Appeals Court Denies Trump’s Attempt To Overturn E. Jean Carroll Ruling
A federal appeals court on Friday turned away an attempt by President Donald Trump to have a lower court’s ruling in his $5 million sexual abuse case involving former Elle columnist E. Jean Carroll overturned.
The decision, first reported on the X platform by Politico’s Kyle Cheney, stemmed from a divided Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in which all 11 judges were involved en banc. The ruling left intact a three-judge decision on Dec. 30 to enforce the jury award.
Carroll, now 81, alleged that Trump assaulted her in a dressing room at the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan around 1996, and later defamed her in an October 2022 Truth Social post by calling her accusation a hoax.
In May 2023, a jury found that Trump had sexually assaulted Carroll and defamed her by making false statements. However, the jury did not conclude that Trump had raped her, as she originally claimed.
In requesting reconsideration, Trump argued that the trial judge made a mistake by allowing jurors to view the 2005 Access Hollywood video, in which he boasted about his sexual behavior, along with what he described as a “pile-on” of prejudicial evidence involving allegations from two other women.
“Two of the Trump appointees, Judges Steven Menashi and Michael Park, on the bench dissent from the en banc decision, saying the judge shouldn’t have admitted ‘propensity’ evidence like the Access Hollywood tape,” Cheney reported on X.
One accuser, businesswoman Jessica Leeds, claimed Trump groped her on a plane in the late 1970s. The other, former People magazine writer Natasha Stoynoff, alleged he forcibly kissed her at his Mar-a-Lago estate in 2005. Trump has denied both allegations.
Trump, who turns 79 on Saturday, is also appealing an $83.3 million jury verdict issued in January 2024, which found he defamed Carroll and harmed her reputation in June 2019 when he first denied her allegation about the incident at Bergdorf Goodman.
In that appeal, Trump contends that the U.S. Supreme Court’s July decision granting him broad criminal immunity also shields him from civil liability in Carroll’s case.
In his 2019 and 2022 statements denying Carroll’s accusations, Trump claimed she was “not my type” and alleged she fabricated the story to promote her memoir.
Trump could also face a third lawsuit from Carroll over a post he made to his Truth Social account during the Memorial Day observance a year ago.
“Happy Memorial Day to All, including the Human Scum that is working so hard to destroy our Once Great Country, & to the Radical Left, Trump Hating Federal Judge in New York that presided over, get this, TWO separate trials, that awarded a woman, who I never met before (a quick handshake at a celebrity event, 25 years ago, doesn’t count!), 91 MILLION DOLLARS for ‘DEFAMATION,’” Trump wrote.
“She didn’t know when the so-called event took place – sometime in the 1990’s – never filed a police report, didn’t have to produce the ‘dress’ that she threatened me with (it showed negative!), & sung my praises in the first half of her CNN Interview with Alison Cooper, but changed her tune in the second half – Gee, I wonder why (UNDER APPEAL!)? The Rape charge was dropped by a jury! Or Arthur Engoron, the N.Y. State Wacko Judge who fined me almost 500 Million Dollars (UNDER APPEAL) for DOING NOTHING WRONG, used a Statute that has never been used before, gave me NO JURY, Mar-a-Lago at $18,000,000 – Now for Merchan!” he added.
Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, confirmed to Newsweek that her client was considering yet another lawsuit.
“We have said several times since the last jury verdict in January that all options were on the table. And that remains true today. All options are on the table,” Kaplan said in a statement at the time.
A NATIONALLY TELEVISED RECKONING: SENATOR JOHN KENNEDY READS AOC’S ENTIRE THREAD WORD FOR WORD ON AIR
When Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez took to social media to label Senator John Kennedy “dangerous” and declare that dissenting voices “needed to be silenced,” she likely anticipated a standard partisan retort. Instead, the Louisiana Senator delivered a calculated, unedited counterstrike that captured national headlines.
Bypassing Spin: The Unvarnished Record
Rather than trading insults online or issuing a press release, Kennedy carried the confrontation straight to a nationally televised public forum. Armed with a printed stack of records, the Senator took the podium, paused, and began reading AOC’s entire thread aloud into the microphone.
Every single post. Word for word. No commentary, no edits, and no interruptions.
The impact was immediate. By simply reading the text exactly as written, Kennedy turned the words themselves into the centerpiece of the discussion, forcing viewers to confront the rhetoric on its face without the buffer of online talking heads or social media spin.
The Constitutional Contrast
Once the last tweet was read into the record, Kennedy methodically dismantled the core premise of the argument. Drawing directly on the First Amendment, the Senator offered a biting, forensic critique of modern cancel culture and political double standards:
Free Speech vs. Political Censorship: Kennedy underscored the bedrock constitutional principle that no elected official has the authority to dictate who is permitted to speak or whose views are deemed acceptable.
The Receipts on Display: By contrasting the calls for silencing opponents against past defenses of radical speech, Kennedy highlighted what critics called a glaring standard of selective outrage.
Composure Over Outrage: Refusing to raise his voice, Kennedy let his trademark folksy calm underline the gravity of the constitutional stakes, turning the moment from a political spat into an indictment of authoritarian impulses.
