Trump attempts to claim presidential immunity in defamation case.
Attorneys for former President Donald Trump are once again asserting his “presidential immunity” in the defamation case brought against him by writer E. Jean Carroll. They argue that previous attempts to invoke this immunity have been rejected by the courts, but they are making another effort to defend Trump.
Michael Madaio, one of Trump’s attorneys, stated that they have already tried three times to raise the issue of presidential immunity, but their arguments have been dismissed. The court is now considering whether this defense can be waived.
The appellate court panel must first decide whether presidential immunity can be waived before addressing other issues in the case. This includes determining whether President Trump can use this defense.
Defamation Case
Last month, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled that President Trump was responsible for defaming E. Jean Carroll with his remarks in 2019. The upcoming trial in January will focus on determining the amount of damages Trump should pay to Carroll.
E. Jean Carroll filed a lawsuit against President Trump in 2019, accusing him of defaming her by denying her rape allegations from the 1990s. The original lawsuit focused on three statements: one made by the White House and two responses given by Trump to reporters.
Judge Kaplan’s ruling came after Carroll won another case against Trump, where she accused him of rape. The jury found him liable for “sexual battery” and awarded her $5 million in damages in May. Following this ruling, Carroll amended her initial lawsuit, seeking $10 million in compensatory damages and additional punitive damages. The judge determined that the facts settled in the previous case were relevant to the defamation case as well.
Presidential Immunity
President Trump responded to the ruling by filing motions to dismiss the case and a countersuit, but Judge Kaplan rejected all of his arguments. Trump is now appealing the judge’s decision to deny his claim of presidential immunity.
During the hearing, the judges questioned both sides’ attorneys about whether presidential immunity can be waived. They also discussed whether this defense applies to President Trump in this particular case.
The judges and Carroll’s attorney pointed out that Trump did not immediately invoke presidential immunity. He initially made other arguments and only raised the immunity defense after Carroll amended her lawsuit.
Carroll’s attorneys argued that Trump’s behavior does not align with someone who believes they are absolutely immune. They claimed that deeming presidential immunity as waivable would not harm the separation of powers, which the defense seeks to protect.
On the other hand, Trump’s legal team argued that waiving presidential immunity would undermine the president’s ability to perform his duties. They maintained that this defense is jurisdictional rather than merit-based. They also referenced a Supreme Court case involving President Richard Nixon, where the court clarified presidential immunity as “absolute” and rejected a subjective test for its application.
The judges raised the question of whether this immunity would prevent any president from filing a counterclaim. Trump’s team argued that the immunity protects the president’s ability to carry out his job and does not prohibit him from initiating legal action.
Carroll’s attorneys countered that deeming presidential immunity as non-waivable would only serve to empower the judiciary, as it would prevent the president from bringing counterclaims if he wished to do so.
They argued that allowing the defense to be waived would not discourage future presidents, as it can only be voluntarily relinquished. Furthermore, they claimed that introducing this defense three years into the case was prejudicial.
What is the legal concept of presidential immunity and how does it provide protections to the President?
Motions. One of the arguments made by Trump’s legal team is the claim of ”presidential immunity.” They argue that as a sitting President, Trump cannot be sued for actions taken in his official capacity.
Presidential immunity is a legal concept that provides protections to the President from civil lawsuits while in office. It is based on the belief that the President should be free to carry out their duties without the distraction and burden of litigation. This immunity extends to actions taken within the scope of their official duties.
However, there is ongoing debate surrounding the scope and limits of presidential immunity. Courts have recognized that this immunity is not absolute and can be waived under certain circumstances. In the case of Clinton v. Jones in 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that a sitting President is not immune from civil litigation for actions taken before taking office or unrelated to official duties.
In the present case, Trump’s legal team has previously attempted to invoke presidential immunity three times, but their arguments have been dismissed by the courts. Despite these dismissals, they are once again asserting this defense in an effort to protect Trump from liability in the defamation case brought by E. Jean Carroll.
The appellate court panel is now tasked with deciding whether presidential immunity can be waived in this case. If they determine that it can be waived, they will then proceed to address other issues in the case, such as determining the amount of damages Trump should pay to Carroll.
It is important to note that in a separate case, Judge Kaplan had already ruled that Trump was responsible for defaming Carroll with his remarks in 2019. The upcoming trial in January will focus on determining the amount of damages Trump should pay. This ruling adds further weight to Carroll’s defamation claims and strengthens her argument against Trump’s assertion of presidential immunity.
As the legal proceedings continue, it remains to be seen how the appellate court panel will rule on the issue of presidential immunity. The outcome of this case will not only have implications for the defamation lawsuit brought by Carroll, but it will also clarify the scope and limitations of presidential immunity for future cases involving sitting Presidents.
In conclusion, the attorneys for former President Trump are once again asserting his claim of presidential immunity in the defamation case brought against him by E. Jean Carroll. While previous attempts to invoke this immunity have been rejected by the courts, they are making another effort to defend Trump. The court will now decide whether this defense can be waived, which will have significant implications for the outcome of the case and the future interpretation of presidential immunity.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
