I spent most of the day at the Ambler Theater…I remarked to the ticket taker, that now knows me, “I should get a bed here”…I was there last night too…in the meanwhile, I went to Bed Bath and Beyond, their last day for their “coupons”…picked out a few things…what I went for was Brita filters…they don’t have them…and a woman at the beginning, gave me 5 coupons…I got in line and it was never ending…they only had two registers open…I couldn’t stay…put everything back and left…had to be at Ambler at 4:20…meanwhile, I hear trump is calling E. Jean Carroll a liar in a post in the last couple of days…the very thing she is suing him for…he just never learns, and he opts for not showing up to tell his side of the story…methinks he protests too much…trump tried to delay this suit…citing he was already in New York previously and needed a cooling off space…but the judge would have nothing of it…his future prospects of lawsuits seems the future would be worst…today the Judge rebukes trump…from The Guardian by Chris McGreal: “Judge rebukes Trump for ‘entirely inappropriate’ post before E Jean Carroll testimony: Lewis Kaplan condemns ex-president for calling civil rape trial ‘a made-up scam’ and Carroll’s lawyer a ‘political operative’: E Jean Carroll, the advice columnist suing Donald Trump for rape, testified on Wednesday in the civil trial of the former president for alleged battery and defamation.
“I’m here because Donald Trump raped me,” she said.
Before Carroll took the stand, however, the judge in the case, Lewis A Kaplan, rebuked Trump for an “entirely inappropriate” statement on his social media platform, Truth Social, shortly before proceedings began.
Kaplan warned the former president’s lawyers that such statements about the case could bring more legal problems upon himself.
Trump, who has not attended so far, called the case “a made-up scam”. He also called Carroll’s lawyer “a political operative” and alluded to a DNA issue Kaplan has ruled cannot be part of the case.
He also called Trump’s post “a public statement that, on the face of it, seems entirely inappropriate”.
The Trump attorney Joe Tacopina noted that jurors are told not to follow any news or online commentary about the case. But he said he would ask Trump “to refrain from any further posts about this case”.
“I hope you’re more successful,” Kaplan said, adding that Trump “may or may not be tampering with a new source of potential liability”.
The trial opened on Tuesday with Carroll’s lawyer, Shawn Crowley, telling the jury of three women and six men she was seeking “to clear her name, to pursue justice and to get her life back”.”…from NSNBC by Lisa Rubin: “How E. Jean Carroll camp’s opening statement went from compelling to can’t-look-away: The start of the Carroll v. Trump defamation and battery civil trial was unlike anything I’ve seen in a federal courthouse.: On Tuesday, I walked into the Daniel Patrick Moynihan federal courthouse in Manhattan, a gleaming marble tower where this lawyer-turned-journalist spent considerable time over the last 20 years — but never quite like this.
That’s because the opening statements in the civil trial for writer E. Jean Carroll’s defamation and battery lawsuit against Donald Trump were unlike anything I’ve seen in a federal courthouse. It was a searing, vivid account of a nearly 30-year-old alleged sexual assault that could easily devolve into a “he said/she said” but for intrepid lawyering, fortuitous photos and videos, and Trump’s own spigot of speech.
While legendary litigator Roberta Kaplan has been the face of Carroll’s case, there are several other, less visible lawyers on her team with serious trial chops. And Carroll began her case with one of them, a woman named Shawn Crowley, who not only spent several years as a prosecutor in the same courthouse, but also was a law clerk to Judge Lewis Kaplan, who is presiding over the trial.
Crowley started with the basic allegations: Trump sexually assaulted Carroll in the mid-1990s in a department store dressing room while on a shopping trip to find a gift for a woman Trump knew.
When Carroll confided in two friends shortly thereafter, they gave her opposite advice, Crowley alleged. One allegedly explained to Carroll that she had been raped and urged her to call the police. Days later, the other friend allegedly warned that Trump would “ruin her life and her career” if she spoke.
Carroll, born in 1943 and raised to “grin and bear it,” chose silence, Crowley alleged, until “silence became impossible” in the wake of The New York Times’ Harvey Weinstein reporting, which set in motion the #MeToo movement.
Having newly embarked on a book project about women’s experiences with men, Carroll was forced to re-examine her own life experiences and ultimately wrote not about others, but about herself. And she finally confronted a trauma long buried: the alleged assault by Trump, which she included in that book and in an excerpt published in June 2019 in New York magazine.
But after she came forward, Trump’s “explosive” response, a denial that claimed Carroll was “not my type” (or code for “she was too ugly to assault,” as Crowley put it), made her a target for online attacks and then unraveled her career as an advice columnist.
Crowley made clear that she was “proud to represent” Carroll and help clear her name. And while maintaining that the jury could hold Trump liable on the basis of Carroll’s testimony alone, she insisted this case is not a “he/said, she/said” because so many other witnesses can — and will — corroborate her account.
