The danger of those Trump ‘deepfake’ images: The response to AI-generated viral images of the former president’s arrest signal the potential for disinformation campaigns that could sow media chaos, according to experts. Alex Woodward reports by Alex Woodward UK Independent 3/24/23
(Getty/Reuters/The Independent)
In imaginary images created by an artificial intelligence programme with a researcher’s prompts, police officers chase and tackle Donald Trump. Others show the former president behind bars and wearing an orange jumpsuit in federal prison.
The images, generated by Bellingcat founder Eliot Higgins using the powerful text-to-image Midjourney programme, exploded across social media while a New York grand jury considers evidence in a criminal investigation into the former president, who has predicted his imminent indictment and arrest.
They served as a high-profile example of the kinds of viral phenomena relying on false images built with artificial intelligence programmes that could be used to spread harmful disinformation to spark unrest and disrupt news cycles and elections.
Democratic US Senator Mark Warner told The Washington Post that lawmakers have issued similar warnings about the potential for synthetic media to “spread disinformation and more generally to sow confusion and discord.”
Mr Warner, the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that the technology is now at a point where “these tools are widely available and incredibly capable.”
“As we have all seen, it is so much easier to make fake videos and fake images and make them look really realistic,” Vwani Roychowdhury, a professor at UCLA Samueli School of Engineering, told HuffPost. “Whether it’s the correct information or socially acceptable information or misinformation, in my opinion, they’re all embedded as part of a narrative.”
The viral images followed at least two other high-profile faked images involving US elected officials that spread across social media, prompting platforms – which have faced criticism for varying responses and policies governing disinformation and potentially disruptive AI images – to take action.
Last month, a faked video that spread virally on Twitter appeared to show Democratic US Senator Elizabeth Warren claiming that Republicans should not be allowed to vote. The social media platform applied a label to the video as “altered audio,” and one account that amplified the video was later suspended.
Far-right activist Jack Posobeic also posted a so-called “deepfaked” video of President Joe Biden announcing the reinstatement of a military draft for Americans to combat Russia’s war on Ukraine.
Mr Posobeic labelled the video a “sneak preview of things to come.” Twitter applied a label noting that the video was “a ‘deepfake’ created with the aid of artificial intelligence.”
In an appearance at the closely watched Conservative Political Action Conference earlier this month, he defended the video’s creation and the entirely made-up scenario. “Conservatives have to stop being scared” of news outlets and fact-checking, he said. “Screw them all.”
Though the images created by Mr Higgins were clearly intended to be fakes, their vast spread and presentation by some bad-faith actors indicates that “there’s been a giant step forward in the ability to create fake but believable images at volume,” according to Sam Gregory, executive director of the human rights organization Witness, speaking to The Washington Post.
“And it’s easy to see how this could be done in a coordinated way with an intent to deceive,” he added.
“It does not really matter whether someone does fact-checking…. Because the damage has been done,” Mr Roychowdhury told HuffPost.
Brandeis Marshall, CEO of DataedX and a professor of computer science at Spelman College, told HuffPost that the spread of such images could be construed as an “intentional bad act” and a “calculated strategy” to incite supporters, while Mr Trump’s “well-executed disinformation campaign” predicting his own arrest has also drawn attention away from other news that is not being reported.
The Poynter Institute’s Al Tompkins offered a checklist to determine whether increasingly sophisticated AI imagery is real, including seeing whether the creator disclosed how the image was captured, if there’s a watermark, and for other “oddities” in the image.
Meanwhile, as NPR noted in coverage leading into the 2020 presidential election, and fears that emerging “deepfake” technology could throw campaigns into chaos, disinformation already is able to spready rapidly through partisan narratives, deceptive editing or outright lies that have worked just as well to advance certain causes.
********
Chilling AI deepfakes purporting to show Trump arrest take over Twitter: AI-generated images show officers restraining Trump as he tries to flee by Alisha Rahaman Sarkar UK Independent 3/24/23
AI-generated deepfakes showing Donald Trump making a run from authorities and being arrested have flooded Twitter ahead of the former president’s possible indictment.
Mr Trump could be indicted by a Manhattan grand jury as soon as next week and potentially charged with falsifying business records connected to hush money payments during his 2016 campaign to adult film actor Stormy Daniels.
An indictment in New York would make Mr Trump the first former president to face a criminal charge.
The fabricated images, now viewed over 4 million times, show Mr Trump resisting as officers resembling those from the New York Police Department attempt to restrain him.
Some images fabricated scenarios where the 45th president is seen struggling to run away from the officers.
There has been a surge in online threats directed at government and political officials ahead of the rumoured indictment, with plans for what one commenter called “January 6 times ten”.
“Making pictures of Trump getting arrested while waiting for Trump's arrest,” wrote Eliot Higgins, founder of investigative collective Bellingcat, while sharing a series of deepfake images.
He said the images were created using artificial intelligence text-to-image generator Midjourney.
Mr Higgings said that, for several images, he submitted the text prompt, “Donald Trump falling over while getting arrested. Fibonacci Spiral. News footage”.
Eliot Higgins @EliotHiggins
Making pictures of Trump getting arrested while waiting for Trump's arrest 3:22 PM Mar 20, 2023
The fake images show garbled text on the police officers’ uniforms, along with distorted faces and hands. One image shows Mr Trump wearing a police belt.
Eliot Higgins Mar 20, 2023 @EliotHiggins Replying to @EliotHiggins
Eliot Higgins @EliotHiggins
The deepfakes include Melania Trump, along with the former president’s son, Donald Trump Jr protesting the arrest.
Eliot Higgins Mar 20, 2023 @EliotHiggins Replying to @EliotHiggins
Eliot Higgins @EliotHiggins
3:34 PM Mar 20, 2023
Another widely circulating fabricated image – depicting five officers holding Mr Trump by his arms – was not created by Mr Higgins, but shows hallmarks of some AI-generated images.
“The Trump arrest image was really just casually showing both how good and bad Midjourney was at rendering real scenes, like the first image has Trump with three legs and a police belt,” Mr Higgins told the Associated Press.
“I had assumed that people would realise Donald Trump has two legs, not three, but that appears not to have stopped some people passing them off as genuine, which highlights that lack of critical thinking skills in our educational system.”
Another fake image, an AI-generated mugshot of Mr Trump shared by Twitter user called O’Keefe Reborn, has also been making rounds on the social media platform.
O'Keefe Reborn @okeefe_reborn
Why are MILLIONS protesting in Manhattan? Why is all of Manhattan shut down? Why was the Attorney General run out of town?
Is it because they arrested Donald Trump to prevent him from running and winning in 2024?
3:15 PM Mar 18, 2023
Some of the images were share widely by Twitter users, who falsely claimed them to be real pictures.
District Attorney Bragg is a danger to our Country, and should be removed immediately, along with Radical Lunatic Bombthrower Jack Smith, who is harassing and intimidating innocent people at levels not seen before, "Get Trump" Letitia James, the worst Attorney General in the United States, and Atlanta D.A. Fani Willis, who is trying to make PERFECT phone calls into a plot to destroy America, but reigns over the most violent Crime Scene in America, and does nothing about it!
3.95 ReTruths 12.8k Likes Mar 23, 2023, 9:42 AM
***
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
HOW DO YOU INDICT A PERSON WHO HASN'T DONE ANYTHING WRONG, AND YOU KNOW THAT PERSONAL HAS'NT DONE ANYTHING WRONG???
***
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Isn't it terrible that D.A. Bragg refuses to do the right thing and "call it a day?" He would rather indict an innocent man and create years of hatred, chaos, and turmoil, than give him his well deserved "freedom." The whole Country sees what is going on, and they're not going to take it anymore. They've had enough! There was no Error made, No Misdemeanor, No Crime and, above all, NO CASE. They spied on my campaign, Rigged the Election, falsely Impeached, cheated and lied. They are HUMAN SCUM!
***
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
The District Attorney's Office under Alvin Bragg is allowing Violent Crime to flourish in New York City, like never before, while he spends all of his time making his Office, which is in total chaos, trying to find anything on "Trump." He is doing the work of Anarchists and the Devil, who want our Country to fail. The "Horseface" agenda is dead, even by the most Radical Left Haters, but he doesn't care, he wants to go with it anyway.
***
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
CAN YOU IMAGINE THE GREAT NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, CORRECTLY REFERRED TO AS "NEW YORK CITY'S FINEST," WHO, FOR THE FIRST AND ONLY TIME IN HISTORY, ENDORSED A PRESIDENT, ME, & HONORED ME AS "MAN OF THE YEAR," HAVING TO DEFEND & PROTECT THE "DEFUNDERS" & "COP HATERS" OF THE RADICAL LEFT THAT WANT TO PUT THEIR GREATEST CHAPION & FRIEND IN PRISON FOR A CRIME THAT DOESN'T EXIST...ALL THE WHILE THE SOROS BACKED D.A. ALLOWS MURDERERS & OTHER VIOLENT CRIMINALS TO FREELY ROAM THE SIDEWALKS OF N.Y.?
***
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
EVERYBODY KNOWS I'M 100% INNOCENT, INCLUDING BRAGG, BUT HE DOESN'T CARE, HE IS JUST CARRYING OUT THE PLANS OF THE RADICAL LEFT LUNATICS. OUR COUNTRY IS BEING DESTROYED, AS THEY TELL US TO BE PEACEFUL!
***
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
ELECTION INTERFERENCE!!!
