U.S. cannot shield Trump from rape accuser's defamation lawsuit, judge rules

[webfact]

U.S. cannot shield Trump from rape accuser's defamation lawsuit, judge rules

By Jonathan Stempel

 

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign event, in Allentown, Pennsylvania, U.S., October 26, 2020. REUTERS/Leah Millis

 

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal judge on Tuesday rejected a U.S. government request to drop Donald Trump as a defendant in a defamation lawsuit by a writer who said the president falsely denied raping her in a Manhattan department store a quarter century ago.

 

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan refused to let the government substitute itself for Trump as a defendant in former Elle magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll's lawsuit.

 

A ruling for the government would have shielded Trump from liability and likely doomed Carroll's defamation claim.

 

Carroll had sued Trump last November in a New York state court, after he had denied having raped her in Bergdorf Goodman in the mid-1990s or knowing who she was. Trump said she fabricated the story to sell a new book, and added: "She's not my type."

 

Acting at the behest of Attorney General William Barr, the Department of Justice moved the case to federal court, where it said Trump acted in his official capacity when denying Carroll's claims, and thus could not be sued personally for defamation.

 

But Kaplan said a law shielding federal employees from being sued for acts done during their employment did not cover presidents. He also said Trump did not make his statements about Carroll in the scope of his employment as president.

 

A federal judge on Tuesday rejected a U.S. government request to drop Donald Trump as a defendant in a defamation lawsuit by a writer who said the president falsely denied raping her in a Manhattan department store in the 1990s. This report produced by Jillian Kitchener.

 

"No one even arguably directed or controlled President Trump when he commented on the plaintiff’s accusation, which had nothing to do with the official business of government, that he raped her decades before he took office," Kaplan wrote in a 61-page decision. "And no one had the ability to control him."

 

The Justice Department declined to comment.

 

Carroll's lawsuit is one of many legal actions Trump faces as he seeks reelection on Nov. 3.

 

He has denied the claims of several women who accused him of sexual misconduct occurring before he took office.

 

Roberta Kaplan, a lawyer for Carroll, said they looked forward to pursuing the defamation case in federal court.

 

"The simple truth is that President Trump defamed our client because she was brave enough to reveal that he had sexually assaulted her, and that brutal, personal attack cannot be attributed to the Office of the President," she said.

 

Carroll said in a statement: "When Donald Trump called me a liar and denied that he had ever met me, he was not speaking on behalf of the United States. I am happy that Judge Kaplan recognized these basic truths."

 

NO FREEDOM TO DEFAME

The Justice Department moved the lawsuit to federal court after Justice Verna Saunders of a Manhattan state court had in August rejected Trump's bid to postpone the case.

 

She said the U.S. Supreme Court's recent rejection of Trump's claim of absolute immunity from criminal proceedings while in office applied to state court proceedings involving his unofficial or personal conduct.

 

That ruling could have allowed Carroll's lawyers to seek a DNA sample from Trump, to match against a dress Carroll said she wore at Bergdorf Goodman.

 

The Justice Department's intervention put that process on hold.

 

But the judge said its arguments went "much too far" by leaving Trump "free (to) defame anyone who criticizes his conduct or impugns his character," without consequences for the president and regardless of the harm to his target.

 

Kaplan said it would be different if Trump were being challenged in court over his official conduct.

 

"A comment about government action, public policy, or even an election is categorically different than a comment about an alleged sexual assault that took place roughly twenty years before the president took office," he wrote.

 

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Additional reporting by Sarah N. Lynch in Washington, D.C.; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama, Bernadette Baum and David Gregorio)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-10-28

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[donnacha]

His "defamation" was that he denied raping her or, indeed, ever meeting her.

Bear in mind that the lady who claimed, during the run-up to the 2016 election, that he had molested her on a plane had, according to flight logs, never actually been on any plane at the same time as Trump.

This time, an unsuccessful writer alleges an assault a quarter-century ago. She never mentioned it until last year, by which time he was President, and she had a book to sell.

