Appeals Court Denies Trump’s Attempt To Overturn E. Jean Carroll Ruling psss
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.
JUDICIAL TAKEDOWN: JUDGE FORCES T.R.U.M.P TO CHANGE KENNEDY CENTER NAME BACK TO ORIGINAL?!
Judge Steps In as Trump’s Kennedy Center Rename Triggers Legal Revolt and Artist Boycotts
A sweeping political and cultural backlash has erupted after Donald Trump moved to attach his name to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, igniting a legal firestorm and prompting urgent questions about presidential authority, historical preservation, and the rule of law. Legal experts say the move may directly conflict with federal statutes governing the memorial.
The controversy intensified after the Kennedy Center’s board—reshaped during Trump’s tenure—approved a name alteration despite a longstanding law requiring explicit congressional authorization for any change. Within days, large metal lettering bearing Trump’s name appeared on the building, a move critics described as unprecedented and deliberately provocative given the Center’s status as a memorial to an assassinated president.
Legal scholars and former government officials quickly pushed back. Norm Eisen, now leading the Democracy Defenders Fund, argued that the action fits a broader pattern of defying both norms and statutes. He noted that courts have repeatedly intervened to halt similar actions, citing hundreds of lawsuits that successfully constrained executive overreach in recent years.
The fallout was immediate and visible. Protests erupted outside the Kennedy Center, while prominent artists began canceling scheduled performances. Representatives for musicians slated to appear at the venue confirmed withdrawals, citing concerns about politicization and respect for the institution’s historical mission. Cultural leaders warned that the controversy could permanently damage the Center’s reputation as a neutral space for artistic excellence.
Members of Congress also entered the fray. Lawmakers emphasized that only Congress—not the White House, and not a board vote—has the authority to rename the Kennedy Center. Several representatives called the move a “sacrilege” and an insult to President John F. Kennedy’s legacy, stressing that the original name was established by statute and signed into law after Kennedy’s assassination.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(749x0:751x2)/joe-kennedy-iii-donald-trump-121825-23aaeab11e534ec3a62eabfea4859ca4.jpg)
Beyond the naming dispute, analysts framed the episode as part of a larger pattern. Critics pointed to simultaneous controversies involving judicial defiance, public health policy, and executive unilateralism, arguing that the Kennedy Center episode symbolizes a growing “imperial presidency” operating with few internal checks.
Political strategists believe the optics could carry electoral consequences. While the renaming has dominated Washington media, polls suggest voters are increasingly concerned about cost-of-living issues, raising questions about why symbolic battles are taking precedence. Opponents argue the issue provides Democrats with a powerful populist narrative: Americans do not have kings, and public institutions are not personal branding tools.
As legal challenges advance and pressure mounts, the future of the Kennedy Center’s name remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the attempted rebranding has transformed a cultural landmark into a national flashpoint—one that intertwines law, history, and power. Whether the lettering remains or is removed, the episode has already reignited a fundamental debate about who controls America’s public symbols, and how far presidential authority can truly extend.
John Kennedy’s Latest Comments Have Reopened the Epstein Debate in a Big Way
John Kennedy’s Latest Comments Have Reopened the Epstein Debate in a Big Way
Sen. Kennedy Raises New Concerns About Epstein Case Amid Ongoing Tensions
“Ornaments, Drywall, and Epstein”: Senator Kennedy Slams “Shady” Investigation as FBI Director Faces Heated Grill over Trump and Sex Trafficking Files
The halls of Congress became the staging ground for a high-stakes battle over truth, accountability, and the ghost of Jeffrey Epstein this week. In a series of explosive testimonies that have sent shockwaves through social media, the Director of the FBI and officials from the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) were subjected to a blistering interrogation by lawmakers who reflect the deep-seated skepticism of the American public. The central theme was clear: the official narrative surrounding the death of Jeffrey Epstein is failing the test of public trust, and the demand for transparency regarding his co-conspirators has reached a fever pitch.
Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, known for his sharp wit and folksy but lethal metaphors, set the tone for the proceedings with a remark that immediately went viral. “Christmas ornaments, drywall, and Jerry Epstein—name three things that don’t hang themselves,” Kennedy quipped, succinctly capturing the prevailing sentiment of millions of Americans. His opening salvo wasn’t just a clever line; it was a direct challenge to the Bureau of Prisons’ finding that Epstein’s death in August 2019 was a simple suicide. Kennedy emphasized that the American people “deserve some answers” and urged officials not to rush the investigation, but to treat it with the “top priority” it warrants.
The testimony of Dr. Sawyer, representing the BOP, revealed the systemic failures that allowed such a high-profile prisoner to perish while under federal watch. When questioned about the specifics of Epstein’s confinement, Sawyer admitted that the death of such a high-profile individual indicates either a “major malfunction of the system or criminal enterprise.” He described the tiers of suicide watch, explaining that while Epstein had been on a strict watch initially—stripped of everything but a mattress and a coarse gown—the system failed when he was moved to “psychological observation.” Despite claims that inmates on such observation are “watched and scrutinized every moment,” Epstein was reportedly alone and unmonitored at the time of his death.