How can a highly controversial, George Soros backed District Attorney, Alvin Bragg, who presides over one of the most crime ridden, violent, and dangerous Cities in the U.S., with no retribution toward these heinous criminals, bring charges against the 45th, and quite possibly the 47th, President of the United States, who received more votes than any sitting President in history, over 75,000,000, and who is currently leading all candidates, by a lot, when there is NO CRIME OF ANY KIND???
***
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Cohen should be prosecuted for lying and all of the tumult and cost he put the D.A.'s Office through. Also, the case against "Trump" should be dropped immediately, prior to a finding of Prosecutorial Misconduct.
***
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Antifa Lunatics are infiltrating Conservative gatherings. Watch out for them and remember, you're still allowed to self-defend in our Country! dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1...
Moment Antifa infiltrator confronts "Trump Shaman" protestor Shocking footage captured the moment a protestor confronts a man dressed in 'shaman' attire accusing him of faking his Trump support - despite earlier being seen with an 'anarchist' tattoo.
Trump Warns of ‘Death and Destruction’ if He’s Charged Over Porn Star Payment: The former president has been suggesting violence could be coming if he's arrested by Ryant Bort Rolling Stone March 24, 2023 https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... 234703175/
DONALD TRUMP IS very upset that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is poised to charge him over paying porn star Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about their alleged affair ahead of the 2016 election. He called for his supporters to “PROTEST” when he announced last week that he’d soon be arrested, and he’s spent most of this week railing against Bragg on Truth Social.
Trump’s rants grew more frequent and more ominous on Thursday, when he indicated violence may be a necessary recourse to the impending charges, scoffing at the idea of a “peaceful” response. He warned that “death & destruction” could be on the way in another post after midnight.
“What kind of person can charge another person, in this case a former President of the United States, who got more votes than any sitting President in history, and leading candidate (by far!) for the Republican Party nomination, with a Crime, when it is known by all that NO Crime has been committed, & also known that potential death & destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our Country?” Trump wrote. “Why & who would do such a thing? Only a degenerate psychopath that truely hates the USA!”
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
What kind of person can charge another person, in this case a former President of the United States, who got more votes than any sitting President in history, and leading candidate (by far!) for the Republican Party nomination, with a Crime, when it is known by all that NO Crime has been committed, & also known that potential death & destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our Country? Why & who would do such a thing? Only a degenerate psychopath that truely hates the USA!”
The post hinting at “death and destruction” was Trump’s last on a Thursday filled with vicious attacks against Bragg. “He is doing the work of Anarchists and the Devil, who want our Country to fail,” the former president wrote in one of them. “The ‘Horseface’ agenda is dead, even by the most Radical Left Haters, but he doesn’t care, he wants to go with it anyway.”
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
The District Attorney's Office under Alvin Bragg is allowing Violent Crime to flourish in New York City, like never before, while he spends all of his time making his Office, which is in total chaos, trying to find anything on "Trump." He is doing the work of Anarchists and the Devil, who want our Country to fail. The "Horseface" agenda is dead, even by the most Radical Left Haters, but he doesn't care, he wants to go with it anyway.
Rolling Stone reported earlier this week that multiple government agencies warned of a surge in violent threats following Trump’s call last week for his supporters to “PROTEST” his coming arrest, including death threats against Bragg and others.
Rolling Stone reported later on Thursday that Trump is already planning to take his revenge on the Manhattan DA, largely through having the Justice Department crack down on him and other prosecutors should he win another term in the White House next year. “There are specific federal laws, already on the books, that prohibit prosecutors and law enforcement from using their positions of authority to advance political prosecutions,” said a source close to Trump. “The Biden DOJ will never enforce those laws against people like Alvin Bragg, but the next DOJ should.”
Trump’s preferred method of taking it to Bragg in the meantime is Truth Social. He woke up and smashed the caps-lock key again on Friday. “PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT!” he wrote.
Federal Judge CATCHES Trump lawyer SNEAKY MOVE before Trial by Ben Meiselas MeidasTouch 4/16/23
Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan caught Donald Trump’s lawyer trying to get the identities of jurors after the judge previously ruled there would be an anonymous jury. MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports.
Transcript
I'm Ben Meiselas from the Meidas touch Network a federal judge in New York caught Donald Trump engaging in a underhanded request and said I am not having that in my courtroom and issued an order rejecting Donald Trump's request let me explain what happened so the judge in question is Judge Lewis Kaplan who is Judge Lewis Kaplan well none other than the judge presiding over e Gene Carroll's civil rape and defamation case against Donald Trump which is set to go to trial on April 25th 2023. judge Lewis Kaplan sits in the federal court for the southern district of New York and throughout this entire case Donald Trump has tried to delay delay delay and judge Lewis Kaplan says I know what your intentions are I am not letting you further delay this matter including very recently Donald Trump requested a four-week cooling off period after he was criminally arraigned in New York and the judge says no cooling off period but what I want to talk about in this video is Donald Trump's underhanded attempt to try to get the identities of prospective jurors after judge Lewis Kaplan previously made an order that the jury selection process would be 100 percent Anonymous and the juror selected would be anonymous there would be an anonymous jury and the reason for this Anonymous jury cited in a previous order by judge Lewis Kaplan is because of the threats that Donald Trump has engaged in directed in the past to jurors to prosecutors to the family of prosecutors to judges to the family of judges and judge Lewis Kaplan takes those threats very very seriously so let me just read very quickly a small portion of the previous order issued by judge Lewis Kaplan affirming a prior ruling that there would be anonymous juries in the E Gene Carroll lawsuit when jury selection would start on April 25th 2023 this is the order memorandum in order denying the request for the party's legal teams to have access to juror names the court says by judge Lewis Kaplan this court recently found without objection by either party as follows quote if jurors identities in this case were disclosed there would be a strong likelihood of unwanted media attention to the jurors influence attempts and or harassment or worse of jurors by supporters of Mr Trump indeed Mr Trump himself has made critical statements on social media regarding the grand jury for a person in Atlanta Georgia and the jury for person in the Roger Stone criminal case and this properly may be viewed in the context of Mr Trump's many statements regarding individual judges the Judiciary in general and other public officials as well as what reports have characterized as quote violent rhetoric by Mr Trump including before his presidency the court went on to say the likelihood of such difficulty since the court made those findings has only increased that is so in view of Mr Trump's public statements characterized by the media as attacks against the New York State judge presiding over the recently filed New York state criminal case against Mr Trump and threats reportedly then made presumably by Mr Trump's supporters against the judge and members of the judge's family nevertheless despite never having objected to the use of a fully Anonymous jury and despite ample opportunity to do so both parties now seek to raise that subject for the first time they move to modify the order that motion is denied so after that motion was denied Donald Trump tried to do an end run around that order by putting forward what's referred to as a jury questionnaire and a jury questionnaire would be submitted by Donald Trump's lawyers to members of the prospective jury and they would basically answer these questions and the questions would range from everything like are you aware of Donald Trump and do you hold any biases against specific people too you know where do you live and you know and and usually these questionnaires can be quite long you know they could ask them questions about um you know anything even from like you know uh describe the types of press that you've seen regarding you know Donald Trump or the parties or you know describe your favorite books or what movies have you seen recently or Which social media platforms that you use right because if you ask a question like Which social media platforms that you use and someone says they use you know Twitter or truth social or Reddit or whatever the platform is that may tell you gab that may tell you about um the type of you know jurors that they may be and and biases that they may Harbor so one of the things though that Donald Trump asked in the jury questionnaire though was questions about um like the name of the jury of the jurors um and where the jurors live and their employment and the employment of their immediate families and the court was like wait a minute I previously ordered Anonymous juries and an anonymous jury pool and Anonymous jurors will be selected so by you sending these questionnaires what it seems that's taking place here is that you are just trying to get the identity of the jurors exactly what we are not allowing you to get so this is the memorandum endorsement the order by federal judge Lewis Kaplan let's pull it up right now and Carol V Trump and this is what it says Mr Trump's motion to employ a written juror questionnaire in selecting the jury in this case is denied the court makes only these points as matters of emphasis one this motion has been made without regard to the fact that the court on April 10 2023 stated that it would not use a jury questionnaire in this case in other words you don't even reference in your request for a jury questionnaire that I've denied that request before that I said we aren't using it so are you just pretending that this Court's orders don't apply to you do you think that you are better than this Court's orders I've already told you on April 10th that this ain't happening Point number two as the court made clear in the April 10 2023 decision the law in this circuit is abundantly clear that the use of written jury questionnaires is entirely optional with the trial judge what is required is that an appropriate voidir by whatever means be used that will be done and just so you know what voidir means voidir is literally translated to speak the truth truth and that involves the process of selecting jurors the way jury selection generally works is prospective jury pool will show up in court on the day of a trial you may have you know 100 150 people you're going to narrow it down usually to 12 or however many jurors are there in a specific case or that are allowed in the specific jurisdiction plus you'll have usually a few alternates and usually the judge May one two or three or four or four alternates it depends on the case um the parties can eliminate jurors for cause and a limited amount of times meaning if the jurors Harbor a bias where they cannot be fair and impartial you could disqualify that jury if they won't be you know Fair jurors okay and then on the other hand each side usually gets a limited number of what are called peremptory challenges which is the parties can reject jurors or eliminate jurors for any reason at all other than a reason that is discriminatory or otherwise unlawful so you may just have a bad Instinct about a juror a juror may say that they could be fair and otherwise impartial but you really don't believe them or maybe you think because of their background that there's something about them where they won't be able to be fair so that is usually the parties have a certain amount of peremptories then you Whittle down your jurors and then you finally select ultimately the number of jurors that are going to be there and you get to the final jury uh for that specific case the order goes on to say this motion proposes the use of a jury questionnaire that notwithstanding the Court's ruling that an anonymous jury will be employed seeks to require prospective jurors to give their names their employment and the employment of all of their immediate family members the court denied the party's request for their legal teams to access the jurors names in its April 10 2023 decision nothing between then and now has occurred to Warrant revisit that ruling so ordered April 14 2023 judge Lewis Kaplan and so here you have the federal judge saying wait a minute I said Anonymous juries you're asking for the juror's name in this questionnaire what in the world are you doing I the judge judge Lewis Kaplan I will be conducting a void dear of the jury pool I will be the one primarily responsible for asking the questions to the jury pool to make sure that we get Fair jurors I do not want a jury questionnaire and not only did you put forward a jury questionnaire but you put forward a jury questionnaire that asks for the very specific thing that I said you cannot use so the implication here was that's a bit underhanded were you just trying to sneak that in and thought that I would not care about the jury questionnaire were you just desperate to learn the identities of these jurors so you can threaten and harass them as you've done in the past the judge didn't go that far as to say it but I think that is certainly implied in that uh in that ruling and so the judge is like I know what you're up to denied we're going to trial April 25th 2023 no delays see you there okay enough is enough folks Donald Trump's going to trial on a civil rape and defamation case okay he is a defendant in that case testimony will be taken that week of April 25th opening statements will be given Donald Trump is going to have to show up at some point in time he will be questioned he's a witness in the case he may or may not be there the whole time but he will be questioned in that case also prior victims of Donald Trump will give testimony to the jury as well the jury will hear those Access Hollywood tapes where Trump brags about um sexually assaulting women um and so only only a few weeks away folks we'll keep you updated of course of the developments in that case as we do right now I'm Ben Meiselas from the Meidas touch Network thank you so much for watching
