A federal appeals court rejected Donald Trump’s use of presidential immunity in a bid to dismiss a civil defamation lawsuit brought by former magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll.
The judges found that Trump waived using presidential immunity as a defense by not raising it earlier in the litigation over Carroll’s claim that Trump defamed her when, as president, he denied her allegations of sexual assault. The appeals court also affirmed the lower court’s ruling that rejected Trump’s motion for summary judgement.
“This case presents a vexing question of first impression: whether presidential immunity is waivable. We answer in the affirmative and further hold that Donald J. Trump (‘Defendant’) waived the defense of presidential immunity by failing to raise it as an affirmative defense in his answer to E. Jean Carroll’s (‘Plaintiff’s’) complaint, which alleged that Defendant defamed her by claiming that she had fabricated her account of Defendant sexually assaulting her in the mid1990s.,” the court ruled.
Trump is single-handedly defining the legal limits of presidential assholery.
Which would be fantastic, if it weren’t for the fact that he has a very real shot at returning to the white house and making this all a moot point.
I still can’t believe so many people don’t see him for the criminal, con-man, grifter, anti-christ, etc that he is.
I still cannot believe that people are so shocked to find out so much of the country have been brainwashed to be hateful bigots, ready to yell at their neighbor for wearing a rainbow shirt before they’ll yell at Raytheon et. al. for profiting from the few literal genocides the US has weapons going to right now.
There ARE terrible people in the world, and laws don’t magically put them behind bars.
He’s the literal embodiment of the seven deadly sins: pride, greed, wrath, envy, lust, gluttony and sloth, yet christians would disown family for the chance at sucking him off. It feels like we’ve crossed over into Bizarro world.
A lot of Christians see him as the anti-christ, but that means Jesus is comin’ round the mountain!
“Jesus is going to come at the end of days (according to a book I tell people I read) so if I cause the end of days Jesus is going to show up and save me from it!”
That what my dad says. He is excited about Trump doing all the bad stuff. He is such a miserable bastard that wants the world to end.
Same reason they’re so giddy about the current genocide in Palestine. Gun toting, blue eyed Jesus is a-comin back yall!
These people are real and terrifying and lot of them are in positions of power. They very much seek to rebuild Temple Mount where al-Aqsa currently stands; they believe it has to happen for Jesus to return and they’re actively doing everything in their power to help it along. They’re fundamentalists and every bit as dangerous as any terrorist or demagogue.
Yep.
Will he be ridin’ six white horses?
There’s only four. The book says they’re white, red, black, and pale.
Also stagecoach Mary was a real lady and was bad as fuck, just some random ex slave black lady hauling ass and beating the shit out of racists only to settle down with a nun.
I can believe it. Easily. No problem at all.
You must have worked with customers/the public.
Yes. But not for a long time.
He’s basically our “generations” Nixon at this point it seems.
From what I know about Nixon, Trump is way worse.
Nixon had the decency to get in a helicopter and fly the fuck away when it came to light what a piece of shit he was.
I still can’t believe so many people don’t see him for the criminal, con-man, grifter, anti-christ, etc that he is.
you don’t have to make sense of it. they’re all lying. they know what he is and don’t care, because he’ll let them hurt who they want to hurt.
problem is, he might end up defining them as “entirely unchecked, retroactively”
How so?
There haven’t been any real consequences for anything he’s done, unless you count a mugshot.
And, thanks to Biden just ignoring the poor and middle class, he stands a very real chance of reelection.
Crazy that all of your comments are far right talking points
If you don’t want to hear valid critiques of Democratic governance, then do better.
“Don’t blame us Republicans! We’ve only been sabotaging all attempts to govern for decades!”
If kids could eat excuses there would be no such thing as student lunch debt, but since Democrats don’t do their job, there is.
you misspelled Republicans
Republicans Declare Banning Universal Free School Meals a 2024 Priority
Republicans Plan to Cut Free School Lunches
House Republican committee proposes cutting Community Eligibility Provision school lunch program
Congress made school meals free for 2 years. Now, Republicans don’t want to extend the program.
ahem…
Actually, no.
I’m giving Democrats proper credit for doing jack shit about it when we gave them power.
I don’t differentiate between perpetrator and collaborator when the net result is the same.
They literally had the thinnest majority in the Senate including the poison pills that are Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. They cant carry out any of their platform with Republicans stabding in staunch opposition of anything that helps people more than shareholders.
Now see.
That is where Democrats truly excel: making excuses.
I’m not sure how you sat through four years of Trump and still believe that Biden is somehow magically powerless.
deleted by creator
“You see, your honor, when I raped this woman it was an official function of the president of the United States! Obviously, presidential immunity must apply!”
There is no such thing as “presidential immunity”.
“I’M SAYING THAT WHEN THE PRESIDENT DOES IT, IT’S NOT ILLEGAL!!” - Some guy named Nixon
I’m no lawyer so I could be way off base, but does this set the groundwork for some kind of precedent?
“In May 1997 the Supreme Court unanimously rejected Bill Clinton’s claim that the Constitution immunized him from civil lawsuits”
Isn’t that already a precedent?
With the current supreme Court? Who the hell knows.
Roe vs Wade was a precedent.
Also no lawyer, but my understanding is that it doesn’t. The appeals court hasn’t ruled that presidential immunity wouldn’t be a valid defence, but rather that Trump should have brought it up earlier if he wanted to use it.
Silly rabbit, precedents aren’t a thing anymore.
Courts often take the most narrow view possible to answer the question. This is an example of that. The only question answered is “Can a president raise the issue of immunity at this stage in the trial”, with the answer being “no”. They didn’t comment on if presidential immunity is valid in this situation. The only precedent set is that presidential immunity must be brought up at te start of litigation.
