The White House liaison with the Department of Justice (DoJ), Heidi Stirrup, sought derogatory information from a senior prosecutor late last year about a woman who claims she had been raped by Donald Trump, according to the person Stirrup had. directly searched the information.
The revelation raises expectations that allies of the US president were pressing directly with law enforcement to try to dig up potentially harmful information about a woman Trump had accused of sexually assaulting her.
E Jean Carroll, a journalist and advisory columnist, sued Trump in November 2019, claiming he defamed her when he denied her having been raped by him. Carroll alleges that Trump sexually assaulted her in late 1995 or early 1996 in a locker room in Bergdorf Goodman, a luxury Manhattan department store.
Trump responded to her allegations at the time by claiming that Carroll was “lying completely” and tried to make fun of her by saying “she’s not my type.” Those and similar comments led Carroll to sue him.
Stirrup apparently believed that the Justice Department had information that could support the president’s legal defense in the trial. The attorney from whom Stirrup sought information on Carroll said Stirrup approached them not long after a judge ruled that justice could not take over Trump’s defense.
Stirrup asked if the department had discovered degrading information about Carroll that they could share with her or the president’s private counsel. Stirrup also suggested she could act as an intermediary between the department and those close to the president or his private legal team.
Stirrup also asked the official if the Justice Department had any information that Carroll or anyone on her legal team had ties to the Democratic Party or partisan activists, who may have ordered her to falsely incriminate the president.
Earlier, Trump himself suggested, without citing any evidence, that his political opponents were behind the allegations: “If anyone has information that the Democratic party is cooperating with Ms. Carroll or New York Magazine [to whom Carroll first told her story]let us know ASAP, ”Trump said.
The official from whom Stirrup was seeking information admonished Stirrup and told her that her request was inappropriate.
The official reminded her to “convey to her in the strongest possible terms” that it was wrong to search for such information in the first place, and instructed her not to do so in the future.
When it was learned that Stirrup had later requested non-public information from other prosecutors about other ongoing investigations, including election fraud, and non-public information related to matters of relevance to the White House, Stirrup was told was not welcome. in court and banned from the building.
On December 3, the Associated Press, citing three sources, reported Stirrup’s ban “after she tried to pressure personnel to disclose sensitive information about electoral fraud and other matters she might pass on to the White House” . However, it has not been previously reported that one of the issues that led to Stirrup’s ban was that she sought information on the Carroll case.
It is unclear whether Stirrup acted alone or on behalf of the White House when it comes to the Carroll case.
But many consider it unlikely that Stirrup conducted her research entirely independently. Stirrup served as the liaison with the Justice Department at a time when the White House was dissolving its liaisons with virtually every major federal agency they believed would be unfaithful – while notifying their replacements that they would no longer report to the agencies to which they were assigned. but rather straight to the White House.
A prosecutor declined to comment, saying they had failed to obtain more information.
The outcome of the Carroll defamation case could have huge political and legal ramifications for Trump.
Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas, said that if the case goes to trial, Trump would “have to provide evidence and testimony on the underlying allegation of rape” and could be at risk of perjury.
Failure to testify truthfully in a civil case can have serious consequences for a president or other prominent political figure. When former President Bill Clinton was charged with sexual harassment and later admitted to giving misleading testimony in that case, he was impeached by the House of Representatives, acquitted by the United States Senate after a trial, and voluntarily gave his license to Law to exercise for five persons in. year.
Judge Lewis Kaplan, of the Southern District of New York, who was considering the prosecution’s attempt to take over Trump’s attorney, noted in an Oct. 26 ruling that any finding that Trump defamed Carroll was likely by a jury if an implied finding would be considered that Trump has indeed raped Carroll.
The question of whether Trump did indeed rape Ms. Carroll seems to be at the heart of her lawsuit. That’s because the truth or falsity of a suspect’s alleged defamatory statements could remove any defamation case, ”said Kaplan.
In early September, under the direction of then Attorney General William Barr, the Justice Department attempted to replace Trump’s private attorney with department attorneys to defend him against Carroll’s lawsuit. Justice argued that while accusing Carroll of lying and further attacking her, Trump was acting in his official capacity as President of the United States.
Kaplan ruled that justice could not take over Trump’s defense, and concluded that Trump’s alleged defamation of Carroll had nothing to do with his official duties as president or “the operation of the administration” or “within the scope of his employment.”
Justice promised to appeal Kaplan’s decision. But it is unlikely that Joe Biden’s justice will continue with such an appeal.
Prosecutors and outside legal observers say the department’s position that the president was acting in an official capacity while allegedly vilifying his alleged rape victim – from about 20 years earlier – is a position that is unlikely to prevail among most judges .
Last week, while announcing that he was appointing Merrick Garland, federal appeals court judge, as his new attorney general, the president-elect said he would end Trump’s practice of “ making the attorney general his personal attorney. and treat the department as his personal firm. ”.