**************************
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
E. JEAN CARROLL, Plaintiff, -against- DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendant.
22-cv-10016 (LAK)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING JOINT REQUEST FOR THE PARTIES' "LEGAL TEAMS" TO HAVE ACCESS TO JUROR NAMES
LEWIS A. KAPLAN, District Judge.
This Court recently found, without objection by either party, as follows:
"If jurors' identities [in this case] were disclosed, there would be a strong likelihood of unwanted media attention to the jurors, influence attempts, and/or of harassment or worse of jurors by supporters of Mr. Trump. Indeed, Mr. Trump himself has made critical statements on social media regarding the grand jury foreperson in Atlanta, Georgia, and the jury foreperson in the Roger Stone criminal case. And this properly may be viewed in the context of Mr. Trump's many statements regarding individual judges, the judiciary in general, and other public officials, as well as what reports have characterized as 'violent rhetoric ' by Mr. Trump including before his presidency. "1
The likelihood of such difficulties since the Court made those findings only has increased. That is so in view of Mr. Trump's public statements, characterized by the media as attacks against the New York State judge presiding over the recently filed New York State criminal case against Mr. Trump and the threats reportedly then made, presumably by Mr. Trump's supporters, against that judge and members of his family.2 Nevertheless, despite never having objected to the use of a fully anonymous jury despite ample opportunity to do so, both parties now seek to raise that subject for the first time. They move to modify the Court's order to "allow each party's legal team," whatever exactly that means, to "access . . . the names of the prospective jurors, subject of course to a court order prohibiting the disclosure of those names to anyone else. "3 The motion is denied.
First, the parties had ample opportunity to seek access for their "legal teams" to the names of prospective jurors when the Court on March 11, 2023 directed that any objections to the use of an anonymous jury in this case be filed by March 17, 2023.4 They filed no objections. The present request therefore is untimely, and that alone is a sufficient basis for its denial. But there are alternative grounds as well.
Even if the request were timely, which it is not, it would be unpersuasive because it would ignore the most important reason for a fully anonymous jury in this particular - and unique - case.
The overriding goal is the selection of fair and impartial jurors who can perform their duties free of unwanted media attention, free of inappropriate influence attempts, and free of any fear of harassment or retaliation, regardless of the outcome of the case. In light of that preeminent goal, I cannot in good conscience grant the request that these parties' "legal teams" - or even their attorneys of record only - should have the names of the otherwise anonymous jurors.
In so stating, I do not wish to be misunderstood. I have great respect for the Bar generally. I do not imply that any of those who would be granted access to jurors' names under the parties' proposal would betray the trust reposed in them. But I cannot ignore the fact that the public - of which the jurors ideally will be a broad cross-section - does not have the same confidence. There are empirical studies indicating that the public in general does not have a high regard for the trustworthiness of lawyers. 5 And it is not speculation to conclude, as I do, that at least some members of the jury in this case, if told that their identities would be confidential from everyone except the lawyers for (let alone "legal teams" of) these parties, likely would not feel confidence that their identities would remain known only to the lawyers or legal teams.
Second, providing prospective jurors' names to counsel would not materially aid, and might even hinder, the empaneling of a fair and impartial jury. The Court will conduct a thorough voir dire to uncover prospective jurors' potential biases. The parties already have suggested areas of inquiry for the Court's voir dire,6 and will have a further opportunity to suggest additional questions should the Court's questioning seem to them inadequate. Yet they have failed to explain the usefulness, if any,'of access to prospective jurors' names despite the careful and searching voir dire examination to which the venire will be subject. 7
Third, counsel on both sides seem to be laboring under the misunderstanding that they would have a list of prospective jurors for this case - and could investigate the prospective jurors and/or speculate as to their ethnic backgrounds, religions, and various other appropriate and inappropriate subjects - but for the anonymous jury order. But they are mistaken. With unusual exceptions,8 counsel in jury cases in this district first hear the names of prospective jurors when the deputy clerk calls out the name of a prospective juror and invites that person to take a seat for voir dire examination. In other words, the availability of prospective juror names in ordinary cases and the final selection of trial jurors typically occur in a single proceeding that includes the voir dire. That would be no different in this case save that the lawyers will hear only a juror number rather than a name. In any case, I see no benefit to the proposed disclosure of juror names, and certainly none that would outweigh the benefit to be achieved by a fully anonymous jury, the members of which could be confident that their identities would remain confidential.
Finally, for the sake of completeness, the Court appreciates the fact that learned counsel have brought to its attention a few cases in which other courts have allowed lawyer access to juror names in otherwise anonymized cases,9 and it is aware also of other cases in which courts have not done so.10 I have alluded already to the broad discretion reposed in the trial court on subjects such as this. Suffice it to say that the Court is confident that the denial of the parties' joint application lies comfortably within the scope of that discretion.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the parties' request that each party's "legal team" be granted access to the names of prospective jurors (Dkt 103) is denied.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 10, 2023
____________________ Lewis A. Kaplan United States District Judge _______________
Notes:
1 Dkt. 94, at 7-8; Carroll v. Trump, No. 22-cv-10016 (LAK), 2023 WL 2612260, at *4 (S .D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2023).
2 E.g., Ewan Palmer, Trump Accused of Threatening Judge Hours After 'Incite Violence ' Warning, NEWSWEEK, Apr. 5, 2023, https://www.newsweek.com/trump-threaten ... e-1792620; Isaac Stanley-Becker and Jacqueline Alemany, Judge asks Trump not to incite violence amid volley of online attacks, THE WASHINGTON POST, updated Apr. 4, 2023, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... violence/; Olivia Land, Trump Jr. shares article with photo of judge 's daughter - who allegedly worked on Biden campaign, NEW YORK POST, Apr. 5, 2023, https ://nypost.com/ 2023/04/05/donald-trump-jr-shares-photo-of-judges-daughter-online/; Josh Marcus, Judge warns Trump about social media posts as legal team defends baseball bat picture, THE INDEPENDENT, Apr. 4, 2023, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 4200.html; Rebecca Rosenberg, New York Judge Presiding Over Donald Trump Criminal Case Gets Death Threats, Fox NEWS, Apr. 6, 2023, https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-jud ... h-threats; Jonathan Dienst, Rebecca Shabad, Ben Kamisar and Laura Jarrett, Trump judge and his family receive threats after New York arrest, NBC NEWS, updated Apr. 5, 2023, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... e-threats- trumps-arrest-rcna 78401 .
3 Dkt 103, at 1.
4 Dkt 84.
5 E.g., Can You Trust a Lawyer?, RASMUSSEN REPORTS, Aug. 17, 2022, https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public content/business/general_business/can you trust_a_lawyer; Debra Cassens Weiss, How are lawyers viewed by the public? Envy may account for glee in attorney mishaps, study says, ABA JOURNAL, Sep. 25, 2014, https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/how are_ lawyers_ viewed_ by_ the public_ envy _may_account_for_glee_in_attorney; Leo J. Shapiro & Associates, Public Perceptions of Lawyers Consumer Research Findings, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SECTION OF LITIGATION, Apr. 2002, https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam ... erception_ of _lawyers_ 2002. pdf.
