AOC's attack on Trump should get her sued into oblivion

Florida’s top law dog, Attorney General James Uthmeier, unloaded both barrels on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, [aka Alexandria Obviously-Comatose, aka Sandy from da Bronx] the Bronx’s favorite communist, for cheering on ICE protests aimed at derailing Trump’s mass deportation plans. AOC, never one to shy from a fight because she's too dumb to know that she will lose, stepped in it big time, tossing around the word "rapist" like it’s confetti at a parade, slamming Trump on X over the Jeffrey Epstein clusterfrack.

The far-left Latina, who’s been trading haymakers with Trump since she swapped bartending for congressional hearings, couldn’t resist stirring the pot on the Epstein case. The disgraced financier, who took the coward’s way out in a New York cell in 2019, left a trail of slime that still has politicos pointing fingers. 

Sandy, never missing a chance to grandstand, fired off this gem on X: "Wow who would have thought that electing a rapist would have complicated the release of the Epstein Files?" She was poking at the 2023 E. Jean Carroll civil trial, where a jury pinned Trump for sexual assault but stopped short of rape, so the fact is, it isn't rape.

Her critics pounced, screaming defamation faster than you can say "hey buddy, got a dollar?"

The Trump DOJ, meanwhile, insists there’s no secret Epstein client list, but that didn’t stop AOC from dropping the “R” bomb. Trump’s loyalists and legal eagles smelled blood. "The President should sue AOC into bankruptcy. I realize she’s trying to raise her profile but this is way way too far," legal analyst Phil Holloway, one of my favorite lawyers said on X.

Utah’s Sen. Mike Lee, not exactly a shrinking violet, also piled on: "Even under the ridiculously lenient standards of NY Times v. Sullivan, you’ve managed to incur defamation liability Wow." 

Oklahoma’s Sen. Markwayne Mullin took a different jab, snarking, "Why didn’t you guys release the Epstein files over the last 4 years? Maybe you were too busy covering for Joe Biden… or, could it have something to do with another former Democrat President?"

The X peanut gallery wasn’t done. Bill Mitchell, host of YourVoice America, laid into her: "Well we have grounds for a huge defamation suit here you idiot because Donald Trump has never been indicted for rape much less convicted." 

Another X user chimed in, "You realize your X account doesn't carry the same protections to defame people that you enjoy during congressional proceedings?"

The "rapist" jab hit a nerve, especially after ABC coughed up $15 million to Trump for George Stephanopoulos’ loose lips last year. Stephanopoulos, in a March 2024 cage match with another GOP Rep. Nancy Mace, he kept hammering that Trump was “liable for rape” in the Carroll case. "You’ve endorsed Donald Trump for president. Judges and two separate juries have found him liable for rape and for defaming the victim of that rape," Stephanopoulos said.

Stephanopoulos, a former Senior Advisor to President Bill Clinton for Policy and Strategy and Communications Director, used that term ten times, per Fox Digital. 

Trump, who’s always denied knowing Carroll, called her a liar chasing book sales. ABC and Stephanopoulos later ate crow, settling for $15 million and a public "regret" note: 

"Editor's Note: ABC News and George Stephanopoulos regret statements regarding President Donald J. Trump made during an interview by George Stephanopoulos with Rep. Nancy Mace on ABC’s This Week on March 10, 2024."

AOC’s low-information defenders on X argued she didn’t name Trump directly, so good luck with that defamation suit. But Trump ally Laura Loomer wasn’t buying it: "Donald Trump has not been criminally convicted of being a rapist. This is defamatory. And I hope you are sued by Trump for this the same way George Stephanopoulos was sued and forced to pay Trump $15 million dollars. I hope you have millions ready for Trump, Porky. @AOC."

Townhall’s Rachel Alexander cackled, "This is gonna be fun. AOC is so dumb she just called Trump a rapist, after ABC was forced to fork over $16 million in a settlement with Trump after George Stephanopoulos called him a rapist."

White House comms chief Steven Cheung threw the final punch: "AOC likes to play pretend like she’s from the block, but in reality she’s just a sad, miserable blockhead who is trying to over-compensate for her lack of self-confidence that has followed her for her entire life." 

Fox News Digital had reached out to AOC’s office Sunday for a response but got crickets, similar to the sound you can hear if you put your ear next to AOC's

So here we are, watching AOC swing for the fences and maybe whiffing into a legal buzzsaw. She’s got the lefty faithful cheering, but the Trump train’s ready to roll her into court. Just another day in the circus.

