Home https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/ US https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/ Biden’s Department of Justice is defending Trump in a case for refusing to rape

Biden’s Department of Justice is defending Trump in a case for refusing to rape

“In drafting and defending a certificate from the Westfall Act … the Department of Justice does not support the alleged tort or presents that it has actually supported the interests of the United States. The Court of Auditors also does not take such decisions to confirm the certification of the Ministry, “wrote Acting Acting Civilian Department of Justice Brian Boynton. the new submission.

Boynton also adheres to the Justice Department’s position on the case last September: that Trump acted in the course of his office as president when he denied allegations of rape of Carol more than two decades ago.

“Talking to the public and the press on matters of public interest is undoubtedly part of the job of an elected official,”

; Boynton added. “Thus, the courts have consistently and repeatedly argued that alleged defamatory statements made in this context fall within the scope of employment of elected officials – including when the statements were prompted by inquiries from the press about the official’s personal life.”

The new document is a ratification by the Biden administration of a move made by then-Attorney General William Barr to defend Trump in the case last year, a move that drew widespread criticism over the deployment of state lawyers to fight the defamation lawsuit filed after Trump denied her account of the alleged rape. But the more significant impact of Barr’s move was that if he were successful, he would almost certainly wipe out the lawsuit.

Last October, U.S. District Court Judge Louis Kaplan rejected the government’s proposal essentially to get into Trump’s shoes as a defendant in Carol’s suit.

The Ministry of Justice appealed this decision, asking the 2nd chain to repeal Kaplan. In January, Justice Department lawyers even submitted a brief reference to an apparent candidacy to cement the government’s position before Biden’s appointees took office.

The report, due Monday night, was the first by the Justice Department since the inauguration of President Joseph Biden.

Kaplan said the actions that accelerated the lawsuit – Trump’s recent denials of Carol’s demands for rape in the 1990s – were not related to Trump’s work as president and were not limited to official business. Kaplan also said the president was not covered by the law, which the Justice Ministry had imposed in the case.

Allowing the government to take on the role of defendant in the case would likely doom Carol’s case, as the law does not allow defamation claims against federal officials acting in their official capacity.

“In this case, Mrs Carol will not be left without any remedies, even if the president’s statements are false and defamatory,” Kaplan wrote.

Justice Department lawyers cited a number of other cases in which personal matters raised with federal officials or statements they made were considered related to their work, but Kaplan said those cases had been improperly resolved or not. are comparable.

“The indisputable facts show that President Trump did not act in support of any of the obligations of any disputed employer when he made the controversial statements,” Kaplan wrote. “His comments referred to alleged sexual violence committed several decades before he took office, and the allegations have nothing to do with the official business of the United States. To conclude otherwise, the Court will have to accept the view that almost everything the President does is in the public interest by virtue of his office. “

On Kaplan Opinion of 61 pages allowed the case filed by Carol, who accused Trump of raping her in Bergdorf Goodman’s dressing room in the 1990s, to continue in federal court with Justice Department attorneys representing Trump, at least for now.

In 2019, Trump issued several sharp denials in Carol’s account, including a written statement insisting he had never met her, despite the photo he has of the two together.

“She’s trying to sell a new book – that has to show her motivation. It has to sell in the science fiction section,” a statement from Trump said. He also denied her account in exchange for reporters on the White House’s South Meadow before boarding Marine One, and in an interview with The Hill’s Oval Office.

Carol filed a lawsuit in New York State last November, alleging that Trump’s refusal had tarnished her by damaging her reputation. The case hung in state court for almost a year until the Justice Department took over Trump’s defense last September.

The department is seeking to replace the government as a defendant in the case based on two main arguments: that Trump is a federal employee and that his statements denying Carol’s allegations were made as part of his official responsibilities. These factors would trigger long-standing laws that allow the Ministry of Justice to intervene and defend against civil disputes.

Lawyers for the Ministry of Justice also pointed out decision of the DC Court of Appeal of 2006 who accepted arguments from lawyers for former attorney Cass Balenger (RN.C.) that a press interview he gave about his separation from his wife was within his official duties.

In the exchange, Balenger said one of the reasons for the separation was that his wife was uncomfortable living across the street from the offices of the Council on American Islamic Relations, which he called “the gaining hand for Hezbollah.” The group sued Balenger for defamation, but the courts eventually agreed that the congressman was seeking to maintain his official reputation when he addressed the issue of his marriage.

During Bar’s rule, the Department of Justice had previously proposed its move as a way to effectively end Carol’s case.

A spokesman for the department at the time, Kerry Merchant, tweet on September 10th that it is a “myth” to assume that the involvement of the Department of Justice in the case will put taxpayers “on the hook for financing the Carol defamation case”.

“Fact: Once the case is transferred to a nurtured court, it is a matter of sovereign immunity,” she wrote. “It simply came to our notice then. No case, no costs. ”

Source link