Judge Trashes Trump's Attempt To Get Assault Lawsuit Dismissed

A judge last week trashed Donald Trump's arguments that his lawyers put forth while trying to get an assault lawsuit against the former President dismissed. Trump is being sued under the New York Adult Survivors Act by columnist E. Jean Carroll for an assault that allegedly took place in a department store changing room in the 90's. But Trump's lawyers made the dumbest arguments possible while trying to get the case dismissed, and the judge let them know how stupid their attempt was. Farron Cousins discusses this.

Don't forget to like, comment, and share! And subscribe to stay connected!

Connect with Farron on Twitter

*This transcript was auto-generated. Please excuse any typos.

Late last week, a US district judge slapped down Donald Trump and his lawyer's attempt to get a lawsuit dismissed against him, filed by columnist Eugene Carroll under New York's Recent Adult Survivor's Act. Now that piece of legislation actually gets rid of temporarily the statute of limitations for cases involving assault, any kind of sexual battery. This law kind of removes the statute of limitations for a little bit, for people who were not able to come forward for one reason or another when the assault happened. But now as they've grown up, they are in a position to where they can come forward with these allegations, which by the way, has held back the statute of limitations, uh, has held back a lot of people from coming forward. You know, when you're young, these things happen and they're not ready to come forward yet. So when they are finally ready to come forward, the statute of limitations can, in many instances, make it to where coming forward brings no justice for the individual who perpetrated these acts.

That's why the Adult Survivors Act is so important in the state of New York now, II and Carroll has alleged, and she is also suing Donald Trump for defamation, for calling her a liar about this. She alleges that in the 1990s in a department store, Donald Trump entered a changing room where she was and assaulted her. Now, because of this new adult Survivor's Act, she has now filed a second lawsuit to hold him liable for that assault. He has denied all the charges, but his lawyers went to court and made the dumbest argument imaginable as to why this lawsuit, not the defamation one, but this one about the actual assault should be dismissed. And the judge wasn't having it for a second. What they did was they went to court and they said that, Hey, listen, uh, this violates his due process. You know, it, it is unconstitutional to have a law that allows somebody to hold someone accountable for their actions. Somehow the lawyers tried to argue that violates his due process rights. And here's what the judge, this is, uh, uh, US District Judge Lewis Kaplan. Here's what he had to say about that. To suggest that the Adult Survivors Act violates the state due process clause, because the legislature supposedly did not describe that injustice to the defendant's entire satisfaction in a particular paragraph of a particular type of legislative document itself, a dubious premise is absurd.

So let me break down the legalese right there. Basically what the judge is saying, you're not happy because the law wasn't written in a way that you, I guess didn't fully understand.

And so you're trying to say that now it violates the state's due process clause. And again, as the judge concluded with, that's absurd. Now, Eugene Carroll's lawyers came out and said, Hey, this is a great, great thing that happened here. We look forward to the trial in April. In April. So right now, the only Republican officially running for president is facing an assault trial in April of this year. Now, in a case like this, especially after so much time has passed, it's very difficult to prove, it's very difficult for the plaintiff to prevail because at the time there were no eyewitnesses to this. However, there are people close to Carol who says that she did tell them about the event. However, just telling them about it when it happened does not count as an eyewitness account. So in a court of law, those statements from her friend saying, yes, she told us about this, it, it's not going to carry very much weight.

Unfortunately, you have to have hard evidence. You know, if there was video surveillance, which at this point would be impossible to get in that department store, and again, we're talking about, you know, early nineties maybe. So there may not have even been security footage without that, it's very hard to have any evidence. But Carol says that she has evidence cuz she still has the outfit from that day that allegedly, according to her, has some of Donald Trump's, uh, DNA on it. Let's just put it that way.