Gosh, I hope he goes through with a lawsuit and takes her to the cleaners.

Hey amazing readers! If you enjoy my content, please consider supporting Brain Flushings. A quick coffee donation via Buy Me a Coffee fuels late-night writing sessions and fresh ideas. Every sip—er, dollar—helps me create more of the posts you enjoy. Join the crew, toss in a coffee, and let’s keep the good vibes brewing! 

Trump sort of fires lawyers for E. Jean Carroll appeal

Former President Donald Trump lost the lawsuit brought by writer E. Jean Carroll to the tune of $83.3 million in damages for defamation in 2019 after Carroll accused him of rape and he basically said that she wasn't his type and denied it ever happened.

“I am in the process along with my team,” Mr. Trump wrote on his social media network Truth Social on Tuesday night, “of interviewing various law firms to represent me in an Appeal of one of the most ridiculous and unfair Witch Hunts our Country has ever seen.”

Ms. Carroll went after Trump's money twice. One lawsuit last May accused him of raping her inside Manhattan's Bergdorf Goodman in 1996. Number two came in October 2022 when she accused him of defaming her by calling her a "complete con job."

The jury found that Trump sexually assaulted her but did not rape her and awarded her $5 million.

The judge in January’s jury trial, Lewis Kaplan, however, ruled that sexual assault and rape are the same thing and that Trump did indeed rape Carroll.

In that same January trial, Carroll alleged Trump defamed her with statements he made in June 2019, while he was president, shortly after New York magazine published an excerpt from Carroll's book, in which she detailed her claims about the fateful encounter in a dressing room on Bergdorf Goodman’s lingerie floor. 

Trump denied the allegations, called them a “disgrace,” and said that she wasn't his “type,” effectively branding her an unattractive liar. But in all honesty, when you compare all the women that Trump may have boffed, it's obvious that Carroll isn't in the same league. 

Judge Lewis Kaplan

But in spite of that, the jury awarded Carroll a ridiculous $ 83.3 million for these damages.

Trump’s quite attractive lead defense attorney, Alina Habba, told reporters after the verdict that she was proud to represent the former president and would continue to do so in the appeal. “We did not win today,” she said last Friday, “but we will win.”

On Monday, Ms. Habba filed a letter to the judge, who presided over both cases, Lewis Kaplan. She cited a recent New York Post article, which claimed that the judge had a “mentor” relationship with Ms. Carroll’s lead lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, [no relation] when they briefly worked together at the same law firm in the 1990s. Thus, establishing a conflict of interest.

On Tuesday, Ms. Kaplan fired back with her own letter, calling the “mentor-mentee relationship” a “false allegation.”

“I have no recollection from that time period of ever interacting with Your Honor on a case, participating with Your Honor in a client or case-related meeting, or attending a court proceeding with Your Honor. In fact, I remember no direct interaction from that time period with Your Honor at all,” Ms. Kaplan claimed. She referenced the large size of the firm, and that the future judge was a lead litigator, while she was merely a junior associate. 

“While Ms. Habba ends her letter by characterizing this as a ‘troubling matter,’ … what is actually troubling is both the substance and timing of her false accusations of impropriety on the part of E. Jean Carroll’s counsel or the Court,” Ms. Kaplan added and reserved her right to seek sanctions.

Ms. Habba immediately walked back her allegation, explaining to the judge, in yet another court filing, that “the point of my January 29 letter was to verify whether the information contained in the New York Post article is accurate. Since Ms. Kaplan has now denied that there was ever a mentor-mentee relationship between herself and Your Honor, this issue has seemingly been resolved.”

Not a good look for Trump's defense team.

In a small footnote at the very bottom of the page, Ms. Habba wrote, “There are, however, various other issues relating to the Court’s conduct, including potential bias hostility towards defense counsel, that will be raised in post-trial motions and on appeal.”

After Mr. Trump posted that he and “his team” were “interviewing” firms for the appeal, media outlets began reporting that the former president was looking for a “new” lawyer.  

Ms. Habba, who led the defense in January’s courtroom debacle, was often criticized for her behavior in the courtroom by the judge. For example, she did not stand up when she addressed the judge; instead, she spoke to him while seated in her chair. She also did not know, or disregarded, the procedure the federal judge demanded for objections. Ms. Habba had to be reminded numerous times not to raise objections during cross examinations of witnesses her co-counsel, Michael Madaio, had initially questioned.

