p>
Posted on 05/30/2026 9:36:01 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
When the accusation is sexual assault or rape, the rights of the accused go out the window. Prosecutors and plaintiffs' lawyers in civil cases drag in character assassins who know nothing about the alleged assault but instead make their own claims -- without proof -- that they too were victims of the accused, often decades earlier.
That's what happened to President Donald Trump in the E. Jean Carroll case, and why he is asking the Supreme Court to overturn the jury's decision.
On Wednesday, the justices delayed for the 11th time answering whether they will take up E. Jean Carroll v. Trump. In May 2023, a New York jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing sex columnist Carroll in a Bergdorf Goodman's lingerie dressing room in the mid-90s. The jury awarded her $5 million.
Court watchers speculate the justices are delaying until a companion case, also involving Trump and Carroll, weaves its way up to them.
Timing aside, it's essential that the court strike down that jury verdict against Trump to halt the character assassination strategy.
Men accused of sexual assault are losing their right to a fair trial because of misguided changes to the Federal Rules of Evidence that Congress made in 1995 only for sexual assault cases.
That year, Congress kowtowed to the crazy notion that every woman who claims to be a victim of sexual assault is telling the truth and deserves to be hailed as a "survivor." Congress passed Rules 413-415, allowing a prosecutor or the plaintiff's lawyer in a civil case to drag in past accusers to voice their own grievances, no matter how unsubstantiated.
The idea is to suggest to a jury that the defendant has a "propensity" to sexually assault women. It makes it easier to sway a jury when you lack real evidence.
Carroll couldn't remember what year Trump supposedly assaulted her, never reported the assault to police, and couldn't produce store cameras or witnesses who saw it happen. Though she boasted that she had Trump's DNA on her dress, she declined in court to permit a DNA test and moved to exclude DNA evidence from the trial.
What's her lawyer to do when there's no evidence to prove her implausible claim? Drag in "propensity" witnesses -- in this case Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff.
Leeds accused Trump of groping her on an airplane in the 1970s, though she couldn't remember the precise year, where she was flying or on what airline. She only recalled that Trump had his hand up her skirt.
Stoynoff claimed that in 2005, Trump suddenly grabbed her and kissed her without her consent at Mar-a-Lago.
Trump's lawyers are arguing that lower courts should never have allowed the jury to hear this inflammatory evidence. None of it is flattering, but none of it supports Carroll's charge that Trump assaulted her in Bergdorf Goodman.
In some cases, appellate judges are already acting to curb the abuses caused by Congress's political correctness. One year ago, the New York State Court of Appeals overruled Harvey Weinstein's rape conviction 4-3 because the trial judge had allowed the prosecution to bring in women to testify about their own grievances with Weinstein. Weinstein isn't getting off free, but he is getting a new trial.
Weinstein's lawyer Arthur Aidala called the ruling "a tremendous victory for every criminal defendant in the state of New York." But one of the dissenting judges, Madeline Singas, argued the opposite, saying the ruling will "thwart the steady gains survivors of sexual violence have fought for in our criminal justice system."
Singas insisted that "crimes of sexual violence are far more nuanced and complex than other crimes" and that strict standards of evidence and proof "come at the expense and safety of women."
Don't fall for that politically correct blather. Every accused person, male or female, deserves a fair trial before a jury that is presented with actual evidence, not a "This Is Your Life" documentary of past misdeeds.
For well over a century, lawyers and judges nationwide have had to adhere to the well-known Molineux precedent, set down in a famous 1901 New York murder trial. It states that "the accused has a right to be held to account only for the crime charged, and thus, allegations of prior bad acts may not be admitted against them for the sole purpose of establishing their propensity for criminality." Sexual assault cases should not be an exception.
The Supreme Court should strike down Carroll's victory over Trump. It's time to move past one-sided MeToo injustice.
I haven’t made a study of this stupid accusation but Trump was very famous when this supposedly happened. I can even see him being in a store without a mob collecting and the idea he was in a woman’s dressing room assaulting a woman is so ludicrous it is beyond belief.
This is the crazy byatch who named her cat “Vagina T. Fireball.”
This verdict needs and should be struck down. There’s absolutely no evidence by the wench who thinks rape is sexy. She only got her guilty verdict due to NY’s judicial anti-Trump sentiments. This verdict is a travesty of and by the judicial system.
The NY State Legislature passed the New York State Adult Survivors Act (ASA) in the fall of 2021. It was enacted on May 24, 2022. This allowed E. Jeanne Carroll to file suit against President Trump, because prior to this Law, the Statute of Limitations on her claims had expired.
^^This^^
The lying POS and her lawyers / finamciers should be in prison.
No justice in America for the President of the United States!
Totally TDS. Makes me wish for NYC residents to bring back Caveman Day.
Yep. I call it the “get Donald Trump ONLY” law. How in the eff do you pass a one year law specifically for one man?
Reid Hoffman paid for Carroll’s legal expenses. It was clearly a political hit job.
Thanks. BUMP!
This was passed on the supposition that since the same type of law has worked for "children", nothing wrong having the same for adults.
EXCEPT, who ever heard of a one year law OF THIS NATURE?
Carroll filed within a few hours of the law being in effect.
All she had to do was lie her a** off and her two friends would back it up. How could they.
We heard nothing from the store...why?? Probably cuz there's always someone there to help the wealthy women who entertain this store.
And her suit...I don't believe she saved it...I'm betting she foumd it on ebay. And that's why she got the date wrong...cuz that's how it was advertised.
No one is better at following the money than a two dollar gold-digger...
Women have been throwing themselves at DJT for DECADES. The idea that he would rape anyone is ridiculous.
One look at that homely fool and one KNOWS he wouldn’t touch her with an aide’s p*nis.
Bkmk
Therein lies the problems: it creates a situation of a trial within a trial (where the claims of prior sexual assault have to be litigated in the current proceedings) ; the prejudice outweighs the probative value (see FRE 403); it shifts the burden of proof - essentially the defendant is faced with the untenable situation of defending his character under the construct of once (allegedly) a bad man, always a bad man.
p>
The lying POS and her lawyers / finamciers should be in prison.
Don’t forget the “judges” who have all become our worst enemies for justice in the case of the falsely accused
Here’s a question!
What’s the status of the “32 felonies” thing the local prosecutor and judge dreamed up and got a “conviction “?
Has an appeals court overturned it yet?
The President's lawyers have claimed that the outfit she claims she wore, wasn't even available at the time.
Report: Dress E. Jean Carroll Claims She Wore During Alleged Trump Assault Did Not Exist at the Time
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.