Judge rules E. Jean Carroll may proceed with suit against Trump

Trump's denial is one of his typical misogynistic insults.

[This is my very first diary. Please be kind, but do let me know if I screw anything up!]

E. Jean Carroll won a victory in court on Thursday, when New York Justice Verna L. Saunders rejected Trump’s attorneys’ attempts to seek a delay of E. Jean Carroll’s defamation lawsuit against Trump. (Because this happened Thursday, I was surprised I couldn’t find a prior diary on this news.)

www.nytimes.com/...

What is sweet is that the Justice used the precedent of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that Trump could not block a subpoena for his tax returns by claiming immunity as a sitting president.

While that ruling was for a criminal and not a civil case (such as defamation), the judge reasoned that because the precedent concerned the president’s claim of immunity to a state court seeking jurisdiction over a sitting president, the same judicial principle applies here. No, he does not have immunity.

Hooray for Ms. Carroll! As part of this case, she is seeking Trump’s DNA to prove that what is on her black dress is Trump’s semen. (Ewwww, sorry for the visual image! Reach for the brain bleach!)

Of course, Trump could appeal this ruling (and probably will). It will be interesting if it ends up before the same Supreme Court that denied his immunity in a criminal case. IANAL, but it seems to me that Bill Clinton’s experience with judicial decisions concerning a civil suit would also be a precedent here, no? I look forward to any lawyer’s (and everyone else’s) commentary!

Thanks for reading!