Zero Evidence, Maximum Political Persecution! – E. Jean Carroll V Trump Case

Ajouté : 2026-06-01

[00:00:00]In terms of Eugene Carol, never in my 35 years of practicing law have I seen as politically motivated a persecution which such insanely large civil judgments against so powerful a man based on allegations of a woman who presents as deranged and delusional with essentially zero independent evidence to support her outrageous claims as I've seen with these E Gene Cara lawsuits against our President Trump.

[00:00:33]>> I'm not the victim.

[00:00:35]>> You don't feel like a victim.

[00:00:36]>> I was not thrown on the ground and ravished which the word rape carries so many sexual connotations. This was not this was not sexual for it just it it hurt. It just it just you know >> I think most people think of rape as a I mean it is a violent assault. It is not >> I think most people think of rape as being sexy. So, I think it's worthwhile just bringing a little clarity to exactly what happened in these cases because even when I see coverage of it, it's it's often very confused. I I I think most people, even people writing about this, don't themselves have a clear sense of what happened on kind of a a step-by-step basis. So, Eugene Carol, kind of a an old school advice columnist, obviously on the left, she was about to publish a new book. She was doing a media tour for the publication of this book. What do we need men for is the title. What do we need men for? A modest proposal. That's the title of her book. You know what a modest proposal is referring to? It was a piece written by Tom Swift about what to do, what the British should do with the Irish. And in it, he proposed that well, we we should eat them. Eating Irish children is good eating. Obviously, he was being satirical, but that's the context for the phrase a modest proposal. It's not to be taken seriously. That's the tagline, the subtitle that Eugene Carol put on her own book that's at the center of all this, her accusations against Trump. It shouldn't be taken seriously. She's practically telling us herself. So, she's about to publish this book.

[00:02:17]What do we need meant for a modest proposal? and she's on a media tour. And as part of that media tour, New York Magazine does an interview with her. And on June 21st, 2019, New York Magazine publishes an excerpt of her book. And that excerpt alleges that Trump had sexually assaulted Eugene Carol in the dressing room of department store Burgdolf Goodman. She doesn't know when.

[00:02:45]She can't remember when this assault happened. Now, notably, Trump, of course, was serving his first term as president. He'd formally announced that he was going to seek reelection for a second term, and he made that announcement just 3 days before New York Magazine published this excerpt. Or to put it another way, New York Magazine waited for Trump to announce his running for a second term and then three days later published this excerpt. And of course, Trump publicly denied these allegations. He denied sexually assaulting Eching Carol. He denied even knowing her. Suggested she fabricated this lawsuit for political purposes.

[00:03:26]She's on the left. And for financial reasons to to turbocharge the sales of her book. She's accusing me of rape. A woman that I have no idea who she is. It came out of the blue. She's accusing me of rape. Of raping her. And And you know it's you know it's not true, too. You're a political operative also. You're disa you're a disgrace. But she's accusing me and so are you of rape and it never took place.

[00:03:55]>> So when Trump denied these allegations of sexual assault, Egene Carol decided to file a lawsuit against him not for the sexual abuse because the statute of limitations for sexual abuse had had expired years ago. But the defamation, the alleged defamation was brand new.

[00:04:14]The defamation was Trump's denial. He's accused of sexual abuse. He says it never happened. She's making it up.

[00:04:20]She's lying. And she sues him for defamation over that. By the way, just calling someone a liar would normally be grounds for defamation. But there's an exception to that rule. When you're defending yourself against an accusation, then you're allowed to say the accusation's not true, that it's a lie. Nevertheless, she files a defamation suit. This is called Carol 1 because this is the first of the two lawsuits she files against Trump.

