Elle advice columnist E. Jean Carroll would like some of Donald Trump's DNA, and not for decorative purposes. As you may recall, unless it's since blurred together with the rest of Trump's 87,000 scandals, Carroll published a memoir last summer in which she recalled being raped in a dressing room in Bergdorf Goodman by none other than the current President of the United States back in the '90s. Subsequently, Trump called her a liar, said he'd never met her, and then, even more grotesquely, noted that she was not "his type."

Thus, in November, Carroll filed a defamation suit against him, seeking to prove that they had indeed met — and that the semen stain on the black dress she was wearing that day would prove it. As long as she could get his DNA.

Naturally, Trump and his lawyers have tried to stave off this lawsuit until the 12th of Never, claiming that as the President, he has immunity to civil lawsuits. They have asked that it at least be held off until an appellate court decides whether or not a similar sexual-assault-related defamation suit brought against him by Summer Zervos, a former apprentice contestant, can go through.

Whoops!

Via The New York Times:

On Thursday, Justice Verna L. Saunders in New York rejected their arguments, pointing to a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that concluded Mr. Trump could not block a subpoena for his tax returns by the Manhattan district attorney's office.

The Supreme Court ruling determined that the president did not possess absolute immunity against state criminal subpoenas.

Although that ruling pertained to a criminal investigation, Justice Saunders wrote that the same legal question was relevant to Ms. Carroll's lawsuit — "whether the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution bars a state court from exercising jurisdiction over a sitting President of the United States during his term."

"No, it does not," Justice Saunders wrote.

She said the Supreme Court's ruling applied to "all state court proceedings in which a sitting president is involved," including those involving the president's unofficial or personal conduct.

And they should be!

E. Jean Carroll, for her part, is extremely jazzed about this. Given that Carroll says she was fired from Elle after Trump called her a liar, she has a lot of grounds for a defamation suit on top of wanting to prove that the assault happened.

While sure — there are all kinds of ridiculous people out there who would accuse a sitting president of horrible things, like faking a birth certificate, that are not true, it seems highly unlikely that Carroll would be going for DNA if it were not. The first rule of bullshitting people is to steer clear of easily falsifiable evidence. With something like a birth certificate, it is possible for someone stupid to stare at an actual "long form birth certificate" and go "Well, that could be faked!" With DNA? Not that easy! What would she even say if the DNA turned out to be from another person? That would be extremely awkward.

There are literally only two options here — E. Jean Carroll is telling the absolute truth, or she is completely delusional but somehow hid it for years and years while holding down a job as an advice columnist, of all things. Given that at least two women — former news anchor Carol Martin and Lisa Birnbach, author of The Official Preppy Handbook — have said that they firmly remember Carroll telling them about it at the time, the latter seems pretty damned unlikely.

[New York Times]

Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons.

How often would you like to donate?

Just once Monthly

Select an amount (USD)

$2$25$5$50$10$100$15$500$20$1000