6 Dkt 97 (Def. Proposed Voir Dire Questions); 99-3 (Pl. Proposed Voir Dire Questions).
7 E.g., United States v. Prado, No. 10-cr-74 (JFB), 2011 WL 34 72509, at* 10 (E.D.N. Y. Aug. 5, 2011) ("[Defendant] also objects to the use of an anonymous jury on the ground that it will prevent him from meaningfully exercising his peremptory challenges during jury selection. In particular, [defendant] contends that ' [ i]n light of counsel's access to the internet and its many tools of investigation and research, not having the name or address of the prospective jurors is a distinct disadvantage to counsel in analyzing the jurors' suitability for a case of this nature.' ... The Court, however, finds this argument to be without merit and, instead, finds that the defendants' right to a fair and impartial jury will be sufficiently protected by a careful and searching voir dire, which will be designed to uncover bias and consequently will allow defendants to meaningfully exercise their challenges."); United States v. Griffin, No. 94-cr-631 (S-6) (AGS), 1996 WL 140073, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 1996) ("Courts have long held that a thorough voir dire examination of potential jurors is a sufficient device to eliminate from jury service both ( 1) those so affected by exposure to pre-trial publicity and (2) those with some knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the case that they cannot fairly decide issues of guilt or innocence.") (citing cases).
8 These have occurred especially where a non-anonymous jury has been selected and a questionnaire has been employed in doing so. The Court finds a jury questionnaire unnecessary in this case, and will not employ one. The Second Circuit has "expressly declined to 'hold that district judges are ever obligated to make use of this procedure in selecting juries."' United States v. Treacy, 639 F.3d 32, 46 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289, 300 n.8 (2d Cir. 2007)). See also United States v. Salameh, 152 F .3d 88, 121 (2d Cir. 1998) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to use jury questionnaire); United States v. Tomero, 486 F. Supp. 2d 320, 325 (S .D.N.Y. 2007) (denying request to use a jury questionnaire as unnecessary in case involving an anonymous jury).
9 Dkt 103 at 1 (citing cases).
10 E.g., United States v. Al Fmvwaz, 57 F. Supp. 3d 307, 311 (S .D.N.Y. 2014); United States v. Mayes, No. 12-cr-385 (ARR), 2013 WL 6175824, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2013); United States v. Price, No. 05-cr-492 (S-3)(NGG), 2008 WL 4682408, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2008); Tomero, 486 F. Supp. at 325; United States v. Scala, 405 F. Supp. 2d 450, 454 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); United States v. Gatti, No. 02-cr-743 (S-8) (RCC), 2004 WL 2274712, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2004); United States v. Bellomo, 954 F. Supp. 630, 655-56 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
Mr. Trump's motion to employ a written juror questionnaire in selecting the jury in this case is denied. The Court makes only these points as matters of emphasis:
1. This motion has been made without regard to the fact that the Court on April 10, 2023 stated that it would not use a jury questionnaire in this case. Dkt 105, at 5 n.8.
2. As the Court made clear in the April 10, 2023 decision, the law in this circuit is abundantly clear that the use of written jury questionnaires is entirely optional with the trial judge. What is required is that an appropriate voir dire by whatever means be used. That will be done.
3. This motion proposes the use of a juror questionnaire that -- notwithstanding the Court's ruling that an anonymous jury will be employed -- seeks to require prospective jurors to give their names, their employment, and teh employment of all of their immediate family members. The Court denied the parties' request for their legal teams to access the jurors' names in its April 10, 2023 decision. Nothing between then and now has occurred to warrant revisiting that ruling.
SO ORDERED
Dated: April 14, 2023
____________________ Lewis A. Kaplan United States District Judge
While understand that the Court has discretion over how to conduct jury selection in a civil case, we submit that counsel should be involved at all stages of the jury selection process (even in the Jury Assembly Room). We also submit that counsel should have input in the Court's description of the case as well as into the questions asked of potential jurors in the Jury Assembly Room. Rule 47 makes it clear that the parties and their counsel have that right, and further, a more robust jury selection process in this case will serve the interests of justice. We would note that, in this regard, we already have submitted to the Court proposed voir dire questions to be asked, which have yet to be ruled upon. However, for present purposes we do wish to inquire further as to the Court's planned process.
Respectfully submitted,
Joseph Tacopina, Esq. Alina Habba, Esq. Co-Counsel to Donald J. Trump
*****************************************
Memorandum Endorsement
Carroll v. Trump, 22-cv-10016 (LAK)
I take what I understand to be material inaccuracies in Mr. Tacopina's letter to be misunderstandings attributable to the fact that Mr. Tacopina was not present at the meeting attended by the Deputy Clerk, Mr. Mohan, and other counsel. The Court nevertheless provides the following information concerning the proceedings on Tuesday.
1. The entire jury selection process will take place in the Courtroom scheduled for trial in the presence of counsel for both sides. As it would be inconvenient to accommodate the entire panel in that room at one time, part of the panel will be held in a reserve room under appropriate court supervision and will see and hear all jury-related proceedings (save any sidebars) that occur in the Courtroom over closed circuit video. From time to time, it may be appropriate to bring prospective jurors from the reserve room to replace other prospective jurors who have been excused during proceedings in the Courtroom. The replacement prospective jurors will be voir dired appropriately in the presence of all counsel once they are brought to the Courtroom and seated. This is identical in substance to the manner in which jurors were selected in this Court during the COVID pandemic.
2. Counsel for both sides have been requested to submit proposed voir dire questions, and both have done so. The Court naturally is taking those requests into account in formulating its examination of prospective jurors. Moreover, at the completion of the examinations of the panel in general and of specific individual jurors, counsel will have a further opportunity to suggest questions.
E. Jean Carroll testifies Trump raped her, then ‘shattered my reputation’ by Shayna Jacobs, Kim Bellware and Mark Berman The Washington Post April 26, 2023 at 7:14 p.m. EDT
NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.
NEW YORK — E. Jean Carroll, a writer who has accused Donald Trump of raping her nearly three decades ago, testified Wednesday in searing detail about what she says was a brutal assault carried out by the future president of the United States.
Taking the stand as part of her lawsuit against Trump, Carroll laid out the core of her case against him: Trump violently attacked her, Carroll said, leaving her emotionally scarred. And when she publicly accused him decades later, Carroll said, Trump’s denials caused her further torment.
“I’m here because Donald Trump raped me, and when I wrote about it, he said it didn’t happen,” Carroll said. “He lied and shattered my reputation, and I’m here to try to get my life back.”
Trump has said the episode never happened and assailed Carroll, calling her a liar. She sued him for battery and defamation last year, leading to the civil trial unfolding in Manhattan.
Jury hears opening statements in E. Jean Carroll lawsuit against Trump
Carroll said the attack took place when she ran into Trump at Bergdorf Goodman, an upscale Manhattan department store, in the mid-1990s. They were both public figures who, Carroll said, ran in similar media circles: Trump was a celebrity real estate magnate and tabloid fixture, while Carroll was an advice columnist with a cable news TV show.
They recognized each other, Carroll said, and their encounter started off light and fun. Trump was “very personable,” she said. He wanted help picking a gift for another woman, Carroll said, and she was “delighted” to come along.
But things quickly turned dark, she said.
Carroll testified that she went into a dressing room with Trump. Then, she alleged, he restrained her and forced his fingers inside of her. It was “extremely painful,” Carroll said. She testified in graphic terms about this assault and Trump raping her. Carroll escaped after kneeing him and fleeing the room, she said.
In her testimony, Carroll said she was permanently shaken by the attack and “unable to ever have a romantic life again.” Carroll also testified about feeling guilt over flirting with Trump before the attack, saying she never filed a police report in part because she blamed herself for what happened.
“I always think about why I walked in there to get myself in that situation,” she said. “And I’m proud to say I did get out. I got my knee up, I pushed him back.”
Carroll’s testimony, which lasted about three and a half hours, dominated the second day of her civil trial against Trump. Throughout this testimony, the nine-member jury remained focused on Carroll as the 79-year-old detailed events spanning her entire life. She is expected to take the stand again Thursday and continue her testimony; the trial will likely last until at least next week.
Trump has denied attacking Carroll and said she made everything up, leading her to sue him last year for battery and defamation. Carroll is seeking unspecified damages, along with a court order forcing Trump to retract a statement he posted on social media last year calling her a liar.
Trump’s attorney, Joe Tacopina, is expected to question Carroll on Thursday. He will likely ask questions meant to undermine her credibility, including possibly highlighting a passage in her memoir where she describes being unaffected by Trump’s attack. Much of Carroll’s testimony on Wednesday — conducted as part of direct examination by one of her attorneys, Michael Ferrara — appeared aimed at fending off anticipated challenges by Trump’s side.
Even as this trial continues, Trump is still facing an array of other legal threats and investigative scrutiny, including criminal charges in Manhattan, a fraud lawsuit brought by New York’s attorney general and ongoing investigations into his handling of classified material and his efforts to block Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election. Trump, who is seeking another term in the White House, has denied wrongdoing in all cases and assailed his investigators as politically motivated.
Whether Trump will follow Carroll onto the witness stand during the trial remains an open question.
His attorneys have not said whether Trump will testify or appear in court, instead saying a decision will be made during the trial. Trump has no obligation to do either, and Carroll’s attorneys have said they do not need to call him because they can play a recording from his deposition in the case.
Even in absentia, Trump’s words filtered into the courtroom Wednesday before Carroll took the stand. In social media postings on Wednesday morning, Trump called Carroll’s allegations “a made up SCAM” and “a fraudulent & false story.”
U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, who is overseeing the case, warned Tacopina, Trump’s attorney, that his client appeared close to crossing a line with his posts. Tacopina argued that the posts were not inappropriate, but said he would talk to his client about the concerns.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump - 1h They got caught lying! The Miss Bergdorf Goodman case is financed by a big political donor that they tried to hide. Does anybody believe that I would take a then almost 60 year old woman that I didn't know, from the front door of a very crowded department store, (with me being very well known, to put it mildly!), into a tiny dressing room, and ... her. She didn't scream? There are no witnesses? Nobody saw this? She never made a police complaint? If I was seen there with a woman-BIG PRESS. SCAM!
