[noiseman]

I don’t see the need to present a defense when it is impossible for this nutty woman to prove her allegation. The burden of proof is on her, and it’s obvious that years later there is zero chance to prove anything, likely because she’s lying or delusional, but also because it’s been so long.

This recent trend of women crawling out of the woodwork to accuse prominent political figures, who they just happen to hate for their politics, of sexual assault years after the incident is alleged to have happened is absurd, and the courts should dismiss these cases before trial.

[Coronal]

It’s a civil trial, the winner is the side which presents the moist evidence for their case. Carroll doesn’t need to “prove” anything, she only needs to provide more evidence than Trump. Given that he’s presenting nothing, that his defense strategy is to try to break Carroll into confessing that it was a lie and that she made it all up, his prospects at this point look rather dim to me.