Trump Rape Accuser 'Stunned' at DOJ No-Show for Court Hearing

[Judi Lynn]

Source: NBC News

An attorney for E. Jean Carroll, the woman who has accused President Trump of raping her in the 1990s, said it was a "shocking scenario for the government to just, essentially surrender, and not even try to argue the case"

Published October 21, 2020 • Updated 1 hour ago



E. Jean Carroll arrives at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, Wednesday, Oct. 21, 2020, in New York. Carroll, who says President Donald Trump raped her in the 1990s, was expected to be in court Wednesday to hear lawyers argue whether Trump can substitute the United States for himself as the defendant in her defamation lawsuit.
AP Photo/John Minchillo

E. Jean Carroll arrives at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, Wednesday, Oct. 21, 2020, in New York. Carroll, who says President Donald Trump raped her in the 1990s, was expected to be in court Wednesday to hear lawyers argue whether Trump can substitute the United States for himself as the defendant in her defamation lawsuit.

A woman who has accused President Donald Trump of raping her in the 1990s said she was stunned and speechless after the Justice Department on Wednesday turned down an opportunity to make oral arguments on whether Trump can substitute the United States for himself as the defendant in her defamation lawsuit.

E. Jean Carroll watched from a seat in the top row of a jury box as U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan gave a government lawyer a chance to argue by phone, after the lawyer who was supposed to argue in person was banned from the courthouse because he traveled from Virginia. New York requires visitors from Virginia to quarantine for 14 days.

William Lane, a Department of Justice civil division attorney, told the judge the government would rest on its papers, meaning it would rely solely on already submitted written arguments.

. . .

Carroll’s lawyers offered to answer any questions the judge might have, but he did not ask any.

Read more: https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/national-international/trump-rape-accuser-stunned-at-doj-no-show-for-court-hearing/2428858/

[elleng]

1. 'Carroll's lawyers had already argued in their papers that Trump cannot claim he was acting

in an official capacity when he made statements denying the encounter with Carroll in a luxury department store dressing room in midtown Manhattan.

Justice Department attorneys have said Trump had to respond in June 2019 to accusations Carroll made against him in a book because the claims related to his fitness for office.

Outside court, Roberta Kaplan told reporters that the position the government took was “pretty radical” and would free any federal official to defame anyone and then argue that the United States should be the defendant if it could concern a constituent.'

'The Justice Department is set to argue in federal court Wednesday that President Donald Trump acted in his official capacity when denying a rape claim made by a longtime magazine columnist, and therefore shouldn't be sued personally for defamation.

In an effort to replace Trump as the defendant in a lawsuit filed by the former columnist, E. Jean Carroll, who has accused him of raping her in a dressing room at a luxury Manhattan department store in the 1990s, the Justice Department is expected to tell a federal judge that Trump's response to Carroll's claims was an effort to preserve his ability to perform the duties of the presidency.

If the Justice Department is allowed to intervene, it would likely torpedo Carroll's lawsuit, since the federal government can't be sued for defamation.

In a court filing earlier this week, lawyers for the department wrote with reference to Carroll's rape claim, which appeared in a 2019 book she wrote, that "even false allegations that the President committed such a crime could obviously impact the President's ability to effectively govern."'

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142610317

[riversedge]

2. 'The judge did not indicate when he will rule.'

.............Carroll’s lawyers had already argued in their papers that Trump cannot claim he was acting in an official capacity when he made statements denying the encounter with Carroll in a luxury department store dressing room in midtown Manhattan.

Justice Department attorneys have said Trump had to respond in June 2019 to accusations Carroll made against him in a book because the claims related to his fitness for office.

Outside court, Roberta Kaplan told reporters that the position the government took was “pretty radical” and would free any federal official to defame anyone and then argue that the United States should be the defendant if it could concern a constituent.

The judge did not indicate when he will rule.

[bringthePaine]

3. really? essentially a jurisdicktional argument? gonna hafta drink this one into the ether...

[elleng]

4. No counsel representing 'defendant,' whomever that might be,

U.S. Government or donald j. trmp!

[bringthePaine]

6. ha right! Unindicted Co-conspirator #1!

[dmr]

5. Seems to me the DOJ would've known about the 14-day quarantine and

assigned someone from the NY office. I mean, really, is there an actual Virginia lawyer quarantining in NYC right now? I doubt it.

It's a game playing/stalling/costly maneuver. Why didn't the judge see through this?

[onenote]

9. How is it a stalling maneuver?

They didn't ask that the oral argument be rescheduled. They said that they would rest on their written pleadings.

[FBaggins]

12. Virginia was added to the 14-day list about a week ago nt

[thesquanderer]

18. What stalling? OP says "government would rest" relying "solely on already submitted written argument

so it sounds like it's proceeding as usual regardless.

I think they just didn't want to risk having their lawyer asked a question, because there's a good chance they'd have good answers! If they feel they can't present the case any better than they already did, there may be more downside in appearing and making yourself available for question than simply relying on the submission.

[cstanleytech]

7. I bet they did it deliberately to delay it until after election and if so then the judge should hold

Last edited Thu Oct 22, 2020, 04:43 AM - Edit history (1)

them in contempt not to mention the attorney's involved should face disciplinary hearings before the bar association.

[Jarqui]

8. +1

I've felt all along that was all this was about.

Many folks think Trump is bad now. Imagine what he'll be like if he can steal the election - where he doesn't have to answer to anyone with no election upcoming (and maybe maybe a third term without one) and can do whatever he wants with his crooked Attorney General ...

[onenote]

10. How does it delay things? They didn't ask to reschedule.

The question is now in the hands of the judge, just as it would have been if the government had chosen to present oral argument.

[RoadRising]

11. They asked for a delay first

" ... less than an hour before the hearing was supposed to begin, the DOJ lawyer who was going to argue asked for a delay, saying that he’d been turned away from the Manhattan federal courthouse that morning because he hadn’t complied with the state’s coronavirus travel restrictions.

"The judge gave DOJ three options: send another lawyer to the courthouse, argue by phone, or cancel the hearing altogether and have the judge decide on each side’s written briefs alone."

[Sanity Claws]

13. My guess

The attorney whose name appears on the papers did not write them and did not feel able to argue the matter. That is why the attorney declined to make the argument.

[docgee]

14. Trump threw Barr under the bus.

Now he's going to reap it.

[niyad]

15. . . .

[L.Pharmstrong]

16. Oral argument is almost always a waste of time.

It’s an opportunity for attorneys to show their clients how smart they are and to justify their hourly rates. Anything the could be said in oral argument should be in the papers. Rarely, if ever, are motions won at oral argument, but they can be lost. Declining argument also gets points with many judges, who don’t want to waste their time.

This really is commonplace and should not be a surprise that DOJ is resting on its submissions and waiving argument.

[MurrayDelph]

17. Couldn't they apply the Coney Barret rule?

She recently ruled in favor of a prison not being responsible for a serial rapist guard because raping was not "one of his official duties."

Is the Disjustice Department now saying defaming persons he's wronged is part of Trump's job description? Because I don't remember seeing that in the Constitution.

Hello, "originalists." Mueller?