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump - 1h The E. Jean Carroll case, Ms. Bergdorf Goodman, is a made up SCAM. Her lawyer is a political operative, financed by a big political donor that they said didn't exist, only to get caught lying about that. Just look at her CNN interview before & after the commercial break - Like a different person. She said there was a dress, using 6the ol' Monica Lewinsky "stuff", then she didn't want to produce it. The dress should be allowed to be part of the case. This is a fraudulent & false story-Witch Hunt!
Tacopina had dismissed Carroll’s story as “unbelievable” in his opening statement Tuesday, noting what he called “the lack of details” in her account. Among other things, he pointed to her not knowing what date the alleged attack took place. He also suggested Carroll was making a false rape claim, in part, for political reasons.
Carroll has said she is not bringing her lawsuit for political reasons, and she seemed to push back against the idea in her testimony on Wednesday. Carroll, a registered Democrat, testified that she can “hardly” describe her politics, though she acknowledged thinking Trump was a “terrible” president.
Since Carroll first publicly accused Trump of rape in 2019, she has told the story again and again — in a book published that year, during media interviews and through court filings.
But on Wednesday, for the first time, Carroll told her story while sitting in a courtroom before a jury of her peers, asking the legal system to believe her account and punish the man she says piled insult atop injury.
While testifying, Carroll said the alleged attack traumatized her, casting a decades-long shadow across her life and preventing her from having romantic relationships or sex with other men. The guilt she felt over flirting with Trump, she said, still lingered in her mind.
“I couldn’t force myself to show a man … that I liked him,” she said. “It just led to terrible consequences.”
During her testimony, Carroll also described other times men brutalized her, sharing other disturbing accounts from her life, including an ex-husband she said choked her three separate times and a camp counselor she alleged sexually assaulted her when she was 12.
While on the stand, Carroll said that when she publicly accused Trump, she expected him to respond saying the encounter was consensual.
Carroll is among more than a dozen women who have accused Trump of sexual misconduct, including allegations that he groped or kissed them against their will. Trump has denied all of their accusations, called the women liars and, in some cases, insulted their appearances.
After Carroll accused him in 2019, Trump followed the same playbook, insisting he did not know her and saying that she “is not telling the truth.” Trump has also described her as “not my type.”
Asked to interpret that remark on Wednesday, Carroll said: “It means that besides me being a liar and a woman out to sell book, and an operative of the Democratic Party … I’m also too ugly to rape.”
Carroll’s attorneys plan to call two of Trump’s other accusers to the stand during the trial. In her opening statement on Tuesday, one of Carroll’s attorneys said these women will “testify that Donald Trump assaulted them in very much the same way he assaulted Ms. Carroll, because that is his M.O.”
In addition to the case unfolding in New York, Carroll filed another lawsuit against Trump in 2019 that accused him of defaming her with his denials. That case still remains unresolved. The Justice Department has argued Trump was responding to her as the president and said the federal government should be substituted as the defendant; the issue is still pending in the courts.
Carroll has said that after telling two friends about the attack, she decided to remain silent for more than two decades, fearful of what would happen if she spoke out. On Wednesday, Carroll acknowledged repeatedly regretting her decision to make her accusations public in 2019.
By that time, Trump was in the White House, commanded enormous attention and had a throng of devoted supporters. Carroll said some people sent her supportive messages, but added that they were drowned out by angry notes and threats.
“People with no opinion now thought of me as a liar and they hated me,” she testified, sounding anguished. “The force of that hatred was staggering.”
But she also testified about feeling a sense of elation at getting a chance to share her account in a courtroom.
“Being able to get my day in court finally is everything to me, so I’m happy,” Carroll said, as she lost her composure and blotted her face with a tissue. “I’m happy. I’m crying that I’ve gotten to tell my story in court.”
Opening statements conclude in Trump's trial over E. Jean Carroll's rape allegation: In a civil lawsuit, Carroll alleges Trump raped her in a Manhattan department store in the 1990s. The former president says the claim is a lie. by Dareh Gregorian and Adam Reiss NBC News April 25, 2023, 3:00 AM MDT / Updated April 25, 2023, 4:24 PM MDT
E. Jean Carroll, the writer who says Donald Trump raped her in a New York City department store in the 1990s, sued the former president because "she wants to get her life back," her attorney said in opening statements Tuesday.
"Donald Trump assaulted her in 1996 and defamed her when she said she made it up," lawyer Shawn Crowley told jurors.
Carroll, a magazine writer and columnist, alleges the attack took place in a Bergdorf Goodman department store on Fifth Avenue in New York City, when the "playful banter" she'd been engaged with Trump, then a businessman, took a "dark turn." She alleges in her lawsuit that Trump "seized" her, "forced her up against a dressing room wall, pinned her in place with his shoulder, and raped her."
Crowley told the jury that the pair had met before and that Trump asked her for help picking out some lingerie after he bumped into her at the entrance of the store. They had "moved through the store laughing and joking" before "everything changed," she said.
"The truth is she didn’t see him as a threat that day, but she was wrong," Crowley said.
Trump lawyer Joe Tacopina told the jury that the case "comes down to: Do you believe the unbelievable?"
"The evidence will show you that what she is doing is an affront to justice. She is doing this for money, political reasons and status. And in doing so she is minimizing true rape victims and destroying their pain and capitalizing on them," Tacopina said. "You should not let her profit from this."
Trump has called the allegations "a con job," a "hoax" and "a complete scam," which led Carroll to sue him for defamation. Trump maintains that his comments aren't defamatory and that they are the truth — and it remains unclear whether he will show up to testify in his defense.
“It’s ridiculous” to think an incident like that could happen in a department store, he said at his deposition in the case, according to court filings. “So I say that sometimes to people. And I say can you imagine this? The concept of this? And it’s me. I — you know, a very famous person. It’s a disgrace. Frankly it’s a disgrace that something like that can be brought.”
Jury selection started late Tuesday morning in federal court in lower Manhattan — just blocks from where Trump was arraigned this month on criminal charges of falsifying business records in a separate case involving hush money payments to women alleging affairs with him; Trump has pleaded not guilty to those charges and has denied those affairs and any wrongdoing.
The judge settled on a jury of six men and three women by early afternoon.
Although Trump wasn’t present for jury selection, he was still a presence in the courtroom. When U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan asked potential jurors whether there was “anything about the nature of this case or the parties that would make it difficult for you to give a just and impartial verdict,” 10 of the 48 stood. They were all dismissed.
Trump sat for his videotaped deposition in October. Carroll's other attorney, Roberta Kaplan, said in court filings that she plans to use his deposition at trial.
It’s unclear whether Trump, one of only two witnesses listed for the defense, will testify in person during the trial, which the judge said will last five to 10 days, or whether his attorneys will rely on the deposition. Tacopina was noncommittal in a court filing last week about whether Trump would attend the proceedings.
He told jurors Tuesday they'd hear Trump denying Carroll's account in sworn testimony, but he didn't specify whether it would be live or on video.
Pressed later by the judge about whether Trump would testify in court, Tacopina said he still needs a few more days to decide. The judge said he needs to know because of security concerns.
Anonymous jury
The judge is using an anonymous jury, an unusual move for a civil trial but one he said is necessary.
"If jurors’ identities were disclosed, there would be a strong likelihood of unwanted media attention to the jurors, influence attempts, and/or of harassment or worse of jurors by supporters of Mr. Trump,” the judge wrote in a decision last month.
He urged potential jurors in the courtroom Tuesday not to use their real names with one another.
“If you're a Bill, you can be John for a few days,” Kaplan said.
[Glenn Kirschner, Justice Matters] [N]ow let's turn more directly to the E Gene Carroll case, and this recent reporting by NBC News. Anonymous jury. The judge is using an anonymous jury, an unusual move for a Civil Trial, but one he said is necessary. Judge Kaplan wrote, "if jurors identities were disclosed, there would be a strong likelihood of unwanted media attention to jurors, influence attempt, and or harassment or worse of jurors by supporters of Mr. Trump and friends. This next part stunned me. The Judge urged potential jurors in the courtroom Tuesday not to use their real names with one another. quote "If you're a Bill, you can be John for a few days," judge Kaplan said.
You know friends, I don't even know what to say to that: Have the jurors conceal from one another their their names, their true identities, take on an assumed name, lie about who you are, and then we're going to send them off into a jury deliberation room and have them have to discuss openly, honestly, fully, and candidly the evidence that they saw introduced over the course of the trial, and try to reach a a just and fair verdict! But make sure, you don't tell one another your true name.
You know friends, the way our systems of government seem forever willing to bend over backwards to accommodate the dangerousness and the lawlessness of Donald Trump. Having jurors lie to one another, even if only about their names, is unhealthy for the legal system, and for the sanctity of jury deliberations. In my opinion, instead of making the jurors conceal their names and identities from one another, how about you treat Donald Trump like the wrong-doer he is, rather than making the prosecutors, and the judges, and the witnesses, and the jurors, and everybody else adjust to accommodate Donald Trump's lawlessness and dangerousness. How about you treat Donald Trump like the wrong-doer he is, and issue a damn gag order, some narrowly tailored limitations on his speech, and on his social media posts? Limitations designed to prevent Donald Trump from intimidating others in the system? And in the process, limiting Donald Trump from being able to poison the well of public opinion with lies. How about you treat Donald Trump like the wrong-doer he is, limit his dangerous lawless and fraudulent speech? And then when he violates that narrowly tailored limitation, that gag order, hold him in contempt like the wrongdoer he is.
