Read on Twitter
Several of you have asked about the reporting on the DOJ and E. Jean Carroll. Settle in for a long, disturbing thread. I cannot bring myself to lighten this up with gifs.
On June 21, 2019, New York Magazine published E. Jean Carroll's disturbing account of being sexually assaulted by Donald Trump in 1995 or 1996. https://www.thecut.com/2019/06/donald-trump-assault-e-jean-carroll-other-hideous-men.html
She is one of at least 25 women who have accused Trump of sexual misconduct according to Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/women-accused-trump-sexual-misconduct-list-2017-12
On November 4, 2019, she filed a lawsuit against Trump for defamation in New York State court. She sued him as an individual, not as the President, for statements he made about her to media on June 21, 22, and 24, 2019.
In her complaint, she says, among other things (it is worth reading in full and is attached to the DOJ motion that I'll link at the end) that Trump lied about not knowing her and not having raped her.
She says Trump defamed her by accusing her of carrying out a political agenda and seeking to profit from telling her story. He said that she had been paid to invent a false story against him.
It is important to understand the basis of her claims against the President.
It is important to understand the basis of her claims against the President.
She says he lied repeatedly and publicly and that she has been harmed by those lies. She wants him to retract his defamatory statements and pay her damages -- compensatory and punitive.
OK. That was filed in STATE court against Trump PERSONALLY. Along comes the Department of Justice.
The Department of Justice filed what is called a "Notice of Removal." Defendants do this all the time. In non-lawyer-speak, a notice of removal says, "hey, State Court, peace out. We think a federal court has the authority to hear this so we're moving there."
Defendants do this for a number of reasons -- delay, expense, because federal courts might have more expertise in the subject matter, because they think a federal court might be a friendlier forum.
But federal courts have limited jurisdiction. You can't just waltz into federal court with a defamation case. That is a claim usually heard in state court. So, why is the federal government saying that E. Jean Carroll's lawsuit can be properly heard in federal court?
Hold on to your hat. The federal government says that Donald Trump, when he said he didn't know her, didn't rape her, that she was being paid by Democrats to claim he did, was acting as the President, not as Donald Trump, the man.
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/trump-justice-department-e-jean-carroll/cc7606ac221ce832/full.pdf
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/trump-justice-department-e-jean-carroll/cc7606ac221ce832/full.pdf
Under federal law, if the President is sued for doing something as the President -- in the "course and scope of his employment" -- there is a specific federal law governing if, how, and for what the President can be sued.
James G. Touhey, Director of the Torts Branch in the Civil Division at the United States Department of Justice, is telling the Court under oath that in his estimation, the President talking to media about E. Jean Carroll is in the course and scope of his job as President.
One might ask oneself if President Clinton was doing the work of being the President or of being Bill Clinton when he denied sexual misconduct allegations during his term in office.
One might ask oneself if a Vice President of Sales at a local bank is being the Vice President of Sales or himself when denying accusations of sexual misconduct and saying that the accuser is out to get him. Should the bank pay for his defense, or should he do that?
One might ask oneself if taxpayer dollars should fund every lawsuit filed against Donald Trump when he lies? One might ask oneself if the resources of the Department of Justice are best deployed against an individual citizen suing the President in state Court?
One might ask lots of questions here. To me, the inescapable conclusion is that this is another demonstration that Donald Trump does not believe that he serves the American government. Donald Trump believes that he IS the American government.
The second inescapable conclusion is that the Department of Justice does not believe that it represents the American government. It believes that it represents Donald Trump.
