Trump’s Liability

Plus: The schism roiling Russia’s war effort.

By , , and
501

Happy Thursday! You may not have enjoyed his performance as much as we did, but you have to admit it made for some riveting television at 8 p.m. last night—and he certainly seemed to have his mojo back.

Seriously: Just look at this go-ahead home run from Cubs third baseman Patrick Wisdom to take the lead over the lowly St. Louis Cardinals.

Quick Hits: Today’s Top Stories

  • Federal prosecutors arraigned GOP Rep. George Santos of New York Wednesday on 13 federal charges including money laundering, wire fraud, theft of public funds, and making false statements to the House of Representatives. Most of the charges stem from Santos’ solicitation of at least $50,000 in campaign donations, which prosecutors allege he spent on personal expenses including designer clothing. The congressman also allegedly collected more than $24,000 in unemployment payments in 2020 while earning $120,000 a year working for an investment company. Santos pleaded not guilty to all charges Wednesday and was released on $500,000 bail. He told reporters he will not resign from his seat and plans to run for reelection next year, but House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said he will not back his bid.
  • Republicans on the House Oversight Committee released a memo Wednesday accusing members of Joe Biden’s family—including his brother James and son Hunter—of influence peddling during his vice presidency by creating more than 20 shell companies to conceal more than $10 million in payments from foreign nationals to the family, business associates, and related companies. The Oversight probe has yet to directly link President Biden to the activity himself.
  • NBC News reported Wednesday that the Biden administration plans to release migrants caught crossing the border into the United States without court dates or a way to track them. Border enforcement and processing resources are at capacity amid record border crossings this week—including 11,000 on Tuesday alone—as the administration’s power under Title 42 to quickly turn away asylum seekers ends today.
  • The Consumer Price Index rose 0.4 percent month-over-month and 4.9 percent annually in April, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Wednesday. The figures represent a shift from 0.1 percent and 5 percent, respectively, in March, and came in lower than economists’ expectations. Despite the monthly acceleration, the annual decrease could encourage the Federal Reserve to pause its rate-hike campaign at the central bank’s next meeting in June.
  • Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters yesterday he opposes GOP Sen. Tommy Tuberville’s hold on more than 180 military promotions. Tuberville has blocked the nominations in protest of the Department of Defense’s post-Dobbs decision to offer administrative leave and pay travel costs for female service members and qualifying dependents seeking abortions. 
  • A U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel voted Wednesday to endorse allowing birth control pills to be sold over the counter. The agency is expected to decide on final approval of the panel’s recommendation sometime this summer. 

Jury Rules for Carroll

Former U.S. President Donald Trump disembarks his plane at Aberdeen Airport. (Photo by Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)
Former U.S. President Donald Trump disembarks his plane at Aberdeen Airport. (Photo by Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)

About a quarter century ago, according to writer E. Jean Carroll, Donald Trump pinned Carroll against a wall in the changing area of a Bergdorf Goodman luxury department store in Manhattan, pulled down her tights, and sexually assaulted her.

Trump denies this claim, but on Tuesday a jury largely sided with Carroll, concluding the former president is liable for sexual abuse and subsequent defamation and ordering him to pay Carroll about $5 million. He’ll likely appeal—and he’s already issued more denials—but the verdict adds to an ever-growing stack of legal troubles and ethical baggage that have the potential to make him unelectable in a general election. But given the Republican Party’s tepid response over the past two days, it’s far from clear Trump’s standing in the GOP presidential primary will take a hit.

This content is available exclusively to Dispatch members
Try a membership for full access to every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism.
Start Your Free Trial
Already a paid member? Sign In
501
By , , and
Comments (501)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Scianti7

    LUK: I followed a little. No, I was not surprised at all. There are people who grab the genitals of others & say they do, there are people who grab the genitals of others & never say anything (because liability), I'm going to guess that there are extremely few people who say they do grab that don't in fact grab. If someone says they do something, it is most likely that they do that thing, particularlywhen it is a wrong thing they are confessing. Furthermore Trump's attitudes, actions & words line up pretty well. And we don't get to see & hear everything the jury does.

    I appreciate the Chris Christie quote, & I agree:

    Christie told The Brian Kilmeade Show. “It’s one person after another, one woman after another. The stories just continue to pile up. And I think we all know he’s not unlucky and that he engaged in this kind of conduct.”

    Collapse
  2. Wlbrockman

    P.S. One more observation: reporters are, like people in general, biased or prejudiced in one direction or another. Hence, they tend to report only the evidence they observe that fits their preconceived notions about the result that should obtain in the trials they cover. If, therefore, the outcome is not consistent with their biases and prejudices, they will suggest it was not consistent with the law and/or the evidence, even though, objectively, it may have been perfectly consistent. As noted previously, they seldom hear the closing instructions; in addition, they almost never listen to all the evidence.