Not a good look again, for the Trump defense team.

Ms. Habba’s courtroom feud with the judge culminated on the last day of the trial. The defense attorney tried to introduce new evidence for her closing argument, even though both parties had rested their cases the day before. When Ms. Habba did not stop insisting, Judge Kaplan threatened to throw her in jail.

Even a worse look for the Trump defense team.

Habba was not the only one the judge reprimanded. One time the former President's longtime legal adviser, Boris Epshteyn, who also attended the hearings at the Federal Court, and would frequently pass notes to Ms. Habba, and stood up and tried to address the court. The judge reminded Epshteyn that without having taken the required bar exam for the district court, he was not licensed to argue in the courtroom.

I believe that Trump's track record for hiring and firing staff with whom he is displeased is also a problem.

But Trump wasn't wrong when he stood up to the judge after Kaplan ruled that Carroll's allegations of sexual assault was proven fact, and that he wouldn't allow Trump to defend himself against them on the stand.

Of course, when he muttered things the jury heard, or disobeyed Judge Kaplan's instructions, or when he walked out of the courtroom in the middle of his opponents closing arguments the same day the jury deliberated the verdict, wasn't a good look. Worse, the mainstream media reported that Ms. Habba did not control her client. But really now, who can control Trump?

 On Wednesday, Ms. Habba stated that she will remain to represent Trump.  “Hiring a separate firm to handle the appellate process is a normal step in a case of this nature,” she told ABC News, adding that her team will work with the new firm as the appeal proceeds.

Having an appellate specialist represent Trump makes sense, however, and it should be expected. It isn't that he fired Habba, but he's looking to win the appeal and is going about it the smart way.

Many legal observers agree that the various civil and criminal cases against Trump, may end up before the Supreme Court, three of whom Mr. Trump appointed.

On Tuesday, the former President wrote in his Truth Social post, “Any lawyer who takes a TRUMP CASE is either “CRAZY,” or a TRUE AMERICAN PATRIOT. I will make my decision soon!’”

Always more to come--always the showman.

Tweet

This is Wild! New information might save Trump $83.3 million in Carroll case

Okay, a jury awarded E. Jean Carroll a whopping $83.3 million in damages for alleged defamation by former President Trump that she claimed that he sexually assaulted her in the 1990s. If you get a gander of Carroll, picture her and Trump some 30 years younger, it seems highly doubtful that this ever happened. She is now, and was then, not the hottest chick by the coop's heater.

Although Trump's courtroom antics didn't help the case, the judge's bizarre orders to hamstring Trump's defense by not allowing him to present exculpatory evidence or defend himself, was disgusting.

But why did the judge do this? Why? Why oh why?

Because the judge, Lewis A. Kaplan, who presided over the case, has a major conflict of interest. [H/T The New York Post.]

Kaplan, the Judge, was once a "mentor" to Carroll's lawyer, Roberta Kaplan. While they aren't related, they worked together in the early 1990s at the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkin, Wharton &Garrison in Midtown Manhattan.

Trump's lawyer, Alina Habba, filed a letter on Monday:

If Your Honor truly worked with Ms. Kaplan in any capacity—especially if there was a mentor/mentee relationship—that fact should have been disclosed before any case involving these parties was permitted to proceed forward. This issue is particularly concerning since Plaintiff’s other lead counsel, Shawn Crowley, served as Your Honor’s law clerk, and we were previously advised that Your Honor co-officiated her wedding. 28 U.S.C. Section 455(a) states that “[a]ny… judge … of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Additionally, Habba pointed out that Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges is quite clear: a judge is required to "disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including" when the judge served as "a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served."

It seems clear that Judge Lewis A. Kaplan worked with Carroll's lawyer Roberta Kaplan and even officiated at her wedding. That sounds like a conflict of interests if there ever was one.

Furthermore, Carroll’s other lawyer was also a law clerk for Judge Lewis A. Kaplan. 

The fact that Judge Lewis Kaplan didn’t reveal these conflicts of interest is enough for him to face major consequences, but there is no doubt that he should have recused himself from the case.

Habba is putting him to task and calling on him to confirm or deny the associations. But as we know, lawyers shouldn't ask questions to which they don't already know the answers.

