Carroll has contradicted herself by claiming she was too ugly to be raped, which is not supported by any physical evidence or testimony from other witnesses.
Former President Donald Trump ordered to pay $83.3 million in damages for defaming E. Jean Carroll
Trump's lawyers have renewed their request for a new trial and to present fresh evidence that they claim would exonerate Trump.
Former President Donald Trump has been ordered to pay $83.3 million in damages for defaming E. Jean Carroll, a former Elle magazine columnist who accused him of sexually abusing her in the dressing room of a Manhattan department store in 1996.
Trump's lawyers have renewed their request for a new trial and to present fresh evidence that they claim would exonerate Trump. They argue that Carroll has contradicted herself by claiming she was too ugly to be raped, which is not supported by any physical evidence or testimony from other witnesses.
The judge in the case, Lewis A. Kaplan, had previously rejected many of the arguments contained within Trump's post-trial motions and heavily restricted what Trump could tell jurors while on the witness stand due to finding him liable for defamation prior to trial.
Trump was only allowed to answer two questions during his testimony, one of which was objected to and stricken by the judge
Under the federal courts’ default rules, efforts to collect the sum from Trump could begin as soon as next week
Accuracy
Former President Trump demanded a new trial after being ordered to pay $83.3 million in E. Jean Carroll's defamation lawsuit
U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan heavily restricted what Trump could tell jurors while on the witness stand due to finding Trump liable for defamation prior to trial
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author implies that Trump's attorneys were successful in their post-trial motions when they weren't. The judge rejected many of their arguments and only allowed a limited trial on damages. Secondly, the author misrepresents what happened during Trump's testimony by stating that he was cut off at times while answering questions, but it is not clear from the article whether this was due to time constraints or because his answers were deemed irrelevant. Thirdly, the author implies that Trump's attorneys successfully restricted his testimony on mental state when they objected to a question about it and got an objection sustained by the judge. However, it is unclear what exactly happened during this exchange and whether Trump was able to address his mental state in relation to Carroll. Lastly, the author implies that Trump's lawyers are demanding a new trial because of these restrictions when they only objected to them but were not successful in their post-trial motions.
The article states that 'Trump’s attorneys successfully restricted the scope of Trump’s testimony to the point of prejudice by preventing him from addressing his mental state in relation to Carroll.' However, it is unclear what exactly happened during this exchange and whether Trump was able to address his mental state in relation to Carroll.
The article states that 'Trump lawyers Alina Habba and John Sauer wrote in Tuesday’s filing. That exchange, they argue, narrowed the scope of Trump’s testimony to the point of prejudice by preventing him from addressing his mental state in relation to Carroll.' However, it is unclear what exactly happened during this exchange and whether Trump was able to address his mental state in relation to Carroll.
The article states that 'Trump’s attorneys pointed to an exchange ahead of Trump’s scheduled testimony where the judge asserted he wanted to know “everything (Trump) is going to say.”' However, it is not clear from the article whether this was due to time constraints or because his answers were deemed irrelevant.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that former President Trump demanded a new trial after being ordered to pay $83.3 million in damages for defamation against E. Jean Carroll.
> The judge heavily restricted what Trump could tell jurors while on the witness stand.
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is biased towards Trump. The language used in the article portrays Trump as a victim and someone who has been wronged by the legal system. The author also uses loaded words such as 'restrictions' to describe Kaplan's actions which could be seen as an attempt to discredit him.
Former President Trump demanded he receive a new trial after a jury ordered him to pay $83.3 million in advice columnist E. Jean Carroll’s defamation lawsuit.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Zach Schonfeld and Ella Lee have a conflict of interest on the topic of Trump's defamation lawsuit against E. Jean Carroll as they are reporting for The Hill which is owned by News Corporation, a company that has been sued by Dominion Voting Systems for spreading false information about the 2020 election.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Zach Schonfeld and Ella Lee have a conflict of interest on the topics of Trump, E. Jean Carroll, defamation lawsuit, sexual assault accusation and U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan as they are reporting on a legal case involving these topics.
Donald Trump's lawyers said Tuesday that the ex-president deserves a new trial and a fresh chance to tell a jury why he berated writer E. Jean Carroll for her sex abuse claims against him after she revealed them five years ago
. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, appointed by former President Clinton, previously rejected many of the arguments contained within Trump's post-trial motions
Kaplan heavily restricted what Trump could tell jurors while on the witness stand due to finding Trump liable for defamation prior to trial
A New York jury ordered Trump to pay Carroll $83.3 million for defaming the writer in 2019 after she came forward with accusations Trump sexually assaulted her
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the lawyers made a renewed challenge to the $83.3 million awarded to Carroll in January and stated that Trump deserves a new trial and fresh chance to tell his side of the story.
> The lawyer's assertion is not supported by any evidence presented in court, making it an appeal to authority fallacy.
Bias
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Larry Neumeister has a conflict of interest on the topics of Trump and lawyers as he is reporting on the E. Jean Carroll case where Trump was found guilty and ordered to pay $83.3 million in damages.
. Trump was ordered to pay $83.3 million in damages for defaming E. Jean Carroll.
. Attorneys for Donald Trump have requested a delay of the $83 million judgment in E. Jean Carroll's defamation case against him, arguing that her lawyers contradicted themselves in a recent court filing.
. Defense lawyers Alina Habba and D. John Sauer renewed Trump's request to delay the judgment for 30 days after Judge Lewis Kaplan resolves post-trial motions or permits Trump to post a reduced bond of $24.475 million.
. Last month, Kaplan declined Trump's initial request for a reduced bond or delay, but asked Carroll's lawyers to reply.
. In her reply filing last week, E. Jean Carroll argued that the reasoning in Trump's request relief boils down to nothing more than 'trust me.'
. Defense lawyers responded by arguing that Carroll's concern about Trump's limited finances is contradictory and highlighted at trial that she emphasized his wealth.
. While Trump also owes $454 million in his civil fraud case, defense lawyers argued that judgment is unlikely to be upheld on appeal and he has many illiquid assets that could secure the judgment.
. E. Jean Carroll relies heavily on double-hearsay and speculative news articles alleging facts outside the record to imply Trump's financial situation is precarious, contradicting her own trial evidence.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the case as if Trump's lawyers are only asking for a delay of the judgment due to contradictory statements by Carroll's lawyers. However, they also ask for a reduced bond or post-trial motions which would effectively reduce the amount that Trump has to pay.
Trump in January was ordered to pay $83.3 million for defaming the ex-columnist.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Trump's lawyers have repeatedly requested a delay in the judgment and citing their arguments without providing any evidence or reasoning for why these requests should be granted. Additionally, the author quotes Carroll's attorneys arguing against Trump's request for relief, but does not provide any context or explanation of what they are referring to. This creates confusion and makes it difficult to understand the argument being made.
The article contains several fallacies.
Bias
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
ABC News has a conflict of interest on the topics of Trump and E. Jean Carroll as they are reporting on a defamation case involving these individuals.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
ABC News has a conflict of interest on the topics of Trump and E. Jean Carroll as they are involved in a defamation case with each other.
