“War on women”: Legal experts say Trump lawyer’s cross-examination of E. Jean Carroll “fell flat”

Former President Donald Trump’s strategy in the E. Jean Carroll trial is not likely to garner him any sympathy from the jury set to decide how much he owes the defamed writer he was found liable for sexually abusing in the 1990s, legal experts say.

Trump lawyer Alina Habba’s second day of cross-examination on Thursday focused on whether Carroll had actually benefited from the attention of her rape allegation against the former president and his subsequent attacks — which Carroll said prompted a torrent of hateful messages and threats. Habba questioned Carroll about how much money she subsequently earned, praise she received from celebrities and even the number of Substack followers she had.

“Yes, I’m more well-known, and I’m hated by a lot more people,” Carroll told the jury.

Habba asked if Carroll’s social status had been elevated by the allegation.

“No, my status was lowered. I’m partaking in this trial to bring my old reputation and status back,” Carroll said.

“So you sued Donald Trump to bring your old reputation back?” Habba asked.

“Yeah,” Carroll said.

New York University law professor Andrew Weissmann, a former federal prosecutor who served on special counsel Bob Mueller’s team, tweeted after attending the trial that Trump’s defense in the case amounts to a “war on women.”

“The Trump defense appears to be Carroll is to blame, since by going public with the sexual assault claim, Trump had to defame her and her reputation suffered only because of her decision to report the assault,” he tweeted.

MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin, who also attended the trial, acknowledged that Carroll’s income is now higher than it was in 2019 and she is “celebrated” in some circles but “the attempt to prove the backlash to Carroll’s account predated Trump’s attack fell flat, in large part because the tweets Habba showed were qualitatively different than the violent threats & accusations of paid political work that began with Trump’s 6/21/19 attack.”

“And those threats, as Carroll powerfully testified yesterday and today, have never stopped, ending her world as she knew it. Even beyond the threats, she maintained, more people know her today, but she is also reviled as a liar, a wack job, and a partisan operative,” Rubin wrote on X/Twitter. “What’s more, Habba wanted the jury to doubt Carroll’s credibility because she has (gasp!) written about sex openly and with humor. She’s even written about ‘dominat[ing] men’ and jokingly asked what women should do about the problem of their partner’s penises.

“That a then-septuagenarian advice columnist could say the word penis without blushing and discuss the importance of communication in sexual relationships doesn’t mean she was or is nutty or slutty,” Rubin added. “It means she’s human—and capable of having her considerable reputation sullied.”

MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski called the cross-examination of Carroll “sick.”

"Through this trial, you really are reminded what a vile, disgusting person Donald Trump is," she said Friday. "You watch the deposition with E. Jean Carroll's attorney and how vile and disgusting he is in that deposition – what he thinks about women, how he views them as sort of objects, sex toys, literally so unbelievably misogynistic and rude, that you wouldn't have this person at your dinner table. You would not let your kids act this way, you would not want anybody in your life to act this way.”

MSNBC legal analyst Katie Phang wrote that allowing Habba and Trump to “grandstand and waste time is a disservice to the jurors” and “denigrates the entire proceeding.”

“Habba’s trial skills incompetence is also causing unnecessary disruptions,” Phang argued in an op-ed. “As she appears not to know how to defend her client or attack Carroll’s case, Habba creates the need for objections by opposing counsel, as well as even the judge, to protect the record for purposes of appeal. She also creates several delays as issues that are usually handled with aplomb and skill by more experienced trial lawyers have to be addressed either at sidebar or outside the presence of the jury. All of this results in a prolonged and wholly unnecessary trial experience for jurors who have been instructed to remain anonymous out of concerns for their physical safety.”

CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen predicted that E. Jean Carroll’s “powerful” testimony combined with Trump’s “rude demeanor & asides” suggest that a “big damages award” is likely coming.

After Carroll’s testimony, expert witness Ashlee Humphreys, a professor of marketing and communications at Northwestern University, testified that the cost to repair Carroll’s reputation after Trump’s attacks would be between $7.3 million and $12.1 million.

Carroll is seeking at least $10 million in compensatory damages and an unspecified amount in punitive damages.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Humphreys testified that the “damage was severe to [Carroll’s] reputation as a journalist, and the costs to repair it were considerable.”

Trump has continued to fire off attacks on Carroll on Truth Social throughout the trial. Carroll attorney Shawn Crowley on Tuesday pleaded for the jury to hit Trump with a high penalty for his ongoing attacks.

"How much money will it take to make him stop?" she told jurors. "Because he hasn't stopped. Ms. Carroll had taken on the most powerful man on Earth, and she won. And even that didn't stop him.

"It's time to make him pay dearly for what he's done," Crowley added. "Make him pay enough to finally stop him."