0:00

It's time for justice

0:02

matters, with former

0:05

federal prosecutor and

0:07

legal analyst Glenn

0:09

Kirchenner. A federal

0:11

judge has rejected

0:14

Donald Trump's attempt

0:16

at dismissing an ongoing

0:19

defamation case. Glenn talks

0:21

about that next on

0:24

justice matters. These are

0:26

difficult These are difficult times,

0:29

and if you believe in justice, progress,

0:31

and democracy, the news you read and

0:33

listen to can be pretty depressing.

0:35

And that's why there's a new podcast

0:37

called Good News for Lefties and America.

0:40

Every day it features positive news

0:42

stories for progressive listeners. Because

0:44

no matter how disturbing the headlines might

0:46

be, there's always hope we can build

0:49

on for a better tomorrow. Good news

0:51

for Lefties and America. Listen on

0:53

this platform at Good News for

0:55

lefties.com or wherever podcasts are heard.

1:01

Hey all, Glenn Kirshner here.

1:03

So friends, Donald Trump

1:06

is being sued for

1:08

defamation by five wrongfully

1:10

convicted and fully

1:13

exonerated men, previously

1:15

known as the Central Park

1:18

Five, now known as the

1:20

exonerated five, and Trump was

1:22

desperate not to have to

1:25

go to trial. He filed a

1:27

motion seeking to dismiss the

1:29

case. have it thrown out

1:31

in its entirety? Well, a

1:34

federal court judge just ruled

1:36

that the case will not be

1:38

thrown out in its entirety.

1:41

Let's start with the

1:43

new reporting. This from

1:45

MSNBC. Headline, Judge Rules

1:47

Trump can't get rid

1:49

of Central Park Five

1:52

defamation lawsuit. And that

1:54

article begins. President

1:57

Donald Trump lost a

1:59

bid to dismiss a

2:01

defamation lawsuit brought by

2:03

plaintiffs known as the

2:05

exonerated five, formerly the

2:07

Central Park Five. Thursday's

2:09

court ruling brings Trump closer

2:12

to a trial and to

2:14

potential civil liability for

2:16

comments he made about

2:18

them about these five

2:21

men during a presidential

2:23

debate against Kamala Harris

2:25

last year. But it doesn't

2:27

guarantee that the plaintiffs

2:30

will ultimately succeed

2:32

in their case. Trump's history

2:34

with Yusuf Salam, Raymond

2:36

Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron

2:39

Brown, and Corey Wise

2:41

dates back decades. They

2:43

were teenagers in 1989

2:45

when they were charged

2:48

with attempted murder, rape,

2:50

and other crimes after

2:52

a woman named Patricia

2:54

Mealy was attacked while

2:56

jogging in Manhattan Central

2:59

Park. Before they were

3:01

indicted, Trump took out

3:03

a full-page newspaper advertisement,

3:05

not naming but clearly

3:08

referring to them, calling to,

3:10

bring back the death penalty,

3:12

bring back our police. Four of

3:14

them, not Salam, confessed, then

3:17

recanted their confessions, and

3:19

maintained their innocence. They

3:21

were all convicted of

3:23

at least some of

3:25

the charges. Years later.

3:27

Years later... A different person

3:30

confessed and indeed DNA

3:32

evidence confirmed that

3:34

confession and the convictions

3:37

of the five men were

3:39

vacated in 2002. Trump has

3:41

continued to question their innocence

3:43

over the years, leading

3:46

to last year's debate

3:48

with Harris that sparked

3:50

the lawsuit. After the

3:52

Democrat brought up the

3:54

Republicans newspaper ad calling

3:56

for their execution, Trump

3:58

said, They They said,

4:00

they pled guilty. And I

4:02

said, well, if they pled guilty,

4:05

they badly hurt a person,

4:07

killed a person ultimately,

4:09

and if they pled guilty,

4:12

then they pled were not guilty.

4:14

Rejecting Trump's motion

4:17

to dismiss, U.S.

4:19

District Judge Wendy

4:21

Beatlesone wrote that it

4:23

can be plausibly inferred.

