Trump, DOJ attorneys argue statements about rape allegations were part of president’s job

[ad_1]

Lawyers for former President Trump argued in Washington, D.C.’s highest court on Tuesday that he acted out of his job as president when he made comments that a woman who had him accused of raping her in the 1990s had qualified as defamatory.

E. Jean Carroll, a longtime columnist for Elle magazine, went public with the sexual assault allegation during the Trump administration, and she later sued the former president for defamation over statements he later made. questioning Carroll’s credibility and degrading his appearance. Trump vehemently denies the assault took place.

The federal appeals court hearing the case in September ruled it was unclear whether Trump’s statements fell under the Westfall Act, which protects government employees from tort lawsuits arising from actions as part of their employment, and asked the DC Court of Appeals to weigh in on the city’s local employment laws.

Carroll’s lawsuit is unlikely to succeed if Trump’s statements are deemed to fall within the protection of the law, although Carroll has since filed a separate lawsuit with additional allegations of defamation and a claim for the alleged sexual assault. itself under a newly enacted New York law. .

Trump lawyer Alina Habba claimed on Tuesday that the former president was serving the public by making the statements by responding to reporters who “imposed” the alleged sexual assault on him as a matter of public interest.

The Justice Department, under the Trump and Biden administrations, sided with Trump’s lawyers in arguing that the Westfall Act applies to statements.

“He was on the lawn before we asked him questions. He answered these questions. This is proof that he was doing it only to respond and as part of his job,” Habba said.

She argued that Trump could not be held liable even if the comments were an iota in the course of his employment, but Joshua Matz, an attorney representing Carroll, argued that the court should use a higher standard.

Matz claimed Trump was liable under either rule, however, because the comments were purely personal, underscoring their inflammatory nature and Trump’s conduct continued beyond his presidency.

The alleged defamatory statements include a written statement the White House provided to reporters, comments Trump made to reporters on the South Lawn, and an interview Trump gave to The Hill in which he said Carroll was not “not my type”.

“If you look at his statements, there are several characteristics of them that take this, I think, way outside the norm, even for Mr. Trump during his tenure,” Matz said.

The federal appeals court asked DC judges to rule on “under the laws of the district, allegedly defamatory public statements made, while in office, by the President of the United States denying allegations of misconduct, with respect to events prior to this term, in connection with his employment as President of the United States?”

Tarrio and Proud Boys to stand trial for seditious conspiracy New Jersey’s new gun law partially suspended by federal judge

A number of judges, however, expressed concern about whether the local court should fully answer the federal court’s question by applying DC labor law to the facts of the case, or whether its appropriate role is simply to clarify DC labor law so that a fact-finder could apply it to Trump’s case.

Matz said the court shouldn’t duck the issue, arguing in part that it could lead to further delays.

“This case has been going on for some time, the parties are of advanced age and are looking for a solution to the case,” Matz said. “And Judge Kaplan repeatedly found that Mr. Trump acted in bad faith and in a dilatory manner aimed at prolonging the resolution of these proceedings. And if the court were to pursue your option, Justice McLeese, I frankly fear it could take years to reach a resolution.

[ad_2]