If it is true that the story is fabricated, it seems pretty clear that he would not have been targeted if he was not president. Remember, he has been in the public eye for 40 years. The real hate for him, and allegations of racism, only arose once it became clear that he was serious about running for president. So, it is not wildly wrong to say that this is a work-related situation.

Trump also noted that "she's not my type". As brutal as statement may be, we do actually know what his type is: Barbie-type models and blonde, big-boobed prostitutes. Essentially, the sexual tastes of a 14-year-old boy.

He also appears to be far from in control of these situations. Most men who sleep with a hooker pay, stumpf, and leave. That is the whole point. Trump, on the other hand, ended up paying Stormy Daniels not only for the sex but, also, a further $130,000 to shut up about it. He appears to have received poor value for money as she has now based a book and an international stand-up tour on that five-minute rut.

 

Edited October 27, 2020 by donnacha

[RichardColeman]

11 minutes ago, donnacha said:

She alleges that this happened 25 years ago. She never mentioned it until last year, by which time he was President, and she had a book to sell.

I am a believer that when it comes to the statute of limitations, there should be a limit of say 10 years to prosecute someone - re-instated on re-arrival to a country to stop you coming back after it runs out.

 

I am also a believer that the same statute of limitations should say that you cannot make allegations against somebody more than 5 years after the incident or 5 years after the age of 21 - unless in extreme cases of intimidation. We are ending up with people with dementia in court now accused of stuff 40 years ago in some cases.

 

 

 

 

[donnacha]

3 minutes ago, RichardColeman said:

I am also a believer that the same statute of limitations should say that you cannot make allegations against somebody more than 5 years after the incident or 5 years after the age of 21 - unless in extreme cases of intimidation.

That's well thought out but I think I would make more of an exception for people abused as children.

It can take a long time for that stuff to resolve mentally to the point at which someone is willing to go public. It would also place a pressure on them to go public before the time runs out when, in fact, it may ultimately be better for them not to go public at all. I would actually give people until the age of 50 because, once you have children yourself, you are likely to feel differently about it.

But, yes, if you are over the age of 21, five years sounds like a fair timeframe. If you are an adult, you actually have a duty to say something and take a dangerous person out of circulation.

When so many rich and powerful women, such as Angelina Jolie, came forward to say that they had experienced Harvey Weinstein's behavior, I thought it amazing that no one called them out for having done nothing about it. Surely these women, who receive so much adulation for playing noble and heroic roles, could have saved hundreds of far less powerful women from real harm. Jolie, in particular, was already far more powerful in Hollywood than Weinstein, it would not have harmed her career at all.

 

[RichardColeman]

5 minutes ago, donnacha said:

I would actually give people until the age of 50 because, once you have children yourself, you are likely to feel differently about it.

That's exactly what I am trying to avoid  - the abuser of a child is probably 30 years older than the child - you are proposing - by the time it gets to court and legal wrangling etc, the potential perp being 80+ ! It's too old for a. the perp to remember and b, for any sentence to be worthwhile 

Edited October 27, 2020 by RichardColeman

[Tug]

let the lady be heard see if the accusation is true or not but don’t get the doj involved in defending donald let him defend himself let the case run it’s course Just because he is potus shouldent  shield him from accusations of rape

[donnacha]

38 minutes ago, RichardColeman said:

That's exactly what I am trying to avoid  - the abuser of a child is probably 30 years older than the child - you are proposing - by the time it gets to court and legal wrangling etc, the potential perp being 80+ ! It's too old for a. the perp to remember and b, for any sentence to be worthwhile 

Well, look, in the case of child abuse, what matters is that the abused remembers it. They won't have dementia by 50, and I am only suggesting that as a cut-off point. The likelihood is that, if they are going to go public at all, they'll do it far earlier than that. The later cut-off point is to avoid placing unnecessary pressure upon them. That the abuser may be far older does not matter in those cases.

