Former North Carolina GOP Congressman Madison Cawthorn was arrested in Florida on Wednesday for failing to appear in court on a charge of driving without a valid license, just as he had been preparing to make his political comeback with a run for Rep. Byron Donalds's seat in Florida's 19th district.
Cawthorn was arrested in Cape Coral after failing to appear in court in Collier County that morning for a citation in Naples on August 19.
“Former Congressman, Madison Cawthorn, was arrested earlier today for failure to appear for a routine traffic infraction,” Cawthorn’s representatives said in a statement. “Madison keeps a very busy schedule and, due to a scheduling misunderstanding, did not appear in court this morning. Following processing Madison was immediately released.”
Cawthorn has been living in Cape Coral, which is part of Donalds's district. He is partially paralyzed from an accident when he was 18 and uses a wheelchair.
Donalds indicated in February that he would not seek re-election in order to run for governor in 2026, so his seat will be open.
Axios had reported on September 3 that Cawthorn planned to run for the open seat.
Cawthorn lost his re-election bid to Congress in 2022 after several controversies regarding him hit the news.
An argument between Cawthorn and then-West Virginia Republican Rep. David McKinley over cosponsorship of a bill resulted in McKinley filing an ethics complaint against him in 2021.
Then, during a March 2022 interview, Cawthorn accused members of Congress of inviting him to an orgy and using cocaine in front of him.
His comments caused a firestorm as Democrats pounced on them, and Cawthorn later admitted to then-Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy that he had exaggerated his claims.
He said that he observed what he thought was drug use from 100 yards away, and that he probably misconstrued the invitation.
After leaving office in 2023, Cawthorn was accused of tailgating a woman in Florida and rear-ending a Highway Patrol officer in 2024, as reported by the New York Post.
It was unclear whether Cawthorn was charged or cited for the accident.
If Cawthorn plans to revive his political career, I think he's going to have to do better than yet another brush with the law and claiming he was too busy to show up in court or remember when he was supposed to do so.
He was considered a promising up-and-comer when he was first elected, but no one wants to deal with more scandals and have someone who seems volatile and unstable as a leader.
An alleged birthday card sent by President Donald Trump to Jeffrey Epstein has stirred a fresh wave of controversy, prompting legal and political responses.
Amid ongoing scrutiny over his past associations, Trump has refuted claims regarding a lewd birthday card linked to Epstein, leading to significant media coverage and a defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal, the Daily Mail reported.
In a detailed response to the allegations, Trump has termed the birthday card matter as "a dead issue," emphasizing his perspective during a statement to NBC News. This response comes in the wake of the Democrats' release of images from a birthday scrapbook alleged to contain a card from Trump to Epstein, featuring a provocative drawing accompanied by Trump's signature.
Trump has aggressively denied the authenticity of the birthday message, branding it as "fake" and consequently suing The Wall Street Journal for $10 billion, alleging defamation. His lawsuit highlights his team's intent to challenge the veracity of the reporting vigorously.
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed Trump's denials on X, stating, "The latest piece published by the Wall Street Journal proves this entire 'Birthday Card' story is false," indicating a strong ongoing dispute over the facts presented by the media.
As part of his rebuttal, Trump has distanced himself from any knowledge or involvement in Epstein's criminal activities, asserting that he severed all ties with Epstein much earlier.
The birthday scrapbook, which was compiled by Ghislaine Maxwell for Epstein's 50th birthday, has become a key piece of evidence in the ongoing controversy. Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year sentence for her involvement in Epstein’s criminal activities.
The scrapbook not only includes the contentious card but also other notable entries, such as a photo of Epstein with a large check and a humorous note about Trump and a woman both individuals knew, portraying a complex web of interactions.
Further adding to the intrigue, the scrapbook contains a handwritten note from former President Bill Clinton, among contributions from other prominent figures, demonstrating the high-profile nature of Epstein's associations.
