Connect with us


Has E. Jean Carroll given Trump the election?

E. Jean Carroll might have handed Donald Trump the Election of 2024 with her outrageous, giddy, share-the-wealth reaction to her award.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email



CNAV has refrained from covering the case of E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump, for a simple reason. The reason is: it’s a gossip case. Of course, only an “alpha male” like Trump could find himself involved in a lawsuit like this. Nevertheless, the world already had good reason to doubt the justice of the judgment in that case. Not only was the award absurd. ($83.3 million for nasty words? A special, private law to grant her standing? That’s ripe for overturn on Constitutional grounds alone.) But the judge did not try that case fairly, and Trump plans an immediate appeal. But now the plaintiff has reached the height of absurdity and obnoxious boasting. Now, only the most deeply ideologically driven people will believe she was even telling the truth. And Donald J. Trump will command even more votes, and even a murder conviction will not stop him.

WTF is E. Jean Carroll?

E. Jean Carroll is a writer of facile advice and sour, anti-male screeds. These include a 2019 book titled What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal. In it she accused two prominent men of criminally assaulting her: former CBS President Leslie Moonves, and President Donald J. Trump.

Anyone who would put Leslie Moonves in the same category as Donald J. Trump is obviously reaching. Mr. Moonves has plenty of witnesses that tell far more credible stories against him than she. But Donald J. Trump? She says he forced his attentions on her in a department-store fitting room. That alone is absurd on its face. A man like Donald J. Trump need never chase women; women come to him. And a fitting room is the last place a man of his prominence would try a thing like that. Too many potential witnesses could walk in at any moment.

In fact, the jury in her case did not find that anything untoward had occurred. Furthermore, why did even “Tish” James neglect to charge him with forcible rape? The answer is: it didn’t happen.

Trump should have ignored her

But Donald J. Trump is far from perfect. Apart from lack of imagination – and a tendency to hire the first person who applies for a job, discovering only later that he’s hired a traitor to his country – Trump suffers from the Alpha Male Syndrome. He assigns entirely too much weight to the opinions of others toward him. When her fluffy book came out, with its outrageous accusations, he ought to have ignored it. Memo to any man facing a similar accusation: treat it with the contempt it deserves.


Sadly, for him, he didn’t ignore it. He insisted on calling her non compos mentis – an accusation that might have been true, but was never relevant. He also said she was “not [his] type.” And this is what gratuitous insult really means: an insult that wastes the time of the one giving it.

To get Trump

Nevertheless, no one but those who bought her book gave that charge the slightest credence or attention. The only practical consequence is that her employers at Elle magazine discontinued her column. (And even they said Trump’s refutations had nothing to do with the discontinuance.) But then the Democratic National Committee, the World Economic Forum, and countless other enemies of America and humankind suddenly began to realize: they must not allow Donald Trump to run for reelection as President in 2024. If he runs, he wins. Joe Biden has squandered his Cheater’s Baseline – and vendors of electronic voting machines have seen their machines exposed for all their vulnerabilities. See Curling v. Raffensperger, in which a computer-science professor demonstrated in open court how vulnerable such machines can be.

So in addition to four criminal indictments, E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for defamation of character. And Trump perhaps made another typical Alpha Male mistake – he treated the court itself with contempt. At one point he stalked out of the proceedings, something defendants simply do not do. From the stories coming out of that courtroom, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York conducted this case in a contemptible fashion. Indeed the only reason the case was viable is a 2022 law that removed a statute of limitations on defamation. That law alone could qualify as both a bill of attainder and an ex post facto law.

E. Jean Carroll wins the lottery

In any case, a jury awarded Carroll a whopping total award of $83.3 million in compensatory and punitive damages. Trump, of course, was furious.

“Both verdicts” refers to another award to Carroll by another judge, for a munificent $5 million.


Victor Davis Hanson weighed in with some outrage of his own:

But Carroll’s reaction to the award has created the latest issue. First, on Monday morning, she appeared on CNN’s morning show and also on CBS This Morning and Good Morning America. By way of background, she once joked that a woman might find it stimulating to have a man “take” her without her consent and by force.

These posts have her interviews on CBS and ABC:

Christina Laila at The Gateway Pundit summarized her statements. Of course she said she would help Joe Biden in the upcoming general election campaign. One assumes that means with a hefty donation; her words are not likely to sway any voters. On GMA she said,

I’d like to give the money to something Donald Trump hates. That will cause him pain for something, to give money to certain things. Perhaps a fund for the women who have been sexually assaulted by Donald Trump.

That money might wind up being unspent and piling up in a fine assortment of Swiss banks. Whom is she talking about? If half of what she alleges about Trump are true, one would expect to hear of women asking where they could get in line for such a dole. At time of writing this has not happened.


To CNN, when someone asked whether she knew how she was going to spend the money, she said:

No, but we’re inspired to not waste a penny of this,” Carroll said. “And we have some good ideas that we’re working on.

