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.

  • gregorum@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    169
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Trump is single-handedly defining the legal limits of presidential assholery.

  • hdnsmbt
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    2 years ago

    “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!”

  • carl_dungeon
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Yeah sure drumpf raped a bunch of women, but let’s impeach biden because his son is related to him.

    • rayyy
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      raped a bunch of women

      …and a few minors (children), along the way

  • reddig33
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    There is no such thing as “presidential immunity”.

    • aeronmelon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 years ago

      “I’M SAYING THAT WHEN THE PRESIDENT DOES IT, IT’S NOT ILLEGAL!!” - Some guy named Nixon

  • _wizard
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 years ago

    I’m no lawyer so I could be way off base, but does this set the groundwork for some kind of precedent?

    • perviouslyiner@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 years ago

      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?

    • ajoebyanyothername
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

    • prayer@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.