The dissemination of these materials by Democrats has led to a severe partisan clash, with Republicans and Democrats debating the contextual handling of the recently surfaced documents.
Attorney General Pam Bondi's involvement has deepened the legal dimensions of the case, as she handed over 33,000 pages of documents related to Epstein to the House Oversight Committee, fueling further investigations.
In a DOJ interview, despite the storm of controversy, Maxwell defended Trump, stating he was "never inappropriate" despite the scrutiny over his past social ties with Epstein.
The release and interpretation of these documents have intensified the demands for transparency. Democrat Rep. Robert Garcia sharply criticized Trump's previous dismissal of the investigation, asserting in a statement to The Wall Street Journal that Trump is covering up the truth about his relationship with Epstein and the alleged birthday note.
This has spurred a broader debate on the accuracy of public figures' statements and the true extent of their past relationships. "President Trump called the Epstein investigation a hoax and claimed that his birthday note didn't exist. Now we know that Donald Trump was lying and is doing everything he can to cover up the truth. Enough of the games and lies, release the full files now," Garcia stated, highlighting the tension and the stakes involved.
The fallout from this saga continues to unfold, with legal, political, and media narratives clashing in a highly publicized battle over truth and historical transparency. As both sides of the political spectrum delve deeper, the implications are expected to resonate well beyond the current news cycle.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Decarlos Brown, the man federally charged with murdering 23-year-old Iryna Zarutska on a Charlotte commuter train Aug. 22, is now speaking about the horrific slaughter, claiming the government implanted "materials" inside his body to make him butcher the Ukraine refugee.
In a phone interview circulating online, Brown blames "The material. Put it like that. The material using my body. It's that. You know, that's not me.
"I'm talking about just for no reason. But since they did that, since they did that, now they got to investigate the material my body exposed to. Since they want to do all that, now they got to investigate."
The interviewer asks Brown: "She's from the Ukraine … and you know they got a war … so I'm just trying to understand, out of all people, why her?"
"I don't have nothing," Brown responded. "They just lashed out on them. That's what happened.
"They lashed out on her. Well I was working out … Whoever was working the material, they lashed out on her."
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump on Wednesday called for a "quick" trial for Brown as well as the death penalty for the "ANIMAL."
"The ANIMAL who so violently killed the beautiful young lady from Ukraine, who came to America searching for peace and safety, should be given a 'Quick' (there is no doubt!) Trial, and only awarded THE DEATH PENALTY," Trump said on Truth Social.
"There can be no other option!!! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP."
A judge has dismissed criminal charges against 15 Republican alternate electors who were accused of falsely certifying the 2020 election results in favor of President Donald Trump in Michigan, Breitbart reported. The decision on Tuesday ends the case against the "false electors" brought by Democratic Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel two years ago.
There were originally 16 judges accused of certifying the election erroneously declaring Trump the winner, until one of the judges agreed to turn state's witness. District Court Judge Kristen D. Simmons dismissed the remaining cases on the grounds that the electors were acting in good faith.
Simmons determined that there was no intent to defraud the government, but rather that the defendants were responding to suspicions that Joe Biden did not win that election fair and square. "I believe they were executing their constitutional right to seek redress," Simmons said in her ruling.
This was an opinion shared by many Americans, as a November 2020 survey showed that fewer than half of Americans believed Biden won the election. The dismissal of this case represents a positive step toward reconciling the fallout from the 2020 presidential election and addressing the concerns of individuals who sought to have their claims regarding the election's veracity heard.
According to Fox News, Nessel filed the case at a time when Trump was also the target of an investigation into his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The court stated that the group of 16 met on December 14, 2020, at what was then the Michigan Republican Party headquarters, with the intention of certifying the election for Trump despite Biden having been declared the winner.
