A federal judge has refused an offer from Donald Trump to provide his DNA to the court in what is being called a “quid pro quo” arrangement the ex-president’s attorney suggested after fighting the request for nearly three years. Trump is being sued for defamation by E. Jean Carroll, the journalist who alleges he raped her in a high-end Manhattan luxury goods store in the 1990’s, then defamed her by denying her allegations, saying she was “totally lying,” and declaring she wasn’t his “type.”
Carroll says she retained the Donna Karan coat she wore when Trump raped her, and that it contains his DNA. She had it tested and provided Trump with the report.
On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan blasted Trump for demanding Carroll provide the appendix to her DNA report in exchange for her DNA.
“Until February 10, 2023, about ten weeks before this case is set to be tried, Mr. Trump has refused to provide his DNA. Moreover, he has employed litigation tactics the effect and probable purpose of which have been to delay Ms. Carroll’s actions against him – an object that is significant in view of the fact that Ms. Carroll now is 79 years old,” the judge writes, according to a screenshot posted by Law & Crime’s Adam Klasfeld.
“Now,” the judge continues, bulleting his points, “after the time for pretrial discovery of evidence in both cases has expired, three days after Mr. Trump’s latest request for a multi-week trial postponement was substantially denied, one day after the parties filed a joint pretrial order in the first of these cases that makes clear that neither Ms. Carroll nor Mr. Trump intends to call any DNA experts as witnesses in the trial of that case, and on the eve of trial of at least the second-filed of these cases – Mr. Trump suddenly has proposed a deal. He has offered to provide a DNA sample but only on the condition that I require Ms. Carroll first to turn over to him a previously undisclosed appendix to the DNA report – the report that Ms. Carroll obtained and provided to Mr. Trump years ago.”
A federal judge REJECTS Trump’s “quid pro quo” offer to provide a DNA sample in exchange for the missing pages of @EJeanCarroll‘s report, slamming it as an 11th hour delay tactic.
Key passage here pic.twitter.com/WIKxd9yglz
— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) February 15, 2023
At Law & Crime, Klasfeld reports, “The ruling means that Trump will not provide DNA sample before trial, ending an evidentiary dispute and talking point brewing for years in Carroll’s rape case.”
The Daily News adds Judge Kaplan also wrote there was no “legitimate basis for this Court to accept Mr. Trump’s offer to provide his DNA sample made contingent on the Court granting his application, which it does not.”
Last week, Case Western Reserve University law professor Cassandra Burke Robertson told Courthouse News, “Never say never, but I don’t see a legal basis for that argument,” referring to the proposal to provide DNA in exchange for the appendix to the report.
“There’s no quid pro quo in discovery. That is just not a legal concept that fits within the discovery paradigm,” Robertson said.
Judge Kaplan agreed, writing on Wednesday, “There is no justification for any such deal. Either Ms. Carroll is obliged to provide the omitted appendix or she is not. Either Mr. Trump is obliged to provide a DNA sample or he is not. Neither is a quid pro quo for the other.”
This is a breaking news and developing story.
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
House Votes to Boot George Santos 311-114
Representative George Santos (R-NY) has been expelled from Congress following a 311-114 vote; two House members voted “present.”
The expulsion of Santos follows a debate on his fate on Thursday. The vote required a two-thirds majority, or 290 of the 435-seat chamber. This is Santos’ third vote of expulsion; last month, a vote failed with 31 Democrats voting against, according to The Hill.
While the vote was decisive, some notable Republicans voted to save Santos, including House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN).
“We’ve not whipped the vote and we wouldn’t,” Johnson told CNN Wednesday. “I trust that people will make that decision thoughtfully and in good faith. I personally have real reservations about doing this, I’m concerned about a precedent that may be set for that.”
Santos himself had harsh words for the House following the vote. Leaving the capitol building, he briefly spoke with reporters.
“The House spoke that’s their vote. They just set new dangerous precedent for themselves,” he told CNN. “Why would I want to stay here? To hell with this place.”
He then cut his time short, telling reporters, “You know what? As unofficially no longer a member of Congress, I no longer have to answer your questions.”
Santos also faces 23 federal charges, which include fraud, money laundering and misuse of campaign funds, according to CNN. He has pleaded not guilty. An Ethics Committee report found evidence that Santos used campaign funds for Botox and even an OnlyFans account.
On Thursday, Santos said he refused to resign because otherwise, “they win.”
“If I leave the bullies take place. This is bullying,” Santos said. “The reality of it is it’s all theater, theater for the cameras and theater for the microphones. Theater for the American people at the expense of the American people because no real work’s getting done.”
Santos also threatened to file a resolution to expel Representative Jamaal Bowman (D-NY). Bowman pulled a fire alarm in September. Bowman pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charge, and said it was an accident. He said he thought the fire alarm would open a locked door as he rushed to a vote. Bowman paid a $1,000 fine.
