In this sample from the CAFE Insider podcast, Preet and Joyce break down the news that the DOJ under Attorney General Merrick Garland is maintaining its position that it should defend Donald Trump against a defamation suit brought by E. Jean Carroll, a writer who has accused Trump of raping her in the 1990s.
In the full episode, they discuss newly-released emails that show former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows pressuring the DOJ to investigate election fraud conspiracy theories. Plus, they break down new developments in the investigations into Donald Trump and Matt Gaetz.
To listen to the full episode and get access to all exclusive CAFE Insider content, including audio notes from Preet, Joyce, Elie Honig, Barb McQuade, Asha Rangappa, Melissa Murray, and more try the membership free for two weeks: www.cafe.com/insider
Use special code JOYCE for 50% off on the annual membership price.
Sign up to receive the free weekly CAFE Brief newsletter: www.cafe.com/brief
This podcast is brought to you by CAFE Studios and Vox Media Podcast Network.
Tamara Sepper – Executive Producer; Adam Waller – Senior Editorial Producer; Matthew Billy – Audio Producer; Sam Ozer-Staton – Editorial Producer
REFERENCES & SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS:
- Subscribe to Now & Then, hosted by historians Heather Cox Richardson and Joanne Freeman: Apple Podcasts, Spotify
- Carroll v. Trump, U.S. Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit, Reply Brief, 6/7/2021
- Alan Feuer and Benjamin Weiser, “Biden Justice Department Seeks to Defend Trump in Suit Over Rape Denial,” New York Times, 6/7/2021
- Carroll v. Trump, NY State Supreme Court, Complaint, 11/4/2019
- Carroll v. Trump, NY State Supreme Court, Notice of Removal, 9/8/2020
- Carroll v. Trump, U.S. Southern District of New York, Opinion by Judge Kaplan, 10/27/2020
- 28 U.S. Code § 2679 - Exclusiveness of remedy
- Federal Tort Claims Act, US House of Representatives
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Hey folks, there's been a lot of public outcry, overdue Jays position that it should defend Donald Trump against the defamation sued by aging Carol, a writer
is accused Trump of raping her in the nineteen nineties.
Meanwhile, were learning more about the Trump administrations efforts to overturn the results of the election, newly released
male show, Mark meadows, former white has chief of staff pushed the Department of Justice to investigate election fraud.
Mercy theories, and there are new developments in the criminal investigations into Donald Trump and MAC Gates. Joyce vaccinated
Thus all this and more on the cafe insider podcast
today, we are sharing a clip from the episode with listeners of stay tuned, to hear our full conversation and access all of their cafe insider content. Try the membership free for two weeks
you can do that. A cafe dot, com, slash insider, that's Cathay, DOT, com, slash insider and, for a limited time, use the code joy
for fifty percent of the annual membership price. We look forward to having you as part of the insider community. How are you Joyce Unwell, pray? How are you doing I'm good? Did you have a good week? We a lot to talk about some breaking news as well. We do have a lot to talk about. It's been a big legal nerdy needs we, but before we do
I should mention that the second, the second episode of our new history podcast now and then has dropped. Heather Cox, Richardson and Joanne Freeman spend some time talking about both the plans for a January sixth to mission, which looks like it's not getting off the ground just yet, but through the lens of history. Talking about other prior to missions throughout american history that have work,
word what they find, what they don't find am, I think, you'll find it fascinating. You gonna sit around then, wherever you get your packets scrape outcast.
it really is. I feel a lot smarter, because I get to listen to it and putting things in a historical context really helps you understand. What's working well
what isn't and since we're all focusing increasingly on this question of institutional ism, that slice of history is is really invaluable. Yes, it is our rights,
people have been following this bit of news involving the former President Donald Trump and a woman named aging Carroll, and just remind folks, aging Carol is a writer who has claimed that she was raped and assaulted by Donald Trump many years ago. Long before he was president,
when our troubles was in fact president. He made a bunch of disparaging remarks and comments about the veracity of that claim about aging carriage,
naturally, she then suit him for defamation, which in the legal system is called toward, and
there has been a raging battle about whether or not you have put put aside for a moment whether or not it is in fact a short, and it is in fact actionable, but whether or not the sitting president could be issued in those circumstances. This case is in the second circuit on appeal and what's happened. Now is that the government has filed its brief. This is the first brief. That's been
wild since merit Garland took over the Justice Department in the Biden administration. A lot of people were expecting a change of course, because what's going on here,
question about whether or not d o j should represent the former president. Many people accept
did that. The new deal J Woods
that they were no longer going to represent trump. The position that the earlier deejay had maintained. But that's that's not what happened here. In fact, Deo J continues to
intended it should and is entitled to represent President Trump and so what we ve.
right now is?
