Yup, that’s me. You can read all about it in New York Times , or The Washington Post, or The Wall Street Journal, or a thousand other places. But would you like to know why the DOJ is really messing around in my little law suit? O! I’m telling you, Reader! It’s a bizarre story!
The DOJ is butting in because of three women:
This Is Doris Ling-Cohan, New York Supreme Court Judge
On December 12, 2019, Judge Ling-Cohan set deadlines for discovery in my case. On January 10, 2020, she denied President Trump’s request to stay those deadlines, and on January 30, we told President Trump to provide us with a DNA sample to match against the unidentified male DNA on the dress I was wearing when he attacked me. Judge Ling-Cohan’s discovery deadlines trigger the coming battle.
This Is Robbie Kaplan, My Attorney
The civil rights attorney, co-founder of the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund, and the woman who won Windsor in the Supreme Court which opened the way for Gay rights across America, argued brilliantly all the reasons that a President of the United States CAN be sued in a state court—a constitutional issue so thorny it causes men to run and pee in the pool.
This Is Verna L. Saunders, New York State Supreme Court Judge
Judge Saunders agreed with Robbie Kaplan’s arguments and ruled that we could proceed with our defamation suit against a sitting President—meaning that discovery would continue, including our notice to Trump that he provide us with a DNA sample.
Oh my! This caused the chaps quite a fuss! Just as the discovery deadlines approached, an unswabbed Trump, who was running out of money to pay his losing lawyers (he had lost every round against us), and driven nearly distracted by Judge Ling-Cohan, Judge Verna L. Saunders, and Robbie Kaplan, on September 8, 2020, threw the case to his footboy, Bill Barr and the DOJ.
And now see what happened:
This is Joshua Matz, who served as Impeachment Counsel to the House Judiciary Committee for the second Senate trial of President Trump—and as among counsel to the House Judiciary Committee for the first impeachment and trial of Trump. He is also my attorney and a partner with Robbie at Kaplan, Hecker & Fink.
Joshua, whose IQ is 487, argues in Federal Court, along with Robbie Kaplan, that the DOJ move is nuts and on October 27th, 2020, District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan agrees with him and tells the DOJ to butt out. (And by the by, Judge Kaplan is rarely—rarely—overturned.)
In the last days before Trump leaves office—and claiming to act on behalf of the United States of America itself—Barr’s DOJ appeals Judge Kaplan’s decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Trump hires his own lawyers and files a separate appeal in his personal capacity.
Biden takes office. On April 16, 2021—two-and-a-half months after Trump and Melania copter off the South Lawn—we file a reply brief —you can practically see flames shooting off it—arguing that the DOJ’s position in this case would dishonor the Office of the Presidency, and give succor to the view that our most powerful political leaders stand entirely above the law.
All pretty clear so far, right?
Trump is gone. Barr is gone. Biden is President. Biden appoints Saint Merrick as his Attorney General. And all is well. Robbie, Joshua, I, and about 132 million women in America are waiting for the Biden DOJ to do the right thing and confess that its original position was wrong. Our ultimate plan is to proceed with discovery and meet Trump in court—an occasion for which, I need hardly tell, you, Reader, I have already selected my outfit.
Merrick Garland’s DOJ files a reply brief two nights ago, June 7th, that—incredibly, unbelievably—defends Trump. They argue that Trump was doing his job when he repeatedly slandered me and told the world thatI was too ugly for him to rape.
And that’s why there were so many headlines on Monday and more headlines today when Garland appears before the Senate. Biden’s DOJ turns out to be run by someone who may be more interested in protecting his vision of the DOJ “institution,”than in cleaning up its corruption.
At any rate, the arguments in the DOJ’s brief are both flaccid and dangerous; and Robbie, Joshua and I are looking forward to Oral arguments sometime this fall, when we will crush them into tiny fribbons. (Indiana word.)
P.S. Here is Katie Phang explaining it:
P.P. S.Here is Joyce White Vance explaining it: Here and here:
P.P.P.S. Here is Rachel Maddow explaining it:
And here’s your chance to explain it, because I know that I don’t know everything, we’ve got the Conflab . . .
The Conflab is where we hash over the questions sent into Ask E. Jean—and where our roisterous community saves mankind. Today we are solving the problem of the DOJ. Is it any wonder that women are afraid to report their attackers, assaulters, and rapists when the DOJ is trying to stop a woman from telling her story?
What do you think Garland is doing? Is he a good guy who simply believes in maintaining the institution of the DOJ? Or is he so upright, so unbending, he doesn’t have enough of an evil streak to handle cleaning up Trump’s corruption?
Also, how much are you enjoying the fact that your tax dollars are paying for the defense of Donald Trump?
Thank you, Reader, for leaping to my defense! Your shouts of “I stand with E. Jean!” are ENERGIZING!! Many of you have asked how you can show your support. Well, one of the ways to show your support is to subscribe to this newsletter. It would mean an awful lot to me. If you can’t afford it, I understand. Send me an email and I will give you a subscription.
There are literally 382.2 million people in America without a subscription to Ask E. Jean, if you happen to know one of these people, click the link below:
You can get to me on Twitter, or send me your question by using the Voice Memo on your phone (I may run the recording on Ask E. Jean), or shoot a video question (again—I may put it on Ask E. Jean), or write to me about what’s driving you crazy—your career, your wardrobe, your love affairs, your lusts, your languishing, your finances—to AskEeeeJean@gmail.com.
And drop me photos of your pets!