Oh lester_prairie, How are you feeling about the Rapist In Chief?

Does that mean every allegation made about Democrats is also true?

It's not a rape trial.

Because, in effect, it IS a rape trial. Even though Trump won't be on trial for rape his defamation of her can only be proven if she can prove she told the truth when she said she was raped. So the FACT of the rape will either be proven or disproven at the trial. If she wins she'll get a monetary settlement instead of him going to jail.
But don't worry, Fester, he'll be going to jail for other crimes instead.
You, on the other hand, are lucky it's not a crime to be stupid.

You know there are few ways to prove a rape vs consensual encounter.  Best she can prove is that they met.  Trump says they never met.  Therefore the trial will be if they have evidence they met.  That's it.  She is saying he defamed her by essentially calling her a liar -- so they think they can prove they met (or at least that's the claim so they can get the headlines.)
.
It's a defamation trial, not a rape trial.  
.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: So you don't feel like a victim?
E. JEAN CARROLL: I was not thrown on the ground and ravished. Which, the word "rape" carries so many sexual connotations. This was not sexual. It just, it hurt.
ANDERSON COOPER: I think most people think of rape as a violent assault. It is not sexual--
E. JEAN CARROLL: I think most people think of rape as being sexy.
ANDERSON COOPER: Let's take a short break.

Such empathy.

She claims to have the dress she wore that day. She had not cleaned or worn it since that day until she wore it for a photoshoot in 2019. She claims that the stain on the dress is Trump's sperm. Now that the trial can go forward, she will be seeking a DNA sample from Trump for comparison.  Taking the sample will take almost no time and not interfere with Trump's golf schedule. It can be taken while waiting for his caddie to find his ball in the rough.  Trump might try to hire someone to take the DNA test for him.
.
She wrote about the unwelcome sexual predation by Trump at a fancy department store (Niemann-Marcus?) changing room. Trump essentially called her a liar: he doesn't know her, he never met her, she's not his type (Trump prefers teenage beauty pageant contestants.), etc.. Trump did NOT sue her for libel, probably because he had no proof to the contrary. Instead, he called her a liar. Now, the tables are turned. If the DNA turns out to be Trump's, the lawyers will say, "Don-NY! You've got some splainin' to do!"  
.
Trump's splainin' : "So I took a DNA test and the doctors were amazed. I got such a high score, higher than they have ever seen before. Those tests aren't easy. Believe me. There's a lot science. Science. Really hard. But my uncle was a Professor at MIT so I didn't have any problem with the test. In fact, I thought it was easy. You know, because I've got it up here [points to temples with both index fingers]. Biden is afraid to take this test. Believe me."

Her pleadings are broader than what you have described.  

While rape is the heart of her lawsuit, she also has alleged that Trump defamed her by saying she falsely accused other men of rape.  That is not a “he said, she said” allegation. If she made false accusations to the police about other men, Trump has accused her of a crime but the statement would be actionable regardless.  Either there will be evidence that she has made false accusations against other men, or there will not be such evidence. Easy claim for her to prove if Trump made this up. Whether Trump actually raped her is irrelevant to THIS claim.  

Further, if the DNA comes back negative, Carroll will almost certainly go to the jury on the simple assault that occurred before the rape-  Trump grabbed her and bumped her head badly against the wall-yet Trump says he never even met her and she is lying about all aspects of the encounter.  So Carroll can still win without the rape even being litigated.

And, of course, the burden of proof –preponderance, not beyond a reasonable doubt- and other procedural rules are different in a defamation lawsuit as opposed to a rape trial.

Finally, the end game is a Bill O Reilly type of settlement. If the DNA comes back positive, Trump is never going to allow this one to go to the jury. So while there is nothing wrong with calling it a “rape trial” in the popular sense since Carroll will try to prove the rape by a preponderance, Lester is not wrong in his characterization.

So I'm not sure why you felt the need to pontificate at such length. Fester was, at a minimum, deceptive.
Then again, he always is.