There have only been six total expulsions from the House, including Santos. Santos is the only Republican to ever be expelled from the House.
The previous expulsion was in 2002, when Representative James Traficant (D-OH) was expelled after a 420-1 vote. Traficant had been convicted on 10 counts of corruption-related crimes.
Before Traficant, Representative Michael “Ozzie” Myers (D-PA) was the first representative of the modern era to be expelled. Myers got the boot following his conviction for accepting bribes. Myers couldn’t keep out of trouble; in 2022, he was convicted and sentenced to 30 months in prison on charges of election fraud.
Prior to Myers, the only expulsions from the House were in 1861, at the start of the Civil War. Henry Cornelius Burnett (D-KY), John William Reid (D-MO) and John Bullock Clark (Whig-MO) were all expelled for joining the Confederacy.
Peter Navarro, Former Top Trump White House Advisor, Guilty of Criminal Contempt
Peter Navarro, the controversial economist and former top Trump White House advisor, was found guilty by a jury on two counts of criminal contempt of Congress Thursday afternoon after a short trial that began on Tuesday.
Navarro refused to comply with a congressional subpoena issued by the U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack.
Legal experts had predicted a “quick conviction” after Navarro, called a “conspiracy theorist” who promotes “fringe” economic theories, had called no witnesses. The jury deliberated for under five hours. He faces up to two years in prison.
“The defendant chose allegiance to former President Trump over compliance with a subpoena,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Elizabeth Aloi told the jury Thursday, as Politico reported. “The defendant chose defiance.”
“Our government only works when people play by the rules and it only works when people are held accountable when they do not,” Aloi also said, during closing arguments. “When a person intentionally and deliberately chooses to defy a congressional subpoena, that is a crime.”
Politico reported earlier that “ Navarro has long claimed that Trump told him to defy the committee’s Feb. 9, 2022 subpoena and assert executive privilege, a demand he said conferred immunity from having to cooperate with Congress’ investigation.”
“There’s no mistake, no accident,” prosecutor John Crabb told jurors, NBC News adds.
“That man thinks he’s above the law,” Crabb said. “In this country, nobody is above the law.”
‘Look for a Quick Conviction Here’: Navarro Jury Could Reach a Verdict ‘Early This Afternoon’
Peter Navarro‘s criminal contempt of Congress trial is moving quickly and the jury may come to a verdict as early as this afternoon, court watchers say.
Navarro, who has been called a “conspiracy theorist” who holds “fringe” and “oddball” economic views, is a former top Trump White House aide. He advanced “Big Lie” election fraud claims and refused to comply with a February, 2022 subpoena issued by the U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack. He was criminally indicted in June of 2022 by a federal grand jury.
The trial began Tuesday in D.C. federal court.
Just before 11 AM Thursday the case was handed to the jury, Politico’s Kyle Cheney reports.
“Given the brevity of the case, a verdict is highly likely in the next few hours,” Cheney adds, noting: “If convicted, he faces up to one year on each of two counts — one for refusing to testify, one for refusing to provide docs.”
“Navarro has long claimed that Trump told him to defy the committee’s Feb. 9, 2022 subpoena and assert executive privilege, a demand he said conferred immunity from having to cooperate with Congress’ investigation,” Politico reports. “For months, U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta wrestled with intricate questions about how executive privilege might apply to a former adviser to a former president, whether Navarro’s belief that Trump had invoked the privilege constituted a defense to the charges and how the Justice Department’s decision to charge him compares with its longstanding views of immunity for some senior executive branch officials from compelled congressional testimony.”
Wednesday evening, former top DOJ official Harry Litman noted, “Peter Navarro evidence already done, closing arguments tomorrow. Basically, it’s an incredibly simple case — he knew he had to comply with the subpoena, and he still thumbed his nose at it.”
Adding the the government called three witness but “Navarro called nobody,” Litman predicted: “Look for a quick conviction here.”
- News2 days ago
‘How Extremism Is Normalized’: Schlapp Furious as Critics Slam CPAC Over Report of Nazis
- News2 days ago
Republicans Want to Cancel Biden State of the Union: ‘No Reason We Need to Invite Him’
- News1 day ago
‘Conspiring With Putin’: Democratic Congressman Brings the Hammer Down on Jim Jordan
- News2 days ago
Republican Furious No ‘Real Wins,’ Like on ‘Transgender Surgeries’ as Shutdown Looms
- News2 days ago
‘BadgerPundit’: Top Trump Attorney in Fake Electors Plot Hid Secret Twitter Account
- COMMENTARY1 day ago
Stephen Miller: Arrest ‘Commie’ Teachers, Use Government Power to ‘Defeat Evil’
- News21 hours ago
House Republicans Move to Upstage SOTU With New Hur Investigation Subpoena and Hearing
- News1 day ago
At the White House Johnson Says Biden Must Use Executive Orders After Calling Them ‘Gimmicks’