Because Justice matters.
In court filings, lawyers for Trump and Carroll laid out some of the questions they wanted the judge to ask prospective jurors.
Trump's suggestions included "Are you familiar with the slogan #believe women?" and "Do you agree with it?" as well as "Do you think that the #metoo movement has gone too far?"
Another suggestion was "Do you believe that people falsely accuse others of sexual assault? Does that happen?"
They also wanted prospective jurors to be asked about their opinions of Trump as president, adding, "If you have negative views, are those strongly held beliefs?"
Questions suggested by Carroll's attorneys included whether jurors follow Trump on social media, have ever attended one of his rallies or believe the 2020 election results were illegitimate.
Another asks, "Is there anyone who would have trouble believing a victim of sexual misconduct if that victim chose not to seek immediate medical or other assistance?"
In the morning session, a woman was excused when she said she believed in the #MeToo movement. None of the initial potential jurors said they followed Trump or Carroll on social media.
The nine-person jury was selected after about two hours of questioning. Some but not all of the questions requested by Trump's and Carroll's attorneys were posed to potential jurors.
In her court filing, Carroll said she told two friends about the attack, which she alleges happened in 1995 or 1996 and lasted two to three minutes. She said she called one friend immediately afterward and the other within days. The second friend warned her not to tell anyone else about it, because "disaster would ensue," the suit says.
"Forget it! He has two hundred lawyers. He’ll bury you,” Carroll quoted the friend as saying.
Carroll said she heeded the advice because she "knew how brutal and dangerous Trump could be."
"Carroll did not mention the rape again for over twenty years. She did not want to be seen — or to see herself — as a victim of sexual assault," according to the suit.
The lawsuit says that position was bolstered when other women accused Trump of sexual misconduct during the 2016 election and he denied their accusations "while also savaging their reputations and insulting their appearance." She said she was also worried that coming forward "might make Trump more popular in states like Indiana," because "his electoral fortunes had steadily improved despite credible allegations of sexual abuse."
The suit goes on to say her thinking began to change after a New York Times story about rape allegations against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein helped set off the #MeToo movement.
She said she decided to open up about the alleged incident as a part of a book she'd been working on called "What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal."
Trump's denials
After an excerpt of the book was published in New York Magazine in June 2019, then-President Trump issued a statement saying he'd "never met this person in my life."
"She is trying to sell a new book — that should indicate her motivation. It should be sold in the fiction section," the statement said. "Shame on those who make up false stories of assault to try to get publicity for themselves, or sell a book, or carry out a political agenda."
Carroll then sued Trump for defamation, but the case got stalled in an appeal over whether Trump was immune from liability because he was president at the time.
She sued last year in the case that's now going to trial after New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed a law that opened a one-year window for adult victims of sexual offenses to file civil suits, even if the statute of limitations on their claims had expired, as it had for Carroll.
She seeks unspecified money damages for the alleged rape and defamation for comments Trump made about her on his social media website, Truth Social, after he left the White House.
"Carroll is not telling the truth, is a woman who I had nothing to do with, didn’t know, and would have no interest in knowing her if I ever had the chance," the statement said. "And, while I am not supposed to say it, I will. This woman is not my type!"
Trump doubled down on the comments in his deposition in October, when he called Carroll a "whack job."
"Physically, she's not my type, and now that I've gotten indirectly to hear things about her, she wouldn't be my type in any way, shape or form," he said, according to a court filing.
In the same proceeding, he was shown a picture of him and Carroll standing together at an event and mistook her for his wife at that time, Marla Maples. "That's Marla. Yeah, that's my wife," he said. After the mistake was pointed out to him, he said the picture was "very blurry."
The two friends Carroll said she told about the alleged attack, Lisa Birnbach and Carol Martin, are expected to testify on her behalf, as are two other women who say Trump sexually assaulted them: Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff. Trump has denied those accusations, as well, saying the alleged incidents never happened.
The judge said he would allow the testimony of Leeds and Stoynoff — as well as the notorious "Access Hollywood" tape that captured Trump saying he could grope women without their consent — to let Carroll put forward her allegation that Trump has a propensity for sexual assault.
Crowley referred to the other accusers and the tape in his opening statement. "Kissed, grabbed, raped. … When you’re a star you can do anything — call them a liar and call them too ugly to assault," she said.
In his deposition, Trump mocked Carroll and Leeds for saying they couldn't recall the date — or in Carroll's case, even the year — of the alleged attacks.
Trump told Carroll's lawyer that if such a thing had happened, “your client would know to the second,” adding, “She’d know down to the second. She’d know the month, the date, the year down to the second.”
Roberta Kaplan, who'd noted earlier in the deposition that Trump seemed not to remember when he got engaged to his wife Melania, then asked him the date he married the former first lady.
"I don’t want to even give you the answer. I’m not going to dignify it,” Trump responded, according to court filings.
Carroll’s attorneys are scheduled to begin presenting her case Wednesday with witness testimony. They haven't yet said whom they plan to call to the stand.
Trump Wows Court With Sh*tposts About Carroll Case During Trial: The world's worst client strikes again! by Liz Dye Above the Law April 26, 2023 at 5:42 PM
Donald Trump is currently on trial in New York for making defamatory statements about E. Jean Carroll on his Truth Social website. So naturally he started the day by repeating a version of those statements on his Truth Social website.
First, he referred to a bunch of evidence which was already excluded by Judge Lewis Kaplan:
The E. Jean Carroll case, Ms. Bergdorf Goodman, is a made up SCAM. Her lawyer is a political operative, financed by a big political donor that they said didn’t exist, only to get caught lying about that. Just look at her CNN interview before & after the commercial break – Like a different person. She said there was a dress, using the ol’ Monica Lewinsky “stuff”, then she didn’t want to produce it. The dress should be allowed to be part of the case. This is a fraudulent & false story–Witch Hunt!
First of all, Carroll didn’t “get caught lying” about anything. Her lawyers disclosed that some of her expenses were being paid by a non-profit, and Trump himself waived the issue long ago because he didn’t want to disclose the source of his own litigation funding. (Hint: It is political dark money.)
Second, Trump himself refused for three straight years to submit to a DNA test, only offering to produce a cheek swab after discovery had closed.
But he wasn’t through talking. The former president, who previously implied that Carroll was too ugly to rape because she was “not his type” has now added that she was also too old for him to assault:
They got caught lying! The Miss Bergdorf Goodman case is financed by a big political donor that they tried to hide. Does anybody believe that I would take a then almost 60 year old woman that I didn’t know, from the front door of a very crowded department store, (with me being very well known, to put it mildly!), into a tiny dressing room, and …. her. She didn’t scream? There are no witnesses? Nobody saw this? She never made a police complaint? If I was seen there with a woman-BIG PRESS. SCAM!
Bold move from a guy who is currently trying to exclude video evidence of him at rallies criticizing the appearance of women who accused him of sexual assault.
Judge Kaplan had already had it up to here with the defendant before the trial started.
“What seems to be the case is that your client is basically endeavoring, certainly, to speak to his quote-unquote public, but, more troubling, the jury in this case about stuff that has no business being spoken about,” he said, laying into Trump’s lawyer Joseph Tacopina this morning.
Tacopina promised to try to control his client, with the court warning that Trump “may or may not be tampering with a new source of potential liability.”
But perhaps he should have tried to get the message out to the family, too, since young Eric was still running his mouth.
pic.twitter.com/UkevkWcZDT
— Eric Trump (@EricTrump) April 26, 2023
Eric Trump @EricTrump Zoom Out: Jean Carroll's legal battle against my father is allegedly being FUNDED by political activist Reid Hoffman (co-founder of Linkedin). A civil lawsuit, being funded by a billionaire, with no direct involvement in the case, out of pure hatred, spite or fear of a formidable candidate, is an embarrassment to our country, should be illegal and tells you everything you need to know about the case at hand...
“If I were in your shoes I would be having a conversation with your client,” Judge Kaplan admonished Tacopina when the parties returned after lunch. “There are some relevant United States statutes here and somebody on your side ought to be thinking about them.”
And it’s only the first full day in front of the jury!
Trump files DESPERATE Motion in Federal Court and Gets INSTANT KARMA by Michael Popok MediasTouchLegalAF 5/1/23
Michael Popok of Legal AF reports on breaking news with Trump’s lawyers desperately filing an early motion for mistrial even before they are done cross examining E Jean Carroll in her suit against Trump, a motion so frivolous that the court already denied it.