[00:04:47]Confusingly, uh Trump raises a bunch of legal defenses to this lawsuit. Um including getting it transferred from state court to federal court uh raising and we've covered some of these before um Westfall um objections. In other words, that when someone is sued civily, a federal employee is sued civily for conduct in the course of their duties, the United States is allowed to step in to be the defendant in their place. So, it's the United States as a government, as a sovereign who's being sued, not the individual federal employee. Uh Trump argued that should apply here. It's a very compelling argument. Um, but while all that kind of stuff was being litigated, the case was Carol 1 was on hold. So the 2019 Carol 1 case, just de defamation, that's the only claim is put on hold while this is all being litigated. So this would not end up being resolved until after Carol 2 was completely adjudicated. That's part of the things that cause confusion here. So Trump denies this, gets sued in this defamation case, Carol 1, it gets put on hold while a bunch of ancillary arguments are being made at various levels of federal courts. And meanwhile, Carol 2 gets filed. By the way, one of the issues that came up in Carol 1, before I even get to Carol 2, Trump's lawyers discover evidence that there are political enemies of Trump's who are funding this litigation, paying for Carol's lawyers. And we're going to come back to this in more substance, but this is where all this starts. This perjury stuff starts because they they put Eugene Carol under deposition. She's under oath. She's testifying.

[00:06:37]And they ask her, "Is anybody funding this litigation?" Because they want, if so, they want to know who it is. And she denies it. She says, "No, nobody's funding this litigation. There's no political motivation here. No one's funding this." Well, that that's now been exposed to be a lie. In fact, once the trial actually started after the deposition was taken, Trump's lawyers had to concede to the court, hey, our client made a mistake. In fact, this is being funded by a political enemy of Trump's. It's being funded by the same guy who funded Christine Blazy Ford's accusations against Justice Kavanaaugh when he was being confirmed. That's how much of a political enemy this guy is.

[00:07:22]And again, we'll circle back to that in more substance after we kind of cover the history of the litigation here. And and when Trump's lawyer said to Judge Kaplan, "Uh, well, judge, your honor, this obviously goes to her credibility.

[00:07:35]Credibility is always relevant. Uh, so we want to be able to question her on cross-examination about this, about who's paying for all this." And Judge Kaplan said, "No, I'm not going to allow you to do that."

[00:07:50]Those are the kinds of rulings we're getting from Kaplan. Now people say today, well, you know, maybe it goes to credibility, but we have a way of deciding whether or not a person, a witness, a claimant is found to be credible. That's the jury. That's the verdict. And the verdict in this case was for Eugene Carol. There's a University of Michigan law professor, a former US attorney, Department of Justice attorney, who's out there on social media saying it's all irrelevant whether she may have purged herself because her credibility was already assessed by the jury and they believed her. It's almost impossible to describe how idiotic an argument that is, especially from someone with those kinds of legal credentials. Yes, the jury evaluates credibility. It doesn't mean that somebody could not have perjured themselves.

[00:08:39]Second of all, the jury evaluates credibility based on the evidence that's put before them. If you do not put before them the evidence of the perjury, how could they incorporate that knowledge into deciding credibility?

[00:08:53]If you don't show them anything that would reasonably undercut credibility, of course, they're going to assume the witness, the claimant, is credible, but that's only because you denied them the evidence that they're not credible. It's absolute madness.

[00:09:06]So they discover that a political opponent of of Trump's is paying for all this and and Judge Kaplan won't allow that into evidence. Won't allow cross-examination on that issue.

[00:09:16]Absolute madness. And so that that ruling got appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and and they affirmed it. So people say, well, you know, the the Second Circuit agreed with the judge. No, that's not what it means because these are rulings of evidence and rulings of evidence at trial are left almost entirely to the discretion of the trial judge. The court of appeals won't reverse an evidentary ruling at trial unless they find it was an abuse of discretion, which is such a high standard. It it literally means that it was insane for the judge to do this that no judge in creation would have made this evidentiary ruling. What it doesn't mean when the second circuit forms is that we agree with that decision. They could all have felt, hey, listen, if we were making the call, it would have been a different call. We would have allowed the cross-examination, but we're obliged to defer to the trial judge 99% of the time, and that's what we're going to do here. Doesn't mean they think it was the right decision. That's not what that means. So, all this Carol one stuff is going on. Lots of delays. They're not allowed to bring in this evidence of who's paying for this litigation.

[00:10:23]And uh and so it kind of starts slow walking as all the litigation around the first trial, Carol 1, is happening. And then then we have the real hardcore political persecution because now everybody knows, of course, Eugene Carol is suing Trump, claiming defamation because Trump's denying her claims of sexual abuse decades earlier, but she's unable to bring a civil action for actual sexual assault, which would be a different second civil action because the statute of limitations has expired years ago. years ago. Now, it's important to understand why statutes of limitation exist.