What we want to limit is the ability of people who, in their dotage (this writer is 76, two years older than Trump), allege that some high-profile figure abused them, as an adult, decades ago. This particular lady has a track record of making allegations, that can neither be proven nor disproven, against high-profile men. If you watch video of her discussing the alleged incident, it is very clear that this is political kamikaze by a woman with nothing to lose and everything to gain.

I believe we now have an environment in which most people who are abused as adults (21 and older) should feel that they will be supported and in now way shamed if they come forward at the time or, as you suggest, within five years. Perhaps we could even say a decade. After that point, however, they must let it rest. They certainly shouldn't be taking defamation cases against someone for denying their historical allegations.

 

Edited October 27, 2020 by donnacha

[scorecard]

48 minutes ago, RichardColeman said:

I am a believer that when it comes to the statute of limitations, there should be a limit of say 10 years to prosecute someone - re-instated on re-arrival to a country to stop you coming back after it runs out.

 

I am also a believer that the same statute of limitations should say that you cannot make allegations against somebody more than 5 years after the incident or 5 years after the age of 21 - unless in extreme cases of intimidation. We are ending up with people with dementia in court now accused of stuff 40 years ago in some cases.

 

 

 

 

 

Good discussion however let's not forget the right to justice.

 

 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, donnacha said:

His "defamation" was that he denied raping her or, indeed, ever meeting her.

Bear in mind that the lady who claimed, during the run-up to the 2016 election, that he had molested her on a plane had, according to flight logs, never actually been on any plane at the same time as Trump.

This time, an unsuccessful writer alleges an assault a quarter-century ago. She never mentioned it until last year, by which time he was President, and she had a book to sell.

If it is true that the story is fabricated, it seems pretty clear that he would not have been targeted if he was not president. Remember, he has been in the public eye for 40 years. The real hate for him, and allegations of racism, only arose once it became clear that he was serious about running for president. So, it is not wildly wrong to say that this is a work-related situation.

Trump also noted that "she's not my type". As brutal as statement may be, we do actually know what his type is: Barbie-type models and blonde, big-boobed prostitutes. Essentially, the sexual tastes of a 14-year-old boy.

He also appears to be far from in control of these situations. Most men who sleep with a hooker pay, stumpf, and leave. That is the whole point. Trump, on the other hand, ended up paying Stormy Daniels not only for the sex but, also, a further $130,000 to shut up about it. He appears to have received poor value for money as she has now based a book and an international stand-up tour on that five-minute rut.

 

 

1 hour ago, RichardColeman said:

That's exactly what I am trying to avoid  - the abuser of a child is probably 30 years older than the child - you are proposing - by the time it gets to court and legal wrangling etc, the potential perp being 80+ ! It's too old for a. the perp to remember and b, for any sentence to be worthwhile 

Nice try. The article isn't about the merits of the case. It's the fact that the Justice Dept intervened on Trump's behalf to represent him instead of a private attorney. It claimed that Trump was acting in an official capacity when he denied the accusations. Obvious nonsense.

But it gets worse. Not only did the Justice Dept. claim it has the right to defend Trump, but also that if any money judgements went against him guess what? The US government would pick up tab.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/09/why-justice-department-defend-trump-e-jean-carroll.html

Given the obvious weakness of the legal underpinnings of the Justice Dept. attempt, it's likely that this bizarre attempt was undertaken to placate Trump.

Edited October 27, 2020 by placeholder

[John1012]

43 minutes ago, Tug said:

let the lady be heard see if the accusation is true or not but don’t get the doj involved in defending donald let him defend himself let the case run it’s course Just because he is potus shouldent  shield him from accusations of rape

agreed with the caveat that if the charges are false or unproveable person who instigated the charges receives a draconian prison sentence.

Edited October 27, 2020 by John1012
typo

[placeholder]

Does this apply to Trump as well? Virtually all the defamation lawsuits Trump has instigated  have been thrown out of court as groundless. Should he face criminal charges for those?

