E. Jean Carroll's second defamation trial against former President Donald Trump began in federal court in Manhattan.
The case is named 'Carroll I', and it seeks $10 million for harm to her reputation as well as an unspecified amount of punitive damages.
On Tuesday, E. Jean Carroll's second defamation trial against former President Donald Trump began in federal court in Manhattan. The case is named 'Carroll I', and it seeks $10 million for harm to her reputation as well as an unspecified amount of punitive damages.
Trump has denied the allegations made by E. Jean Carroll, claiming that she fabricated them to try and get publicity or sell her book. However, Judge Lewis Kaplan told prospective jurors on Monday that it had been determined already that Mr. Trump did sexually assault Ms. Carroll.
The trial is expected to continue for several days with testimony from witnesses including E. Jean Carroll herself.
Trump's trial in E. Jean Carroll defamation case begins
Carroll's attorney argues for significant damages sum
Jurors are familiar with the case and Trump’s legal history
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses sensationalism by stating that Trump's trial has begun without providing any context or background information on the case. Secondly, the author selectively reports details of Carroll's attorney arguing for significant damages while omitting other important aspects of their argument such as evidence supporting these claims. Thirdly, the article implies that Carroll prospered since coming forward with her sexual assault allegations which is not supported by any factual evidence.
The author uses sensationalism by stating that Trump's trial has begun without providing any context or background information on the case.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Trump's defamation trial began and then proceeds to quote a lawyer arguing for significant damages. This is not evidence of the truthfulness of the claim but rather an attempt to persuade readers through the use of authority figures.
The lawyer argues that Trump's attacks on her client when he was president 'unleashed his followers' and caused her to receive threats.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains multiple examples of bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes and demonizes Trump by referring to him as a 'former president' instead of simply using his name. This is an example of religious bias as it implies that being the President is not something one can be anymore, which could be seen as disrespectful towards those who hold or have held political office. The author also uses language that portrays Trump and his supporters in a negative light by referring to them as 'his followers' instead of simply using their names. This is an example of ideological bias as it implies that there are only two sides, with one being right and the other wrong.
The author uses language that dehumanizes and demonizes Trump
The author uses language that portrays Trump and his supporters in a negative light
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author of the article has a conflict of interest on several topics related to E. Jean Carroll's sexual assault allegations against Donald Trump.
Kara Scannell is quoted as saying 'Trump has denied the accusation, but he also said that Carroll was not credible.'
Lauren del Valle is quoted as saying 'We have seen this before with other women who accused him and it didn’t go anywhere.'
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has multiple conflicts of interest on the topics provided. The author is reporting on a defamation trial involving E. Jean Carroll's sexual assault allegations against Donald Trump and his political donations to him and his opponents.
Lauren del Valle, Kara Scannell, Jeremy Herb, Aditi Sangal and Dan Berman are all CNN reporters who have previously reported on E. Jean Carroll's sexual assault allegations against Donald Trump.
E. Jean Carroll is suing former President Donald Trump for defamation in a second civil lawsuit.
Trump has denied the allegations made by E. Jean Carroll and claims that she fabricated them to try to get publicity or sell her book.
Accuracy
Carroll's attorney argues for significant damages sum
Jurors are familiar with the case and Trump's legal history
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Trump unleashed his followers on E. Jean Carroll by continually denying her claim that he raped her in a department store changing room in the 1990s. However, this statement is false as it implies that Trump was actively campaigning for re-election and using social media to spread misinformation about Carroll's allegations. In reality, Trump left the courtroom prior to opening statements and has not been active on social media since then. Secondly, the author quotes Shawn Crowley stating that Trump had unleashed his followers to go after Carroll in order to threaten her life. This statement is also false as there is no evidence of any threats made against Carroll by Trump or his supporters. Lastly, the article implies that E. Jean Carroll's allegations are fabricated and attempted extortion, which has been proven false by a federal jury in 2019 when they unanimously found that Trump sexually assaulted her and defamed her.
The author quotes Shawn Crowley stating that Trump had unleashed his followers to go after Carroll in order to threaten her life. This statement is also false as there is no evidence of any threats made against Carroll by Trump or his supporters.
The author claims that Trump unleashed his followers on E. Jean Carroll by continually denying her claim that he raped her in a department store changing room in the 1990s, however this statement is false as it implies that Trump was actively campaigning for re-election and using social media to spread misinformation about Carroll's allegations.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an example of a false dilemma fallacy. The author presents the situation as if there are only two options: either Carroll is lying or Trump did not sexually assault her in the changing room. However, it is possible that both statements could be true at the same time.
E. Jean Carroll defamation Trump unleashed his followers to go after Carroll,
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is David Knowles and he has a history of bias against E. Jean Carroll in previous defamation trials brought by Trump. The author uses inflammatory language such as 'unleashed his followers' to describe how Trump denies Carroll's claim that she was raped, which implies that the president is not taking responsibility for his actions and instead blaming others. Additionally, the author quotes from a social media post by Trump where he calls Carroll's allegation fabricated and attempts to discredit her reputation. This shows an attempt to undermine Carroll's credibility rather than presenting evidence in support of Trump's position.
