Do you remember E. Jean Carroll, the woman who crawled out of the woodwork during Trump’s first term to accuse him of raping her in the 1990s? Well, she’s back in the news again, only this time it’s not to her advantage.
First, a word of clarification. I don’t take accusations of rape lightly, and neither should anyone. That is one of the most horrific and cowardly crimes that exists. That said, Trump has repeatedly denied raping Carroll, and to go even further, he also claims he never knew or met the woman.
Also, he was never convicted of raping her, only of sexual assault – which is not good either, but again, Trump has denied this and the timing of her allegations – 2019, as Trump was gearing up for reelection amid a great economy and surging confidence – is also suspect since the act in question supposedly took place in a department store in New York City in the mid-1990s.
Finally, Trump was charged and convicted in the Big Apple, not real friendly territory for a Republican and certainly not the founder of the MAGA movement (Democrats have never explained why America shouldn’t be great again). Yes, Trump is a New Yorker born and bred, but New Yorkers liked him better when they thought he was playing for Team Donkey.
Anyway, back to the case. The judge awarded Carroll an $83 million settlement. But some news broke ahead of the weekend that was beneficial to Trump for a change, at least for the time being:
A federal appeals court ruled this week that President Donald Trump doesn’t need to pay an $83 million defamation award to writer E. Jean Carroll until the Supreme Court either reviews the case or decides to pass on it.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York issued the order Monday after Trump asked it to pause its earlier ruling denying him a chance to challenge the defamation award before the full appeals court.
The court granted Trump’s request to pause that ruling, citing no objection from Carroll so long as Trump agreed to raise the bond by $7.46 million to account for interest that would accrue on her award during further legal proceedings that are expected to extend to the Supreme Court.
Trump’s legal team appealed to the nation’s highest court in an attempt to change his status and standing:
Trump’s attorneys are seeking to invoke a federal statute to swap him out as the defendant and have the U.S. government take his place. If it is successful, the move would essentially nullify Carroll’s case since the federal government cannot be sued for defamation. The appeals court last month rejected a request for a hearing on that argument.
Trump is trying to take the case to the Supreme Court after he has already asked it to consider his appeal in a separate $5 million defamation lawsuit against him that Carroll won.
That’s certainly a novel legal approach, and I have no idea whether it will be successful. But the fact that this obscene payment has been paused is a ‘win’ for Trump, one of the few he’s gotten in this saga. And for the record, there are other reasons why Trump’s team filed their appeal with the Supremes and it has a lot to do with the way the New York court handled (mishandled?) the original sex assault case:
In the petition, Trump’s attorneys described Carroll’s allegations as “facially implausible” and “politically motivated.”
They argued the accusations were “propped up” by what they called a series of indefensible evidentiary rulings that allowed Carroll’s attorneys to introduce evidence the Trump team opposed.
“President Trump has clearly and consistently denied that this supposed incident ever occurred,” Trump’s attorneys wrote.
“No physical or DNA evidence corroborates Carroll’s story,” the filing continued.
“There were no eyewitnesses, no video evidence, and no police report or investigation,” the attorneys wrote.
They also noted that Carroll waited more than 20 years to accuse Trump, doing so after he became president.
Trump’s attorneys argued the timing allowed Carroll to “maximize political injury” to Trump and “profit for herself.”
The petition further suggested Carroll’s allegations mirror the plot of a “Law & Order” episode, which the attorneys noted is one of her favorite television shows.
Trump’s legal team also objected to the admission of testimony from Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff.
Leeds alleged that Trump assaulted her on an airplane in 1979. Stoynoff claimed Trump attacked her at Mar-a-Lago in 2005.
The attorneys argued that both accounts contain credibility issues and inconsistencies.
They also objected to the admission of the 2005 “Access Hollywood” recording in which Trump made lewd remarks.
This entire case smells to high heaven. Let’s hope this win is the first of many for Trump on the way to getting this all reversed, if the man is legitimately innocent.