Transcript
This is Michael Popock legal AF well the old theme song from Sopranos is playing in Joe tacopina's mind I woke up this morning Joe tacopina woke up this morning and he filed a motion for mistrial during in the Eugene Carroll case he's not even done with the cross-examination of of e Gene Carroll but he's so getting his backside kicked by both EG and Carol and the judge that he did something extraordinary he fought it's not even mid case he's not even it's one-third of the case through and he thinks he's got a grounds for mistrial which he doesn't so let me start with the fresh news the judge already denied the motion for mistrial done move on cross-examine the witness she's your witness Mr tacopina finish with eg and Carol but let me tell you how we got there and why this shows complete weakness and a self-awareness I guess that he doesn't completely understand by Joe tacopina's Point that he's conceding that they're losing let's start with this as a trial lawyer no perfect trial there's no such thing as a perfect trial you're not guaranteed by the US Constitution a perfect trial you're guaranteed a fair trial and that's what the judge has been giving him he just doesn't like the tacopina homicide and Trump's side just don't like that they're on the losing end of ridiculous motions that have no support in the law at all all we've learned so far so far and at this point in the trial and in the motion that was just filed at 5:01 this morning is that Joe tacopina doesn't have a command of the English language of grammar of syntax and of English literature because most of what he's arguing about if you if you have to believe that what you put in your motion first is most important to you then what's most important to him is that Joe tacopina can't ask a proper question in a federal courthouse and get an answer back without having the other side properly object and the judge sustained the objection that's not on them that's on you yes this is an adversarial process everybody has a role the judge is the Umpire calls the balls and Strikes the other side gets to object and then the objection is either sustained or overruled and then you move on see Joe tacopina normally Plies his trade if you want to call it that in a state house State Courthouse doing criminal law where there's a lot more leeway especially in New York state I've been in New York state supreme court a lot more leeway than federal court federal court you better mind your p's and q's you better dot your eyes and cross your t's you better know your federal rules of civil procedure you better know your federal rules of of uh of evidence if you don't know then the other side is going to remind you what you're missing and you got to figure out for the judge how to make objections some some objections the judge is okay with with uh what's called the speaking objection some sometimes it's you got to put the smallest amount of words on the record so that the jury doesn't really know what's going on some judges require you to cite by the rule rule number 403 401 412 and and then makes decisions based on that but so the objections here are basically the Joe tacopina because he can't ask a proper question keeps getting slapped down then he gets frustrated because he can't figure out how to ask the proper question and he blames the judge I'll give you an example if you ask a question of a witness like Joe tacopina has has been doing you can bring out the following under under question and answer your position Miss Carol is that you and Donald Trump were in a dressing room about eight foot but 12 feet wide at about six or seven o'clock at night on a Thursday night is that right ma'am yes and that during that time you say at some point you were pushed up against the wall right right and that you injured your head yes and that at some point my client sexually attacked you isn't that right ma'am right but nowhere your your claim to the jury is there was no one around you there were no other people there there were no other sales people there were no security guards nothing right ma'am right okay that's a proper cross-examination what you can't do is what's called argumentative questioning which is sort of what it sounds like it's not that you're arguing with the witness it's that you're doing your closing argument you as the lawyer are making statements that are just for argument's sake for the jury not really to properly ask a question to the fact witness so you would say so you want this jury to believe that there are there are no not a soul around not not a not a person around at a very busy department store that Prides itself at having service that Prides itself objection argumentative where is your question Joe that's an argument and then when you get shot down because you're asking argumentative questions and it happens happens to me happens to other people on legal AF that are practicing lawyers you just regroup you try to get away with it it didn't work so you say let me rephrase and then you rephrase so your position is that no one was around on five o'clock in the evening in the lingerie section of Bergdorf Goodman right ma'am that's it and you move on and then you make your argument the actual argument in closing time you know like five or six days from now you say you can't believe that and then you whatever argument you want to make he did it again and again and again got shot down by the judge so that to him shows prejudicial Behavior by the judge judges being unfair to me judges being prejudicial to me no he's not the judge is keeping you on your toes and making sure that you're complying with the rules of the road in that courtroom and you're not and you don't understand grammar or syntax on top of it your second big argument assuming that your arguments in your motion match what you think is the most important is you don't understand English literature you wanted to make a big deal Joe tacopina in front of e Gene Carroll and the jury that she had in her memoir a chapter or a section about her plan to send all men to Montana for retraining that in the literary business is called satire you learned that I think in seventh grade she didn't really mean that but just like the handmaid's tale by Margaret Atwood is satire and there's a there's a a legitimate political and other discourse in society by having satirists that's satire why you wanted to continue to bring that up what you wanted to show that she's that she's nutty she's cookie she's off a rocker because that was her plan you didn't get it with satire if you didn't get it the judge got it because the judge said as you continue to drill down on this ridiculous line of questioning the judge judge sort of stopped it in its track so we can get to real evidence in the case and said she said it was satire like like Jonathan Swift's a modest proposal from 600 years ago right ma'am and she said yes and and the judge said move on move on it's satire she didn't really mean it and then Joe went home and looked it up or his trial team looked up a Modest proposal again I think you learned you read about a modest proposal in seventh or eighth grade maybe it's ninth grade and a modest proposal Jonathan Swift wrote a whole satire about solving the Irish poverty Problem by eating Irish children and so he doubled down tacopina in his motion and he writes in the moving papers judge I read a modest proposal now like now you just got around to it and it was 300 years ago and that was about Irish poverty and Irish cannibalism this was about sending all men to Montana for retraining I don't see the link really Joe you don't see how that's analogous in in the world of satire and that's your grounds from this trial and then so he didn't like that that's unfair and prejudicial um the whole satire thing and then he doesn't like the fact that the judge isn't letting him vigorously cross-examine her and outside the presence of the jury threatened to go after Eric Trump because Eric and Donald Trump were busy social media posting about things they shouldn't be talking about to try to influence the jury which was a crime and they didn't like the fact the judge warned them after it came to his attention that even though Donald Trump is too busy to show up at trial a fact that is not lost on the jury let me repeat jury's hate when parties don't show up for trial especially one this this important on these facts so Jerry already has not good tidings not good feelings for Donald Trump coming into this case and every day looking at that empty chair they have to be there the jury's got to show up for 22 dollars a day or whatever they're paying these days in New York they got to do their job and their other job and their job at home and Where's Donald Trump that's in the back of their mind and to that point another grounds constitutional grounds from mistrial everybody leaned in now in my hot take what are what is it popoc what are the Constitutional grounds for Mistral there's lawyers that sit at tables in the in at trial and the jury which has eyes and ears and can see that they may not notice that that Eugene Carroll has some lawyers too and you're probably thinking I'm sorry what all right so let me explain it to you Joe tacopina didn't like the fact that when in response to one of his questions meaning he opened the door e Gene Carroll said that her witness Carol Martin a famous newscaster formerly of CBS news in New York told her don't go after Donald Trump even after she heard what had happened to her back in 95 and 96 in that dressing room because he'll come after you with dozens and hundreds of lawyers encrust you and she rightly said and it came true look two full tables of lawyers coming after me and tacopina wanted to say to her well we have lawyers you have lawyers too but he did it so ham-fistedly rather than saying Well ma'am you would agree that that you have lawyers also right and you have you have lawyers that are almost the same number as our lawyers right and kind of do it in a Deft way in a proper way he instead did it in an argumentative way with no question he said but we you have lawyers that's not a question we have lawyers that's not a question Joe and so the judge shot you down not because the concept you couldn't ask about in cross-examination it's the way you ask the cross-examination question that was wrong another tutorial an unnecessary tutorial by the judge so again we're talking about how many lawyers sit at a table and if the jury having eyes can't notice that that Joe tacopina can't fathom satire and how it fits he doesn't like the fact that when Joe tacopina can't ask a proper question the judge makes him try again he doesn't like the fact that the judge isn't allowing Joe tacopina to ask a question that's not a question but really argument masquerading as a question he doesn't like that he doesn't like the fact the judge called them out on the social posting social media posting and and said there are criminal statutes that may be implicated without going into it leaving it to the other side to file whatever motion they want to file he doesn't like all that but that's not grounds for a mistrial Joe that is that's just a normal trial how many trials have you put on in federal court involving these kind of facts not many I presume based on your conduct and all you're doing is pissing the judge off because you're he's not going to and has not ruled in your favor and has already denied your motion for mistrial and told you to get on with the case and if you think this is going to be some sort of grounds for it appeal good luck at the second Circuit Court of Appeals where I've also argued where you're going to argue that that the judge wouldn't let you tell the tell the jury how many lawyers were sitting at a table that was right in front of them or the judge the judge commented about a matter of satire in front of the jury how does that change the due process rights of your client or the judge was mean to you because you have malformed questions that don't grasp the English language or grammar or syntax and you get called out for it and you can't figure out a way right because you can't think your way out of that paperback you can't work your way around to ask a proper question this is not grounds for a mistrial you know it you know it you're appellate lawyers your appeal lawyers know it and it's just a waste of time money and energy although I guess it gives Donald Trump something to talk about you know at his next rally that you know Judges mean to me another judge out of the 95 judges in America every one of them except for one Eileen Cannon down in Florida the Magistrate Judge she wasn't mean to me but everybody else has been really really mean to me they're either racist crazy mean or all four things and that's it that's why Joe tacopina files these things you know I'm sure Donald Trump like types this up at three o'clock in the morning this is my artist rendering of him typing with two fingers and he sends it to Joe tacopina who like slaps it onto his letterhead and files it as a motion I'm sure that's what's going on I'm going to follow this case we've been following this case every step of the way on legal AF the podcast that I co-anchor on Wednesdays on Saturdays on the Meidas touch Network for sure if you like this kind of content give me a thumbs up here talk to me in the comments I may talk back and you can follow me on all things social media at Ms popock this is Michael popock legal AF reporting hey Meidas Mighty love this report continue the conversation by following us on Instagram at Meidas Touch to keep up with the most important news of the day what are you waiting for follow us now
Trump’s DISASTROUS Video Deposition in Federal Trial Released by Ben Meiselas MeidasTouch May 5, 2023
MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas plays and reports on portions of Donald Trump’s video deposition shown to the jury in the E Jean Carroll federal trial.
