E Jean Carrolls successful civil claim against Donald Trump — Viva Frei insightfully speaks

© 2023 Peter Free


12 May 2023



A must see . . .


. . . for anyone with an interest in the United States' institutional decline.


Part of my abbreviated critique of Donald Trump's apparent failure to comprehend the danger that E. Jean Carroll's lawsuit posed him was based on the momentum that her evidence-lacking lawsuit would certainly gain in our anti-truth, weaponized-law times.


Canadian lawyer and YouTuber — Viva Frei — did, in my estimation, a brilliantly detailed dissection of the lack of a legally adequate evidentiary base for the damages-finding outcome of Carroll's case:



Viva Frei, Why the E. Jean Carroll vs. Donald Trump Jury Verdict is a Travesty of Justice!, YouTube (11 May 2023)



Carroll's favorable verdict — based on what Frei says is literally no evidence that would have been admissible in a competent court — and literally none that should have resulted in damages — substantiates his concluding statement that such a willful destruction of civil law standards harms society.


That, by the way, is why I questioned whether Trump's lawyers properly understood the ramifications of E. Jean Carroll's claim and the manner in which it would be advanced in our Destroy Truth Era.


My tentative suspicion, admittedly not having followed the courtroom drama, is that Trump's legal team may have underestimated what they were up against and (a) counted too much on how Law is supposed to work and (b) too little on how it might be twisted to work in this case.


Sometimes we attorneys feel protected by the rules, even when the alleged rules have been destroyed behind our backs.


I hold Trump, at least partially, responsible for the negative (with regard to him) outcome.


A man so frequently blamed — sometimes probably justly — for bad behavior should, by now, be aware that he will even be blamed for alleged behavior that never occurred.


The perceived ridiculousness of those asserted allegations should not constitute reason to downgrade one's all-encompassing preparations to destroy or settle them in and out of court.


Thus, in my view, as a matter of the prevailing Bad Boy odds — especially in seeking a second presidential term — Trump should have pulled out all stops in settling or squashing Carroll's feebly supported, anciently derived claim.


Yet, I do not have the impression that he did.


And I suspect that Trump's arrogantly narcissistic belief in his ability to dodge all negative things may be responsible for his perceptible lack of energy in fending off what he says is the untruth of Carroll's assertions.


Powerful people tend to believe that nobodies cannot sting them.


Carroll certainly proved Trump wrong in that regard.


This is why his videoed deposition behavior in this case, as shown in Politico's video clip of it, grated my legal sensibilities.


Never-ever act as if a plaintiff is below one's level of worthy attention. Plaintiffs can bite, no matter of absurd their claims seem to be.



The moral? — There are two, today . . .


As I wrote previously, Trump's innate arrogance and his unwillingness to thoroughly prepare fail his gargantuan ambitions. That's why he irritates me. Grandiose talk, but almost never any successfully implemented action.


Second, as Viva Frei suggests, the politically oriented weaponization of American law is exponentially increasing the rapidity of our nation's decline.


Consider, for example, how corrupt American institutions have become. On that topic, Paul Craig Roberts waxes appropriately acerbic:



Paul Craig Roberts, It Appears That the US Government Is Totally Corrupt, Unz Review (10 May 2023)



None of what is going on is good for us.


Evil people are at the helm. And no one with powerful Establishment-crushing angel wings is visibly nearby to assist in slowing this nation's cultural decline.