They each signed several documents certifying that they were the state's electors in an effort to secure the state's electoral votes for Trump. These documents were sent to the National Archives and Congress, making it official, which Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said warranted "accountability and justice" as the U.S. was supposedly "still in the midst of a nationally coordinated effort to weaken democracy" when the charges were filed.
For this, the 16 were facing eight criminal charges, each carrying a sentence of between five and 14 years in prison. The charges included forgery and conspiracy to commit election forgery. Those implicated included prominent members of the Michigan GOP, such as Kathy Berden, head of the state's Republican National Committee chapter; Meshawn Maddock, former co-chair of the Michigan Republican Party; and Stan Grot, Shelby Township Clerk.
Other states had similar issues with electors attempting to give the victory to Trump, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. "As we prepare for the 2024 presidential election, today’s charges are the first in an ongoing effort to not just seek justice for the wrongs of the past but to ensure they do not happen again," Benson said at the time.
Now that the case has been tossed, Nessel released a statement making bloated claims about the defendants. "The false electors' actions undermined the public's faith in the integrity of our elections and, we believe, also plainly violated the laws by which we administer our elections in Michigan," Nessel said.
As Politico reported, there is no federal law governing how electors are supposed to treat their filings, as it is dependent on each state. Many of those who submitted their certificates did so on the basis that Trump was suing to overturn the election and that they would be ready to cast their vote for him if that were the case.
The situation was unprecedented, and so the states did not have a roadmap to respond to these so-called fake electors. However, some believed that this issue was intentionally framed as a scandal rather than as an issue of readiness. As Charlie Kirk pointed out in April 2024, it is completely within the states' rights to retain "alternate" electors.
"There is no such thing as a 'fake elector.' There are ALTERNATE electors. There are COMPETING SLATES of electors," Kirk wrote in a post to X, formerly Twitter. "It's a Democrat precedent from 1960. CNN's Van Jones advocated for them in 2020. Harvard Professor Larry Lessig advocated for them in 2020. Democrats and their media flacks are attempting to criminalize a concept they themselves invented and have utilized with impunity."
There is no such thing as a "fake elector."
There are ALTERNATE electors.
There are COMPETING SLATES of electors.It's a Democrat precedent from 1960. CNN's Van Jones advocated for them in 2020. Harvard Professor Larry Lessig advocated for them in 2020.
Democrats and their…
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) April 25, 2024
The political atmosphere following the 2020 presidential election was one of upheaval and uncertainty, as many believed Trump would successfully overturn the election results and were prepared for it. As a result, the legal system attempted to go after Trump and his supporters, but this dismissal is one of the last wrongs to be righted from that time.
A bipartisan initiative spearheaded by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Ro Khanna (D-CA) is close to pushing the Epstein Files Transparency Act to a House vote, requiring only three more signatures to meet the threshold, Breitbart reported.
As the U.S. struggles with transparency, a crucial document release hangs in the balance, initiated by two Congress members from across the aisle.
The titled "Epstein Files Transparency Act" was filed on July 15, with the intention of unsealing all government-held documents concerning Jeffrey Epstein. Representatives Massie and Khanna aim to shed light on any hidden details tied to Epstein's case through this legislative push.
Securing enough signatures for the discharge petition has been a contentious journey. To date, the petition has acquired 215 signatures, just shy of the required 218 to bring it to the House floor for a deliberation and vote.
The support for the petition is largely drawn from the Democratic side, with 211 out of 212 House Democrats signing it, whereas only four Republicans, including Massie, have endorsed it. These Republicans are Lauren Boebert, Nancy Mace, and Marjorie Taylor Greene.
On ABC News, Rep. Ro Khanna asserted that they have 216 votes secured, counting on two additional Democrat supporters who have yet to officially sign due to vacancies, but have expressed their commitment to the petition.
While the effort has seen notable bipartisan support, not everyone agrees with the approach. House Speaker Mike Johnson has criticized the discharge petition as unnecessary, pointing out that recent document releases might render the petition redundant. He argues that the petition might jeopardize the protection of victims' identities.