Transcript
[Ben Meiselas] I'm Ben Meiselas from the Meidas touch Network as the E Gene Carroll case against Donald Trump reaches its conclusion with closing arguments in the federal trial set to take place on Monday, the court is now releasing exhibits that were shown to the jury. These exhibits were previously not accessible to the public. I want to talk about that with you, and specifically one of these exhibits included the videotaped deposition of Donald Trump during this case. And now we previously showed you the deposition transcripts of Donald Trump that were placed in various filings in this case, but we haven't yet shown you, we haven't yet seen, until now, the video deposition of Donald Trump. And they are far more devastating to watch than just simply reading these transcripts. So I want to show you some of the key portion of the videotape deposition of Donald Trump that have now been made public. The first clip I want to show you from the video deposition of Donald Trump and E Gene Carroll's case involves the line of questioning where Donald Trump is shown a photograph from a few decades ago where E Gene Carroll, her husband John Johnson, and Donald Trump's first wife Ivana, are all talking with each other. Donald Trump is shown the photograph, and he thinks that E Gene Carroll is his second wife, Marla Maple.=s. And he has to be corrected by Alina Habba, who interjects inappropriately, and improperly, to coach the witness, to say "No, no, that's not Marla Maples, that's E. Gene Carroll. So I want to show you that video deposition portion now. But here's the photo, just so you are looking at it. You see Ivana, Donald Trump's first wife on the bottom right. You see John Johnson, E. Gene Carroll's former husband there. And then you see E Gene Carroll within the eyesight of Donald Trump. So now let me play you this portion of the video deposition of Trump. Play this clip.
[Donald Trump] I think so, yes.
[Roberta Kaplan] And do you recall when you first saw this photo?
[Donald Trump] At some point during the process I saw it. That's, uh, I guess her husband, John Johnson, who was an anchor for ABC. Nice guy, I thought. I mean, I don't know him, but I thought he was pretty good at what he did. Um, I don't even know who the woman -- let's say I don't know who -- It's Marla.
[Roberta Kaplan] Did you say Marla's in this photo?
[Donald Trump] That's Marla, yeah. That's my wife?
[Roberta Kaplan] Which one woman are you pointing to?
[Alina Habba] No, that's Carroll.
[Donald Trump] Oh, I see.
[Roberta Kaplan] The person you just pointed to was E. Jean Carroll.
[Alina Habba] That's your wife.
[Roberta Kaplan] And the person -- the woman on your right was?
[Donald Trump] I don't know. This was the picture. I assume that's John Johnson.
[Alina Habba] That's Carroll.
[Donald Trump] That's Carroll? Because -- It's very blurry.
[Roberta Kaplan] No, in your June 21 statement, which is -- in your June 21 statement, which is DJT 20 --
[Ben Meiselas] Yeah, so when you see that portion of the video deposition of Trump, I mean, it's far more devastating to watch him kind of struggle with it and to see him say, "Oh, that's, that's Marla. That's Marla Maples." And then you see Alina Habba, who very inappropriately tries to coach him and says, "No, no, that's not Marla, that's E. Jean Carroll." And Donald Trump even, when he's told that, is so surprised, and so shocked that that is E Jean Carroll, and the jury got to see exactly what you just saw right there. I want to show you another portion of the video deposition that's been released where Trump defends his comments from the Access Hollywood tape. And Trump says -- well, I'll play it for you, but Trump says, "Historically it is true that famous people can get away with doing, or famous men can get away with doing anything they want with women." Here, play this clip.
[Roberta Kaplan] And you say it again. This has become very famous, in this video, "I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the [Pussy]. You could do anything." That's what you said, correct?
[Donald Trump] Well historically that's true with stars.
[Roberta Kaplan] It's true with stars that they can grab women by the [Pussy]?
[Donald Trump] Well, that's, what it's -- if you look over the last million years, I guess, that's been largely true. Not always, but largely true, unfortunately , or fortunately.
[Roberta Kaplan] And you consider yourself to be a star?
[Donald Trump] I think you can say that, yeah.
[Ben Meiselas] I'm going to show you another portion now of the video deposition of Donald Trump in the E Jean Carroll case where he says that Jessica Leeds, who accused him of groping her on an airplane, would not be his quote, "First Choice." And he then says to E Jean Carroll's lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, that Roberta Kaplan would not be a choice of his either. I mean, totally disgusting. Play this clip.
[Donald Trump] "I was with Donald Trump in 1980." Nothing changes. "I was sitting with him on an airplane. And he went after me on the plane." Yeah, I'm gonna go after. [Raises hands and throws them back down] Believe me, she would not be my first choice, that I can tell you. [Applause] Man! You don't know. That would not be my first choice.
[Roberta Kaplan] When you said in that video that Ms. Leeds would not be your first choice, you were referring to her physical looks, correct?
[Donald Trump] Just the overall. Not -- I looked at her. I see her. I hear what she says. Whatever. You wouldn't be a choice of mine, either, to be honest with you. I hope you're not insulted. I would not, under any circumstances have any interest in you. I'm being, I'm honest when I say it. She, I would not have any interest in.
[Ben Meiselas] So I want you to put yourself in the shoes of a jury who are watching what you just saw, who are seeing the empty chair because Donald Trump has not showed up to the trial at all. Instead, remember, Donald Trump fled to Scotland and Ireland. The jury's heard the compelling testimony of E. Jean Carroll. They've heard the compelling testimony of other victims who also experienced this heinous, heinous and disgusting conduct of Donald Trump. They've heard from corroborating witnesses who said E Jean Carroll called them shortly after she was attacked by Donald Trump. They've heard from experts. They've heard from people who have worked at Bergdorf Goodman. They've heard all of this compelling testimony, and there's an empty chair there, Donald Trump not being called as a witness. Donald Trump not even showing up at the trial. And then they're seeing those portions of the video deposition. The jury is not seeing this clip I'm about to show you right now, but you'll recall that when Donald Trump was in Ireland, he told the Press there that he had to stop playing golf. He was the middle of his golf game, and then he told the press that he had to leave, because he was going to show up in the federal courthouse to confront E. Jean Carroll, which is a total lie. So I want to play for you this portion of the video, but then I want to talk to you about what went down in the courthouse as well when Donald Trump's lawyer, Joe Tacopina, had to explain to the judge what Donald Trump was trying to say there when Tacopina was had already told the judge Donald Trump was not going to testify. But first, play this clip of Donald Trump .
[Donald Trump] So that I have to leave Ireland, and I have to leave Scotland, where I have great properties -- I have to leave early -- I don't have to, but I choose to.
[Reporter] Will you attend the trial, Mr President?
[Donald Trump] I'm probably going to attend it. It's a disgrace that it's allowed to happen. It's a false accusation against a rich guy. Or in my case, against a famous, rich, and political person, that's leading the polls by 40 points. And I have to go back for a woman that made a false accusation about me. And I have a judge who's extremely hostile. And I'm going to go back, and I'm going to confront this. This woman is a disgrace. And it shouldn't be allowed to happen in our country.
[Ben Meiselas] So here's the reporting from Adam Klasfeld of Law and Crime news. And he basically says at a sidebar -- this is what Joe Tacopina and judge Lewis Kaplan, the federal judge presiding over this case, talked about. And by the way, this is in the transcript. The jury didn't see this. In a sidebar, the jury doesn't see what's um going on. I mean, they can see, perhaps, the lawyers having a conversation with the judge, but they don't get to hear what's taking place. But this is what's actually in the transcript. After Donald Trump said what you just heard him say in Ireland, Tacopina told the judge, "I know you understand what I am dealing with." And then he said, "but Trump is not testifying. But I know you understand what I am dealing with. Then the judge said to Tacopina, "I'm not implying dishonesty on your part, but I just heard what Donald Trump had said." Judge Kaplan went on to say, "I have issues too, which is to run this trial fairly and appropriately, not to waste the jury's time or anybody else's, this time, and to make sure both sides Mr Tacopina, including your client, have a fully fair trial." And then Tacopina says, "I hear you, but I am going to rest. I'm telling you right now I'm going to rest," meaning he's going he's not putting on a case. He's not calling Donald Trump as a witness. And then Tacopina said, "As an officer of the court, I am telling you that he is not going to testify." And then Judge Kaplan said, "I hear you saying that, but things in life change." And he said, "I'm absolutely committed in this case, as in every case, to ensure to the best of my ability that every party has an opportunity to pursue or defend against the claim asserted by, or against, a party, as I'm sure Mr Tacopina you are aware, and probably everybody in this courtroom is aware, there have been news reports out of the British Islands -- I guess that they're still called that -- all day attributing to Mr Trump various statements with respect to his possible presence here before this trial ends. I won't attempt to summarize them any further, or comment in any way on the substance, but I have taken the precautions I have just taken in light of those statements. And the precautions that he's saying is, I'm going to give Donald Trump until Sunday at 5 pm to let me know if he's going to testify or not. Because one of the things that Judge Kaplan doesn't want, and he astutely knows that this is what Donald Trump is trying to set everybody up for, is Donald Trump's going to say, "Oh, I wanted to testify, but the judge didn't give me an opportunity. You saw what I said in Ireland. I flew all the way back, and then the case ended. And I didn't get to testify. I wanted to be able to testify." So Judge Kaplan, very smartly saying, "I hear you saying that, but we'll give him a few days, the jury's going to come back on Monday anyway. We're ahead of schedule. If he wants to testify he can testify. But let me know by Sunday." And again Tacopina says, "he's not testifying, he's not testifying." But the judge said, "I hear you, but uh I don't want him to ever kind of complain and whine that he didn't get a fair shot here." So exposing Donald Trump as the coward that he is. But you see in the depositions right there. You see in the video depositions how Donald Trump acts and behaves. That's not strength at all. I mean, that is a delusional, deranged coward. I'm Ben Meiselas from the Meidas touch Network