[00:11:06]They exist because we all know that as time passes, evidence becomes less reliable. Evidence can disappear.

[00:11:14]Memories change. The ability of people to defend themselves becomes more difficult with the passage of 5, 10, 20, 30 years. So, we have statutes of limitations for the public policy purpose of saying, "Hey, if you believe you've been harmed in some way, you can sue over that, but you have to do it within a reasonable period of time. And after that reasonable period of time, we're going to take that option off the table." Well, the statute of limitations on sexual abuse in New York, where all this is alleged to have occurred, Burgdoff Goodman department store had expired long, long ago. But New York City saw this. Egene Carol first lawsuit, the Carol 1 lawsuit, just a claim of defamation, no claim of sexual abuse because of the statute of limitations. And they said, "You know what? Just for this case, just for this case, we're going to recreate a one-year window in which old expired claims of sexual abuse can be brought again. Brought Aresh, as if the statute of limitations had not expired."

[00:12:21]Obviously, New York State is a hostile political environment for Trump. In 2016, when Trump was elected to be president the first time, he lost New York by more than 20 points. In 2020, when he was again elected to be president, but the election was stolen, Trump lost New York State by again more than 20 points. And of course, this concentration of hostility would be greatest around the New York City area where these trials were being held, where the judge lives, where the jury would be selected from. And New York State creates a law. The New York Adult Survivors Act creates a 1year window in which you can again bring old sexual abuse cases that otherwise would be prohibited under the expired statute of limitations. They they pass this into law. The governor signs it, Governor Hochel on May 22nd, but it doesn't actually take effect until 6 months later. So that would be November 22nd.

[00:13:21]Well, during that six-month period, Carol announces, "Hey, I'm going to take advantage of this opportunity. After all, it was designed just for her to do exactly that, to bring a civil action for sexual abuse against Trump that otherwise would be prohibited." So during this six-month window between when the governor signed it into law and when it actually takes effect, she's egene Carol's out in the media saying, "Yeah, as soon as I can, November 22nd it takes effect. November 22nd is when I'm filing a second civil suit. This time for sexual abuse." And sure enough, within minutes of the law taking effect, she she goes ahead and files that second suit. Now, in the meantime, having been put on notice by Eugene Carol herself that she intends to take advantage of this one-year window magically created by New York State for her to raise a claim of sex sexual abuse against Trump. Trump So, she announces that in September of 2022, in October 2022, Trump says she's crazy. This is all a lie. It's all a lie. And he does that in a famous truth social post. So let me pull that up. We can all take a look at that. Refresh our recollection. Trump's October 12th, 2022 statement. This Miss Bergdolf Goodman case is a complete conj job and our legal system in this country, but especially in New York State, just look at Peekaboo James. You remember that, right? They were prosecuting him on other grounds uh criminally is a broken disgrace. You have to fight for years and spend a fortune in order to get your reputation back from liars, cheaters, and hacks. This decision is from the judge Kaplan who was just overturned on my same case. I don't know this woman. Have no idea who she is other than it seems she got a picture of me many years ago with her husband shaking my hand on a reception line at a celebrity charity event. She completely made up a story that I met her at the doors of this crowded New York City department store and within minutes swooned her. It's a hoax and a lie just like all the other hoaxes that have been played on me for the past 7 years. And while I'm not supposed to say it, I will. This woman is not my type.

[00:15:42]>> I will tell you I made that statement and I said, "Well, it's politically incorrect. She's not my type." And that's 100% true. She's not my type. She has no idea what day, what week, what month, what year, what decade this so-called event supposedly took place.

[00:15:59]The reason she doesn't know is because it never happened. And she doesn't want to get caught up with details or facts that can be proven wrong. This is an important point we're going to circle back to because this effectively stripped Trump of his most powerful defense in this case and should have been grounds by itself for dismissal of this case with prejudice. If you watch Anderson Cooper's interview with her where she was promoting a really crummy book, you will see that it's a complete scam. She changed her story from beginning to end after the commercial break to suit the purposes of CNN and Andy Cooper.

[00:16:33]>> I just say it's a fight that way. I'm not the victim, right? I'm not the victim.

[00:16:39]>> You don't feel like a victim.