4:25

that Trump had

4:27

sufficient knowledge of

4:30

plaintiffs' wrongful conviction

4:33

and exoneration

4:35

to have understood that

4:38

plaintiffs did not

4:41

plead guilty. Nobody

4:43

died as a result

4:45

of the crimes that day

4:47

in Central Park,

4:50

and plaintiffs are

4:52

indeed not guilty. Hi,

5:03

I'm John Fiegelsain. And I'm Professor Corey

5:06

Brechnerter. And we are here to tell

5:08

you about the oath in the office,

5:10

an essential new podcast about the extremely

5:13

strange times we find ourselves in. In

5:15

the first few seconds in office, the

5:17

President of the United States is required

5:20

to take an oath to preserve, protect,

5:22

and defend the Constitution. And we're going

5:24

to hold him to that pledge. despite

5:27

the fact that he has threatened democracy

5:29

and even the law itself. It's all

5:31

about hope for what democracy should look

5:33

like and getting real about

5:36

what our democracy does look

5:38

like from an esteemed constitutional

5:41

scholar and a

5:43

deeply unqualified comedian.

5:45

Subscribe to the oath in

5:48

the office wherever you get

5:50

your podcast. Here's Glenn with

5:53

the judge's ruling. So friends,

5:55

let's go through just a little

5:58

bit of the judge's opinion. So

6:00

it's crystal clear what went

6:02

on here. In the case of, I'm

6:04

going to call them the

6:07

exonerated five plaintiffs versus

6:09

Donald Trump defendant

6:11

memorandum opinion. During

6:13

the 2024 presidential

6:15

election cycle, then candidate

6:18

and now president defendant

6:20

Donald Trump faced then

6:23

candidate and then vice

6:25

president, Kamala Harris in

6:27

a televised debate. hosted

6:29

by the National Constitution

6:32

Center in Philadelphia. At

6:34

the debate, defendant Trump

6:36

made certain comments about

6:38

the Central Park Five, a

6:41

name which for decades has been

6:43

used to refer to the five

6:45

plaintiffs. Based on those comments

6:48

and several others that Trump

6:50

made about plaintiffs over the

6:52

years, plaintiffs brought this lawsuit

6:55

alleging one defamation to defamation,

6:57

two. false light, and three,

6:59

intentional infliction of

7:02

emotional distress, all

7:04

under Pennsylvania law.

7:06

Defendant Trump now moves

7:08

to dismiss the complaint in

7:11

its entirety. And then the judge

7:13

reviews just some of

7:15

the evidence. Initially, plaintiffs

7:17

denied any connection with the

7:20

assaults and the rape. Yet after

7:22

hours of coercive interrogation

7:24

and without an attorney

7:27

present, four plaintiffs, Santana Richardson

7:29

Brown and Wise, eventually

7:31

confessed to both the

7:34

assault and rape. Plaintiff's

7:36

salam never confessed.

7:38

Plaintiffs quickly recanted their

7:41

confessions, but the criminal

7:43

process had begun. Plaintiffs

7:45

were indicted and charged,

7:48

each of them pleaded not

7:50

guilty and maintained their innocence

7:52

throughout the trial and for

7:54

the years that followed. And

7:56

yet... They were all

7:59

convicted. About 12 years

8:01

later, in 2002, one Matthias

8:03

Reyes confessed that it had

8:06

been him, not any of

8:08

the plaintiffs who had committed

8:10

the crimes. The Manhattan District

8:13

Attorney's office reopened its investigation

8:15

into the assaults and given

8:18

Reyes's confession, as well as

8:20

DNA evidence that corroborated that

8:22

confession, all plaintiffs' convictions were

8:25

vacated and the indictments and

8:27

the indictments. dismissed. And let

8:30

me add here, friends, that

8:32

the exonerated five brought suit

8:34

for wrongful conviction against the

8:37

city of New York and

8:39

the city of New York

8:41

settled. Against that backdrop, here

8:44

is some of what Donald

8:46

Trump said that prompted this

8:49

defamation suit. Quote, there's never

8:51

been anything like it. They're

8:53

destroying our country and they

8:56

come up with things like

8:58

what she just said. going

9:01

back many many years when

9:03

a lot of people including

9:05

Mayor Bloomberg agreed with me

9:08

on the Central Park 5.

9:10

They admitted they said they

9:13

pled guilty and I said

9:15

well if they pled guilty

9:17

and they badly hurt a

9:20

person killed a person ultimately

9:22

if they pled guilty and

9:24

then they pled were not

9:27

guilty so after relating that

9:29

we're not guilty so after

9:32

relating that we're not guilty

9:34

so after relating that stream

9:36

of rambling nonsense from Trump.