A Turning Point in the Political Debate
The stark visual of a veteran senator calmly holding up public statements and letting them speak for themselves resonated widely, sparking an immediate frenzy across political broadcasts and digital platforms. The exchange shifted the spotlight from party lines to fundamental questions about accountability, public discourse, and the right to dissent.
By trading digital outrage for a live, unedited reading of the public record, Kennedy didn’t just answer a challenge—he forced Washington into a broader reckoning over the language of modern politics.
Will moments like this reshape how political battles are fought going forward? Share your thoughts below!
SENATE SHOWDOWN: ADAM SCHIFF’S GAMBIT CRUMBLES AS SENATOR JOHN KENNEDY DELIVERS A DEVASTATING TAKEDOWN
What began as a standard Senate hearing on intelligence reform erupted into one of the most explosive political confrontations in recent Capitol Hill history. Congressman Adam Schiff’s attempt to outmaneuver Senator John Kennedy reversed course dramatically, culminating in an extraordinary defeat that left the hearing room—and viewers across the country—stunned.
An Ambush Derailed
Schiff opened the session with an aggressive gambit, looking to steer the proceedings and dictate the narrative. Framing the discussion around intelligence protocols, Schiff quickly pivoted to launch familiar rhetorical salvos, attempting to put committee members on the defensive with sweeping assertions.
Kennedy, however, refused to yield an inch of ground. Known for pairing a drawling, down-home demeanor with razor-sharp legal acumen, the Louisiana Senator sat back, waited for Schiff to overreach, and sprang a meticulously constructed trap.
The Masterclass in Cross-Examination
Rather than trading partisan talking points, Kennedy methodically built his counterattack on raw documentation. Point by point, the Senator systematically challenged Schiff's record:
Dissecting past statements and intelligence memos line by line against verified committee findings.
Pressing hard on questions of procedural transparency, selective disclosures, and ethical boundaries.
Turning Schiff’s own past arguments back on him with unflinching, forensic precision.
As Kennedy tightened the focus on specific ethical violations and questionable oversight decisions, Schiff’s confident posture began to erode under the relentless questioning.
The Live-Broadcast Climax
The confrontation reached a boiling point when Kennedy introduced a critical piece of official correspondence into the record. The document struck at the core of Schiff’s defense, leaving no procedural exit.
In a shocking scene broadcast live to the public, the tension at the witness table snapped. Confronted with the unassailable evidence, Schiff’s own legal counsel hesitated, gathered their materials, and stepped away from the table—leaving Schiff isolated before the microphone without an answer.
The hearing room went dead silent. Schiff, deprived of both rebuttal and support, could only sit in stunned silence as the final seconds ticked away.
The dramatic clash has triggered shockwaves throughout Washington, with analysts hailing the exchange as a benchmark demonstration of rigorous congressional oversight and accountability.
What are your thoughts on this dramatic Senate face-off? Share your perspective below!
SENATE SHOWDOWN: SENATOR JOHN KENNEDY DISMANTLES ADAM SCHIFF WITH 104 PIECES OF DAMNING EVIDENCE
A high-stakes clash erupted on Capitol Hill as the Senate became the arena for an unprecedented face-off between Senator John Kennedy and Representative Adam Schiff. What began as a procedural hearing quickly spiraled into a political earthquake that has left Washington reeling.
The Theatrics Hit a Brick Wall
From the opening gavel, Adam Schiff attempted to seize total control of the room, deploying his familiar rhetorical playbook. Schiff pressed forward with sweeping collusion accusations, disputed intelligence leaks, and long-contested impeachment secrets, aiming to frame the narrative on his own terms.
He was met, however, by a Senator who had come fully prepared. John Kennedy—renowned for his folksy cadence paired with lethal cross-examination skills—refused to let the narrative stand unchallenged.
103 Documents: Dissecting the Narrative
Refusing to yield ground, Kennedy systematically brought out 103 documented exhibits, taking aim at every major claim Schiff put forward. Item by item, Kennedy laid out the paper trail:
Debunked collusion narratives systematically broken down with official records.
The paper trail behind selective intelligence disclosures and committee leaks.
Behind-the-scenes documentation of past impeachment proceedings brought directly into the record.
With each document entered, Kennedy dismantled Schiff’s arguments piece by piece, turning the momentum entirely on its head and putting Schiff on the defensive.
The 104th Piece: Jeanine Pirro Steps In
Just as the chamber appeared to reach the end of the confrontation, an unexpected twist sent shockwaves through the hearing. Jeanine Pirro stepped forward, delivering to Senator Kennedy the 104th piece of evidence.
The document proved decisive. With the final record in hand, Kennedy posed the ultimate question—a point so concrete and airtight that Schiff offered no rebuttal.
The entire chamber fell dead silent. The confrontation ended with Schiff visibly shaken, unable to mount a defense against the compiled evidence.
The fallout from this dramatic Kennedy–Schiff showdown continues to reverberate across Capitol Hill.
What’s your take on the Kennedy vs. Schiff showdown? Drop your thoughts below and join the conversation!