An immodest proposal

That night she dropped a further clue to how she would spend the money. And if her statement about supporting Biden’s candidacy is any indicator, she probably wishes she hadn’t. Certainly the person to whom she made the statement – none other than Rachel Maddow of MSNBC – wishes she hadn’t. Kristinn Taylor has this report. E. Jean Carroll appeared on Maddow’s show, with her attorneys – Roberta “Robbie” Kaplan (no relation) and Shawn Crowley – in tow. Video is available at these links:

Taylor provided this transcript from the YouTube video segments:

Maddow: You’ve talked about using some of Trump’s money that you’re about to get to helping shore up women’s rights. Do you know what that might be, what that might look like?

Carroll: Yes, Rachel, yes!

Maddow: Tell me.

Carroll: I have such, such great ideas for all the good I’m going to do with this money. First thing, Rachel, you and I are going to go shopping. We’re going get completely new wardrobes, new shoes, motorcycle for Crowley, new fishing rod for Robbie. Rachel, what do you want? Penthouse? It’s yourself. Rachel.

Maddow: (shaking her head) Nothing.

Carroll: Penthouse in France? You want France? You want to go fishing in France?

Maddow: (shaking her head “No” over and over)

Carroll: No? All right, all right.

Lawyer Shawn Crowley: That’s a joke.

Maddow: Although, if me fishing in France could do something for women’s rights, I would take the hit, I would obviously take one for the team.

That night Rachel Maddow had the bad sense to boast about that exchange on one of her X accounts:

Greg Price left theses posts with some other reminders:


Steve Krakauer left this brief summary:

Nick Arama on RedState and Mike LaChance on TGP filed their own reports. Between them they gathered these pithy commentaries:


First, E. Jean Carroll very likely made the whole thing up to sell a book. That has become fashionable with too many people of both sexes in modern times.

Second, Trump’s cue was either to sue her for libel (after all, she accused him in print), or keep quiet. Under American common law, public figures have almost no recourse against a charge of libel, slander, or other “lying” offense. Had E. Jean Carroll made a similar accusation against His Royal Highness the Duke of York, she might have to fear having to appear before The Old Bailey. And perhaps even John Mortimer’s fictional barrister, Horace Rumpole, would not have been able to help her.Not even truth is an adequate defense against a libel or slander charge in His Majesty’s courts.But American public figures just have to take it, because:

Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.

Since this was a Federal case, the First Amendment applies. Even in a State court, it still applies under the Privileges and Immunities Clauses of Article IV and Amendment XIV.


Even laying that aside, the temptation to reply in kind is a prominent symptom of the Alpha Male Syndrome. A Beta Male wouldn’t dare – and a Sigma Male, or Stoic, wouldn’t bother. He would say to himself, “E. Jean Who?” Which is what Trump should have done, especially because he, as President of the United States, had considerable demands on, and better thing to do with, his time.

E. Jean Carroll throws in with the Trump Deranged crowd

Nevertheless, this case would not have seen the inside of a courtroom, did not Trump bid fair to become the second President to serve non-consecutive terms, and have an obvious campaign slogan: “Miss me yet?”

But E. Jean Carroll has definitely blown the gaffe. Announcing her intention to become a big-time Democratic donor was bad enough, but excusable. But her giddy I’m-going-to-share-this-wealth performance on MSNBC is not. Why Rachel Maddow boasted about it later that evening is beyond CNAV’s comprehension. Clearly E. Jean Carroll made her uncomfortable. A penthouse in France? FYI, the French idiomatic expression for a pipe dream is un château en Espagne, or“a villa in Spain.” “You and I are going to go shopping”? Rachel Maddow wore the nervous look of someone receiving a proposition and not knowing how to answer it. Or maybe she was thinking, what kind of crazy woman have I invited onto my show?

Joe Concha is correct. When you receive such a tremendous award to right a terrible wrong, you do not announce that you’re going to “blow it” on a shopping spree. You announce your intention to bestow it in charity, or perhaps to set up a foundation for the redress and prevention of such wrongs. Then again, one comes back to what Carroll said years ago: that the unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman by a man, without her consent and by force, is a sexually stimulating adventure! Very few women who have had that unfortunate experience would agree.

What next?

The legal drama is not over yet. Of course Trump must post a bond in the amount of that award. But he will appeal – and regrettably, the Supreme Court might have to rule on this. We deal here, in addition to an advice columnist past her prime and playing Baccarat with the courts, with bills of attainder and ex post facto laws.


But on a personal level, the recommendation for men is clear. Learn not to care – the essence of the Stoic philosophy. Let such things roll off your back like water off a duck’s back. Had Trump literally said, “E. Jean Who?” when someone asked him about it, people would soon have forgotten her name.

Unfortunately for all concerned, that name will become a by-word for attempted election interference. Attempted because her hilarious performance on the Rachel Maddow Show destroys her credibility. And with it, the credibility of all the rest of Donald J. Trump’s accusers.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
+ posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

1 Comment
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

1 Comment
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Donald R. Laster, Jr

And when one reads what she has claimed her lies are apparent. She can not even identify a “when” and she has claimed it occurred in the 1990s when she was wearing a dress that was not created until around 2004. Hopefully, a Judge with integrity will void both of these cases and make her pay Donald Trump for defemation and slander. And the dressing rooms in the store apparently has staff in it when customers are trying things. And consider how many women testify about what happens to them in detail with things like this. She can not name a time since her claim never occurred and giving a date and time would expose her lies even more.


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x