9:39

The judge turned back to

9:41

the plaintiff's claim. Plaintiff's interpretation

9:44

of defendant Trump's comments is

9:46

that they, the comments, asserted

9:48

three key propositions. The first

9:51

is that plaintiffs pleaded guilty.

9:53

False. The second is that

9:56

plaintiffs badly hurt someone. False.

9:58

And The third is that

10:00

plaintiffs killed someone false. And

10:03

then after an analysis of

10:05

the applicable case law and

10:07

the arguments of the parties,

10:10

the judge's conclusion, for the

10:12

reason set forth above defendants'

10:15

motion to dismiss shall be

10:17

denied as to plaintiffs' defamation

10:19

claim, because plaintiffs have plausibly

10:22

alleged actual malice. defendant's motion

10:24

to dismiss shall be denied

10:27

as to plaintiff's false light

10:29

claim. And friends, let me

10:31

add that with respect to

10:34

the third count or the

10:36

third charge in the case,

10:39

intentional infliction of emotional distress,

10:41

the judge concluded that there

10:43

was some technical deficiency in

10:46

the way that charge was

10:48

pled by the plaintiffs, so

10:50

the judge dismissed it, but...

10:53

The judge dismissed it without

10:55

prejudice and gave the plaintiffs

10:58

the opportunity to correct that

11:00

technical deficiency and refile that

11:02

third charge. So no, the

11:05

case was not thrown out

11:07

in its entirety. It ultimately

11:10

will survive in its entirety

11:12

and it will head toward

11:14

trial. But friends, the question

11:17

you may be asking yourself

11:19

is, well, wait a minute.

11:22

Can a president be forced

11:24

to go to trial? in

11:26

a civil lawsuit while he's

11:29

president and doesn't he have

11:31

some kind of immunity? Let

11:33

me take on those questions.

11:36

The answer is yes, a

11:38

president does have some kind

11:41

of immunity because the Supreme

11:43

Court justices, some of them,

11:45

made up presidential immunity from

11:48

whole cloth. It's not in

11:50

the Constitution. It's actually contradicted

11:53

by the Constitution, but the

11:55

President does have... immunity from

11:57

criminal prosecutions not civil lawsuits?

12:00

So the presidential immunity ruling

12:02

from the Supreme Court doesn't

12:05

apply to this civil lawsuit.

12:07

And then the second question

12:09

is, well, can he be

12:12

forced to go to trial

12:14

while he's president? The good

12:16

news is, the answer is

12:19

yes, because that issue was

12:21

settled by the Supreme Court

12:24

in the case of Jones

12:26

versus Clinton. where the Supreme

12:28

Court ruled that for conduct

12:31

that a person commits prior

12:33

to becoming president, he can

12:36

be sued and he can

12:38

be forced to go to

12:40

trial even while he is

12:43

serving as president with the

12:45

rationale being defending oneself in

12:47

civil litigation in a civil

12:50

lawsuit like defamation doesn't require

12:52

that much time. It doesn't

12:55

really interfere with the duties

12:57

of the duties of the

12:59

presidency. The president doesn't even

13:02

have to attend the trial.

13:04

Remember, he's been sued civilly

13:07

in other cases where he

13:09

didn't attend and he lost.

13:11

But the good news is,

13:14

yes, this case can proceed

13:16

to trial even while Donald

13:19

Trump is serving as president

13:21

of the United States. So

13:23

friends, when this case does

13:26

make its way to trial,

13:28

let's hope that the jury

13:30

gets it right and I

13:33

suspect they will. because contrary

13:35

to what Donald Trump told

13:38

the nation during a presidential

13:40

debate, the exonerated five did

13:42

not plead guilty. The exonerated

13:45

five did not kill anyone.

13:47

So Donald Trump at the

13:50

end of the day should

13:52

be held accountable for his

13:54

defamatory statements. Because

13:56

justice matters. Friends, as always, as

13:59

always, please stay

14:01

safe, please stay tuned,

14:03

look and I look

14:05

forward to talking

14:07

with you all again

14:09

again tomorrow. Watch Glenn on his Justice

14:11

Matters YouTube channel. Also find him on

14:13

Substack, Loose Guy, Instagram, and Patreon. This

14:15

is Justice Matters.