When justice becomes a weapon of political warfare, a former leader vows to fight back against a verdict that stinks of bias and partisan motivations.
In the latest of what appears to be a never-ending series of politically motivated attacks against former President Donald Trump, he finds himself embroiled in a new legal battle resulting from a sexual assault and defamation lawsuit filed by writer E. Jean Carroll. Trump remains resolute and unyielding, declaring his intention to appeal the case and dismissing the verdict as a mere extension of the incessant political witch hunts he has been subjected to.
BREAKING: E. Jean Carroll and her lawyer admit on CNN that they worked with New York Democrats to pass a law allowing people to sue for a sexual assault case outside of the 20 year window.
“Well, E. Jean actually helped to get that law passed. It passed last year. Uh we filed.… pic.twitter.com/aX6QVWDWjV
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) May 10, 2023
Speaking to Fox News Digital, Trump expressed his intention to challenge the civil case. He further voiced his disbelief and outrage at the verdict, describing it as a “disgrace” and as the perpetuation of the “greatest political witch hunt in history.” He strongly denied any knowledge of Carroll, adding that the case was part of a political conspiracy against him.
The recent ruling by a federal jury in New York City established that Trump was liable for sexual abuse and defamation charges, although not for rape, and ordered him to pay $5 million in damages. This ruling has ignited Trump’s resolve to fight back, further cementing his belief that he was the victim of a biased judiciary.
So they didn’t believe E. Jean Carroll story about being raped.
But they found President Trump guilty of assault.
How does that work?
She lied, but not well enough?
— Sebastian Gorka DrG (@SebGorka) May 10, 2023
Trump voiced his intention to appeal against the verdict, highlighting the partisan underpinnings of the case. He criticized the judge presiding over his case, who was appointed during the Clinton era and pointed out Carroll’s affiliations with the Clintons.
The problem for Trump’s critics claiming they can now call him a “sexual abuser” is the simple fact that a New York jury determined E. Jean Carroll lied when she claimed she had been raped 30 years ago. The only thing Democrats can claim is that New York juries do not like the… pic.twitter.com/tG7GVWiwg2
— @amuse (@amuse) May 10, 2023
Carroll, now 79, alleges that Trump sexually assaulted her in a department store opposite Trump Tower in Manhattan in 1996. She claims the incident occurred during a chance encounter where Trump sought her advice while shopping for a gift. Trump and his legal team firmly deny these allegations, suggesting that Carroll’s motive was to boost sales of her book. The denial resulted in an additional defamation claim by Carroll, asserting that Trump’s response had harmed her reputation.
Carroll expressed her satisfaction with the verdict, maintaining that it vindicated her and was a victory for all women who have suffered due to disbelief. She sought not only monetary compensation but also demanded that Trump retract his statement.
Just a reminder that this is E. Jean Carroll — the deranged woman who launched the bogus lawsuit against Trump.pic.twitter.com/y5TJgKc8zR
— Patriot Alerts (@alerts___) May 9, 2023
Trump’s 2024 campaign team decried the ruling as a new low in the ongoing witch hunt and a blatant abuse of the Constitution. They criticized the justice system in Democratic jurisdictions for being compromised by extremist left-wing politics, which allowed false and unfounded claims to affect elections and inflict damage.
Trump’s lawyer, Joe Tacopina, dismissed Carroll’s allegations as a fabricated story that is not credible. He insisted that Carroll’s narrative was merely a story and that she was neither sexually assaulted at the department store nor defamed by being accused of making up the story.
Although Trump did not testify at the trial, he provided a videotaped deposition in October. Legal expert Jonathan Turley speculated that Trump’s absence from the courtroom could have had a negative impact on the jury and might complicate his chances on appeal. He warned that such a decision not only creates inferences but could also bias the jury against him.