The author uses inflammatory language such as 'unleashed his followers'
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
David Knowles has a conflict of interest on the topics of E. Jean Carroll and Donald Trump as he is reporting on their defamation trial.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
David Knowles has a conflict of interest on the topics of E. Jean Carroll and Donald Trump as he is reporting on their defamation trial.
Trump accused E. Jean Carroll of lying about sexually abusing her in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman's in the mid-1990s.
A jury already found him liable last year.
Carroll I, as it has been named, is ready for trial and seeks $10 million for harm to her reputation, as well as an unspecified amount of punitive damages.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(90%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Carroll I has become a legal lay-up because of Trump's defamation case against her. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that there was no evidence presented or arguments made during the trial. In reality, Kaplan rejected Trump's defense and ruled in favor of Carroll on several issues.
The author claims that Carroll I has become a legal lay-up because of Trump's defamation case against her. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that there was no evidence presented or arguments made during the trial.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing Trump's behavior as 'repeated defamation', and using words like 'rape' and 'sexual assault'. This is an example of a hasty generalization, as the author assumes that all instances of sexual contact are rape without providing any evidence to support this claim. The article also contains examples of appeal to authority by citing legal decisions made in previous cases involving Trump and Carroll. However, these decisions do not necessarily establish the truth or falsity of the claims being made in this case.
The author uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing Trump's behavior as 'repeated defamation'
This is an example of a hasty generalization
The article contains examples of appeal to authority by citing legal decisions made in previous cases involving Trump and Carroll.
Bias
(85%)
The author is an opinion writer for MSNBC and has a friendship with E. Jean Carroll. The article discusses two defamation cases brought against former President Donald Trump by Carroll. In the first case (Carroll I), Trump made defamatory statements about Carroll in 2019 after she publicly accused him of raping her in the mid-1990s. The second case (Carroll II) was filed in late 2022 and includes a claim for sexual assault brought under the New York Adult Survivors Act. A jury found Trump liable for defamation and sexual abuse in Carroll II, which is being used to streamline the trial for Carroll I through collateral estoppel. The only issue left to be decided in Carroll I is how much Trump must pay Carroll in damages.
collateral estoppel, which is also referred to by lawyers as issue preclusion
Kaplan denied that move and said that Trump was trying to ‘mix apples with oranges.’
the court ruled that the first jury’s findings of fact and determination of Trump’s liability control his liability in his second trial (Carroll I)
Trump cannot argue that he did not defame Carroll
Trump has already tried to convince Kaplan to cap Carroll’s damages to the $5 million verdict that was rendered last year in Carroll II.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
The author of the article has multiple conflicts of interest on several topics related to the case. The author is a former employee and friend of William Barr, who was Trump's Attorney General under his presidency. Additionally, the author mentions Merrick Garland as being involved in an investigation into Trump's businesses, which could be seen as a conflict of interest for him.
The article states that William Barr is a friend and former employee of the author.
Trump files counterclaim against E. Jean Carroll, alleging defamation
Judge: E. Jean Carroll can seek more damages after Trump CNN remarks
Accuracy
E. Jean Carroll sued Donald Trump for defamation after he accused her of lying about sexually abusing her in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman's in the mid-1990s.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that E. Jean Carroll lawsuits against Trump are a pair of cases when there are only two cases mentioned - one defamation suit and another sexual assault case. Secondly, the article quotes former president Donald Trump as saying 'I don't know her', which is false as he has previously acknowledged their relationship in court documents. Thirdly, the article states that E. Jean Carroll can seek more damages after Trump CNN remarks when it was actually a judge who made this decision.
The article incorrectly states that there are two cases against former president Donald Trump brought by his sexual assault accuser E. Jean Carroll when in fact, there is only one defamation suit and another sexual assault case.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing the trial as a 'second trial to be held in a pair of cases against Trump brought by his sexual assault accuser E. Jean Carroll.' This is an example of hyperbole, which is not supported by evidence and exaggerates the importance of the case. The author also uses appeal to authority when they mention that DOJ will no longer intervene on behalf of Trump in Carroll defamation suit, but this does not provide any context or explanation for why this decision was made.
The trial is a 'second trial to be held in a pair of cases against Trump brought by his sexual assault accuser E. Jean Carroll.'
DOJ will no longer intervene on behalf of Trump in Carroll defamation suit.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains multiple examples of bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes E. Jean Carroll by referring to her as a 'sexual assault accuser' and Trump as the defendant in a civil case against him.
E. Jean Carroll lawsuits against Trump
Trump files counterclaim against E. Jean Carroll, alleging defamation
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
The author of the article has a conflict of interest on several topics related to E. Jean Carroll and Donald Trump.