[00:16:41]>> I was not thrown on the ground and ravished, which the word raped carries so many sexual connotations. This was not this was not sexual for it just it it hurt. It just was it just you know >> but I think most people think of rape as a I mean it is a violent assault. It is not >> I think most people think of rape as being sexy.

[00:17:03]>> Let's take a short break.

[00:17:04]>> Think of the fantasies.

[00:17:07]>> We just got to take a quick break. If you can stick around, we'll talk more on the other side.

[00:17:11]>> You're fascinating to talk to.

[00:17:13]>> Our justice system is broken along with almost everything else in our country.

[00:17:17]Her lawyer is a political operative and Quomo crony who goes around telling people that the way to beat Trump is to sue him all over the place. She's suing me on numerous frivolous cases just like this one and the court system does nothing to stop it. In the meantime, and for the record, Eugene Carol is not telling the truth. Is a woman who I had nothing to do with, didn't know, and would have no interest in knowing if I ever had the chance. Now all I have to do is go through years more of legal nonsense in order to clear my name of her and her lawyers phony attacks on me.

[00:17:51]This can only happen to Trump. All right, so that's October 12th, 2022.

[00:17:58]Eugene Carol the prior month had announced she was going to revive a sexual abuse allegation in civil court against Trump thanks to New York State's one-year window for her to do that created just for her to go after Trump.

[00:18:11]The next month, Trump denies all these allegations and truth social like we just said. And on November 22nd, within minutes of that window opening, Eugene Carol has filed her second lawsuit.

[00:18:22]We'll call it Carol 2 with her civil claim of sexual abuse because the statute of limitations has been waved.

[00:18:29]And she adds another claim of defamation. This time, not for Trump's denial of her allegations in the first trial, but for this truth social post. a second claim of defamation. Now, both of these are are jury trials. Uh but something interesting happens here. Um the juryy's asked, well, did did Trump rape Eugene Carroll? Which of course is the headline accusation uh against Trump? And as you may know, as you should know, the jury comes back and says, "Uh, no, that did not happen." Here's the jury verdict form.

[00:19:06]Did Miss Carol prove by a propoundonderance of the evidence that Mr. Trump raped Carol? No. No, they do find that Carol is proved by a prepoundonderance of the evidence sexual abuse, not rape. Now, this whole preponderance of the evidence is important to keep in mind as well. If New York State had tried to prosecute Trump criminally for these allegations, the burden of proof would have been on the state to prove that he committed these acts beyond any reasonable doubt.

[00:19:37]But in civil court, that's not the standard. In civil court, the standard is merely a preponderance, meaning 50% and a hair.

[00:19:45]Now, in this case, it's a boggles the mind that any rational jury, any unbiased, impartial jury could possibly find any of Eugene Carol's claims to have been proven by a prepoundonderance of the evidence because they're completely unsupported by any evidence, zero evidence that Trump committed these acts. None. The strongest evidence for Eugene Carol is hearsay evidence is uh propensity evidence which is normally not admissible. Well, Trump did something bad to somebody else so he must have done this bad thing too.

[00:20:20]Allegations about a Egene Carol had a dress that she wanted tested for DNA.

[00:20:26]There was never any evidence that there was anything like semen on this dress and no DNA. No DNA. In fact, when when she offered her DNA evidence, testing results to the court, she only included her DNA.

[00:20:41]She didn't include any evidence of Trump's DNA. Instead, she demanded a DNA sample from Trump, which would of course have provided her with the opportunity to take Trump's DNA results and then falsely include them in her lab results.

[00:20:58]Trump Trump wouldn't offer his DNA until he got her complete report. So that kind of doctrine couldn't happen, which made the judge very unhappy. The judge said, "Well, that that that's also consistent with Trump having committed sexual abuse that he's not willing to give up his DNA in this case." It's a circle jerk all the way around.

[00:21:20]All the way around. So if if if a rational, impartial, unbiased jury could not possibly have found eene Carol's claims to have been proven by a proponent of the evidence, what's that tell us? It obviously wasn't a rational, impartial, unbiased jury. We we have things judges can do. An honest judge in this case, not Judge Kaplan of course, but an honest judge would have would have issued a Janeov. A judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

[00:21:51]because he would have recognized I I know the I know the the jury issued a verdict of liability here, but no rational jury could have done that.

