قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / US / Disclosure: White House liaison asks Justice Department officials to provide derogatory information about E Jean Carroll | Trump Administration

Disclosure: White House liaison asks Justice Department officials to provide derogatory information about E Jean Carroll | Trump Administration



According to people directly sought by the Spurs, Heidi Stirrup, the White House’s liaison with the Justice Department, found derogatory information from a senior Justice Department official late last year, saying that a woman claimed to have been Donald Trump raped. information.

This discovery increases the possibility that allies of the US President will directly pressure the judiciary to try to unearth potentially damaging information about a woman who accused Trump of sexually attacking her.

Journalist and consulting columnist E Jean Carroll sued Trump in November 201

9, claiming that he had slandered her when he denied claims that he was raped. Carroll accused Trump of sexually assaulting her in the locker room of Bergdorf Goodman, a high-end Manhattan department store in late 1995 or early 1996.

At the time, Trump responded to her allegations, claiming that Carroll was “completely lying” and trying to mock her by saying “she is not my type”. These and similar comments led Carroll to sue him.

Stroop apparently believes that the information held by the judiciary may help the president in his legal defense in litigation. The lawyer who Stroop asked Carroll for information said that Stroop contacted Trump shortly after the judge ruled that the Justice Department could not take over Trump’s defense.

Stirrup asked if the department found any derogatory information about Carroll that it might have shared with her or the president’s personal lawyer. Stirrup also suggested that she could act as a liaison between the department and individuals close to the president or his private legal team.

Stroop also asked officials whether the Justice Department had any information indicating that Carol or anyone on her legal team had connections with Democrats or guerrilla activists, and the latter might allow her to falsely accuse the president.

Earlier, Trump himself implied that his political opponents were behind the allegations without citing any evidence: “If anyone knows that the Democratic Party is working with Ms. Carroll or New York Magazine [to whom Carroll first told her story], Please notify us as soon as possible. “Trump said.

The official who sought information from Stirrup warned Stirrup that her request was inappropriate.

The official recalled that “to communicate to her in the strongest way” was wrong to look for such information in the first place and instructed her not to do so in the future.

When learning that Stirrup later collected non-public information about other ongoing investigations (including information about election fraud) and non-public information related to the White House from other judicial officials, Stirrup was told that she was not welcome. In the judicial department is prohibited from entering the building.

On December 3, the Associated Press reported on Streep’s ban, citing three sources, “It tried to pressure the staff to give up sensitive information about election fraud and other matters she might convey to the White House. “. However, it has not previously been reported that one of the issues that led to Stirrup’s ban was her seeking information about the Carroll case.

It is unclear whether Stroop acted alone in the Carroll case or under the guidance of the White House.

But many people believe that it is impossible for Stepp to conduct an inquiry independently. While the White House cancelled contact with every major federal agency that they believed might be unfaithful, Mair served as a liaison for the judicial department and informed their replacements that they would no longer report to the agency assigned to them but directly to White House.

A spokesperson for the Justice Department declined to comment, saying they could not find more information.

The outcome of the Carroll defamation case may have huge political and legal consequences for Trump.

Steve Vladeck, a professor of law at the University of Texas, said that if the case goes to trial, Trump will have to “provide evidence and provide testimony on potential rape allegations”, otherwise he may Risk of perjury.

Failure to truthfully testify in a civil case can have serious consequences for the president or other well-known political figures. The current President Bill Clinton was indicted for sexual harassment and later admitted to providing misleading testimony in the case. He was impeached by the House of Representatives. After the trial, he was acquitted by the U.S. Senate and voluntarily handed over his practice. License 5 months. years.

Judge Lewis Kaplan of the Southern District of New York pointed out in the October 26 ruling that the Justice Department’s attempt to take over Trump’s legal counsel pointed out in the court ruling that the jury found that Trump defamatory card Any determination by Lorre may be regarded as an implied ruling. Trump did rape Carroll.

“The question about whether Mr. Trump actually raped Ms. Carroll seems to be at the core of her lawsuit. This is because the defendant’s alleged defamatory statement is true or false, which may affect any defamation case.” Kaplan Say.

In early September, the Department of Justice, under the guidance of the then Attorney General William Barr, tried to replace Trump’s personal legal counsel with a departmental prosecutor to protect him from Carroll’s lawsuit. Judicial officials argued that Trump, while accusing Carroll of lying and attacking her further, acted in his official capacity as the President of the United States.

Kaplan ruled that the judiciary was unable to take over Trump’s defense, arguing that Trump’s defamation of Carroll had nothing to do with his formal office as president or “government operations” or “within the scope of his office.”

The Justice Department promised to appeal Kaplan’s decision. But Joe Biden’s judicial department is unlikely to continue to file such appeals.

Judicial officials and external legal observers stated that the Justice Department’s position is that the president is acting in public office and is alleged to be slandering his alleged rape victims (about 20 years ago). This position is unlikely to prevail among most judges. .

Last week, after announcing that he nominated Federal Court of Appeals Judge Merrick Garland as his new attorney general, the president-elect stated that he will end the “treatment of the attorney general as his personal lawyer and the department as his personal company Trump’s approach”.


Source link