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!?!
  • This can now be updated with the latest from the District Court for the Southern District of New York, where the case was removed by the Department of Justice, which then sought to intervene and substitute the United States as Defendant in place and stead of the Cult Leader in Chief.

    The DoJ sought to intervene, and E. Jean Carroll, through her attorneys, opposed the intervention on two grounds. First that the Tort Claims Act did not apply to the president, because the president as president was not and never has been identified by Congress as an "employee" of the United States. The president is the president. He is not employed by the United States, he is the Chief Executive of the United States. Since he is not an employee, so the argument goes, he is not subject to the provisions of the Tort Claims Act, which applies to employees of the government only.

    The second ground argued that even if the president were an "employee," and subject to the provisions of the Tort Claims Act, the statements which he made which are alleged as defamatory were not made by the Liar-in-Chief "in the course and scope of his employment." They were personal statements, not statements made as part of the official business of government.

    The District Court found that both arguments had merit. The Orange Baboon was not an "employee" of the government subject to the provisions of the Tort Claims Act, and even if he was, his alleged defamatory statements were not made in the ordinary course and scope of his employment. They were personal, not official.

    Since this case was removed to the federal courts from state court, it will remain in federal court. But the United States (for the time being at least) will not be substituted for Trump as the Defendant.

    No doubt that this decision will be appealed to the Second Circuit with a request for a stay to prevent discovery from going forward. Since both arguments were well made and not very well opposed, it can be assumed that the Second Circuit will ultimately uphold the District Court decision.

    Then, of course, the Molester-in-Chief will appeal to the newly configured US Supreme Court. What will happen there is anyone's guess, especially if the Orange Baboon is defeated next Tuesday.

    Watch this space!
  • It has just been reported that the Department of Justice is appealing the District Court decision in the Carroll case to the Second Circuit.

    There are two grounds for appeal: First, that the District Court erred in finding that Trump was not an "employee" of the United States when he made the allegedly defamatory statements and publications. And secondly, even if he was an "employee" as that term is defined in the Federal Tort Claims Act, the District Court erred in finding that his statements and publications were not made in the "course and scope" of that employment.

    This will not be rushed, and it could be that the Second Circuit will set a briefing and argument schedule which will extend weeks or even months past Trump's remaining time in office, which is now approximately 56 days. Should that happen, it could get very interesting.

    Once Biden takes office, his Attorney General would preside over all legal matters then pending in the DoJ. At that point, the DoJ could decide that the opinion of the District Court was in fact correctly decided, and that the appeal of that decision was brought in error. Biden's DoJ could then move to dismiss the appeal as improvidently brought, and Carroll could join in that motion.

    That would leave Trump out on a limb. His personal attorney of course will also appeal the District Court ruling, but might not have standing to argue on behalf of the Government. In effect Trump would be arguing against the DoJ, and seeking a court order compelling the Government to defend him.

    We will see soon enough. My guess is that there will be a flurry of filings by Biden's DoJ and Carroll's attorney in about ten to twelve weeks or so.
Sign In or Register to comment.