MICHAEL MEEROPOL / TRUMP / The war with Iran should not distract us from important domestic issues

E. Jean Carroll, 2006. Photo by  julieannesmo. Creative Commons image.

By Michael Meeropol / The Rag Blog / July 3, 2025

The following is an expanded version of a commentary delivered over WAMC-FM on June 27, 2025 by Michael Meeropol and revised by the author for The Rag Blog. Meeropol will join Thorne Dreyer on Rag Radio to discuss these issues Friday, July 4, 2025, 2-3 p.m. on KOOP 91.7-FM in Austin and it will be streamed on KOOP.org.

In my opinion, the war in Iran is an attempt by all three governments to divert their peoples’ attention from domestic issues.  The Mullahs who rule Iran are hated by the vast majority of the population — they hold on to power with murderous repressive violence.   Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel clings to power to keep himself out of jail.  Meanwhile, President Donald Trump is losing popularity over his domestic policies — the tax and spending bill working through the Senate is very unpopular, the wholesale round-ups of law-abiding immigrants (some of whom actually have green cards, or student visas or pending asylum hearings) continues to lose support. 

Here are some details and links to stories about that particularly egregious set of behaviors by our government:  

Washington, D.C. — The Supreme Court ruling yesterday offered a green light to the Trump administration’s efforts to deport immigrants to third countries — including war-torn areas — and without due process constraints or basic accountability. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissent, “The government has made clear in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone anywhere without notice or an opportunity to be heard.”

The dangerous overreach by President Trump and Stephen Miller does not stop there. The terrifying reality of their disdain for the core pillars of our democracy is playing out in communities across America, as masked ICE agents lacking identification are — often violently — targeting, detaining and deporting students, workers, community members and even U.S. citizens.

According to Vanessa Cárdenas, Executive Director of America’s Voice

“Masked men with guns in unmarked cars. No identification. No warrant. Tearing our neighbors, co-workers and friends off the streets. No due process. Now, they will not only be kidnapped from our streets, but could be deported to a dangerous third country with impunity and without due process.   

“This is Trump and Steven Miller’s increasingly vigilante America. They are demonstrating utter contempt for due process and the rule of law.  Americans are recoiling as they experience militarized ICE raids and unidentified agents in masks and tactical gear tackle and ensnare long settled residents with families, jobs, lives and stakes in America. What is playing out before our eyes is at odds with democratic norms and basic American values and interests.”

Below find recent coverage on the continued impact of Trump’s anti-immigration policies: 

  • Los Angeles Times, “‘Who are these people?’ Masked immigration agents sow fear in L.A., vex local police,” including: “They show up without uniforms. They show up completely masked. They refuse to give ID,” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said during a news briefing after the Dodger Stadium incident. “Who are these people? And frankly, the vests that they have on look like they ordered them from Amazon. Are they bounty hunters? Are they vigilantes? If they’re federal officials, why is it that they do not identify themselves?”

These stories are all going on while the military actions against Iran are dominating the headlines.   

On another important and related issue — the Courts have been trying to rein in some of the extreme actions of the Justice Department as it violates the rights of immigrants — even some legal residents.  A whistle blower has just come forward revealing that within Trump’s own Justice Department efforts are under way to create the momentum towards refusing to follow Court orders.  This was the basis of a very intense examination of Emile Bove at his confirmation hearing.   (Trump has nominated him to a lifetime appointment to an appeals court.) 

[For that story, see https://contrarian.substack.com/p/trumps-pick-for-the-third-circuit?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Each regime has reason to divert the attention of the population from significant domestic issues.

The fact that innocent civilians have already died as part of this smokescreen effort means nothing to the decision makers in all three countries.  Instead, they hope to build on the legitimate nationalist sentiment in defense of one’s own country to divert public opinion.  It definitely remains to be seen whether the quick bombing strike against Iran will garner public support for Trump within the U.S.   (It is likely it will if there are no long-term repercussions.  After all, the Bush II war against Iraq was popular at first.  It was only after four years of insurgency that it became unpopular.)

One of the domestic American political issues being obscured by the violence in Iran is the fact that the appeal from the second E. Jean Carroll case was recently argued and that Ms. Carroll has just published her memoir, Not my Type.

[As a reminder to readers, E. Jean Carroll claimed in an article that back in 1995 (or 1996 – the date remains uncertain) Donald Trump raped her in a dressing room at the Bergdorf-Goodman department store.  Trump denied the story — called her a liar.   She sued him for defamation and later under a NY State Law the Adult Survivors Act which created a one-year window for survivors of sexual assault to file civil suits (even after the statute of limitations had expired) against their alleged attackers she sued him for the actual assault.  Two NY State juries found for Ms. Carroll — agreed that she had been sexually assaulted (but not raped), that she had been harmed by the assault, and that Trump’s denials had defamed her.  She was awarded first $5 million in damages and then in a second trial $83 million because of Trump’s continued defamation.   The first $5 million judgement has already been affirmed by the Court of Appeals.  The appeal from the $83 million was just argued on June 24.]

In the oral commentary that was recorded to broadcast on Friday, June 27, I highlighted the value of Ms. Carroll’s book.   The book tells in the first person some of Ms. Carroll’s experiences during the two trials.