In a more direct political challenge, Former President Donald Trump criticized Rep. Massie, hinting at a potential endorsement of a challenger against him due to his involvement with the petition.
The strategy behind the proposal allows the Attorney General to redact any sensitive information from the files, yet mandates that all unclassified documents be released in a searchable format within 30 days of the act’s enactment.
Earlier this month, on September 2, the House Oversight Committee received a tranche of documents from the Department of Justice related to Epstein. These documents, which had been delivered to the committee on August 22, include over 33,295 pages of content. Such developments suggest ongoing progress in uncovering details about the Epstein saga through established channels.
Despite facing criticism, Reps. Massie and Khanna continue to emphasize the significance of their proposed legislation in ensuring government transparency and accountability. Thomas Massie voiced on social media, asking constituents whether their representatives would choose transparency and justice or reject such principles when the time comes to vote.
Eric Swalwell, a Democratic representative who was absent due to a family member's bereavement, has stated his intent to support the petition upon his return, potentially bringing the initiative closer to its critical threshold.
The unfolding debate over the Epstein Files Transparency Act encapsulates the broader challenges and controversies surrounding government transparency and the safeguarding of sensitive information. As the political drama continues to unfold, all eyes will be on the pending signatures and the subsequent actions of the House.
The story thus not only underscores significant bipartisan efforts but also reflects deep political divisions and the complexities inherent in balancing transparency with the protection of privacy and the integrity of ongoing investigations.
The ultimate decision, likely to come soon, will significantly impact public trust and the overarching narrative surrounding accountability in high-profile cases involving influential figures.
The Trump administration has fired at least four employees at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for using their government devices to watch porn and arrange sexual encounters in foreign countries.
The firings mark the latest effort by the Trump administration to eliminate government bloat and abuse of taxpayer resources. FEMA falls under the supervision of the Department of Homeland Security.
"This behavior and misuse of government resources is absolutely disgusting.” said Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem.
"The revolting actions of these employees, now the second group to be caught at FEMA engaged in such acts, represents a clear national security risk. These employees, who had access to highly sensitive systems, spent their duty hours sexting strangers, including foreign nationals, on encrypted government devices. Such conduct is unacceptable, and these employees have been terminated.”
An investigation from the Department of Homeland Security’s Insider Threat Operations Center initially uncovered two employees consuming porn on the job, some of which was "racially charged" and involved "bestiality," the New York Post reported.
The employees were based at a remote FEMA command center in the Blue Ridge Mountains, the Mount Weather Emergency Operations Center near Bluemont, Virginia.
One of the individuals used a chatbot to have graphic messages read aloud in a foreign accent.
“These individuals had access to critical information and intelligence and were entrusted to safeguard Americans from emergencies—and instead they were consuming pornography,” Noem said in a statement.
“And in at least one case the pornography consumed was racially charged and involved bestiality,” Noem said.
An investigation later uncovered a third employee at the same facility who used the government's network to send lewd messages over Facebook messenger to a person in the Philippines.
The chats contained "graphic sexual content, references to a Filipino dating group, and statements about plans to visit the individual overseas later this year," a DHS press release said.
The individual, who was an IT worker with a top security clearance, even searched hotels and discussed plans to travel in November or December, the Daily Caller reported.
"I wish you were here sitting in my lap while I work," the person wrote on August 28. "I want to hug your waist while I work and smell your hair, kiss your neck."
Another FEMA employee uploaded a picture of male genitals to an adult website, where the person had "multiple graphic conversations" all on the taxpayers' dime.
The Supreme Court has given Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) approval to detain suspected illegal aliens in Los Angeles on the basis of things like language and ethnicity, overruling a Biden judge who found that using those factors constitutes illegal racial profiling.
The court was split 6-3. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the opinion for the conservative majority, which held that the lower court's restrictions went against "common sense."