Dio Jays brief in this case. What
We're waiting on is the response from aging Carol,
even with that, I think we have enough of the argument here, pre to figure out what's up. Yet. We should just be clear that what is it
rising to a lot of people. The reason that we have gotten a lot of questions on this,
there's been some assumption that the new Justice Department with new personnel and new leadership would take a different position out. They take a different tone and if it is very important in this brief aside is argumentative it's not it's crazy, it's not as absolutist as some of the briefs, the doll trumps lawyers and Justice Superman filing
work on this case added in a bunch of other cases, but they continue to take the position that withstanding the departure of Trump that the president can be issued under the federal Tore claims act and something that is a wistful act that the president not only cannot be sued, but that the United States should be substituted in as a defendant in the case, which would, as many people have pointed out, cause the claim to fail. Because defamation is not something that you can see the United States. For when I say that the tone is different. The government, in its brief near the new brief and under the by demonstration, does something that we.
seen a lot of recently in that is it can seat something it concedes, as you have suggested it should the comments made by Donald Trump inappropriate, unnecessary. You know in for taste of it with the words. Are they use but says that's not the question before us. It's a legal question under the Ftca
But they, I think, gain credibility by suggesting that some of the things that the former president said were inappropriate. We shall she remained folks of some of the things that the President said, among other things, after eating Carol brought her suit, don't from told the hill
Periodical in DC quote us hey with great respect number one she's, not my type number two. It never happened and he also told the press pool and its fascinating. He told that same press poor people have to be careful because they're playing with
dangerous territory, so yeah. That sounds like the president's official scope. But yours, it's interesting here, joys and you and I were discussions before we started taping. The original legal position taken by the Trump defenders was: what will they argued that the president had official immunity, absolute immunity for conduct that he committed within the scope of his employment and- and this was certified, actually buy a Trump official as being conduct that fell within the scope.
and the judge slap that argument down Trump lost. It was only after they lost the official immunity argument that they shifted over and began this this. What I'll call West fall? Immunity argument. This notion that the president can't be sued under the federal tort claims out
and it's it's not, I guess unusual for the government to not assert West fall. Immunity
till later on in a case, but in this situation-
the entire process smacks of a process that was designed to bend over backwards, to protect the president to ensure that the public would fund his defence an ultimate
lay as you point out that sovereign immunity would prevent these claims from going anywhere. There was a tactic of delay. It took months and months. As our colleague and friend, Barbara Quaid wrote a few months ago. It seems like they didn't. Take immediate action because they wanted to run out the clock they they filed. The west fall claim on the very last day that takes us, but which are, they would be unusual in a case involving the persons at the head of the head of our government, so the arguments we should establish a touch upon for a moment and then discuss you know what all this means.
It's going, but you know the government's brief in his case, as I've said, is not crazy. I agree with you on balance, I agree with the district Court judge the Dell trumps Conduct
And the best reading of the law and the facts does not fall within the scope of his employment. I remember the time through doing a gut check and talking to some of the one or more stars from my civil division or non profit.
Practice and ask them what they thought and how would come out and eight. They were of the view that Judge Kaplan would not find that these remarks by the former president through within the scope of his employment, and they turn out to be right with especially Dutch Kaplan, but I dont think the government's brief file this week is is crazy.
we have as conversational the time there can be a strong argument in a week argument. Often it has been the case that the term folks make crazy arguments and utterly merit lous arguments. This is a real argument. I think it does it shouldn't when
day, but you will, or even to the extent that they signed a lot of cases where
things that are said by public officials are deemed to be within the scope of their employment, and they make an argument. I think, ultimately, if those powerful that could be, but they make the argument, no matter what you think of it, that a president of the United States in the context of answering questions from the press. Even if it's about personal
Matters is active within the scope of his duty and in particular they point to some surrounding facts, including that he used the press office. There were other aids to the president in the White House who were you know enlisted in the duty of putting out statements, etc and that he was responding to questions from the press on one
to those occasions. In the midst of talking about other things that are more, we know obviously within the scope of presidential duty like domestic policy in such no, but they make an argument that would seem to me
but basically a president can say anything that they that he wants or she wants. Just by virtue of being the present, I say to thoroughly scope of employment argument. It's almost definitional the way this brief reads right. It does, and so I think something that's important just to say is that mere garland took this job likely.
Knowing that within six months he would be the most hated man in America
have they make some tough calls,
There is no way that you can please people all the time, nor is the job of an attorney general to please people, and so I approached this brief from that point of view. Although its different
I am just confess it's difficult, not to be emotional on this topic. I think it's tough to look at this situate.
and to say there's no
I'm ready for a private citizen who's been called a liar by the President, whose whose used horrible language about her using the bully pulpit of the presidency sort of like a megaphone to advance his views and then she's just supposed to set aside there's something about that.
just- doesn't sit well and I think that that's actually tied up in the legal analysis Josiana, assuming that the attorney general
Self Merrick Garland weight in on this. That's absolutely certain in your mind, right. I think I'll get assumption here, because the sensitivity of it because of the sensitivity and also because some of them
heard of the brief it- and maybe this is me over reading it, but it really sounds like the way an appellate judge. Judge on the deceased circuit might react to a district judges opinion that he thinks is wrong. There's just a certain force in describing the district court opinion as reversible. That really reads like merit. Garland may have had his fingers on this brief a bit. I'm your theory
and maybe the reason why people are taking it back, but it's probably some psychological logic in the back of people's minds. Saying no Trump has gone Trump is terrible. Biden is in finding his people must know. Trump is terrible and was terrible on this issue as well
Thanks for listening to hear the full episodes had the Kapital com, slash insider and try out the membership free for two weeks and for a limited time use
cold Joyce for fifty percent of the annual membership price. That's cafe. Dot com, Slash insight,
to the many of you who have chosen to join the insider community, thank you for supporting our work,
Transcript generated on 2021-07-17.