Tag: liable

  • Jury finds Trump liable for sexual abuse in E. Jean Carroll case

    Jury finds Trump liable for sexual abuse in E. Jean Carroll case

    [ad_1]

    Carroll testified that Trump raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room after a chance encounter one evening in the spring of 1996. The jury found that Carroll did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Trump raped her. But the jury did find him liable for sexual abuse and for defamation. The defamation count arose from a statement Trump made last year in which he called Carroll’s allegation a “hoax.”

    “I filed this lawsuit against Donald Trump to clear my name and to get my life back,” Carroll said in a statement after the verdict. “Today, the world finally knows the truth. This victory is not just for me but for every woman who has suffered because she was not believed.”

    Her lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, said the verdict was a triumph for Carroll as well as “for democracy itself, and for all survivors everywhere.”

    “No one is above the law,” she said, “not even a former President of the United States.”

    In a social media post Tuesday, Trump called the verdict “a disgrace.” He added: “a continuation of the greatest witch hunt of all time!”

    Trump lawyer Joe Tacopina said Trump would appeal the verdict. “They rejected the rape claim and they always claimed this was a rape case, so it’s a little perplexing. But we move forward,” Tacopina said.

    He added he had spoken to the former president. “He’s firm in his belief, like many people are, that he cannot get a fair trial in New York City based on the jury pool. And I think one could argue that’s an accurate assessment based on what happened today.”

    Trump did not testify in court and did not even attend the trial. His legal team did not call any witnesses. The case hinged on the testimony of Carroll, who told the jury over the course of three days on the witness stand how her run-in with Trump at the luxury department store turned into a brutal attack in a dressing room in the store’s lingerie department.

    “I’m here because Donald Trump raped me,” Carroll, 79, told the jury. Referring to a book she wrote in which she detailed the alleged incident, she said: “And when I wrote about it, he said it didn’t happen. He lied and shattered my reputation. And I’m here to try to get my life back.”

    In vivid and, at times, tearful testimony, Carroll recounted how Trump shoved her against the dressing room wall, banging her head, and pinned her there with his body weight. She said he then pulled down her tights, inserted his fingers into her vagina and then penetrated her with his penis. The assault lasted a few minutes, she testified, before she managed to free herself and flee the store onto Fifth Avenue.

    She said she contemporaneously disclosed what had happened to two friends, both of whom testified on her behalf, but didn’t tell anyone else about it for more than two decades, when she went public with her account by publishing an excerpt of her book in New York Magazine in 2019.

    Asked if she had stayed quiet for so long because she was worried about how others would react to her story, she rejected that idea. “No, I knew how others would react,” she said. “Women who are raped are looked at as soiled goods. They’re looked at as less.”

    Though jurors never saw Trump in person, they did hear from him in the form of a videotaped deposition, footage from a presidential debate and campaign rallies, and the “Access Hollywood” tape, a recording from 2005 in which Trump, caught on a hot mic, boasted that when it comes to women, if you’re a star you can “grab them by the pussy.”

    In his deposition, Trump denied having raped Carroll or even knowing her, calling her allegation “the most ridiculous, disgusting story.”

    “It’s just made up,” he said.

    His lawyers, meanwhile, argued that Carroll’s testimony wasn’t credible, largely because Carroll couldn’t pinpoint certain pieces of information, including the precise date of the alleged attack. And they questioned other aspects, such as her claim that she didn’t recall seeing any other shoppers or sales attendants during the encounter at Bergdorf’s.

    Carroll’s attorneys leaned heavily on the “Access Hollywood” tape, arguing that it amounted to “a confession,” as one of them put it, that Trump had a habit of sexually assaulting women and that he relied on a playbook of sorts to do so. To bolster that argument, her attorneys called two other Trump accusers as witnesses: Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff.

    The nine-person jury delivered its unanimous – as required by law – verdict after an eight-day trial. Jurors in the case remained anonymous throughout the trial — even to Carroll, Trump and their lawyers — after U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered that their identities be kept secret due to “a very strong risk that jurors will fear harassment.”

    Though the statute of limitations had long expired on Carroll’s battery claim, she was able to sue Trump under a New York state law that opened a one-year window beginning in November 2022 during which people can sue their alleged abusers for sexual assault.

