A conservative historian and scholar recently wrote about the E. Jean Carroll v. Trump ruling, specifically taking aim at changes in New York law that occurred before the case, and suggesting that this is just one part of the endless legal war the left aims to ignite. Trump card.
Hanson calls the case “puzzling” and notes inconsistencies in Carroll's story.
Hanson put his thoughts in Long post on Twitter/X:
The civil lawsuit is just a preview of four additional left-wing criminal trials, left-wing judges, and left-wing juries to come — all on charges that would never have been brought if Trump had not run for president or been a liberal progressive.
And yet here we are.
The case of E. Jean Carroll is the most puzzling of the five. The alleged victim did not even remember the year the alleged sexual assault occurred, nearly three decades ago. Observers pointed out dozens of contradictions in her story.
It has never been clear what preludes (Trump denies meeting them) supposedly prompted both of them to willingly retreat together into a department store dressing room, where the alleged violence occurred during regular business hours.
Moreover, the sexual assault complaint was filed decades later, and only after Trump ran for office and then became president.
Hanson goes into the background of how we got here:
In 2022, a new law (“Adult Survivors Act”) was passed in the New York legislature. It also retroactively created a twelve-month window (beginning six months after the bill was signed) that would allow survivors of long-standing alleged sexual assaults to sue the long-accused perpetrator—regardless of the prior statute of limitations.
This unexpected opening suddenly gave rebirth to Carroll's previous unsuccessful efforts. It quickly resurfaced with the help of Trump-hating billionaire Hoffman.
However, the bill may have been introduced with Trump specifically in mind — since the lawmaker who introduced it, Brad Hoylman Ceja, was known to be another Trump opponent.
The media keeps pretending that all of this is legitimate, but most people, including many Democrats, know it's not.
It's just a multi-layered strategy by the left to prevent Trump from taking office again.
