New in PJ Media:
To its everlasting shame and (one hopes) the abiding disapproval of historians for generations to come, the Biden regime weaponized the justice system against President Donald Trump, and much of the damage has yet to be undone. On Monday, Trump asked the Supreme Court to undo one of the most egregious miscarriages of justice he suffered for the crime of being the leader of the opposition against Old Joe Biden and his leftist henchmen: the civil judgment that he sexually abused the partisan fantasist E. Jean Carroll in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room sometime in the 1990s, and subsequently defamed her in speaking about the case.
Carroll’s story has more holes than a slice of Swiss cheese that has been used for target practice, but despite failing to produce any evidence to substantiate her claims, she kept winning in court — believe all women, doncha know, even the crazy mendacious ones. But Trump’s team kept on appealing, and who knows? Maybe sanity will finally prevail at the Supreme Court.
The Associated Press reported Monday that Trump’s lawyers “argued in a lengthy filing with the high court that allegations leading to the $5 million verdict were ‘propped up’ by a ‘series of indefensible evidentiary rulings’ that allowed Carroll’s lawyers to present ‘highly inflammatory propensity evidence’ against him.”
Indeed they were. Back in Sept. 2024, Trump attorney Will Scharf pointed out quite correctly and in considerable detail that the alleged victim’s story “at its heart is an utterly implausible, he said she said story.” Serious allegations of the kind that Carroll made are supposed to be established on the basis of evidence and witnesses, but Scharf noted that in this case, there was “no corroboration for anything” that Carroll claimed about what went on between her and Trump.
The fix was in from the beginning: Carroll’s attorneys never produced any “corroborating witnesses” or “confirmatory DNA.” She filed no police report at the time of the supposed incident, and couldn’t even pinpoint when exactly her encounter with Trump was supposed to have happened. “No surveillance evidence or witnesses have ever been found or come forward confirming any aspect of E. Jean Carroll’s story.”
Even worse, the case only went to court in the first place because corrupt leftists changed the rules solely in order to get Trump. New York Magazine explained at that time that Carroll was able to file her suit “because of the Adult Survivors Act, a new New York state law that went into effect that same month giving adult survivors of sexual misconduct a one-year window to file civil cases that would otherwise be outside the statute of limitations.”
There is more. Read the rest here.
Huh?!? says
It is my personal belief that this woman saw an opportunity and ran a con with it. So far, she is getting away with it. Believe all women, eh. Women lie all the time. As a side note, the author Douglas Murray pointed out you are to believe all women, unless that woman is Jewish.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
If SCOTUS passes on this, Statute of Limitation laws in this country, as we know it, are dead
Wellington says
This woman is a loon and I remember years ago when she was on a major network (I’m pretty sure it was CNN) and she talked about how rape is very sexy. As soon as she said this the anchor went to something else and cut her off.
WPM says
That was right after she won the case. She could not name the year or even the season the so called dressing room incident took place .She said if I remember correctly it was either the fall of 1995 or the spring of 1996.She also claimed she save the dress she bought that day ,according to the history of the make and style of dress was not issued out to the market before 1999.The law on the statue of limitations on civil cases in NY was change about a month before she filed her case.
James Lincoln says
WPM says,
“The law on the statue of limitations on civil cases in NY was change about a month before she filed her case.”
With respect, I thought that a change in the law could not be retroactive.
But I am not an attorney…
somehistory says
James, the law is not retroactive, but under some circumstances a law can be applied retro. forward.
Say a person commits a murder at the age of 15, but is not caught and tried until many years later. In some jurisdictions, the law about minors would be applied, even if the perp is 60 at the time of trial.
In some states, the only crime without a statute is first degree murder, with second degree and lesser charges having statutes. (that’s crazy, btw)
If this case had been between a *real* victim and some not so famous guy with a target on his back, it wouldn’t have made it to trial.
To get around the statutes regarding rape, warrants can be filed for DNA instead of a perp’s name.
James Lincoln says
Thanks for the clarification, somehistory.
David M says
This was a disgrace from start to finish, totally fabricated & full of lies. The United States is finished if the Democrats are able to get away with this type of thing, They are doing a similar thing with Mike Lindell now & have done previously with Alex Jones where they had a corrupt judge declare a guilty verdict with no trial.
somehistory says
In real **as in Justice is being served** cases, the plaintiff must be able to put a time and place on the event.
I know personally of one case where a very young child claimed to have been molested by a relative, but the exact date was unknown. The DA said that he couldn’t go forward due to that lack, so nothing was ever done for the victim seeking Justice.
If Justice had been the goal, this *case* would have never gone forward, much less having the supposed victim getting a large settlement. The Justices should recognize that and throw it out.
WPM says
It was a civil suit not a criminal one ,that is why he was found guilty even if they are doubts to his guilt .I know it is crazy ,they wants to move the trial to either Staten Island or Westchester to get a more unbiases jury then Manhattan where all chosen on the jury most likely have TDS and have a mad hatter libitard judge . If they accused Trump of being a vampire in a Manhattan court room most Manhattan juries and libitard ruling judges would rule to put a stake thru his heart and chop off his head. These are the people who just voted in a communist Mayor on their biased of hating all things republican ,and especial Trump. They elected an AG James solely on her main stated ambition was to “get Trump” change him with some crime ,She did not name the crime when she was running ,but like a good comrade she would find one if she won.
OLD GUY says
She said he said, Anyone can be accused of rape or sexual assault put you should NOT be found guilty without physical evidence.
WPM says
True but the left hates Trump so much he is held to an impossible standard an accusation by anyone no matter how much lunacy is involved is taken as fact. Not only is their no evidence or witnesses (in a HIGH END DEPARTMENT STORE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY IN MIDTOWN Manhattan ).The so call facts about when it took place almost 30 years ago are total mess up.