Federal Judges Accused of Railroading Trump in E. Jean Carroll Case

Added: 2026-05-12

[00:00:00]Remember Eugene Carol? She's the crazy broad that accused Trump in 2019. Wrote a book accusing Trump of sexually assaulting her. She doesn't know when.

[00:00:11]Sometime in the in the 1990s in a Burgdoff Goodman dressing room. Can't remember if it was 1995 or 1996 when this billionaire sexually assaulted you, but she remembered when it was time to publish your book. Of course, Trump denied these accusations, called her a liar, and she sued him for defamation in the politically rigged uh second circuit federal courts where, of course, it's overwhelmingly progressive fascist jurists and judges and jurors. And of course, Trump got railroaded into an $83.3 million damages award. And there's a lot of problems with this civil litigation against Trump, as there is with all the litigation against Trump, on simple matters of fact. But that's not what I want to focus on here today. I want to focus on a disscent that just came out of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

[00:01:12]Because of course after the civil verdict against Trump, the $83.3 million in damages, he appealed he appealed that judgment for various travesties of injustice that occurred during the litigation. And the second circuit court of appeals denied him, affirmed the lower court judgments, and then he asked for a re-haring on bonk. I want the entire second circuit to rehear my arguments. And they had a vote and they denied him a reharing in bonk. out. What I'd like to cover today is a disscent from that denial. Three judges who thought Trump was entitled to a retrial on all of this because of the injustices done against them. And I want to share this descent because otherwise I don't think anybody will ever hear anything about it. If you don't hear it from me, you won't hear it. It'll get zero coverage. But I've read it and it details not just the the fecklessness of Eugene Carol and the fecklessness of of the trial judges involved in these cases, but it it lays out in plain English all of the legal injustices by judges who should know better.

[00:02:24]It's it's a it's a patent illustration of just how Trump was not just factually railroaded but railroaded in law by these judges. It's just devastating how Manashi lays all this out. how how our federal judges, our unelected black robe, tyrannical inferior federal district trial court judges participated in this extrajudicial railroading of our democratically elected article 2 President Trump. Judge Manashi writes, I would grant both petitions for onbunkry hearing because both underlying decisions were erroneous.

[00:03:02]The panel opinion denying the motion for substitution putting the United States government in place of Trump as the defendant made three primary errors.

[00:03:13]First, the panel erroneously determined that Attorney General Bondi had waved the right to make a Westfall Act certification because Attorney General Garland had previously declined to make that certification. So, Manashi explains later what's happening here, but let me explain it to you all now so you're not lost.

[00:03:33]There's a statute created by Congress, the Westfall Act. And that statute says that when an employee, someone in the employee of the federal government is civily sued while engaged in the duties of their employment for the federal government, the federal government has the right to substitute itself as the defendant to protect that federal employee. So, if someone's employed by the federal government as a post office worker, they drive a post office truck uh and they run somebody over and it's claimed that the the running over was negligence and they're civily sued, that employee can be protected, personally protected from civil liability because the United States will step in as the as the culpable defendant. Uh it doesn't mean the person who got run over can't sue that they're just suing the US government instead of the federal employee. And this serves the government's interest of protecting people in federal employee from the risk of civil litigation. That's called a Westfall Act certification. For that to happen, the attorney general would certify, yes, this person was in the employee of the federal government at the time the alleged um tort uh occurred. Well, Attorney General Bar, who was President Trump's attorney general in his first term when this stuff was happening, had certified Trump as being in the employee of the federal government when he committed the alleged tort, the alleged defamatory statements.

[00:05:05]Then, of course, President Joe Autoendment got elected and his attorney, General Garland said, "Never mind. We want to do away with that certification. We don't want the United States to stand in as a defendant for Trump. We want Trump to be the defendant and be personally liable.

[00:05:22]Surprise, surprise. A new administration, a hostile administration came in and decided to change their certification. And that was allowed.

[00:05:31]That was allowed by the judicial system to happen. But then when Trump gets reelected to a second term and has a new attorney general, Pam Bondi, and Pam Bondi reertifies him under the Westfall Act, so the US government can stand in as the defendant, then the judges say, "Sorry, it's too late. You should have done that earlier. You waved that ability to certify." The panel opinion, the three judge panel opinion affirming the judgment, the 83.3 million in damages, then made three additional errors. First, the panel refused to address the effect of presidential immunity under the Supreme Court decision of Trump v. United States, which Scott issued in 2024.

[00:06:17]It did so on the doubly erroneous premise that President Trump waved any immunity defense and that Trump v. US simply reaffirmed long-standing principles. So nothing prevented the president from raising the exact same arguments even before that Supreme Court decision was decided. So what's happening here is if you have an argument to make available to you in the law and you fail to make it in a timely manner and then you try to make it later, they can say sorry you wave that.

[00:06:47]You're not allowed to hold arguments in your back pocket in case you lose. you have to put all your good arguments up front on the table so they can be litigated at the same time.

[00:06:57]But here the law changed. The Supreme Court issued a brand new decision on the scope of presidential immunity. So Trump's position is and the position of this descent is he didn't know he had those arguments to make before Trump v before the Scotas immunity decision. So, the fact that he didn't make them before, that's normal. The law didn't change yet. And then Scotas' new decision changed the law. Now, the majority here that wants to deny Trump justice, they're saying, "Well, it didn't change it very much. It just it just reaffirmed long-standing principles. It's a lie on its face, as we'll see in more detail." Manashi continues, "That holding is not credible. Whatever one thinks about the merits of that Supreme Court decision, Trump v. United States. Everyone agrees that it represents a significant legal development.

[00:07:52]Second, the three judge panel wrongly held that President Trump was properly denied a jury trial. The panel reasoned that his liability for defamation for statements made in 2019 was predetermined by a trial about different statements made in 2022.

[00:08:11]But the jury verdict about a purported defamation in 2022 did not resolve the question of whether he was liable for different statements made under different circumstances in 2019.

[00:08:23]Third, the three judge panel upheld a damages award that included unauthorized damages, duplicative compensatory damages, and a grossly excessive monetary figure for a defamation claim.

[00:08:37]I would rehear the case on bon to bring our case law about the scope of presidential duties and immunity into conformity with the decisions of the Supreme Court and to resolve these questions of exceptional importance in line with the constitutional separation of powers and normal judicial practice as opposed to the travesty of injustice that occurred in these cases. Manashi continues, "It's a unique circumstance when this statutory framework applies to the president of the United States. The president may be an employee of the government, but he he also alone composes a branch of government, the executive branch. This circumstance should make it easier to determine that the president was acting within the scope of his office when the purportedly torturous conduct occurred." Now, keep in mind what the torturous conduct is here. It's not the sexual assault. It's the defamation in denying the the sexual assault. That's the the words spoken.

[00:09:43]She's crazy. She's a liar is essentially what he said. Uh were the defamation were the torches act here. And and he said those words from the White House talking to the press as president. So the president being a branch of government in his own purpose should make it easier to determine that the president was acting within the scope of his office when the purportedly torturous conduct occurred. The president compared to other government employees has an especially broad scope of office. There is not always a clear line between his personal and official affairs because like anyone else, unlike anyone else, the president is a branch of government and the Constitution vests in him sweeping powers and duties. In this case, the president made the allegedly defamatory statements when he issued a press release and responded to press inquiries from the White House.

[00:10:40]Making public statements to the press is part of the president's job. When the president engages in public communications, he discharges official duties, official responsibilities, and therefore acts within the scope of his office. That principle is wellestablished with respect to other elected officials compared to the public communications of a congressman for example. And they give an example here about a congressman um was was deemed to have acted within the scope of his employment when he discussed his marital status at his office during regular business hours in response to a reporter's inquiry. So he was a had a bad marriage situation. He said some things that his wife or ex-wife didn't like. She tried to sue him for defamation. They said, "No, a congressman who's if if he's being made to look bad because of a bad divorce proceeding, he's allowed to talk about it." And and what you're allowed to do, by the way, is you're allowed to engage in conduct that might otherwise be defamation. So, if I were just pick one of you and call you a liar, announce that you're a liar, that would be defamatory if it wasn't true. But you're allowed to say someone's a liar when they're making false claims about you.

[00:11:56]The district trial court explained that the respondent superior doctrines of New York and the District of Columbia provide that respondier superior liability does not apply unless the employer exercises or has the ability to exercise control over the employees relevant actions. But because no one directed or controlled President Trump because he's president when he commented on the plaintiff's accusations, the president was not acting, the trial court said within the scope of his employment when he made those statements and the attorney general certification under the Westfall Act was in error. That analysis was incorrect. It would meant it would mean that the president acts within the scope of his office only to the extent he carries out the orders of someone else an employer. In our constitutional system, however, the president directs executive officers rather than the other way around and the head of an organization certainly can act within the scope of his employment. Putting aside for the moment how bizarre it is to determine the scope of the presidential office by reference to state employment law rather than to the US Constitution. The analysis of the unelected black rope tyrannical inferior federal district trial court judge did not make sense even on its own terms. It rendered the president's actions within the scope of his office a null set.

[00:13:28]Nothing would fit within that set. That was clearly wrong. The president is the executive official with the broadest scope of office possible in our constitutional order. Our federal court asked whether under the local laws of DC, the president of the United States had acted within the scope of his employment.

[00:13:49]That local court answered the question only by affirming that the DC District of Columbia generally adheres to section 228 of the restatement of second of agency's traditional view of the scope of employment inquiry of respondent superior.

[00:14:06]And for example, the restatement provides that an employer is liable for an employes torchious conduct in circumstances where the conduct is of the kind that the person is employed to perform.

[00:14:17]But the law of the District of Columbia recognizes that many employees have informal duties that are as integral to their employment as their formal responsibilities and therefore are just as sound a basis for applying responding and superior liability.

[00:14:34]This purported clarification did not clarify very much except perhaps to make it more obvious that the president was acting within the scope of his office when responding to reporters at the White House. Nevertheless, according to the three judge panel, this trivial clarification from a local court in the District of Columbia provided a new legal and factual record that allowed Biden Attorney General Garland to reverse the certification of of Trump Attorney General Bar. Yet, the panel further held that Attorney General Bondi was not allowed to reconsider the certification decision of Garland. The government determined that certification was not appropriate under the respondent superior stat standard as clarified by the DC circuit court of appeals and explicitly so advised the trial court. The government cannot now change course on appeal. So Garland Biden's AG Garland reversed Trump AG bar and that was fine. But now that Garland had done that, Trump AG Bondi was prohibited from reversing Garland. the fix was in. And they're pretending that the United States changing from Republican attorney general to Democrat attorney general to Republican attorney general that that's just the same United States government making a legally consistent and coherent decision.

[00:16:01]Obviously, it's not. Biden AG Garland hated Trump. The government has waved its right to bring this belated motion.

[00:16:10]Just insane.