Well folks, the highest court in the land just did something it hasn't done since 2018, and it involves everyone's favorite defamation saga. The Supreme Court redistributed a petition from President Trump asking for a do-over in the E. Jean Carroll lawsuit, as USA Journal reported. For context, the justices granting rehearing petitions is about as common as a politician keeping a campaign promise, so maybe pay attention to this one.
Let's talk about the cash, because that's where things get absolutely wild. LinkedIn co-founder and Democratic mega-donor Reid Hoffman apparently bankrolled Carroll's legal fight to the tune of roughly $7 million through a nonprofit called American Future Republic. The kicker? Hoffman's involvement was kept under wraps until just weeks before the first trial went forward. Carroll stated under oath during her 2022 deposition that nobody else was footing her legal bills. The Department of Justice is now looking into whether that sworn testimony constitutes perjury. A federal appeals court generously concluded she had "plausibly forgotten" who was writing those checks. Seven. Million. Dollars. Sure, who among us hasn't misplaced a cool seven mil in legal funding? Happens to me every Tuesday.
The actual allegation centers on Carroll's claim that Trump assaulted her inside a Bergdorf Goodman fitting room sometime around 1995 or 1996. No police report was ever filed. No complaint was made at the time beyond two friends she says she confided in. Bergdorf confirmed zero security footage exists from that period. The entire lawsuit only became possible because New York passed the Adult Survivors Act in 2022, which opened a retroactive one-year window for such claims. Critics allege Democrats running the state legislature crafted it specifically so Carroll could bring her suit against Trump. Not fresh evidence, just a brand new law.
Trump has maintained he never met Carroll. The sole photograph placing them together shows a charity receiving line at a 1987 NBC event that Carroll herself described as lasting five or six minutes. Trump's position, that he shook countless hands at such gatherings and couldn't identify every single face decades later, is pretty reasonable for anyone who's ever attended a large fundraiser.
Here's what Trump is actually arguing before the Supreme Court. He contends the jury should never have been allowed to hear testimony from other accusers with their own decades-old allegations, or the infamous 2005 Access Hollywood recording. Both were introduced as so-called pattern evidence. Carroll's own attorneys have acknowledged the outcome might have looked quite different without that material, though they argue her testimony standing alone was enough.
That's basically the whole appeal boiled down: should American courts allow a pile of unrelated accusations to prove one specific claim? Evidence rules exist because our justice system is supposed to hold people accountable for what they actually did, not for who they are or what somebody else once alleged. Carroll's legal team leaned heavily into character-based arguments, and a sympathetic jury awarded tens of millions.
The Second Circuit upheld everything. But now the Supreme Court is circling back, and a DOJ perjury investigation is running in parallel. This saga is far from finished.
Read more conservative news commentary at: USA Journal News