    For Carroll, the courtroom experience was bittersweet. Asked during her testimony whether she was glad she spoke out against Trump, she broke into tears.

    “I’ve regretted this about 100 times,” she said, pausing. “But in the end, being able to get my day in court, finally, is everything to me,” she said, her speech interrupted by crying. “So I’m happy.”

    [ad_2]
    #Jury #finds #Trump #liable #sexual #abuse #Jean #Carroll #case
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Justices skeptical of bid to make Twitter liable for terrorism

    Justices skeptical of bid to make Twitter liable for terrorism

    [ad_1]

    supreme court social media liability 78596

    “At a certain point, it becomes too attenuated to support aiding and abetting,” Justice Samuel Alito said.

    The case argued Wednesday — Twitter v. Taamneh — involved the death of a Jordanian man in an ISIS terrorist attack, and asks whether Twitter, Google and Facebook can be held liable under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act for allegedly aiding and abetting terrorists by sharing ISIS recruitment content on their platforms.

    It followed arguments on Tuesday in a separate but related case — Gonzalez v. Google — which asked whether the use of algorithms to recommend ISIS videos on Google’s YouTube is protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a law shielding internet companies from being liable for most third-party content they host.

    Some justices seemed to be persuaded that social media has played a role in supporting terrorist groups. Justice Elena Kagan noted that prosecutors have traditionally sought to target criminal enterprises by going after bankers and accountants who support them. She suggested Twitter’s services could be even more vital to terrorist groups like ISIS.

    “What’s the difference?” Kagan asked. “We’re used to thinking about banks as providing very important services to terrorists. Maybe we’re not so used to — but it seems to be true — that various kinds of social media platforms also provide very important services to terrorists and if you know that you’re providing a very important service to terrorists,” you could be liable, she added.

    Several justices said companies providing widely-available services to many customers should have more insulation from lawsuits than individuals or small businesses providing face-to-face services like accounting or banking, which often have requirements on verifying customer identities.

    However, the justices seemed to struggle with just how bespoke or hands-on a service has to be to make someone liable for involvement in related criminal activity, and whether the assistance needs to directly support the crime or can just be merely helpful.

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who served as a White House attorney for former President George W. Bush at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, seemed particularly wary about any ruling that could limit liability for a company providing valuable services to terrorist groups. He urged Edwin Kneedler not to take a stance that limits the government’s ability to go after financiers of terrorism who may not know about plans for a specific attack.

    “You’ve got to maintain a hard line there,” Kavanaugh said. “And in response to some of the hypotheticals, I’m not sure you’ve maintained the hard line.”

    But Kavanaugh said that charities and humanitarian groups also need a certain amount of confidence that their activities won’t lead to litigation, even if some people may criticize their work as being of some benefit to terrorists.

    “Moral complicity is different from legal liability,” said Kavanaugh. “There might be moral complicity without necessarily legal liability without fair notice.”

    Kneedler, arguing for the Biden administration, repeatedly warned the justices that allowing litigation against the tech companies over the efficacy of their efforts to remove terrorist-related content could degrade the social media platforms for everyone.

    “It’s an important service that we all benefit from,” Kneedler said, sounding quite pro-tech for an administration often highly critical of the platforms.

    Kneedler also warned that failing to require plaintiffs to show a clear linkage between the platforms and specific attacks would lead to an avalanche of lawsuits.

    “That would hold these defendants culpable in every terrorist attack,” he said.

    Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr partner Seth Waxman, representing Twitter, said the platform aggressively removes ISIS content. However, he said any foul-ups or inefficiency in that process can’t be enough to make the company legally liable for violence that may ensue.

    “The failure to do more to remove content in the context of a service that is generally and widely provided to anybody who complies with the policies … does not amount to the knowing provision of substantial assistance,” said Waxman, the solicitor general during the Clinton administration.

    Waxman also stressed that the company’s policy against terrorist content makes clear it is not trying to help ISIS.

    “Our state of mind is the opposite. This is negative intent. We are opposed to this,” Waxman said.

    [ad_2]
    #Justices #skeptical #bid #Twitter #liable #terrorism
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )