A recent court ruling regarding Trump’s financial records and an investigation by the Southern District of New York into alleged tax and bank fraud determined that a criminal lawsuit can be brought against a sitting U.S. president no matter how busy he claims to be. For Trump rape accuser and author E. Jean Carroll, that decision may have an impact in her case against Trump for defamation.
WE MOVE FORWARD!! Judge Verna L. Saunders has DENIED Trump's assertion of absolute immunity! My attorneys, @kaplanrobbie, @JoshuaMatz8 & Matthew Craig are chomping at the bit to begin DISCOVERY!
(This is the 2nd great ruling by a Black Woman today!)https://t.co/6yrP9BKBs2
— E. Jean Carroll (@ejeancarroll) August 6, 2020
After Carroll’s allegations against Trump, in which she said that Trump raped her in the dressing room of a clothing store in New York City in the 1990s, the president went to his fall-back position and called her a “total liar” and said that she was looking for fame and attention, something she already had anyway at a writer and novelist. Those allegations against her as a liar constitute defamation if she can prove her claims, and she says that she can thanks to the dress she was wearing during the assault. She still owns the dress and says that Trump’s DNA is still on it.
According to The Washington Post:
‘Thursday’s ruling means that in the coming weeks and months, Carroll’s legal team can press forward with seeking Trump’s DNA, which they hope to compare to genetic material on the dress she said she wore during the incident, and with trying to interview Trump under oath. Trump can also seek depositions from Carroll and those she says she told about the incident. Saunders scheduled a telephone conference in the case for Sept. 30.’
Trump v. Vance Decision Means E. Jean Carroll’s Lawsuit Against President Will Move Forward, Judge Rules https://t.co/ccyJHyieyJ
— Beverly A Howard🌊🌊 (@BEVHOWARD40) August 7, 2020
As another case against Trump for sexual misconduct plays out in another court, Trump’s lawyers argued that there were pending decisions to be made in that case that would be relevant to whether or not Carroll’s could go forward. Because of the decision related to the SDNY’s case, Carroll’s attorneys say that’s no longer true.
‘Trump’s legal team had argued that the Carroll case should be put on hold while the appeals court in the Zervos case weighed whether state courts should defer litigation involving a sitting president until after he stepped down. Carroll’s team countered that even as Trump was pressing that case, his campaign was bringing lawsuits against the New York Times and The Washington Post.’
Trump’s attorneys have claimed in the past that the president, who spends a significant portion of his time tweeting while watching Fox News, has too important and engrossing a job to sit for depositions and court proceedings. He’s also insisted that he’s above the law and can do anything he wants, although U.S. federal courts have disagreed.
‘Saunders wrote that Trump’s argument was effectively rendered moot by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that rejected his claims of immunity from local law enforcement and congressional investigators. While that involved a criminal investigation, Saunders wrote that it was “applicable to all state court proceedings in which a sitting President is involved, including those involving his or her unofficial/personal conduct.”’
Featured image screenshot via YouTube