And like others here, you are avoiding what the subject is about: the use of the Justice Dept to defend Trump in a private lawsuit unrelated to his Presidential duties.

Edited October 27, 2020 by placeholder

[donnacha]

16 minutes ago, placeholder said:

It claimed that Trump was acting in an official capacity when he denied the accusations. Obvious nonsense.

I see. So, it would be better for the office of the President of the United States of America if the president does not deny accusations of rape from random people?
 

16 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Not only did the Justice Dept. claim it has the right to defend Trump, but also that if any money judgements went against him guess what? The US government would pick up tab.

Their position was that the accusation would clearly not have been made if he was not in that job.

It is the same as death threats against the president. They spend tens of millions every year evaluating and investigating the roughly one thousand death threats per month that every president receives. The supposed "most powerful man in the world" draws a lot of attention from kooks, regardless of who is actually in the office.

Elderly white upper class women feel bitterly aggrieved that this particular president beat their great hope, Hillary, so, it is natural that some would go kamikaze. Fortunately, nothing has come out of any of the allegations, not contemporaneous notes by the alleged victims, not even witnesses who saw them together. Remarkable when you consider how famous he was even then and how this particular incident is alleged to have happened in a busy department store.

So, yes. If you suffer an attack due to the office you hold, your employer has a duty to defend you.

 

Edited October 27, 2020 by donnacha

[placeholder]

Just now, donnacha said:

I see. So, it would be better for the office of the President of the United States of America if the president does not deny accusations of rape from random people?
 

Their position was that the accusation would clearly not have been made if he was not in that job.

It is the same as death threats against the president. They spend tens of millions every year evaluating and investigating the roughly one thousand death threats per month that every president receives. The supposed "most powerful man in the world" draws a lot of attention from kooks, regardless of who is actually in the office.

Elderly white upper class women feel particularly aggrieved that this particular president beat their great hope, Hillary, so, it is natural that some would go kamikaze. Fortunately, nothing has come out of any of the allegations, not contemporaneous notes by the alleged victims, not even witnesses who saw them together. Remarkable when you consider how famous he was even then and how this particular incident is alleged to have happened in a busy department store.

So, yes. If you suffer an attack due to the office you hold, your employer has a duty to defend you.

 

So you have proof that this was her motive?  And no, it's not the same as death threats against the President. Unless someone is threatening to sue him to death.

[donnacha]

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

So you have proof that this was her motive?

I really hate this asinine, high-school debate tactic of demanding "proof" of something for which there could not possibly be any proof.

Seriously, this should be beneath you.

 

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And no, it's not the same as death threats against the President. Unless someone is threatening to sue him to death.

A loss is a loss. If you take a loss due to your job, your employer covers it. That is standard in any civilized society.

 

Edited October 28, 2020 by donnacha

[Scott]

Inflammatory post removed.  Denigrating remarks about the alleged victim will earn suspensions. 

 

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, donnacha said:

I really hate this asinine, high-school debate tactic of demanding "proof" of something for which there could not possibly be any proof.

Seriously, this should be beneath you.

 

A loss is a loss. If you take a loss due to your job, your employer covers it.

 

As the judge noted, Trump was not acting as an employee since he was not acting under the instructions of a superior. Now, if you can find such a person in the Federal govt who is Trump's superior and ordered him to engage in such behavior, you might have a point.

[donnacha]

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

As the judge noted, Trump was not acting as an employee since he was not acting under the instructions of a superior.

Good that the judge came to a ruling. I don't agree with it, but that is what the courts are for.
 

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Now, if you can find such a person in the Federal govt who is Trump's superior and ordered him to engage in such behavior, you might have a point.

Well, I would say that his boss is the citizens of America, because they put him there, but we could also say Congress because both houses, acting together, have the power to kick him out.

 

Edited October 28, 2020 by donnacha

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, donnacha said:

Good that the judge came to a ruling. I don't agree with it, but that is what the courts are for.
 

