Trump v. Me

[douglas9]

On Friday, December 3rd, in this Year of Our Lord, 2021, Donald Trump’s lawyers and the DOJ will try to convince three judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that the President of the United States was just doing his job when he slandered a woman who revealed that he had raped her decades earlier. (That would be me.)

You’ll be hearing a lot about this case over the next few weeks, and, by the by, good luck to my fellow journalists trying to explain—without sounding like they sucked on a canister of helium—why the DOJ is trying to prove that Donald Trump was acting as the President when he defamed me.

https://ejeancarroll.substack.com/p/trump-v-me

[Sucha NastyWoman]

1. Please don't settle

Like Summer Zervos did.

[Scrivener7]

2. Merrick Garland could do something about this.

[Ligyron]

3. And a lot of other things as well.

[Scrivener7]

4. Yup.

[dchill]

5. Apparently, he's busy!

(He may be, I don't know.)

[Bernardo de La Paz]

12. You do not know. Three month long grand jury investigation you only found out yesterday

Sydney Powell has been under grand jury investigation for 3 months and you only found out yesterday. (I'm presuming you follow news on DU.) It was revealed by court documents filed (or reported on for the first time) yesterday, maybe filed the day before.

For those three months you thought she was not being investigated and raged at Garland for not running any investigations (I'm writing based on your post; maybe you didn't rage in posts or even at all; no shade meant).

Not singling you out. There are many on DU who have made stronger intemperate statements against Garland.

Yes he is busy. Yes, he is not asleep.

[gab13by13]

13. Except the Sidney Powell case

has little to do with the 1/6 insurrection. She founded a pro-Trump organization to raise money to bring law suits against the 2020 election, she then skimmed money from that organization to pay her legal fees after Smartmatic and Dominion sued her for a billion dollars.

I agree that grand juries or DOJ don't leak but if big fish were being indicted re: 1/6 it would leak from other people, at least that's what I hear from former DOJ, FBI experts on TV, on msnbc.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

14. Lots to do w Jan 6. Her activities & actions started BEFORE Jan 6. She was key part of pushing lie

She was a public face, lending credence to the Big Lie to "Stop the Steal". tRump cut her loose early when she got a bit crazy but didn't disavow her Stop the Steal efforts.

She was coordinating with other lawyers and other players.

But go back to pushing the Garland-is-incompetent-or-asleep-or-worse meme, if you like. Expect pushback when you claim that secrecy in this case means that Garland is doing nothing.

The part revealed about the Powell case may be narrow, but if that is the only thing in the investigation, then it did not need to consume three months.

But apparently you know what we don't know, that Garland is not doing anything.

[gab13by13]

15. This case is about rich GQP donors getting scammed by Sidney Powell,

Sidney Powell will soon be penniless because of the Dominion law suit so the rich GQP donors want to get their money back before she becomes penniless because of Dominion. That's what this case is about, rich donors want in front of the line.

This case against Powell will do nothing to prevent the ongoing insurrection.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

16. And that to you is proof Garland is doing nothing? Does not take 3 months of grand jury time

... to find a lawyers' fees shuffle.

[gab13by13]

17. No, the fact that Garland took the E. Jeanne Carroll case scares me,

because he can apply the same opinion to people like Mo Brooks who were only performing their official duties when people like him incited an insurrection. I am just a retired mechanic but I listen to people like Laurence Tribe;

"If Garland comes even close to suggesting that the elected head of the executive branch and those members of Congress so beholden to him that they will join him in his crusade to “stop the steal,” as the president put it, are to be shielded by the Justice Department from liability — whether civil or criminal — for seeking to prevent Congress from peacefully certifying an election replacing that chief executive with a successor, our system of government will be in mortal peril. And it would be folly for Garland to pretend that saying Brooks was acting within his authority still leaves open the possibility of denying that Donald Trump was acting within his when that question is teed up for decision, as it shortly will be in all three cases. Brooks’s basic defense, after all, is that he — like the mob he was addressing — was just doing Trump’s bidding. If suing Brooks amounts to suing the federal government, then suing Trump does too. But to embrace that proposition is to embrace the quintessential dictatorial premise that the chief executive is the state. And to do that is to bring the American experiment in self-government to a tragic end." Laurence Tribe.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

18. He didn't take the case. You previously posted in THIS thread that you were wrong on that point.. nt

[gab13by13]

20. He didn't take the case

it was given to him, he could have rejected Barr's decision to defend E. Jeanne Carroll but he did not.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

19. First word of your quote: "IF". Appears twice. You don't know, Tribe doesn't know, I don't know.

You can stop now or keep talking about something we don't know about as if you know.

[gab13by13]

9. Wasn't it Garland who took the case?

Maybe I'm wrong?

[gab13by13]

11. I was wrong,

it started under Trump but Garland could have dropped DOJ's defense.

[Escurumbele]

6. The one thing I still cannot get my head to comprehend is why is the DOJ defending the asshole?

Why are we, the tax payers, paying for his defense. What is wrong with Garland? The DOJ should be out of it, let the buffoon, who claims to be a billionaire, pay for his own defense.

This is so screwed up, from the DOJ side. What can we, the tax payers, say or do to stop the DOJ from defending the buffoon?

[Joinfortmill]

8. I think it's the office of the presidency.

I'm hoping DOJ won't try too hard.

[gab13by13]

10. That's the reason many gave here,

except the fact that Carroll is making that slandering a rape victim should not be considered a part of the duties of a president.

Defending the "office of the president" in this case is shameful.

[Joinfortmill]

7. Wow, just wow. TFG is gonna be toast.