Lying Can Be Really Bad

In a dispute eerily similar to the Monica Lewinsky scandal, a New York state court has held that E. Jean Carroll, a woman who accused the president of sexually assaulting her in the New York City department store Bergdorff Goodman's, can proceed with her lawsuit, including her demand for the DNA of president Trump. Relying on the recent Supreme Court decision in Trump v. Vance, Jr., which held that a president can be sued in state court, even while serving as president, the New York state court held that Ms. Carroll's defamation suit against Trump could proceed, including the discovery phase of that action.

When Carroll disclosed the alleged sexual assault, Trump made the mistake of denying the allegation, saying that he had never met Ms. Carroll, and that she was lying. If Ms. Carroll could prove that the assault actually occurred (there were no witnesses), then Trump's statements would be defamatory.

The similarity to the Lewinsky scandal lies in the black dress Ms. Carroll wore when she was allegedly assaulted. Apparently, when she got home from the assault, she took off the dress and hung it in her closet, without getting it dry cleaned. When Trump accused her of lying, she took the dress out of her closet and got it examined for DNA remnants. Lo and behold, the examiners found male DNA on the dress. She wants Trump's DNA to see if the DNA samples match. And now a New York state court Judge has said she can proceed to obtain it.

Karma's a Bitch.


  • Now this has gotten really, REALLY weird.

    Today, probably more than a year, and possibly two years after E. Jean Carroll filed and served her defamation suit against the Orange Baboon, the United States Justice Department (that's right, the Agency that US taxpayers fund with their hard earned tax dollars) filed a Notice of Removal in the State Court where the action has been proceeding for as long as it has been filed.

    The Liar-in-Chief has made an appearance in the State Court action, has defended himself through his lawyers with as much effort as can be made, has fought discovery orders, and is currently fighting, in State Court, the request made by E. Jean Carroll for his DNA, which, as I pointed out above, is being sought to prove that the male DNA on E. Jean Carroll's dress (just like Monica Lewinski) belongs to the Rapist-in-Chief.

    Apparently, the Orange Baboon does not want to give up his DNA. So he had his chimpanzee lawyer, Bill Barr, seek to remove the State Court action to Federal Court under the Federal Tort Claims Act, so he can fight it there. There are a couple of reasons for this.

    First, if he gets defended by the DoJ, he no longer has to pay his lawyers. And second, and more importantly, a person injured by defamatory statements cannot sue the federal government for damages. No claims for damages for defamation under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

    How do they get a denial of a rape which occurred in 1995 or so to become a federal action? By claiming that the Buffoon-in-Chief made the allegedly defamatory statements to the press, while he was president. Since the allegedly defamatory statements (not the rape) occurred while the Cheater-in-Chief was employed by the federal government, the DoJ alleges, the action is properly an action against the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act. If they are right (hell, I don't know, don't ask me), they will obtain removal to the Southern District of New York, and then will move for dismissal of the action on the grounds that the federal government cannot be sued for defamation.

    Neat, huh!?!
Sign In or Register to comment.