Those witnesses include the assistant manager and chief of operations at Bergdorf Goodman in the mid-90s, who Crowley said can confirm key details about the store and why no one saw Carroll and Trump on the night of the alleged assault; Carroll’s sister, who Crowley said can explain why, given their shared, rural Indianan upbringing, Carroll’s decades-long silence is unsurprising; two experts who are expected to opine on the psychological and reputational impact on Carroll; and of course, the two friends to whom Carroll revealed the alleged assault in real-time.
At all times, Crowley was calm but firm, insistent yet relatable. Her opening was like an invitation to the jury to examine the rings of a tree. At the center, there is Carroll’s own narrative. One ring beyond are all the people who say they can back up Carroll’s own account. And finally, she outlined the case’s outer-most ring: the testimony of two other women, Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff, who have alleged Trump sexually assaulted them too in 1979 and 2005 respectively. (Trump has vehemently denied the allegations.)
And that’s where Crowley’s opening went from compelling to can’t-look-away: She wove the stories of Carroll, Leeds and Stoynoff into “three women, one pattern,” all of which she said tracks Trump’s own statement on the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape. (The court has already ruled that Carroll can introduce that tape as evidence.)
Referencing that tape, Crowley continued, “He thought no one was listening,” but it was “not locker room talk.” Instead, she asserted, the tape describes exactly what Trump did to each of them: Forcibly kiss without consent, grab, grope, and “do anything” because he was a “star.”
And in each of the cases, Trump lied, denying the assault, Crowley said, before demeaning the accuser as “not his type.” The problem, of course, is that Carroll was exactly his type. How do we know, she asked? Because there is photographic proof that he met Carroll at an event in the late 1980s.
Crowley then put that photo up on a screen for all present to see, showing Carroll, now an elegant 79, in her mid-40s, all bouncy hair, shining eyes and gleaming teeth. And Crowley then revealed that at Trump’s deposition, the former president testified, under oath, that Carroll was Marla Maples, his second wife, who he has said was exactly his type.
Before she finished, Crowley reminded the jurors: This isn’t a criminal case. All they have to decide is whether he was lying in his October 2022 post on Truth Social, in which he called her story a “hoax and a lie,” and is it more likely than not that he assaulted her? And Crowley assured the jury that Carroll’s team would show them how the evidence supports only one conclusion: that Trump is liable for both defaming Carroll and assaulting her.
On Wednesday morning, Carroll’s team will start their case in earnest with witness testimony. Will they deliver what they’ve promised? And can their witnesses withstand the withering cross-examinations Trump lawyer Joe Tacopina committed to in his opening on Tuesday? (For more on Tacopina’s opening statement, check out my Twitter thread here.)
I’ll be in the courtroom for the action. Stay tuned.”…yes, stay tuned…trump seemed to be on his way to accountability, and comeuppance…
I raced to Ambler to see a documentary about Johannes Vermeer…”the Master of Light”…an exhibition at the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam got almost all of the Vermeer paintings known in the world together…the exhibition was sold out which runs from February 10 through June 4, 2023…probably the reason they made this documentary…from Illuminations:
“Johannes Vermeer documentary 24th February 2023
The Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam has pulled off the unthinkable, mounting an exhibition of almost all of Johannes Vermeer’s paintings. The exceptional nature of the show was not lost on art lovers, with every single ticket being sold out before opening. For those feeling they’ve missed out on this genuinely once in a life time opportunity, we would like to point you in the direction of our excellent film on Jan Vermeer.
In the film, Michael Gill delves into the master’s world and talks about the camera obscura and Vermeer’s interest in science and cartography. Together with experts, he explores Vermeer’s secrets of perspective, space, allegory and symbolic relationships in his works.
Very little is known about Vermeer himself. There are no diary entries, writing, or letters that have survived. Vermeer was hardly recognised during his lifetime, and cemented his outsider status when he married by converting to Catholicism in a mostly Protestant country. To paraphrase Heidegger, he lived, he painted, he died.
With only 34, possibly 35, paintings in existence, attempting, to assemble them all in one place has proved difficult. Due to their fragility and value, galleries have long been resistant to loaning the Dutch Master’s paintings. This exhibition pulls work that is owned by the National Gallery in London, the Louvre in Paris, Dublin’s National Gallery, with other works coming from as far a field as New York and Tokyo.
The exhibition a the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam runs from the 10th February – 4th June.”…the Rijksmuseum owns 3 Vermeers, I saw them in May of 2019 went I went to Amsterdam before meeting Candy and Ray in Paris…what a great trip that was…my hotel was right around the corner from the Rijksmuseum and the Van Gogh Museum…Amsterdam was my number one place to go…my dream come true…and Amsterdam did not disappoint…the Anne Frank House too…loved the documentary…they talked about each painting in the exhibition…”The work Girl with a Pearl Earring permanently resides in the Mauritshuis museum in The Hague.”
it was a beautiful day when I walked into the Ambler at 4:14…when I walked out at 6:15 it was raining…I crossed the street to the BBQ restaurant , The Lucky Well, to see if they had a burger…which they did…and it was delicious…they also had Allagash White on tap…I was a happy camper…walked back across the street to see Tokyo Story…a Japanese film from 1953, restored…from Wikipedia: “Tokyo Story (東京物語, Tōkyō Monogatari) is a 1953 Japanese drama film directed by Yasujirō Ozu and starring Chishū Ryū and Chieko Higashiyama about an aging couple who travel to Tokyo to visit their grown children. Upon release, it did not immediately gain international recognition and was considered “too Japanese” to be marketable by Japanese film exporters. It was screened in 1957 in London, where it won the inaugural Sutherland Trophy the following year, and received praise from U.S. film critics after a 1972 screening in New York City.
Tokyo Story is widely regarded as Ozu’s masterpiece and one of the greatest films in the history of cinema. It was voted the greatest film of all time in the 2012 edition of a poll of film directors by Sight & Sound magazine.”…the Plot from Wikipedia: “Retired couple Shūkichi and Tomi Hirayama live in Onomichi in western Japan with their daughter Kyōko, a primary school teacher. They have five adult children, four of whom are living. The couple travel to Tokyo to visit their son, daughter, and widowed daughter-in-law.”…all their children are too busy to deal with their parents…all except for the daughter-in-law…she takes off work to show they around Tokyo…feeds them and they stay at her humble home…she treats them with dignity and love, more so than their own “flesh and blood”…it was a pretty good film, slow paced but interesting, they was the children treated their parents…and in the end, the mother dies on her return home, the children gather again…”you can’t show your appreciation graveside”…The Plot: “
Retired couple Shūkichi and Tomi Hirayama live in Onomichi in western Japan with their daughter Kyōko, a primary school teacher. They have five adult children, four of whom are living. The couple travel to Tokyo to visit their son, daughter, and widowed daughter-in-law.
Their eldest son, Kōichi, is a doctor who runs a small clinic in Tokyo’s suburbs, and their eldest daughter, Shige, runs a hairdressing salon. Kōichi and Shige are both busy and do not have much time for their parents. Only their widowed daughter-in-law, Noriko, the wife of their middle son Shōji, who was missing in action and presumed dead during the Pacific War, goes out of her way to entertain them. She takes time from her busy office job to take Shūkichi and Tomi on a sightseeing tour of metropolitan Tokyo.
Feeling conflicted that they don’t have time to entertain them, Kōichi and Shige pay for their parents to stay at a hot spring spa at Atami but they return early because the nightlife there disturbs their sleep. Tomi also has an unexplained dizzy spell. Upon returning, a frustrated Shige explains that she sent them to Atami because she wanted to use their bedroom for a meeting; the elderly couple has to leave for the evening. Tomi goes to stay with Noriko, with whom she deepens their emotional bond, and advises her to remarry. Shūkichi, meanwhile, gets drunk with some old friends from Onomichi. The three men drunkenly ramble about their children and lives. A policeman brings Shūkichi and one of his friends to Shige’s salon. Shige is outraged that her father is lapsing into the alcoholic ways that overshadowed her childhood.
The couple remarks on how their children have changed, returning home earlier than planned, intending to see their younger son Keizō when the train stops in Osaka. However, Tomi suddenly becomes ill during the journey and they decide to disembark the train, staying until she feels better the next day. They return to Onomichi, and Tomi falls critically ill. Kōichi, Shige, and Noriko rush to Onomichi to see Tomi, who dies shortly afterwards. Keizō arrives too late, as he has been away on business.
After the funeral, Kōichi, Shige, and Keizō leave immediately; only Noriko remains. After they leave, Kyōko criticises her siblings over their selfishness toward their parents. She believes that Kōichi, Shige, and Keizō do not care how hard it will be for their father now that he has lost their mother. She is also upset at Shige for asking so quickly for Tomi’s clothes as keepsakes. Noriko responds that while she understands Kyōko’s disappointment, everyone has their own life and the growing chasm between parents and children is inevitable. She convinces Kyōko not to be too hard on her siblings because one day she will understand how hard it is to take time away from one’s own life.
After Kyōko leaves for school, Noriko informs her father-in-law that she must return to Tokyo that afternoon. Shūkichi tells her that she has treated them better than their own children despite not being a blood relation. Noriko protests that she is selfish and has not always thought about her missing husband, and Shūkichi credits her self-assessment to humility. He gives her a watch from the late Tomi as a memento. Noriko cries and confesses her loneliness; Shūkichi encourages her to remarry as soon as possible, wanting her to be happy. Noriko travels from Onomichi back to Tokyo, contemplating the watch, while Shūkichi remains behind, resigned to the solitude he must endure.”
it still was raining a little when I drive to Elissa to wrap her book that I helped her with for her granddaughter’s college graduation…she leaves tomorrow for Michigan…I will drive her to the airport…I wrapped the present…and came home…found a quarter today…and spoke to Linda, she called after having lunch with Sally and Pam…Sally’s birthday was the 25th…Happy Birthday Sally…
Art Salazar 