The emotional core of the hearing focused on the victims—the women and girls who were raped and trafficked by Epstein and his associates. Lawmakers argued that Epstein’s death wasn’t just a prison failure; it was a theft of justice. By allowing Epstein to die before he could testify against his co-conspirators, the “bastard” was able to protect his circle from beyond the grave, leaving his victims with their “hearts ripped out.” The Director was criticized for the “management matter” of treating Epstein like any other inmate, with senators arguing that someone with his level of information should have been the highest priority for protection to ensure the integrity of future criminal investigations.
As the focus shifted to the FBI’s role, the tension escalated into a near-total breakdown of decorum. The Director was grilled on the “Epstein files” and the specific mention of high-profile names, including Donald Trump. In a series of evasive maneuvers, the Director claimed he had not reviewed the entirety of the files personally, despite it being the “largest sex trafficking case the FBI has ever been a part of.” When pushed to provide a number of times Trump’s name appeared in the documents, the Director refused to give a specific count, stating only that “it’s not a thousand” and “it’s not a hundred,” while accusing lawmakers of engaging in “political innuendo.”
The exchange turned personal and vitriolic as the Director defended his record, citing his work in reducing crime and child trafficking, while lawmakers accused him of “hiding pedophiles” and playing a “cute shell game” with the law. Reference was made to Judge Richard Berman, who previously noted that the information released to the public “pales in comparison” to the materials held by the Department of Justice. The hearing concluded with a dramatic refusal by the Director to recuse himself from investigations involving individuals he had previously labeled “government gangsters” in his own book, leading to a final, bitter standoff over the “disgrace” of the proceedings.
This hearing has made one thing undeniably certain: the Epstein saga is far from over. As technology like drone drops and advanced surveillance cameras become the new frontline for prison security, the focus remains on the old-fashioned failures of human oversight and the potential for deep-seated corruption. For the victims, the wait for the “entire truth” continues, as the wall of government secrecy remains stubbornly intact.
Panic Behind the Scenes? New Claims Put Pete Hegseth Under Heavy Scrutiny
Hegseth in Panic Mode as Troops Revolt and Leak Damaging Photos He Tried to Keep Hidden
Troops in Revolt: Leaked ‘Nightmare’ Photos Reveal Starvation and Chaos Under Pete Hegseth’s Leadership
In the high-stakes theater of American defense, the image of the stoic, well-supplied soldier is a cornerstone of national pride. However, a series of explosive leaks from within the ranks of the U.S. Navy and the Pentagon has shattered that facade, painting a devastating picture of a military in crisis. At the center of this storm is Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, whose tenure is now being defined not by strategic brilliance, but by a “nightmare” scenario of logistical collapse, plummeting morale, and an unprecedented revolt from the very troops he is tasked with leading.
The crisis reached a fever pitch this week as service members aboard major aircraft carriers, including the USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Gerald R. Ford, began leaking photos of the meals they are being served. These images, which have quickly gone viral, show “grim meals” consisting of dry patties, plastic-looking carrots, and a single tortilla on otherwise empty plastic trays. One sailor on the USS Abraham Lincoln described the situation in stark terms: “The food is tasteless and there’s not nearly enough and they’re hungry all the time.” For a military that prides itself on being the best-fed and best-equipped force in the world, these revelations are a staggering indictment of current leadership.
The logistical failure extends beyond the galley. Families of service members are reporting a total breakdown in the military postal system, with the U.S. Postal Service temporarily suspending mail delivery to 27 military zip codes. Parents have spent thousands of dollars on care packages that sit in transit with no clear delivery timeline, leaving their children to ration what little food they have. One mother from Texas, whose son is aboard the USS Tripoli, shared that her family has spent over $2,000 on supplies that have never reached him, forcing sailors to “ration and share food” just to get by.
In the face of these failures, Secretary Hegseth has reportedly spiraled into a state of panic. Rather than addressing the systemic issues within his department, Hegseth has taken to the public stage to attack the media, labeling journalists as “Pharisees” and accusing them of having “hardened hearts” calibrated only to impugn his leadership. Critics argue that this aggressive rhetoric is a desperate attempt to deflect attention from his own unpopularity and the growing dissatisfaction within the MAGA wing of the Pentagon. Recent data suggests that Hegseth is uniquely unpopular, sitting 30 points underwater in net popularity—a sharp contrast to historical figures like Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney during similar conflicts.
The tension is further amplified by reports that Hegseth fears he is on Donald Trump’s “chopping block.” His public outbursts and constant “ass-kissing” of the President are seen by many as a survival tactic to avoid being fired in the middle of the escalating conflict with Iran.Meanwhile, the contrast between the treatment of troops and high-profile criminals has become a flashpoint for public anger. Social media users have pointed out that sex criminal Ghislaine Maxwell is reportedly “eating better” in her “five-star resort” prison than our men and women in uniform, who are being sent to risk their lives in a war many feel serves the interests of the elite “Epstein class” rather than American citizens.
As Donald Trump gears up for a $1.5 trillion defense budget, the question of where that money is going has become central to the debate. While billions are earmarked for tech giants and AI development, the basic needs of the frontline defenders—food, mail, and morale—are being ignored. The leaked photos from the ships are more than just a complaint about “slop”; they are a cry for help from a military that feels abandoned by its civilian leaders.
The situation under Pete Hegseth is no longer just a matter of political disagreement; it is a full-scale revolt fueled by the most basic of human needs. As morale reaches an all-time low and the “holy war” narrative fails to satisfy hungry stomachs, the pressure on the Pentagon to change course is reaching a breaking point. For the families of those serving, the message is clear: our service members deserve so much better than this.