    Collapse
    1. Scianti7

      Once upon a time it mattered that reporters reported everything, including that which did not fit their preconceptions. Back when reporters were supposed to be like omniscient narrators. In the 90s as corporations bought up all the local papers, reporters more & more had to worry about audience & ads. They became human narrators with a point of view.

      The omniscient narrators never were omniscient, but at least they were trying to report it all. Well, at least that was the ideal. They abandoned the ideal. I took a journalism class in 1995 where they spent a lot of time on the change over & decided not to be journalism major. All the facts were becoming less important than the brand. As we see today in actual quotes.

      Collapse
  3. Wlbrockman

    Re today's question: As a retired trial lawyer of 45 years, no verdict surprises me. Especially if the only information I have about the trial is what I get from the media. After participating in an admittedly small number of trials that were high profile enough to garner some coverage, I almost always found myself wondering if the reporters were in the same courtroom I was in. On reflection, I came to understand most reporters have no training in the law, especially the rules of evidence. Hence, they generally don't understand what is going on or why rulings are made one way or the other. They almost never stayed to hear the instructions the judge gave to the jury, having to rush to get their stories in. Therefore, verdicts that were entirely predictable based on the law on which the judge charged the jury seemed inexplicable to them. Ultimately, I came to believe that unless one is present throughout a trial from beginning to end, one cannot understand fully the reasons for a particular result.

    In this case, it appears to me, having taken in only media accounts of the trial, that the verdict is only a bit surprising. Since the plaintiff insisted there was penetration and the jury found there was not, I have to wonder why/how the jury reached that seemingly inconsistent conclusion.

    Otherwise, the verdict and the Republican Party response to it, only encourages me to believe I was right to change my voter registration to "no party" some years ago.

    Collapse
  4. Mary Stine

    LUK: Yes, I followed this on two channels. No, I was not surprised by the decision. Trump and his lawyer were deliberately insulting to both E. Jean Carroll and the jury, as well as the judge. I can almost believe Trump wanted to lose this for the sympathy it would bring him with his base.
    However, my bigger gripe is with CNN. The fiasco that was the "town hall" for Trump came off as I predicted.
    What was served by giving a compulsive liar more prime time to lie?
    I may never forgive CNN. Hubby and I have take to watching NewsNation, although I was unaware they were bringing Bill O'Reilly on as a guest commenter. He's still arrogant, bombastic, and unafraid of smearing anyone, especially women. Why can't they have Chris Stirewalt on more often??

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Jeff Walden

    LUK: Didn't especially follow, did see occasional updates, did see the Trump depo videos -- at least, some of the most potent excerpts.

    I could have seen either way: I really don't like litigating impossibly ancient disputes where no real details can be determined, especially when statutes of limitation are extended with considerable eye toward this exact defendant, but if I accept the civil standard as a given and allow for a bunch of contemporaneous reports to friends being meaningful evidence (which they are to at least some degree), I don't know where I really would expect things to come down.

    Hard to say he doesn't deserve some outcome along these lines for *some* thing he has done at *some* point, tho.

    Collapse
    1. Brian The 2nd

      "when statutes of limitation are extended with considerable eye toward this exact defendant"
      That is simply untrue, and easily refuted, why say it?

      Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Normb1442

    I don't think for a minute that AI or MRI or anything else is going to be able to read minds, but if that CLAIM is ever made, dictators will begin convicting dissidents based on what their "experts" tell them they're thinking.

    This research is bad if it doesn't work and worse if it does. It should be banned.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      BillAZ

      Banned? C'mon, there's money to be made. Shareholders to thrill. CEOs to enrich. What kind of economic system do you think we're living under? 😉

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Normb1442

        I hear you but I had to say what's right.

        Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Dave in Houston

    QOTD: No, I'm not surprised, based on the idea that the standard was "more likely than not", and he's on tape claiming, nay bragging, about engaging in that type of behavior.

    Collapse
  8. Awalker6974@gmail com

    I always love it when Declan is able to add exciting Cubs news!!

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

      He's been able to do it before? 🙄

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Declan Garvey vertical-nib Author

      Me too!

      Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Dennis

    Motto for AI mind reading: The New Waterboarding.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Chuckgold

    Mediaite: Pro-Trump Pundit Tests Out New Attack: ‘No One Would’ve Stormed the Capitol for Ron DeSantis’

    Trump will love this one, and only TFG could gain acclaim with his followers by calling attention to his own insurrection.

    Collapse
Load More