“The interests of individuals who are illegally in the country in avoiding being stopped by law enforcement for questioning is ultimately an interest in evading the law,” Kavanaugh wrote. “That is not an especially weighty legal interest.”
Kavanaugh took a moment to rebuke district courts that attempt to control immigration policy, a trend that has frustrated the Trump administration a great deal.
"The Judiciary does not set immigration policy or decide enforcement priorities. It should come as no surprise that some Administrations may be more laissez-faire in enforcing immigration law, and other Administrations more strict," Kavanaugh said.
A judge appointed by President Biden, Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, had ruled in July that agents in Los Angeles may not make stops based on any combination of the following elements: ethnicity, speaking Spanish, presence at certain locations such as pick-up sites for day labor, and the type of work a person does.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Frimpong's order, but the Supreme Court reversed, finding it imposed an unreasonable burden on immigration agents.
While ethnicity cannot be the sole determining factor, Kavanaugh said agents may consider it alongside things like location, place of employment, and the ability to speak English when deciding if there is "reasonable suspicion," which is the lowest evidentiary standard in policing.
Kavanaugh noted that Los Angeles has an "extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants", and that those illegal aliens tend to work in certain jobs that do not require paperwork, such as landscaping and agriculture.
Moreover, many are from Mexico or Central America, and often do not speak English. Taken together, these circumstances establish "reasonable suspicion" of illegal presence, he said.
Kavanaugh noted that "immigration stops based on reasonable suspicion of illegal presence have been an important component of U. S. immigration enforcement for decades, across several presidential administrations," and that millions of illegal aliens entered the country during the Biden presidency alone.
"As for stops of those individuals who are legally in the country, the questioning in those circumstances is typically brief, and those individuals may promptly go free after making clear to the immigration officers that they are U.S. citizens or otherwise legally in the United States,” he wrote.
Liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic justice on the high court, wrote a blistering dissent.
"We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low-wage job,” Sotomayor writes. “Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.”
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A man who insists he is a woman and brought a fight over a state law requiring women who participate in women's sports to be, well, women, all the way to the Supreme Court abruptly has walked away from his case, calling on the justices to drop his fight, and even overrule a lower court decision in his favor.
A statement from the ADF, which has fought many of the nation's battles over the transgender ideology and agenda, said, "Let's be clear: the ACLU picked this fight. In red states throughout America, they've gone on offense, filing lawsuits against commonsense laws meant to protect women's sports. In their five-year litigation against Idaho's law, the ACLU has repeatedly argued that this issue is 'a live controversy' and is 'not moot.' They won at the 9th Circuit, forcing Idahoans to allow men in women's sports against their will. And now that the Supreme Court has taken up the case, they suddenly want to take their ball and go home? That's not right—and SCOTUS has looked unfavorably on this tactic in the past. A 2012 ruling decried such 'maneuvers designed to insulate a decision from review by this Court.'"
A report at Not the Bee explained the case was brought by Lindsay Hecox, a 24-year-old man at Boise State University, who demanded to be allowed in women's sports events despite a state law requirement that women's sports participants be women.
"In this case, Hecox, with representation from the ACLU, was challenging Idaho's ban on men participating in women's sporting leagues. Two lower courts had ruled in his favor, with the state subsequently appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed earlier this year to hear the case.
The ACLU's decision to back out — and to request that the court knock back the earlier favorable rulings — unfortunately doesn't mean that we're out of the woods yet on this. As CNN notes, SCOTUS already 'granted a second case, involving a transgender student from West Virginia, that raises the same issue,'" the report said.
The report noted, "Hecox's unwillingness to challenge the matter at court suggests a number of encouraging things, chief among them that he knows he is very likely to lose — which is another way of saying that the tide is turning on transgender madness."
The newest demand from Hecox insists he is under intense "negative public scrutiny" over the litigation and now wants to pursue 'academic and personal goals."
