuation controversy with industry norms and scrutinizing the pursuit of damages in cases lacking clear victims. I put the spotlight on the justice system's approach to high-profile figures, contrasting Trump's legal predicaments with those faced by other political personalities. Prepare for an episode that doesn't just recount the facts but challenges the narrative and asks the hard-hitting questions about fairness, bias, and the integrity of the legal process when the courtroom becomes a stage for the powerful.

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:02

What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. You don't know what that is, mr Trash. I'd show you. But I'm too old, I'm too tired, I'm too fucking blind. If I were a man I was five years ago I'd take a flamethrower to this place.

Speaker 2: 0:46

Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth?

Speaker 1: 0:53

You want answers. I think I'm entitled to it. You want answers. I want the truth.

Speaker 2: 0:57

You can't handle the truth In this topsy-turvy world. The truth shall always sit you free. This is Tim the Skinner from the Mad Room, the Jean Excer. Want to talk about justice and liberty for all, unless your name is Donald Trump. Want to talk about the fiascos of some of these civil suits that he is going through right now, because they are going through closing arguments right as we speak for the Eging Carroll case, the alleged sexual abuse case, which the judge, of course, in this case has already come out and said that Trump is guilty of sexual assault. There is no evidence, there is no corroborating data, there's no witness testimony. Hell, this woman can't even figure out what year it was. Not only she can't figure out the day, she can't think of the month or the year it's either 95 or 96. This, of course, goes back to this defamation suit, and it just drives me crazy because there's so many things going on in the courtroom right now that you just kind of scratch your head. So back in November 2019, carroll she filed the defamation suit against the New York Superior Court and the suit states that Trump had damaged her reputation by substantially harmed her professionally and caused emotional damage. Then she came out and stated that decades ago, the now President Trump raped me when I had the courage to speak out about the attack. He defamed my character, accused me of lying for personal gain, even insulted my appearance. Okay, here's the problem with all this. Right off the bat, you talk about the alleged sexual assault and I still consider it alleged sexual assault because of the fact that we really don't have any information about what happened. We just know that allegedly, at some point in time, it was either in and I love it because this is her testimony it was either in 1995 or 1996 that this happened. It was Burt Off-Goodman, the department store. She doesn't remember what day, what year, what month, but for some unknown reason, she prevails in this case because of the fact that he's Donald Trump, and I find it interesting, of course, that this all came out when she published an article, the Carroll, that is in 2019 and June 21st. This was in New York Magazine, which she stated that Trump had sexually assaulted her in 1995 or early 1996 in the Burt Off-Goodman's department store. Further details of the incidents were published in her book, which happened to come out the same year.

Speaker 2: 3:25

What do we need, men, for A modest proposal that seems like a apropos title if you're going to go after men, just in general, but I'm just throwing that out there. She said what happened was they ran into each other in the store. We don't know what year, we don't know what date, we don't know what time he was looking for Trump was looking for a gift, allegedly for a female it's just a hen bug or a hat and then they moved on to the lingerie section and somehow ended up in the dressing room together and the dressing room door shut. I find it very interesting that the dressing room door shut in the women's lingerie department of apartment store. I thought those doors just stayed open. She said that Trump forcibly kissed her, pulled down her tights and raped her before she was able to escape. She stated that the incident lasted less than three minutes.

Speaker 2: 4:13

Trump of course denies that he's ever the allegations and claims he's never met Carol. But then Carol, I love it because she produces a photo from a New York magazine with her socializing Trump in 1987. I took a picture with Trump back in the early 90s, so that must mean that he and I are pals, because I took a picture with him and I think I have a couple of pictures with him. So, and this was in an event in New York. This was way before I became president. This was an event in New York, so that must mean that that must mean he knows me. I should sue him now. So of course, she filed this suit back in. She filed the case back in 2019. I just love. You know what really cracks me up? She is she is suing Trump for defamation. Hey, I don't know who she is, so I can't even tell you if her good name is being soiled. But she is suing Trump for defamation. But she is making an allegation she can't prove with evidence, a timeline, a date, a month or a year, but somehow her him saying that it never happened. He is defaming her Now.

