During a press conference at Trump Tower, former President Donald Trump’s attorney, Will Scharf, dismantled E. Jean Carroll’s “utterly implausible, he said she said story,” and announced the legal team’s appeal.
In May 2023, a clearly biased New York jury found Trump liable of battery and not liable of rape in an evidence-free civil case where E. Jean Carroll claimed that the former president had raped her in the mid-1990s in a Manhattan department store. The judge then ordered Trump to pay $5 million in the case, which his legal team is currently appealing. When Trump spoke out about the mentally deranged woman and her lies, Carroll sued him for defamation and ultimately won that case, with a judge ordering him to pay a staggering $83 million for defaming her by defending himself.
The fact that a jury was able to find Trump liable in the case was especially appalling considering the fact that Carroll has never been able to pin down exactly when the supposed assault happened and has even been caught lying about the circumstances — she was forced to backtrack after claiming she wore a specific dress by designer Donna Karan during the alleged assault, despite the dress not even being made yet at the time.
Following a hearing where Trump’s legal team requested to overturn the ridiculous verdict in Carroll’s objectively false civil case against the Republican nominee, Scharf slammed the clear miscarriage of justice and lack of evidence in the case.
The attorney explained to the media that there has been “no corroboration for anything she has ever claimed about President Trump” — pointing out that there was not a single corroborating witness, no DNA evidence, and a lack of police reports filed at the time of the supposed assault.
Scharf noted that Carroll “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.”
“In light of that, in light of the utter implausibility of the story that E Jean Carroll was attempting to sell to the jury in this case, her attorneys introduced evidence that should have never seen the inside of a courtroom,” he added.
The attorney highlighted the fact that two “witnesses” were allowed to testify at the trial despite not having anything to do with Carroll’s case: Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff, both of whom have put forward equally ridiculous and false claims about Trump assaulting them. Both of their testimonies would have never been allowed in a courtroom in any legitimate case.
Scharf explained that Leeds claimed Trump assaulted her on a plane in 1979, but the woman “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.”
“This story should have never been allowed to be presented to the jury in this case,” he added. “The same is true of Natasha Stoynoff’s story, which 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.”
Scharf went on to pointed out that the judge in the case was incredibly unprofessional and biased, noting: “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.”
Trump lawyer @willscharf brilliantly demolishes the E. Jean Carroll case, highlighting the absence of evidence, no police report, and no witnesses, while also noting that top Democrat operatives George Conway and Reid Hoffman are behind the lawsuit.pic.twitter.com/zdCJwvAGQ3
— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) September 6, 2024
It is unlikely that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ three-judge panel will rule on the case before the November election, according to the Associated Press.
