Judge orders E. Jean Carroll be paid $5.8M in Trump sex abuse case 17%

By Associated Press60%

7/8/2026, 10:35:14 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Biased Writer Voice, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 34% saturation with 223 hits. Analysis detected 770 faulty-reasoning hits from 655 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 32.3% and a BS Rank of 17% (18,329 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 83.70% of the article peer group.

FILE  E. 
Jean Carroll arrives at Manhattan federal court, Jan. 17, 2024, in New York. 
(AP Photo/Eduardo Munoz Alvarez) 
PUBLISHED: July 8, 2026 at 10:35 AM PDT | UPDATED: July 9, 2026 at 5:10 AM PDT 
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... 
By MICHAEL R. 
SISAK and LARRY NEUMEISTER 
NEW YORK (AP)  The writer E. 
Jean Carroll can collect $5.8 million held in escrow since a jury found that President Donald Trump sexually abused and defamed her, a federal judge ruled Wednesday. 
Trump’s lawyers immediately appealed but were denied an emergency order to block the payment from being made. 
Trump deposited the money in an account shortly after a jury ruled against him in 2023. 
The U.S. 
Supreme Court recently let the civil verdict stand, clearing the way for Judge Lewis A. 
Kaplan to release the money. 
The initial $5 million award has grown with interest. 
The jury found Trump attacked Carroll in 1996 in the dressing room of a luxury Manhattan department store, and defamed her after she described it publicly in a 2019 memoir, during his first term as president. 
Trump called her allegations false and said  she’s not my type  in an interview. 
Trump’s lawyers said Wednesday they would continue to appeal and accused his political opponents of using the legal system against him. 
They argued in appellate papers that Kaplan’s decision shouldn’t be allowed to take effect because Trump has asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision. 
Late Wednesday, Judge Eunice C. 
Lee of the 2nd U.S. 
Circuit Court of Appeals rejected their request to stop the money from being transferred to Carroll. 
“It is time for this case to come to an end,” Carroll’s lawyers wrote in a filing with the appellate court. 
“Carroll has waited more than three years for a jury’s verdict to be paid,” they wrote. 
“She should not have to wait any longer.” 
The jury had reached its verdict  in a trial that Trump did not attend  after Carroll testified that their flirtatious and friendly chance encounter at the department store turned violent. 
Trump insisted he never knew Carroll , now 82, a former advice columnist. 
He accused her of trying to sell books at his expense and of having political motives. 
Carroll sued Trump after New York changed its laws to give sexual abuse survivors a fresh chance to sue over attacks that happened in the distant past. 
Trump “has been stalling this case for years,” Kaplan wrote in a memorandum detailing his decision. 
“It is time for him to ‘do equity’ and pay the judgment.” 
Trump is also appealing $83 million in defamation compensation granted to Carroll by a separate Manhattan jury after a 2024 trial where Trump briefly testified . 
At that trial, Kaplan required the jury to accept the findings of the previous jury and only determine how much money, if any, Trump owed Carroll for comments he made about her while he was president. 
Trump’s lawyers complained that the judge, in setting rules for the damages trial, had barred Trump and his defense team from telling the jury that the encounter with Carroll never happened. 
When the 2nd Circuit declined to let all of its judges rehear an appeal of the $83 million award, Circuit Judge Denny Chin wrote that Trump had said multiple times over many years that Carroll lied for political and financial gain and had suggested she was too unattractive for Trump to have sexually assaulted her. 
“As a result of Trump’s statements, Carroll was harassed and humiliated, subjected to death threats, and feared for her physical safety for years,” Chin said. 
“And Trump showed no remorse, continuing his attacks against Carroll during and after two federal trials, and even proclaiming two days into the Carroll I trial that he would continue to defame her ‘a thousand times.’” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.2%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Associated Press: 0.8%lakecountyrecord-bee: 1.3%Anchoring Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 3.2%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.0%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 4.9%Associated Press: 0.8%lakecountyrecord-bee: 3.9%Representativeness Heuristic4.9%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.1%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Associated Press: 7.1%lakecountyrecord-bee: 1.6%Framing Effect1.5%This article: 2.4%Associated Press: 0.5%lakecountyrecord-bee: 1.2%Loss Aversion2.4%This article: 4.1%Associated Press: 0.6%lakecountyrecord-bee: 1.0%Status Quo Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.1%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 1.2%Associated Press: 1.6%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.3%Pessimism Bias1.2%This article: 34.0%Associated Press: 8.7%lakecountyrecord-bee: 9.9%Negativity Bias34.0%This article: 4.9%Associated Press: 2.0%lakecountyrecord-bee: 2.6%Self-Serving Bias4.9%This article: 5.6%Associated Press: 0.8%lakecountyrecord-bee: 2.2%Fundamental Attribution Error5.6%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.0%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.3%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%lakecountyrecord-bee: 2.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.4%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.3%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%lakecountyrecord-bee: 5.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.1%Associated Press: 3.4%lakecountyrecord-bee: 1.5%Appeal to Authority6.1%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.7%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.0%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.5%Associated Press: 4.7%lakecountyrecord-bee: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion8.5%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 3.8%Associated Press: 2.2%lakecountyrecord-bee: 1.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.8%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.4%Associated Press: 0.5%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.6%Burden of Proof2.4%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.7%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.2%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 4.7%Associated Press: 0.1%lakecountyrecord-bee: 1.2%Special Pleading4.7%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 13.6%Associated Press: 1.3%lakecountyrecord-bee: 3.4%Unattributed Quote13.6%This article: 2.6%Associated Press: 1.1%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection2.6%This article: 10.7%Associated Press: 3.0%lakecountyrecord-bee: 2.7%Biased Writer Voice10.7%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.7%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.9%Associated Press: 0.4%lakecountyrecord-bee: 0.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.9%

655 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers22%attributed speech511writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageLewis A. Kaplan • 16 words • 100.0% coverageLewis A. Kaplan • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageDenny Chin • 55 words • 0.0% coverageDenny Chin • 25 words • 0.0% coverageDenny Chin • 36 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Lewis A. Kaplan

100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words19% of attributed speech68% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Unattributed Quote+49.9 ptsWriter: 7.2%Lewis A. Kaplan: 57.1%57.1%Biased Writer Voice-13.7 ptsWriter: 13.7%Lewis A. Kaplan: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.3 ptsWriter: 3.3%Lewis A. Kaplan: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -1.2 ptsWriter: 1.2%Lewis A. Kaplan: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.