The book focuses on her two trials.  (I had actually done a commentary on those trials a half a year ago.)  In the first trial, she was subjected to a withering cross examination and the jury believed her.  (Trump appeared on video tape at a sworn deposition but neither attended the trial nor gave direct testimony.) That jury believed Ms. Carroll and awarded her $5 million in damages.   (She hasn’t seen a penny yet.  Though that $5 million judgment was upheld on appeal,Trump can still attempt to get the U.S. Supreme Court involved.)

There was a second trial because Trump continued to defame Carroll after the frst jury had rendered its judgment. 

Though it focuses almost exclusively on Ms. Carroll’s experiences during the two trials, the book is much more than a rehash.  It provides a fascinating insight into Ms. Carroll’s state of mind and internal experiences as she preps for and participates in the trials.  The book begins with her being cross examined by one of Trump’s attorneys during the first trial and takes us right up to her experiences standing to hear the verdicts at the end of both trials — tightly squeezing the hands of her attorneys as they awaited the juries’ verdicts. 

She writes in the first person.  We meet her legal team.  She agonizes over the various potential outfits she might wear (often presented in italics as one-word lines running the length of the page).   She considers and rejects a face lift.   We follow her practice sessions with her attorneys.  She shares her thoughts about three days of withering cross examination in the first trial.

Thus, she makes sure that the reader knows what went in in the courtroom.  From the first trial where the details of the sexual assault were litigated and she convinced the jury she was telling the truth, the reader is treated not only to the transcript but to her running commentary — especially on the tactics of the defense team.   That is important.  Because Ms. Carroll succeeds in packaging the facts from the trial with such interesting introspection and commentary the reader learns most of those facts while being spared the didacticism of a stand-alone transcript.

She also succeeds in making it clear that the trauma from that assault was real and long-lasting.  She quotes from an expert witness who interviewed her for over three days. That expert concluded that Ms. Carroll had been deeply damaged by the assault — so damaged that even though she was in her fifties when it occurred, she never had another sexual or romantic relationship.   Carroll then goes beyond the expert opinion to describe the loss in personally heartfelt terms (one of the few places in the book where she lets down her guard and abandons a madcap energetic prose style.)

Here is some of what she writes:

“It costs [me] everything:  the joy, the elation of sharing a life, going for a swim with your lover, cuddling, fixing dinner, making beds, playing Scrabble … And then there is that yearning — when your lover walks through the door and there is that feeling in your body like you stepped on a live wire and the feeling shoots through your body from your feet to your head and then you are in each other’s arms.  I remember going home unexpectedly and each of my husbands, their faces would just light up.  You lose that.  You lose all of it.  It’s too bad.  He did a bad thing.  If I had a boyfriend, I would leave here and he and I would go out to dinner and I would tell him everything we had talked about, and he would hold my hand and then we wouild go to a hotel room and we would make love.  And none of that is possible now.  I have lost the impetus.  I lack the desire to desire.  And I totally lack the desire to be desirable.” [P. 24]

Having established the seriousness of the harm done to her, she returns to the story of the two trials.  She is even able to create humor out of the conflicts that emerged during those trials.  Trump attended the second trial.  Unfortunately for his side, he could not in effect have a “do over” by attempting to argue that he had never met Carroll, that the story she told about the encounter in a Bergdorf-Goodman dressing room was false.  Those were issues the original jury had decided — and decided in her favor.  

Thus, when the defense called Trump to the stand in the second trial, the Judge tried to get the defense to acknowledge that Trump realized he could not make the arguments he and his lawyers had made in the first trial.   It’s a hilarious combination — the Judge and Trump’s lawyer are talking on the record and Carroll adds Trump’s interjections:   

[One can read the entire story on pages 320 to 328.  I can only excerpt some of it here

“Look” says Judge Kaplan to [Trump’s attorney] Habba.   “You told me in your letters that Mr. Trump is well aware of the strict confines placed on his testimony.  Do you confirm that?”   “Yes, our Honor” … 

“I never met the woman,” says Trump.  “I don’t know who the woman is.  I do not know who the woman is.  I wasn’t at the trial.  I don’t know who the woman is!  I never met the woman!” 

“Mr. Trump” says Judge Kaplan …. “Keep your voice down!”….

“And I have an outstanding question for you [Attorney Habba]” says Judge Kaplan. …

“I never met the woman” “I never met her” 

[the Judge] “And will Mr. Trump comply with those confines?”  

[attorney Habba] “Yes”

“I never met her.”

 [the Judge] “I am sorry, Mr. Trump.  You are interrupting these proceedings by talking loudly while your counsel is talking.  That is not permitted.”

Trump lowers his head — irises rising — like a bull gives a great furious look at Judge Kaplan and says “I never met her” quietly to [attorney] Habba.

Just one of the many gems from the book.

[Michael Meeropol is Professor Emeritus of Economics at Western New England University in Springfield, MA. He was educated at Swarthmore College, Cambridge University in the UK, and received his Ph D from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is the older son of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg and has written extensively about his parents’ case. In the field of economics, he has been a regular radio commentator on WAMC-FM the Albany, NY NPR station since 2005, having contributed 286 commentaries so far. He is the author of Surrender, How the Clinton Administration Completed the Reagan Revolution, and has been a student of right-wing economics for the past 44 years.]

This entry was posted in RagBlog and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *