"Person, Woman, Man, Camera, TV"

 

The Washington Post's Aaron Blake checked out the Malignant Loser's deposition in the E. Jean Carroll case and spots another whopper:

Even for a former president known to tell the occasional whopper or 30,000, it’s hard to top this one.

Donald Trump’s October 2022 deposition in the E. Jean Carroll case was already notable for something he said about his second wife, Marla Maples. Trump infamously mistook Carroll for Maples in a photo he was shown, despite having suggested that because Carroll was “not my type” he would have had no romantic interest in her. Carroll has accused him of a decades-old rape.

But Trump’s ostensible fuzziness about that Maples era of his life apparently extended to elsewhere in the deposition, a transcript and video of which was released Friday.

At one point, Carroll’s attorney asked Trump a basic factual question: “Isn’t it true that you were seeing Ms. Maples before you were divorced from Ivana Trump?”

Trump responded, amazingly, “I don’t know,” in the sworn deposition. “It was towards the end of the marriage. So I don’t know, really. It could be a lapover, but I don’t really know.”

(It is not clear what a “lapover” means, but we’re guessing it refers to overlap.)

Trump was also asked more generally if he had been seeing women outside of his first marriage, and he responded, “I don’t know.”

So the man who engaged in one of the most famous and widely reported-upon affairs in American history apparently isn’t sure whether the timeline qualifies it as an extramarital affair.

Blake does some digging on the timeline of the Ivana/ Marla/ Malignant Loser saga and concludes, with the rest of the sentient world, that there was extramarital sex going on.  The Malignant Loser's own words suggest the same in an interview from the mid- 1990's:

He summarized: “My life was so great in so many ways. The business was so great. … I mean, a beautiful girlfriend, beautiful wife, beautiful everything. I mean, life was just a bowl of cherries.”

Apparently that bowl of cherries just isn’t that memorable a quarter-century later. What other explanation could there be?

He's a pathological liar?  A self-serving weasel?  A sociopathic narcissist?  A moron in cognitive decline?  All of them?  

Unless there's a fix in, the Carroll jury should soon add "rapist" to those descriptors.