A panel of three judges from the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is in the spotlight. They will evaluate if Donald Trump, the nation’s former leader, can claim presidential immunity. The key reason? E. Jean Carroll seeks reparations for comments made by Trump in 2019 after she accused him of wrongdoing in her past.
The Heart of the Matter
E. Jean Carroll, a respected columnist from Elle magazine, took a bold step by filing a lawsuit against Trump in 2019. This legal action was a reaction to Trump’s comments following Carroll’s serious accusations from the 1990s. In a public denial, Trump replied, claiming Carroll was “not my type” and even implied that she might have made up her allegations to boost her book sales.
Timing Questions
During a pivotal hearing, it was clear that the panel was deeply invested in the case. They wondered why the argument of presidential immunity wasn’t Trump’s initial defense. With a tone of inquiry, Judge Maria Kahn directly asked, “Why not?” signaling her curiosity about Trump’s legal strategy.
Trump’s Defense
In the courtroom, Michael Madaio, the attorney representing Trump, firmly said that the court should consider the immunity defense. He stressed its importance, noting that “separation of powers would be weakened” if not. Madaio strongly believes this claim holds weight despite its late timing in the legal proceedings.
Counter Argument
Joshua Matz, representing Carroll, then opposed Michael Madaio’s stance. “The argument is nothing more than ‘hokum,'” stated Matz. He emphasized that if Trump truly believed in the immunity defense, he had several opportunities to present it early on. However, Trump had chosen other defenses over it.
Reflecting on Trump’s Behavior
Additionally, Matz was openly critical of Trump’s approach in the case. Highlighting the inconsistency in Trump’s actions, Matz declared, “A party who believes they are hanging onto immunity does not behave the way it behaved.” He then questioned the authenticity of Trump’s immunity claim.
Limits on Presidential Speech
During the hearing, the issue of how far presidential speech can go became a key topic. Jude Jose Cabranes questioned how to differentiate between simple denial and potentially harmful remarks. Many others drew attention to the gray areas of what a president can or cannot say and whether negative statements about high-ranking officials should be permitted.
Looking at Past Actions
Carroll’s attorney referenced the events of January 6, 2021, to underline the consequences of unchecked presidential speech. He indicated that such incidents stem from a mindset where a president feels “free to say anything he wants in public.” He suggested there was a potential danger in allowing people to speak freely without consequences.
Waiting on the Decision
After hearing both sides, the panel of three judges did not rush to a conclusion. Expressing the gravity of the matter, they announced they’d be taking the matter “under advisement.” In doing so, this indicates that they will carefully deliberate the case before passing any judgment. It is unclear how long these deliberations may take.
An Earlier Decision
In the initial stages, a district court judge had given his verdict on the immunity defense. He argued that Trump’s prolonged delay in presenting the immunity defense was problematic. Trump had taken three years to raise this defense, casting doubt on its legitimacy in this context.
The Upcoming Trial
Set for January, the trial has the nation’s attention. At its core is the determination of monetary damages Trump might owe Carroll for his controversial remarks. The judges involved in the case have concluded that Trump’s words did defame Carroll. As such, this case revolves around how much in damages Carroll should receive. She is currently seeking a hefty $10 million.
A Previous Case
In the past, Carroll’s legal battles were successful. The courts awarded her $5 million in a separate lawsuit that alleged both defamation and battery. Reacting to this, Trump’s legal team, led by Michael Madaio, expressed their disagreement. Trump is allegedly attempting to appeal the results of this case, making it clear that the former President is determined to challenge this verdict.
Reflections on Timing
One observer pointed out a critical flaw in Trump’s argument, stating, “Except he wasn’t president when he assaulted her.” They expressed frustration, adding, “They need to start fining him for these frivolous motions.” They argued that these deliberations were a waste of time and that Trump’s defense had no merit.
Recurring Defense Tactics
Another individual noted a recurring pattern in Trump’s legal approaches: “He must have this motion template prepared for every damned lawsuit. Was this not tried already in her previous winning suit?” This user claimed that Trump often hides behind his position as President to defend his wrongdoings.
Deja Vu in the Courtroom
Similarly, another user echoes these feelings of familiarity as they commented, “Again? I feel like I’ve read he’s already tried that in this very court.” They then voiced their confusion, wondering if this was one of the “other court cases where he argued the same thing only to get the argument shot down completely.”
Strategy Over Innocence
One critical observer reflected on Trump’s tactics, sharing, “Funny, how he never really tries to prove his innocence. Trump just tries to deny, delay, and distract from the facts. It’s almost like he knows that, should a jury see the evidence and hear the testimony, he’ll lose.” It appears they believed these actions showed Trump’s guilt, not his innocence.
Misunderstanding of Immunity
The concept of “presidential immunity” drew strong reactions. One individual said, “Presidential immunity from defamation? That’s not how it works.” They continued, expressing doubt about Trump’s understanding of his role, “He just mouthed the oath of office & has no idea what it means, nor what implications there are for him because he doesn’t know what it means to be an actual American.”
Trump’s Legal Strategy
Another observer commented on the former President’s legal maneuvers, saying, “His answer to every problem is to litigate the heck out of it. He can afford (doesn’t pay, actually) the lawyers to keep the litigation going. Usually, it works for him because most people can’t afford the costs associated with it. He’s forgetting that he’s dealing with the state and federal governments in most cases, and I’m sure that Carroll has some deal with her attorneys that they get paid when she does.
Critique of the Argument
Another user commented on the defenses Trump presented: “Absurd argument. By extension, civil procedure should be thrown out in its entirety.” They railed against the delays and choices, saying, “Just wait until the eve of trial and make a ridiculous argument on separation of powers.” In a nod to the earlier hearing, they added, “[the] Best thing about the story is that the respondent’s attorney used the term ‘hokum.'”
“Someone Else Is Running the Country for Him”: President Biden Accidently Reads Out Teleprompter Instructions During Speech
“Reverse Racism Doesn’t Exist, Idiot”: Biden’s Praise for Kamala Harris Raises Eyebrows
President Biden has claimed that Vice President Kamala Harris is fighting for freedom and that the Biden administration has rebuilt the economy. Understandably, his comments have left some people confused.
“Reverse Racism Doesn’t Exist, Idiot”: Biden’s Praise for Kamala Harris Raises Eyebrows
“I’d Like to See Him Pass a Polygraph”: Trump Fails at Basic Math and Rambles About Passing Meaningless Competency Test
According to NBC, Donald Trump has given a lengthy response to a question regarding age concerns. The former president and Republican presidential nominee candidate, who often says Biden is too old for his job at age 80, is 77.
“Seems Like Pure Racism”: House Approves Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Amendment to Cut the Secretary of Defense’s Pay to $1
The House has approved Marjorie Taylor Greene’s amendment to cut Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s salary to $1.
“In the Far Future, White People Won’t Exist”: Biden Says White People Will Soon Be a Minority in America
President Joe Biden has boldly claimed that the United States will soon become “a minority-White European country.”