His lawyers said, in a statement to the court, "Ms. (sic) Hecox has also come under negative public scrutiny from certain quarters because of this litigation, and she (sic) believes that such continued – and likely intensified – attention in the coming school year will distract her (sic) from her (sic) schoolwork and prevent her (sic) from meeting her (sic) academic and personal goals. While playing women's sports is important to Ms. (sic) Hecox, her (sic) top priority is graduating from college and living a healthy and safe life."
Republican Gov. Brad Little signed the Idaho law in 2020, the first of its kind in the nation. Hecox, then a freshman at Boise State, sued days later, saying that he intended to try out for the women's track and cross-country teams and alleging that the law violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.
The White House insists that the newly released letter from President Donald Trump to Jeffrey Epstein is fake, Breitbart reported. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that the Wall Street Journal, which first reported on the document that Trump supposedly gave to Epstein for his birthday, has been debunked.
Leavitt wasted no time striking back at the Journal's reporting on Monday, attempting to say now that the document is authentic. "The latest piece published by the Wall Street Journal PROVES this entire 'Birthday Card' story is false," Leavitt posted to X, formerly Twitter, on Monday.
"As I have said all along, it’s very clear President Trump did not draw this picture, and he did not sign it. President Trump’s legal team will continue to aggressively pursue litigation. Furthermore, the 'reporter,' @joe_palazzolo, who wrote this hatchet job reached out for comment at the EXACT same minute he published his story giving us no time to respond. This is FAKE NEWS to perpetuate the Democrat Epstein Hoax!"
The latest piece published by the Wall Street Journal PROVES this entire “Birthday Card” story is false.
As I have said all along, it’s very clear President Trump did not draw this picture, and he did not sign it.
President Trump’s legal team will continue to aggressively…
— Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec) September 8, 2025
There appear to be several gaps in the story, as the Journal covered it in July without publishing a photo of the letter. It was described as a drawing of a naked woman that included a message to Epstein and Trump's signature.
The president vehemently denied it at the time when the story first circulated. "This is not me. This is a fake thing," Trump said after the Wall Street Journal story broke.
"It’s a fake Wall Street Journal story. I never wrote a picture in my life," Trump added. He countered that it was not at all the sort of thing he would ever write.
"I don’t draw pictures of women. It’s not my language. It’s not my words," Trump said about the purported note. In fact, Trump was so adamant that this was fake that he sued the Journal for defamation over it, Reuters reported on July 20.
Now that the media received a copy from the House Oversight Committee, the narrative is once again swirling that Trump was a bosom buddy of the disgraced financier. However, if reporter Joe Palazzolo indeed waited until the story was published before asking for comment, that fact only cements Trump's assertion that there is something disingenuous about the whole thing.
There are already questions about the authenticity of the letter based on the reporting, but other red flags suggest that this is not something Trump would have done. Firstly, some of the lines in the letter are too on the nose for the left's narrative and not at all in Trump's voice.
"We have certain things in common, Jeffrey," one of the lines reads. The letter concludes with Trump saying, "A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret." For someone like Trump, who has been in the public eye for decades as a real estate developer and celebrity, many are familiar with his typical speech and sentiments.
However, the problems with it go beyond content, as commentator Benny Johnson and others pointed out that the signature looks wrong. "Is this really the best they could do? Trump has the most famous signature in the world," Johnson posted to X on Monday. He included a photo of the document in question.
The Wall Street Journal just released the “letter” they claim President Trump sent to Epstein…
Is this really the best they could do?
Trump has the most famous signature in the world.
Time to sue them into the oblivion. pic.twitter.com/zE7DQ1y0CW
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) September 8, 2025
The left is prone to hoaxes in their pursuit of tearing down Trump and his supporters. This scandal doesn't pass the smell test, and this is precisely the kind of nonsense the left has pulled many times over to "get" Donald Trump. This letter is a fake, and the truth will eventually come out, as it always does.
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.