E. Jean Carroll accused former President Donald Trump of rape and he repeatedly denied the allegations.
Former President Donald Trump ordered to pay $83.3 million in damages for defamation
Trump stormed out of court during closing arguments, but his attorney Roberta Kaplan told the jury that Trump had spent the entire trial continuing to engage in defamation against Carroll.
On January 26, 2024, a Manhattan jury ordered former President Donald Trump to pay E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million in damages for defamation after he repeatedly denied her rape allegations and accused her of making them up.
Trump stormed out of court during closing arguments in the trial, but his attorney Roberta Kaplan told the jury that Trump had spent the entire trial continuing to engage in defamation against Carroll. Kaplan admonished Trump for his tardiness and threatened to place him in jail after he objected to her decision not to allow certain tweets she wanted displayed during closing arguments.
Trump's attorney Alina Habba also faced criticism from the judge for making loud comments during Carroll's testimony. The jury ultimately found that Trump had suffered considerable damages as a result of Carroll's attacks on him and ordered that he pay her $83.3 million.
Trump stormed out of court during closing arguments in the E. Jean Carroll damages trial
Carroll's attorney Roberta Kaplan told the jury that Trump spent the entire trial continuing to engage in defamation against her client
Kaplan admonished Trump for his tardiness and threatened to place him in jail after he objected to her decision not to allow certain tweets she wanted displayed during closing arguments
Trump's attorney Alina Habba also faced criticism from the judge for making loud comments during Carroll's testimony
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(95%)
The article is highly deceptive. The author Donald Trump repeatedly calls E Jean Carroll's sexual abuse allegations against him a 'con job', which implies that they are false and not based on factual evidence. He also denies the allegations outright, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several fallacies. Firstly, there is an appeal to authority when the attorney for E. Jean Carroll states that Donald Trump 'continuing to engage in defamation' against her client (EXAMPLE). Secondly, there is a dichotomous depiction of Donald Trump as thinking he can treat Ms. Carroll however he wants without consequences (EXAMPLE). Thirdly, the attorney for E. Jean Carroll uses inflammatory rhetoric when stating that Donald Trump 'can't attack her just because he feels like it' (EXAMPLE). Lastly, there is an informal fallacy of overgeneralization when the attorney for E. Jean Carroll states that Donald Trump doesn't care about the law or truth but does care about money (EXAMPLE).
continuing to engage in defamation
thinks he can treat Ms. Carroll how he wants and will suffer no consequences.
can't attack her just because he feels like it,
'He doesn’t care about the law or truth but does care about money'
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is Donald Trump and he has a history of making false statements. In this case, his attorney was telling jurors that Trump spent the entire trial continuing to engage in defamation against Carroll by calling her sexual abuse allegations against him a 'con job'. The lawyer also made an insulting comment about Carroll's character.
In her argument, Roberta Kaplan urged the jury to hit him with a massive punitive damages award to stop him from continuing to defame Carroll.
The lawyer also made an insulting comment about Carroll's character.
Trump has repeatedly offered similar values in his own defense in his New York civil fraud trial, where New York Attorney General Letitia James has sought to prove he inflated his net worth and the value of his assets.
Former President Donald Trump was found guilty of defamation by a jury and ordered to pay E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million in damages.
Trump stormed out of court during closing arguments in the E. Jean Carroll damages trial
Carroll's attorney Roberta Kaplan told the jury that Trump spent the entire trial continuing to engage in defamation against her client
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(10%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Trump's team will immediately appeal the verdict but does not provide any evidence to support this claim. Secondly, the author quotes E. Jean Carroll as saying she was hugged by Alina Habba outside of court and then states that Trump did not attend court in person. However, it is clear from other sources that Trump attended court in person on several occasions during the trial.
The article claims that Trump's team will immediately appeal the verdict but does not provide any evidence to support this claim.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an example of a false dilemma fallacy. The author presents the jury's verdict as if it is the only option available to Trump and his legal team, when in reality there are other options such as appealing or accepting the decision.
>From CNN's Rob Frehse Alina Habba, Donald Trump's attorney, speaks outside the courthouse after the verdict on Friday. Brendan McDermid/Reuters<br>Donald Trump's legal team will "immediately appeal" $83.3 million verdict, lawyer says From CNN's Rob Frehse Alina Habba, Donald Trump's attorney, speaks outside the courthouse after the verdict on Friday.
>Trump was not in the courtroom<br>After adjourning, CNN producer Lauren del Valle heard an audible gasp that sounded like a sob as she hugged her attorneys
The instructions were read and Trump sat back in his chair for an extended period. He stretched his back for a second.
Habba was heated during her arguments <br>so close to the mic, and so loud that her voice was crackling through the sound system.
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is biased towards Donald Trump. The language used in the article repeatedly refers to E. Jean Carroll's allegations as 'defamatory statements', which implies that they are false and baseless, despite evidence suggesting otherwise.
> From CNN's Kate Sullivan
> Former President Donald Trump on Friday blasted the verdict reached by a jury ordering him to pay E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million in defamation damages and said he would appeal the decision.
> Judge Lewis Kaplan thanked the jury for their service after the verdict was read.
> My advice to you is that you never disclose that you were on this jury, and I wont say anything more about it,⋃ he added.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author of the article has a conflict of interest on several topics related to the trial. The author is part of CNN which has previously reported on Trump and E. Jean Carroll's relationship, potentially creating bias in their coverage.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Trump as they are reporting for CNN which is known to have a liberal bias and may be biased against Trump.
