Donald Trump sure is a monster, isn’t he? He’s a fraudster, an insurrectionist, a would-be dictator, and even a rapist. How could anyone vote for this guy for president? That’s the take the left wants you to have, but the various cases that create this picture of Trump the Monster are all flimsy in the extreme, and none so flimsy as E. Jean Carroll’s claim that Trump raped her many years ago in a Bergdorf Goodman’s dressing room. On Friday, Trump’s attorney Will Scharf dissected it, making it clear yet again that no sentient human being should be taking this story seriously.
The Post Millennial reported Friday that Scharf, “speaking at Trump Tower in New York City after a hearing to ask to overturn the final verdict against Trump in the E Jean Carroll case,” said that the supposed rape victim’s story "at its heart is an utterly implausible, he said she said story."
Statement from President Trump's Attorney @willscharf: pic.twitter.com/CnO8B8xJu2
— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) September 6, 2024
Serious allegations of this kind 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 rape, and "was unable to identify when this incident occurred until quite recently. No surveillance evidence or witnesses have ever been found or come forward confirming any asked of E Jean Carroll’s story."
Wait, it gets worse. This case only went to court in the first place because corrupt leftists changed the rules so that they could get Trump. As PJM’s Ben Bartee noted back in Apr. 2023, Carroll was only able to file her case at all because of “an exception carved out in the New York state legal code that many speculate was crafted especially to enable the prosecution of Trump.” New York Magazine explained 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.”
Then when it came to trial, Scharf said, Carroll’s “attorneys introduced evidence that should have never seen the inside of a courtroom." They brought in Jessica Leeds to testify, as Leeds had claimed that Trump “assaulted her on a plane in 1979.” Scharf, however, pointed out that Leeds “has never been able to identify where this plane departed from, where it went to, the date of the flight in question, making our efforts to disprove her testimony extremely difficult under the Federal Rules of Evidence." Given how traumatic her experience is supposed to have been, you’d think that such details would be vividly etched on Leeds’ mind, but no such luck.
It's the same story with another Carroll witness and alleged Trump victim, Natasha Stoynoff. Scharf stated that Stoynoff’s story “again lacks any indicia of reliability, any sort of credibility, any sort of confirming testimony from other witnesses or anything else that would make you believe this actually happened."
Related: Secret Video: Manhattan Attorney’s Office Spokesman Says Bragg’s Case Against Trump is ‘Nonsense’
There are also numerous problems with Carroll’s story. In 2019, she appeared on the cover of New York Magazine beside a large headline that read: “This is what I was wearing 23 years ago when Donald Trump attacked me in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room.” The only problem was that the Donna Karan dress she was wearing on the magazine cover wasn’t manufactured at the time of the alleged rape. And while the magazine cover is certain that the rape, or “attack,” took place in 1996, Carroll has never been that definite. This sort of thing should have gotten the case thrown out of court on the first day, but that would require that those who brought it into court in the first place to be interested in justice, when all they really wanted to do was get Trump.
Scharf concluded: "You have a judge who allowed in this improper propensity evidence that should not have been allowed in. In our view, that polluted the jury's deliberations in this case that presented a story to the jury of a series of a pattern of conduct that the jury should not have been considering. And we think that absent that propensity evidence, no fair jury could have reached the verdict that was reached in this case, and as a result, we believe that this verdict needs to be overturned." Yes. But given the whole point of this case and the others against Trump, it’s much more likely that the $88 million he has already been ordered to pay will just be increased.