Well, I would say that the boss is the American people, because they put him there, but we could also say Congress because both houses, acting together, have the power to kick him out.

 

So he was acting under the instructions of "the American people" when he made his comments? Sure you can say it, but it would still be nonsense.

Edited October 28, 2020 by placeholder

[Lacessit]

Trump has a lot of form in this regard, and has even boasted about it. Chickens coming home to roost.

No wonder he is fighting so hard to stay President, if he is not bankrupt already, the legal bills would do it. Although he would probably not pay them, he has form in that respect too.

[Chomper Higgot]

A piece of good news.

 

No way should the US DoJ be acting as Trump’s defense in a private law suit.

 

As for Trump’s denials that he ever met his accuser, he has an easy way to scuttle her case, she’s filed to obtain his DNA to compare with DNA on her clothing.

 

Trump need only provide the DNA sample, case over.

 

Perhaps not ‘case over’ for him, which would explain why he’s fighting the case and has attempted to fight it on the taxpayer’s dime.

 

 

[Emdog]

When Donald gets turfed out, will taxpayers still be picking up tab for his despicable behavior?

[Scott]

Please stay on topic.  The topic is NOT about Joe Biden.

[Tug]

57 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

A piece of good news.

 

No way should the US DoJ be acting as Trump’s defense in a private law suit.

 

As for Trump’s denials that he ever met his accuser, he has an easy way to scuttle her case, she’s filed to obtain his DNA to compare with DNA on her clothing.

 

Trump need only provide the DNA sample, case over.

 

Perhaps not ‘case over’ for him, which would explain why he’s fighting the case and has attempted to fight it on the taxpayer’s dime.

 

 

Uh ho Donald left pecker tracks lol come on donald give up that dna lol perhaps a search warrant would be more appropriate truth is we tax payers shouldent have to fund trumps defense period if he’s so innocent give up the dna chomper  if I may plagiarize nothing to hide nothing to fear

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, John1012 said:

agreed with the caveat that if the charges are false or unproveable person who instigated the charges receives a draconian prison sentence.

Absolutely right IMO. Any one bringing a charge against another person that is false or cannot be proven should, IMO, be subject to the same penalty that would be given to the accused had they been convicted.

[JulesMad]

From grabbing pussies to rape is just a small step, and although I don't anything about the lady or her story, I DO know 1 thing for certain and that is that the alleged rapist (the president!) ALWAYS lies about everything, and NEVER speaks the truth or takes responsibility.

 

So, all in all, it is pretty clear cut, I would say.... HE DID IT ????

[animalmagic]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Absolutely right IMO. Any one bringing a charge against another person that is false or cannot be proven should, IMO, be subject to the same penalty that would be given to the accused had they been convicted.

I think you will find most jurisdictions have laws covering the making of false accusations and the prescribed punishment for doing so; many also cover the right for civil action to seek redress as a victim of false accusations.

Cannot be proven is not the yardstick but proven to be false is.

[placeholder]

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Absolutely right IMO. Any one bringing a charge against another person that is false or cannot be proven should, IMO, be subject to the same penalty that would be given to the accused had they been convicted.

This is a civil case. No one is getting convicted of anything.

[animalmagic]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Trump need only provide the DNA sample, case over.

Perhaps it's under audit with his tax returns?

[Credo]

12 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Absolutely right IMO. Any one bringing a charge against another person that is false or cannot be proven should, IMO, be subject to the same penalty that would be given to the accused had they been convicted.

The two situations are not mutually exclusive.  A person can press charges and the alleged perpetrator not found guilty.  That does not mean the allegation was not true, just that it could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.   However, the penalties for making a false report are severe.   

 

You are essentially saying anytime there is a court case, someone must face jail.   So the loser would not even get a fair hearing.   A bit Middle Ages mentality in that thinking.  

 

 

[Eric Loh]

There are people defending a sexual predator and a rapist. Unbelievable and downright nauseating.