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.

    • 0110010001100010@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      130
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Which would be fantastic, if it weren’t for the fact that he has a very real shot at returning to the white house and making this all a moot point.

      I still can’t believe so many people don’t see him for the criminal, con-man, grifter, anti-christ, etc that he is.

    • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      34
      ·
      1 year ago

      How so?

      There haven’t been any real consequences for anything he’s done, unless you count a mugshot.

      And, thanks to Biden just ignoring the poor and middle class, he stands a very real chance of reelection.

          • Grayox@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            They literally had the thinnest majority in the Senate including the poison pills that are Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. They cant carry out any of their platform with Republicans stabding in staunch opposition of anything that helps people more than shareholders.

            • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              1 year ago

              Now see.

              That is where Democrats truly excel: making excuses.

              I’m not sure how you sat through four years of Trump and still believe that Biden is somehow magically powerless.

            • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              1 year ago

              If kids could eat excuses there would be no such thing as student lunch debt, but since Democrats don’t do their job, there is.

                • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Actually, no.

                  I’m giving Democrats proper credit for doing jack shit about it when we gave them power.

                  I don’t differentiate between perpetrator and collaborator when the net result is the same.

  • hdnsmbt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    1 year 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@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

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

    • aeronmelon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

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

  • _wizard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year 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
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year 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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year 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.