Here, without knowing more information (or having a specific factual denial by Your Honor that you had a mentor-mentee relationship with Ms. Kaplan), we are unable to flesh out our position concerning what specific relief should be requested, including, but not limited to, moving for new trials on the issues of liability and damages. Surely, however, this Court should provide defense counsel with all of the relevant facts. At a minimum, this information could certainly prove relevant to President Trump’s forthcoming Rule 59 motion.

Habba had been planning to appeal the decision due to Judge Kaplan being "overly hostile." Now it's looking even better for Trump because it seems obvious that something here stinks.

“We believe, and will argue on appeal, that the Court was overtly hostile towards defense counsel and President Trump, and displayed preferential treatment towards Plaintiff’s counsel,” Habba said. “Indeed, the rulings, tone, and demeanor of the bench raised significant concerns even before the New York Post’s investigative journalism unearthed these new facts."

At this point, it should be obvious that the legal system is weaponized against him and what this also should tell us is that this will ensure his supporters are going to get themselves to the polls on Election Day.

Tweet

Elle fires Trump accuser: she blames Trump not Elle

Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll tweeted earlier in the week that Elle magazine fired her back in December. She worked for the French-style fashion mag for more than 25 years as a regular contributor and doesn't blame them for her canning. Instead, she blames the one target blamed for more things than anyone else in the history of the United States: President Donald J. Trump.

Trump has been blamed for everything from the Coronavirus (COVID-19) to Russian election hacking, to every U.S. mass shooting, and even for Kim Jong un's smile. [He must have given North Korea something for Kim to smile about.]

In her post, Carroll indicated that she doesn’t blame the magazine; she blames Trump, of course, the man she publicly accused of raping her as claimed in her recent book.

Carroll tweeted:

Because Trump ridiculed my reputation, laughed at my looks, & dragged me through the mud, after 26 years, ELLE fired me. I don’t blame Elle. It was the great honor of my life writing “Ask E. Jean.” I blame @realdonaldtrump.https://t.co/vYIVL6yDIp

Personally, I believe that her accusation of rape and Trump's attack over that accusation, would give ELLE  a reason to not only keep her on and praise her "braveness," but to give her a substantial raise in pay. 

Does anyone believe that Elle would go after her for going after Trump? They would give her a medal if they could.

In a statement to The New York Times, [a former newspaper], a spokesperson for Hearst Magazines, the parent-company responsible for publishing Elle, claimed that the circumstances surrounding Carroll’s departure were unrelated to her rape allegation against the president. BECAUSE THEY WERE!

“E. Jean Carroll was long a beloved voice in the pages of Elle, the decision not to renew her contract was a business decision and had nothing to do with politics,” said the spokesperson, reports the news agency. 

They weren't defending Trump, they were telling the reason why they let her go.

While Hearst Magazines has publicly denied that national politics played a role in Carroll’s firing, the Times interviewed over a dozen of the publisher’s current and former employees, and was told that many of them believed/felt the advice columnist was terminated partly because of salary and internal politics but had zero evidence to support anything they said, much like the Times uses evidence to support what it says.

According to the Times, Ms. Carroll was paid over $5 per word, and was recently bumped down in a contract negotiation to 900-words per month, from 1800-words per month. The news agency also reports that some of the editors of the magazine were disappointed when Carroll decided to publish an excerpt from her upcoming book, “What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal,” in New York Magazine.

On June 24, 2019, New York Magazine published an excerpt of the book, which alleged that Donald Trump met Carroll in the 1990s inside of a luxury department store. During the encounter, Trump and Carroll allegedly laughed about trying on clothing, but soon afterward, Carroll claims that Trump raped her inside of a dressing room of a high-end department store.

Carroll filed a defamation suit against Trump for calling her a liar and said [correctly] that she was simply trying to sell books, saying: “Shame on those who make up false stories of assault to get publicity for themselves, or sell a book, or carry out a political agenda – like Julie Swetnick who falsely accused Justice Brett Kavanaugh. False accusations diminish the severity of real assault. All should condemn false accusations and any actual assault in the strongest possible terms.”

Do you believe President Trump did what Carroll has accused him of doing? Feel free to comment.

Please consider following this blog, and remember, every time you click on an ad, an angel gets its wings and a terrorist gets his virgins.

