Justice Department to take over Trump's legal defense in E. Jean Carroll defamation suit, writer says Trump raped her decades ago

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2020/09/08/justice-department-to-take-ove.html


They probably got wind of an October DNA Surprise cu… coming in the case.


The next logical step would be for him to actually rape someone while in office and then subsequently argue that he was acting within the scope of the office while doing so.


Odds are Rump’s current lawyers are tired of being stiffed!


It’s not like Trump’s DOJ ever makes a legally viable argument. If anything this is a great way to get a judge to rule in favor of the plaintiff, since trump’s DOJ keeps offering frankly bizarre and irrelevant arguments in court. Like they don’t even really bother reading the legal briefings.

Trump’s admin is full of cargo-cult litigants who think legal terms are magic words that can force people to do what they want.


The especially nutty bit is, if this was allowed to go forwards, the federal government would be the one on the hook for damages. That that’s the case demonstrates how utterly insane the DOJ taking this on actually is. It’s hard to say what’s going on here, though. It’s clearly not acceptable and it’s hard to believe courts would allow it; if Trump loses the election, the DOJ’s position on this would change anyways, etc. So what’s the plan - throw the election so Trump is dictator for life, claim he is the state and all the issues will go away?

The DOJ has essentially paved the way… it’s not really any more ridiculous than what they’re claiming.


Beavis and Butthead laugh…


I disagree. Outrageous, but definitely not shocking.


So all you doubters out there take note of this: Bill Barr is Donald J. Trump’s personal attorney and he has the largest law firm in the United States of America.


So Twitter is just Trump’s personal spot for riffing on others and “exercising his first amendment rights” or is it a place for “official presidential communications”?

I can’t even keep track anymore given how much the White House flip-flops on this matter depending on how it suits the moment.


Actually, I’d be curious to know just how many people he already HAS raped while in office.


Sounds like sovereign citizens.


As I understand it (per NPR) the government legally cannot be charged with libel, so if they can succeed in making the gov the defendant, they are a small step away from having the case dismissed. As an additional nicety, if that doesn’t work, any penalties assessed are the responsibility of the government (ie, you and me) instead of Il Douche. Nice all around for him. Illegal as hell, but since when did that matter?


Maybe not, but if he gets it in front of one of his stacked courts…


Much though I despise Trump, I would not automatically assume that he is a rapist, or even that every accusation of sexual misconduct leveled at him is necessarily true.

But in this case, where the case potentially stands or falls on DNA evidence, the actions of those involved are significant. If Caroll is lying, then a DNA sample from Trump that fails to match the one she claims to have could destroy her case. Assuming she and her attorneys are rational actors, why would she ask for a proof that could lay her open to massive damages? Similarly, if Defendant Trump is telling the truth about not having raped her, why would he work so hard to withhold evidence that could exonerate him?

I’m assuming rationality here, which may be a mistake where Trump is concerned. Still, it does seem that if he’s innocent then he’d have every reason to comply with her demand, and if she’s lying, she’d have every reason not to make it.

I’m also curious to know why Trump didn’t just say “Yeah, I had sex with that woman. I’ve had sex with lots of women. But it didn’t happen where or how she said it did, and it was entirely consensual.” Reducing the question of rape to he-said/she-said would negate the value of any DNA evidence and let his defense team go to work on destroying her credibility. But maybe she was smart enough to wait until after he’d already denied it before she said “Oh, by the way, I’ve got some DNA here.”



Men’s testimony is worth double that of women, so… :roll_eyes: It’s not like Trump hung out with a known, convicted rapist, child molester, and child trafficker or anything like that.

But we should give him the benefit of the doubt, right?


I don’t automatically assume Trump is lying about his innocence- I consider the evidence of his lack of truthfulness as whole. And his history of his actions with women and with avoiding legal responsibility for his actions.


“Acting within the scope of his job”?

That could define just about anything you want it to.


Impeach Barr now.


Good point. That would probably make a good counter to the DOJ argument, since Trump’s made the argument before that his account isn’t official communications, so that he (arguably) isn’t violating the Constitution by blocking accounts he doesn’t like.