A federal appeals court ruled on Monday against President Donald Trump's appeal of an $83 million verdict against him for defamation against E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of raping her in a department store dressing room more than 30 years ago.
Carroll somehow managed to get a $5 million verdict against Trump for some sort of sexual misconduct against her, even though she couldn't remember the date it happened or the layout of the store, and didn't have any physical evidence against him.
Then, because Trump had the audacity to her accusations weren't true and that she wasn't his type, she sued him for defamation (egged on and paid by some of his political enemies).
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the defamation award was fair and reasonable, mostly on the grounds that his presidential immunity didn't cover the remarks he made against Carroll.
His lawyers had asked for a new trial because of the immunity ruling, but they didn't get that either.
"Trump has failed to identify any grounds that would warrant reconsidering our prior holding on presidential immunity. We also conclude that the district court did not err in any of the challenged rulings and that the jury’s damages awards are fair and reasonable,” the opinion Monday said.
The immunity defense might not apply to a case that happened in 2023 and 2024, about comments made in 2022.
But here's what none of the judges and juries who dealt with this case ever considered: Trump was a presidential candidate at the time of the civil trial against him, which happened in 2023 and 2024.
The case should have been dismissed for one simple reason: it clearly attempted to influence the election (but, fortunately, failed).
Carroll and all the Trump-haters who egged her on had one thing in mind and one thing only: to paint Trump as a womanizer, sexual predator, and liar so that voters would not vote for him.
If there had been any type of evidence against Trump besides a writer, spinning a yarn about him, then sure, the case should go forward.
People want to know if their elected leader is a scumbag, but they don't want some vague allegations meant to tarnish his reputation with no proof whatsoever that anything occurred.
Unfortunately, there are enough Trump-hating judges and jury members in certain places (like Manhattan) to convict him of something like this whether there's actually any proof of it or not and make him pay through the nose, if they can't convict him criminally.
That's exactly what happened here, and Trump may have no recourse to do anything about it. The Supreme Court is unlikely to hear the case because it's a civil one and not a super-important matter of law, even though it affects the president.