Tweet

Another woman claims Trump raped her but only for 3 minutes

Claims Trump raped her decades ago for 3 minutes

E. Jean Carroll, an Elle magazine advice columnist, finally came out and told her "story" about how President Donald Trump allegedly raped her in the mid-1990s for three minutes, give or take. She said that she would not press charges because the publicity for her book on the subject is good enough and added that it would be "disrespectful" to illegal alien women victimized by rape by the drug cartels that covertly transport them across the border in chicken trucks or whatever wheels are available.

"After all, the rape only lasted three minutes and it is worse for women raped by coyotes," she said, referring to cartel members driving chicken trucks hiding illegal alien women under the floor panels.

Carroll's book, "What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal," goes into detail about her accusation against the president, which he strongly denies.

“I would find it disrespectful to the women who are down on the border who are being raped around the clock down there without any protection,” Carroll told MSNBC host Comrade Lawrence O'Donnell when asked why she wouldn’t press charges.

“They’re young women, they tried to come into the county. As you know, they’re here by the thousands.”

And this makes sense . . . how?

"Mine was three minutes,” the alleged rape victim claimed of the alleged encounter. “I’m a mature woman, I can handle it, I can keep going, my life has gone on, I'm a happy woman.”

“But for the women down there, around the world … it just seems disrespectful,” she stammered, “it doesn't make sense to me."

So by her logic, it would be disrespectful of her to have reported the rape that took place when it happened because she has a crystal ball and knew that illegal alien women were going to be raped by coyotes in the 21st Century. Sure, makes perfect sense . . . if you're schizophrenic.

In her book, Carroll claims Trump raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in midtown Manhattan when she was 52 years old. Trump allegedly recognized Carroll and asked her to help him pick out lingerie for another woman; the duo then headed to the dressing room, which also makes perfect sense, since it was Trump who was going to try the lingerie on. Or perhaps Carroll was while Trump watched. 

Whatever.

"As we head to the dressing rooms, I’m laughing aloud and saying in my mind: I’m gonna make him put this thing on over his pants!" she claims, adding that “[t]he moment the dressing-room door is closed, he lunges at me, pushes me against the wall, hitting my head quite badly, and puts his mouth against my lips.”

I am really doubtful this woman is telling the truth and is willing now to disrespect rape victims at the border. I still think it might just have a wee bit to do with her book and the fact that the 2020 election is just down the road apiece.

“I am so shocked I shove him back and start laughing again,” the accusation continues. “He seizes both my arms and pushes me up against the wall a second time, and, as I become aware of how large he is, he holds me against the wall with his shoulder and jams his hand under my coat dress and pulls down my tights.”

Did you see the this in your mind? Are your eyes throwing up yet?

Carroll then explains that she kept “laughing,” which she says “astonished” her as Trump tickled her fancy.

“The next moment, still wearing correct business attire, shirt, tie, suit jacket, overcoat, he opens the overcoat, unzips his pants, and, forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his penis halfway — or completely, I’m not certain — inside me. It turns into a colossal struggle,” she alleges. “I am wearing a pair of sturdy black patent-leather four-inch Barneys high heels, which puts my height around six-one, and I try to stomp his foot. I try to push him off with my one free hand — for some reason, I keep holding my purse with the other — and I finally get a knee up high enough to push him out and off and I turn, open the door, and run out of the dressing room.”

Her memory of the event, at least in my estimation, is too vivid, too detailed. She even remembered the color of the bodysuit Trump allegedly chose--lilac. 

If it was true, I believe Carroll wouldn't have taken note nor remembered so much detail. An article in the Scientific American by Jim Hopper, an expert in the field of trauma, agrees that gaps in memory are quite common. He made this assertion in defense of Christine Blasey Ford's spotty testimony against Brett Kavanaugh, and now in this current case his words come back to bite the left and support the President.

Trump responded to the news of the accusation in a statement released on Friday. “I’ve never met this person in my life,” he said of Carroll. “She is trying to sell a new book — that should indicate her motivation. It should be sold in the fiction section.”

“False accusations diminish the severity of real assault,” the president added. “All should condemn false accusations and any actual assault in the strongest possible terms.”



Please consider following Brain Flushings and also visit the ads on the pages. Follow me on Parler.com, my handle is @Heyrobo, or on Twitter--my handle there is: @RobHoey
Thanks






Tweet