Ms. Carroll published a book in 2019, in which she wrote that years ago, Trump had raped her. This was one of numerous examples of women saying that Trump had sexually harassed and/or assaulted them. Trump opted to deny the charge by saying that Ms. Carroll was not his type, and further insulting her. She filed a civil case against him for defamation.
Under William Barr, the DoJ filed in the federal court, stating that they were going to represent Trump on the charges, claiming the issue was less of who was telling the truth, than that Trump was president at the time. This, of course, is distinct from Paula Jone's case against Clinton for behaviors she claimed he engaged in before he was president. Still, many did not believe that Barr was acting in good faith -- in other words, regardless of if the DoJ has just cause to try to protect the institution of the presidency, Barr was motivated by less than honorable intentions.
Importantly, last October, a federal judge ruled against the DoJ's attempt to represent Trump in the civil case. Soon after that, Trump appealed this decision. I suspect we all would agree that this -- like everything Trump does -- is underlined with a corrupt intent. However, the appeal is currently in the 2nd US Court of Appeals in New York.
The DoJ had to decide to either follow through, in an attempt to create a standard aimed at protecting the institution of the presidency, or to drop the attempt to represent Trump. It is essential to understand that both options have both good and bad potentials. The bad potential is not limited to Trump being a shithead, but is actually more about civil suits against other presidents. Thus, on Monday, the DoJ filed papers stating that they were still intent upon being involved in the case.
This has upset many people. There are, without question, intelligent and sincere people -- including former federal prosecutors -- who disagree with the DoJ's position. I think that they have valid reasons. There are many others, including Joyce Vance, who have pointed out the potential good and bad in either of the DoJ's options, a concept I think is essential. And, among social-political internet sites, one can find accurate information, lots of misinformation, and a growing amount of disinformation that intends to confuse and divide Democrats.
At this point, there may be more reason to think the Court of Appeals will uphold the previous ruling. But maybe not -- I'm not attempting to pretend I could more than speculate. However, if they do uphold that previous decision, there is potential future benefit from the DoJ's current filing.
= new reply since forum marked as read