Trump stormed out of court during closing arguments in the E. Jean Carroll damages trial
Carroll's attorney Roberta Kaplan told the jury that Trump spent the entire trial continuing to engage in defamation against her client
Kaplan admonished Trump for his tardiness and threatened to place him in jail after he objected to her decision not to allow certain tweets she wanted displayed during closing arguments
Trump's attorney Alina Habba also faced criticism from the judge for making loud comments during Carroll's testimony
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(0%)
The article is highly deceptive. The author of the video does not disclose their sources and makes a false statement about E Jean Carroll's verdict on Trump's campaign.
>E Jean Carroll has accused Donald Trump of sexual assault in a civil lawsuit, but her case was dismissed by a jury last week. The judge ruled that the evidence presented did not meet the burden of proof for sexual misconduct.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that E. Jean Carroll's verdict on Trump's campaign is significant without providing any evidence or context for why it should be considered so.
> The author states that E. Jean Carroll's verdict on Trump's campaign is significant, but does not provide any evidence or context for why it should be considered so.
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards the Trump campaign. The author uses language that dehumanizes E Jean Carroll and her accusations against Donald Trump. They also use quotes from a Republican strategist to support their argument without providing any counter-arguments or evidence for the other side.
>E Jean Carroll is not credible, she’s a liar.<br>The author uses language that dehumanizes E Jean Carroll and her accusations against Donald Trump. They also use quotes from a Republican strategist to support their argument without providing any counter-arguments or evidence for the other side.
The article does not provide any context about the trial, only stating that it was found in favor of Trump.
Trump stormed out of court during closing arguments in the E. Jean Carroll damages trial
Carroll's attorney Roberta Kaplan told the jury that Trump spent the entire trial continuing to engage in defamation against her client
Kaplan admonished Trump for his tardiness and threatened to place him in jail after he objected to her decision not to allow certain tweets she wanted displayed during closing arguments
Trump's attorney Alina Habba also faced criticism from the judge for making loud comments during Carroll's testimony
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author's use of sensationalism by stating that Trump has been ordered to pay $83.3 million in damages for defamation creates a false sense of urgency and importance around the case.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the jury ordered Trump to pay damages for defamation without providing any evidence of the verdict or its basis.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains multiple examples of bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes E. Jean Carroll by describing her as a 'well-regarded advice columnist for Elle magazine' who was 'attacked on Twitter and Facebook'. This implies that she is not deserving of respect or sympathy, despite the fact that she has accused Donald Trump of rape. The author also uses language that demonizes Trump by describing him as someone who persists in attacking Carroll even after leaving office, and who used court appearances to reach voters rather than focusing on the trial itself. This implies that he is not taking the accusations seriously or respecting due process.
The author describes E. Jean Carroll as a 'well-regarded advice columnist for Elle magazine' who was 'attacked on Twitter and Facebook'.
The author uses language that demonizes Trump by describing him as someone who persists in attacking Carroll even after leaving office, and who used court appearances to reach voters rather than focusing on the trial itself.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The authors of the article have a conflict of interest on the topic of defamation as they are reporting on a trial involving E. Jean Carroll's rape accusations against Donald J. Trump.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Trump and Carroll as they are reporting on a defamation trial involving these two individuals. The article also mentions E. Jean Carroll's rape accusation against Donald J. Trump which is another topic that the author may have a conflict of interest with.
The author reports on the ongoing legal battle between former President Donald J. Trump and journalist E. Jean Carroll, who has accused him of raping her in 1996 at his Manhattan apartment.
Former President Donald Trump was ordered to pay $83.3 million in damages by a jury for defamatory remarks he made about E. Jean Carroll.
Trump was found liable for sexual abuse regarding Carroll's rape claims and for defamation for other comments he made about her in 2022.
Accuracy
Carroll testified that Trump's comments caused her emotional distress and damaged her reputation.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Trump defamed Carroll by saying she had never met him and her book was false. However, this statement is not entirely accurate as it implies that Trump's statements were completely false when in fact they were partially true. The truth lies somewhere between these two extremes.
The author claims that Trump defamed Carroll by saying she had never met him and her book was false. However, this statement is not entirely accurate as it implies that Trump's statements were completely false when in fact they were partially true.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an example of a false dilemma fallacy. The author presents the jury's decision as if it were between compensatory damages and punitive damages when in fact there are other options available to them.
> Compensatory damages compensate a plaintiff for harm or other losses they have suffered. Punitive damages are awards intended to punish the defendant for their conduct.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains multiple examples of bias. The author uses inflammatory language such as 'absolutely ridiculous' and 'hoax' to describe the case against Trump. Additionally, the author quotes Carroll describing her emotional distress caused by Trump calling her a liar for three days and saying she was a fraud, which is an example of disproportionate number of quotations that reflect one side as extreme or unreasonable.
The article contains multiple examples of bias. The author uses inflammatory language such as 'absolutely ridiculous' and 'hoax' to describe the case against Trump.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article reports on the defamation trial of former President Donald Trump against E. Jean Carroll and her rape accusations. The author has a financial stake in this case as they are representing Alina Habba, one of Trump's lawyers who was severely curtailed during his testimony.
Alina Habba is representing Donald Trump in this case.
Kaplan threatened to kick Trump out of courtroom after he made comments within earshot of the jury.
Trump left courthouse shortly before verdict was read