Speaker 2: 5:28

At the end of this case, which was in 2023, a jury of six men and three women found trouble guilty for libel for sexual abuse, battering, defamation. I just love. There's no evidence. You literally have no evidence. You have no witnesses. This is our justice system. Now, for anyone who is not a Democrat, our name Biden or Clinton or Obama. You have no evidence. You have no timeline. You have no date. You don't even know the year you you allegedly told people, but then you decided not to come forward, and I love it.

Speaker 2: 6:07

On the issue of rape, the jury found that Carol did not prove that Trump raped her. Okay, now, this is important. This is important and because this is what everyone's talking about, this is the rape defamation suit. This is the defamation suit about the rape. Okay, let me read this again. On the issue of rape, the jury found that Carol did not prove that Trump raped her. She was awarded $5 million in damages. They found Trump was liable for sexual abuse, not sexual assault. How do they determine this? Then, on May 23rd of 2023, she's seeking an additional $10 million in damages. Carol asked the court to expand the 2019 Deflamations Lawsuit.

Speaker 2: 6:58

To conclude Trump's post-verdict remarks on CNN and true social. So he was found not guilty of rape and not guilty of sexual assault, but sexual abuse when there's no evidence. And she wants more money because her good name has been soiled, but nobody knows who the hell she even is. I mean, you can't make this shit up. This is our system of justice. So the other day, trump took the stand in his own defense. This would be something that you would probably want to hear as a witness. This is something that you would want to hear. So he took the stand on Thursday of this week and the testimony lasted about two minutes.

Speaker 2: 7:52

After this judge, lewis Kaplan, told Trump's lawyer that she could only ask the real estate mogul two questions. This is democracy. This is what you. You have the right to a jury of your peers so you can explain yourself. This is democracy. But you're only allowed to ask him two questions and they are only answered. You could only answer. He only wanted him to answer them yes or no. So one of her questions was did you view your deposition? Trump said yes, I did. And then she asked do you stand by? He said 100%. Then she asked him Trump's lawyer, if he denied claims that Carol's sexual allegations to what did she say? She asked Trump if he denied Carol's sexual assault allegations. Okay, of course he's. Yes, I did. He answered and he says that's exactly right Said something I considered false allegations.

Speaker 2: 8:47

But the judge then quickly jumped in and told the jurors disregard everything that Trump said after yes, I did. Now again, this is our justice system now. Then Trump's lawyer asked if he ever intended to hurt Carol, a question that he this should be a big question Did you ever intend to hurt Carol. He says no, I just wanted to defend myself, my family and, frankly, my presidency. The judge then told the jury again to disregard everything. After no, again, this is our justice system. You were allowed to stand for three minutes. You were only allowed to answer two questions. You were only allowed to give yes or no answers. This is where we live now. And he even came out and said he said I never. Why was on this witness that I never met the woman? I never met the woman. And this is what he was saying as he poised to take the witness stand. And I love it because once again, it's the attorney, the lawyer, excuse me, the judge like disregard everything. He just said this is your justice system. Now, guys, this is what we have to look forward to.

Speaker 2: 10:03

You are being found liable about something that you have no proof or evidence in, that you have no data, in, that you have no witnesses to, and it's defamation suit about a person that most people have never even heard of. So I can't really. You know, yes, her good name was soiled, but she came out and wrote a book about it. After she wrote an article about it, after he looked like he was going to be the president and this judge, this judge, louis Kaplan, is just like you know. You are limited in answering any questions. I mean, that's crazy. You're not. This is supposed to be the country. You are allowed to defend yourself against allegations. You go to a criminal trial and I know, I understand criminal trials are different than civil trials. But if you go to a criminal trial, you are allowed to defend yourself, you are allowed to present your defense, you are allowed to interject what your thought is. But no, this judge is saying no, you are not allowed to do this, you are not allowed to do this at all.

Speaker 2: 11:09

And then, during the closing arguments today, with the with her E, jean Carroll's attorney, trump walked out. Trump walked out after five minutes. He just got up and, of course, the lawyer has to come. The judge has to come up and says you know, you know the record will end to reflect that Mr Trump just rose and walked out of the courtroom. He goes to defense counsel war to remain seated.

Speaker 2: 11:31

This is just about punishing Trump. This is just about getting Trump. This is all it is. You can love him, you can hate him. I told you people before I am a registered independent. I'm a fiscal conservative. I voted for him the first time. I did not vote for him for the second time, but I also didn't vote for Biden, I didn't vote for anybody.

Speaker 2: 11:43

But you can see, this system of justice has gone askewed, has gone awry, has gone crazy. She can go after another $10 million for someone defaming her against allegations that she brought against him that he cannot even prove. And then the judge, you can see, is clearly against Trump. I mean clearly against Trump. I mean I don't get it. And then you sit there and you look at what's happening with his lawsuit, also in New York, about the underval-, the overvaluing of his real estate property, and how we're gonna get him for that, how Fannie's gonna go get him for that. Even though she ran she wasn't against Trump, she just ran strictly on. You know, let's get Trump and I love it because I saw this yesterday. Let me see if I can pull this up, let me see if I can find it. Hold, hold, hold on a minute, let's see. Let's see it again.

Speaker 3: 12:35

Some people look at all this and they say is this what happens in business?

Speaker 1: 12:41

This is about Donald Trump's what Trump has said he's done or his accuser being done.

Speaker 3: 12:44

You've been doing real estate for decades. Does this case strike?

Speaker 3: 12:49

you as odd. Well, let's leave out Trump for a minute and let's leave out politics and just talk about what happens in real estate development anywhere. So if you're a developer and you've got a building on a block anywhere in America and it's worth, let's say, five hundred million dollars, and you want to build a building right beside it, you go to the bank and say this building is worth five hundred million dollars. I'd like to borrow a construction finance loan against this asset. And I want you to tell me it's worth five hundred million. Two. And the bank negotiates with you. It says well, now we think it's worth four hundred million.

Speaker 3: 13:22

And you fight it out. You're always trying to show your assets in the brightest light with the sunshine you could possibly determine for them. You want them to be worth the very most, because you're only going to get a 40 or 50 percent loan to value, as it's called. Then you borrow that money. In the case of a five hundred million dollar asset, maybe you get two hundred fifty million and you build a new building with a construction finance loan. And so that's what this case is all about. What and, by the way, forget about Trump. Every single real estate developer everywhere on earth does this? They always talk about their asset being worth a lot and the bank says no, and that's just the way it is.

Speaker 2: 14:04

That's just the way it is. Every real estate mogul on the earth does this, but Trump is the only one who is being found guilty of it In the state of New York, where he helped to build this city back up to what it was by what he would do with his real estate deals. There is no. I love it because every you have almost all the scott, you know, all the legal scholars and professors come out and say this, and even the ones that are Democrats are like who's the victim in this case? You people have said this before. You are trying a case and you are looking for damages, but you don't tell us who the victim is. And this judge is even worse than this other judge in the other civil suit because, again, he's basically already come up and said that Trump is guilty, but you have no victim. So how can you have damages when the banks got their money back, plus interest? And even Trump has come out and said that he's probably devalued some of his properties.

Speaker 2: 15:09

But how is this possible? How is this possible in the country that we live in now that you can have a guy that has a laptop? You can have an all that laptop as pictures, voicemails, emails about the vice president, then vice president getting money from foreign entities, foreign countries. You know foreign actors and you have also another case where, against the current president, that there are classified documents that he took from when he was a senator, knowing he took them out of the skiff, knowing it was wrong, and kept them stored in his garage in Delaware. But Trump is going to be the one that's on trial for these documents. You know, for improperly storing classified documents, and I love it because of the fact that before they raided Mar-a-Lago, the Justice Department told Trump to put an additional lock on the cabin on the room where the documents were stored, which he did, which a lot of people just overlook. So they knew they were there and it was such a priority for them to go in there and get them and there was such a work in process that they literally told the then ex-president to put an additional lock on the door.

Speaker 2: 16:24

It's justice for all as long as your name is not Trump, as long as you're not a Republican, as long as you are in the good graces and just getting back to laptop, of course there's also pictures of drugs. You know if you sat there and lied on a federal application for a firearm loan and there was actually traces of drug residue on the application, you and I would be in jail. You don't pay on $10 million of undeclared income. We'd be in jail. No, but the Justice Department and many of these places have dragged out this case against Biden, so the statute of limitations would expire. Oh guys, hopefully this world will turn itself around once again and, as always, the truth of the show is such free. This is Tim. Let's get off my one mad round.