The Donald Trump School of Law

Trump's attempt to escape a trial in E. Jean Carroll case is denied https://t.co/xRKPn6oiqh

— Raw Story (@RawStory) March 28, 2023

The contrasts between Mr. Trump’s assertions in his Carroll I answer and his October 12 statement show that a reasonable juror could find that his statement had a different effect on a reader than his denials and affirmative defense in his answer," the judge wrote. "For one, 'a reasonable juror could find that [Mr.] Trump was complaining of a far broader and more corrosive conspiracy than anything that was at issue in Carroll I in October 2022,' including based on his statements that Ms. Carroll 'completely made up a story' that is a 'Hoax' and 'changed her story from beginning to end [(in an interview where she was promoting her book)]. .. to suit the purposes of CNN and And [erson] Cooper,' along with his comments about the judiciary and Ms. Carroll's counsel."

Let me explain: in order to grant summary judgment there can’t be any question of fact. A question of fact is one upon which reasonable minds can differ. Which is why the judge refers to a “reasonable juror’s” thinking in denying Trump’s motion. “[A] far broader and more corrosive conspiracy,” for example, is clearly a question of fact. Asserting a conspiracy is one thing; proving it is another.

Which is not the interesting part. The interesting part is the references to Trump’s pleadings (court documents asking for relief/denying the other party’s claims). “[A] far broader and more corrosive conspiracy,” for example (not to overlook the “comments about the judiciary” and plaintiff’s lawyers). No competent litigator would include such allegations in their pleading because they are literally without factual foundation (and comments about the judge or opposing counsel? It’s practically an ethics violation.). It’s like Trump’s assertion that Bragg had dropped the grand jury investigation. The only truth in either is Trump wished both were true. But you never take those claims to court; not if you know what you’re doing.

I keep saying Trump is not ready for criminal court. He’s clearly going to insist on presenting these kinds of defenses (he’s doing it already in a civil case!). His trials could actually be entertaining.

There was a recent story that Trump’s New York lawyers told him to expect to lose against Bragg (no doubt feeding his conviction he can’t get a fair trial in the city). They were right, but for the wrong reasons.