[00:22:00]We're not supposed to allow juries in the absence of any substantive evidence to find people guilty of a crime or liable under civil law because they feel like it, because they don't like the accused, because they're on the left and the person being accused is on the right.

[00:22:17]Verdicts are supposed to be based on evidence.

[00:22:20]And our law recognizes that sometimes juries run away and they just issue verdicts from emotion and that's not supposed to be allowed. So we have mechanisms for disallowing that. But of course, Judge Kaplan is also a TDS political activist thinks Trump is literally Hitler. Unbelievable. So that Carol 2 case again the second litigation includes the sexual abuse charge because of the adult survivors act. uh and a second claim of defamation because of Trump's truth social post. Uh the jury comes back with a um a verdict of um liability of what was it? I think it was $5 million. Yes.

[00:23:03]$5 million. A couple million for damages, a couple million for for other stuff. All right. Well, now we have a verdict from a jury. Now remember, Judge Kaplan is in charge of both these cases.

[00:23:14]So now we go back to Carol One.

[00:23:17]Carol 1 was basically undergoing other arguments and litigation on the sidelines. So Carol 2 was started and completed first. And now we circle back to Carol 1. Carol 1 was the one that there is no sexual abuse case because the adult survivors act was not law yet.

[00:23:33]It's only defamation. Defamation for Trump's original denial of Egene Carol's 2019 accusations of sexual abuse against him. And this is also a jury trial. But now that it's back, now that it's running again, Trump says, "All right, I'm here. I'm ready to defend myself against these charges of defamation for my 2019 comments." Not the 2022 Truth Social Post. That has nothing to do with Carol 1. Carol 1 is based on different remarks, different denials made in 2019.

[00:24:10]And Judge Kaplan says, "No, I'm not going to allow you to raise a defense because a different jury and a different trial based on different remarks found that you had engaged in defamation. So, I'm just going to conclude as a matter of law that you also engaged in defamation for your 2019 remarks.

[00:24:30]Therefore, there will be no defense. I'm not allowing you to present a defense to the jury. I'm gonna tell this jury, the second jury in Carol One, that as a matter of law, you're liable. And the only question for the jury is what the damages should be. So, of course, the jury gets that instruction from the judge, calculates damages, and in an absolutely insane calculation comes up with $83 million in damages. This is also the basis of ongoing appeals from Trump. I I covered this before. There was a uh the second um circuit court of appeals uh just affirmed the damages. Uh there was a request for a reharing on bon that was denied. But I read you all the dissents of from the denial and they make very clear this calculation first of all on the legal merits. This this trial is bogus. It should be completely redone. The United States under Westfall should have been allowed to step in.

[00:25:29]Trump made the allegedly defamatory remarks in his office as president.

[00:25:35]That's a federal employee. Anytime a federal employee is civily sued for conduct in the course of their federal duties, the United States can step in as the defendant and wanted to here. Now, of course, originally Trump's first term Department of Justice had said, "Yes, we want the US to step in."

[00:25:56]And then of course Biden stole the election and his attorney general Merrick Garland said, "No, we're reversing that. We don't want the US to step in." And now the second circuit court of appeals said, "Well, they already said they they don't want to step in, so we're not going to allow Pam Bondi, who for most of this time was was Trump's attorney general in the second term. We're not going to allow her to change Merrick Garland's decision.

[00:26:18]Merrick Garland can change the prior Trump attorney general decision, but we're not going to allow Pam Bondi to change Merrick Garland's position and the calculation for damages itself, the numerical values were just completely broken. There was double counting. There was all kinds of problems with it. So that's now going before the Supreme Court as well. And and there are so many reasons to doubt to doubt the credibility of these claims just just at step one of the analysis.

[00:26:49]First of all, she can't pin down when it happened. She can't pin it down to a particular date. She can't pin it down to a particular month. She can't pin it down to a particular season of the year.

[00:27:01]She can't pin it down to a particular year. She doesn't know. It was either 1995 or 1996. She doesn't remember. She doesn't remember.

[00:27:13]Trump was already one of the most famous men in the world. He was a billionaire.

[00:27:19]She says she was raped by a billionaire in the dressing room of a department store and she can't remember even the year in which it happened. Yet, we're supposed to believe her recollection about any other facts.

[00:27:35]It's absolutely insane. And again, this absence of a particular date doesn't just go to her credibility.

[00:27:43]The real reason for her being unable to recollect when this happened is because it effectively strips Trump of his most compelling defense to these accusations.

[00:27:53]We'll come back to that in a minute. The biggest evidence that the the pro- Carol people claim is on her side as well.

[00:27:59]There were two female witnesses that testified for Carol. Two female witnesses, Jessica Leeds, Natasha Stinoff. These two women are also in completely not credible. By the way, neither one of them testified to anything having to do with the events between Trump and Carol. They have no personal knowledge. They were not in the department store. They didn't see them together. They didn't see them enter the store. They didn't see them enter the dressing room. They didn't see anything that happened that day of the purported sexual abuse of Carol by Trump. So, they have no direct knowledge, no personal knowledge of anything that actually happened or didn't happen between Carol and Trump. They were brought in to testify that Trump had been mean to them, too. Trump was mean to me. Jessica Le says, and this is such an unbelievably not credible story.

[00:28:51]Jessica Le says, "Well, I was on a commercial flight, Bran Airlines, a commercial flight in the 1970s.

[00:29:00]You know, when the original Star Wars movie was released, when Jaws was in theaters, sometime in the ' 70s. She can't remember what year. She can't remember what season she was on a commercial flight and she, by the way, she can't remember where this plane was departing from, where this plane was heading to. She can't remember. She remembers being upgraded to first class from coach. And she was seated next to Trump in first class, she says. And then she says, "Well, in first class, after about 45 minutes into the flight, he started grabbing my boobs, tried to kiss me."

[00:29:41]Have any of you you've all walked through first class? If you haven't flown first class yourself with a nice big seats, lots of leg room, big spaces.

[00:29:50]Is there any privacy in first class?

[00:29:54]There's none. Everybody can see everything.

[00:29:59]The notion that a billionaire is just going to start grabbing a woman's boobs where everybody can see is just insane.

[00:30:06]And by the way, leadeds was never able to present any witness to support anything she's saying. Completely not credible. Another woman, the other woman, Natasha Stoenoff, a writer for People magazine, that's surely credible, testified that in December of 20, well, 2005 at Mara Lago, Trump isolated her in a room, forcibly kissed her, and they were interrupted by a butler. She didn't make that claim for 11 years, not until after the Axis Hollywood tape was released.

[00:30:39]Remember the Axis Hollywood tape? That's the one where Trump Well, I think I have it. That's the one where Trump says you can grab him by the by the P word and people say, "Oh, that's it. That's the proof. That's the proof of sexual assault." But sexual assault is when you're committing sexy acts with someone against their will. The same conduct with consent is not a crime. That's just how people get it on. And what did Trump actually say?

[00:31:10]Did he say he was grabbing people by the pee against their will? Or did he say they'll let you do it? If you're famous, if you're a star, they will let you do it. Let's listen to the actual words.

[00:31:26]And by the way, this tape was allowed in as evidence as well when Trump is thinks he's alone with other men and they're they're engaged in locker room talk. But in any case, what's he actually say here? And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

[00:31:42]>> Whatever you want.

[00:31:43]>> When you're a star, they'll let you do it. You can do anything. He's referring to consensual contact here, not not sexual abuse. And yet, this was allowed in his evidence. Why? For exactly the wrong reasons. Because its prejuditial effect is much greater than its probitive value, which is zero.

[00:32:04]A tape in which Trump is talking about touching women consensually has no relevance to a civil suit where he's being accused of sexual abuse.

[00:32:12]Obviously, but after this tape was released, that's when suddenly 11 years later, Natasha Stoneoff testifies, "Oh, he was touching me. He was trying to kiss me in a room.

[00:32:24]We were interrupted by a butler." By the way, was the butler ever brought in to testify? Is there any corroborating evidence of any of these claims by these two women? No. In fact, there's no corroborating evidence at all. There's no butler. Where's the butler? There's no flight. What flight? From where to where? What day? Nobody knows anything.

[00:32:43]Eene Carol can't remember what year she was supposed to have been raped by a billionaire in New York. It's absolutely