also this is really contingent on having actually committed the civil transgressions to begin with. your argument boils down to "it's impossible for presidents not to expose themselves to civil lawsuits in office", which is both untrue and not really making the case you think it is.
Anyone can sue anyone for any reason, see also the parade of nonsense fiesta election lawsuits. The existence of a suit doesn't say anything about whether someone actually did a thing.
+7
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
I mean, you're essentially closing the presidency to anyone not ludicrously wealthy to the point of "no ethical billionaires", someone directly patroned by same, or someone who is so transparently powerhungry they go for it anyways, e.g. Ted Cruz.
That ship has sailed my good dude
Yes, known Billionaires Joe Biden and Barack Obama.
you yourself said "someone directly patroned by same", did you not mean that or do you think that it does not apply to them? because it definitely does.
+3
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
also this is really contingent on having actually committed the civil transgressions to begin with. your argument boils down to "it's impossible for presidents not to expose themselves to civil lawsuits in office", which is both untrue and not really making the case you think it is.
Anyone can sue anyone for any reason, see also the parade of nonsense fiesta election lawsuits. The existence of a suit doesn't say anything about whether someone actually did a thing.
We have some safeguards in place already presumably. See the lack of lawsuits with absolutely no basis in reality. So the bar here is to not just shit talk private citizens. This is not a very high bar. It is the same bar the rest of us live with every day.
+3
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
I am entirely unbothered by the personal legal expenses of any president
bill clinton in particular is a real tough one to generate any sympathy for. he had legal expenses because *gesturing wildly* he did all that stuff!
a lot of this conversation has had people saying stuff like "You think people in government should have to experience consequenes??? For their actions??????"
A reminder that Kenn Starr began his investigations into the Clintons over a nothingburger land deal that they lost money on 4 years before Bill entered office.
I am entirely unbothered by the personal legal expenses of any president
bill clinton in particular is a real tough one to generate any sympathy for. he had legal expenses because *gesturing wildly* he did all that stuff!
a lot of this conversation has had people saying stuff like "You think people in government should have to experience consequenes??? For their actions??????"
A reminder that Kenn Starr began his investigations into the Clintons over a nothingburger land deal that they lost money on 4 years before Bill entered office.
sorry, is your point that janet reno should not have appointed a special prosecutor? I don't see any reason to argue about that because it's not relevant here. we're talking about civil court.
I am entirely unbothered by the personal legal expenses of any president
bill clinton in particular is a real tough one to generate any sympathy for. he had legal expenses because *gesturing wildly* he did all that stuff!
a lot of this conversation has had people saying stuff like "You think people in government should have to experience consequenes??? For their actions??????"
A reminder that Kenn Starr began his investigations into the Clintons over a nothingburger land deal that they lost money on 4 years before Bill entered office.
sorry, is your point that janet reno should not have appointed a special prosecutor? I don't see any reason to argue about that because it's not relevant here. we're talking about civil court.
I think the point is that frivolous investigations/lawsuits are already a thing that happens to presidents. So opening the flood gates on who can sue and for what, while simultaneously saying the president is on their own for money is probably not a great idea.
To which I would respond that there already are some laws/rules in place to limit frivolous lawsuits. I do think the incentives in suing the president are far far higher than suing a regular person, so it’s possible the current protections would not be enough, but I certainly haven’t seen it argued clearly enough to know for sure. It seems equally possible that our current protections are just fine.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Would love to know who was the last person who became President and was not a multimiionaire beforehand.
AFAIK, the Obamas. They were worth just over a million (including all assets, most of which was a house) upon entering office and afaik most of that net worth was because of his books selling like crazy after his 2004 convention speech made him a celebrity.
I'm pretty sure most people here would view only millionaires being able to run for high public office to be a bad thing.
shryke on
+3
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
Would love to know who was the last person who became President and was not a multimiionaire beforehand.
AFAIK, the Obamas. They were worth just over a million (including all assets, most of which was a house) upon entering office and afaik most of that net worth was because of his books selling like crazy after his 2004 convention speech made him a celebrity.
I'm pretty sure most people here would view only millionaires being able to run for high public office to be a bad thing.
firstly, that's already true, with the policy you keep going to bat for in place.
secondly, you have yet to provide any evidence that making the president personally liable for their own speech unrelated to their duties as president, in regard to their own personal life, would present them with any extra burden in legal fees.
I am entirely unbothered by the personal legal expenses of any president
bill clinton in particular is a real tough one to generate any sympathy for. he had legal expenses because *gesturing wildly* he did all that stuff!
a lot of this conversation has had people saying stuff like "You think people in government should have to experience consequenes??? For their actions??????"
A reminder that Kenn Starr began his investigations into the Clintons over a nothingburger land deal that they lost money on 4 years before Bill entered office.
sorry, is your point that janet reno should not have appointed a special prosecutor? I don't see any reason to argue about that because it's not relevant here. we're talking about civil court.
I think the point is that frivolous investigations/lawsuits are already a thing that happens to presidents. So opening the flood gates on who can sue and for what, while simultaneously saying the president is on their own for money is probably not a great idea.
To which I would respond that there already are some laws/rules in place to limit frivolous lawsuits. I do think the incentives in suing the president are far far higher than suing a regular person, so it’s possible the current protections would not be enough, but I certainly haven’t seen it argued clearly enough to know for sure. It seems equally possible that our current protections are just fine.
Also, it wouldn't just be limited to individuals and specific interest groups. Remove the immunity, and there's at LEAST a dozen Governors/State AG's that'd throw up challenges using state taxpayer funds, to attempt to both bankrupt, and if they're still sitting, prevent the President from doing their job.
AFAICT, the latter is part of the reason for the immunity in the first place too. Having the President spend days/weeks/months tied up in depositions and court, instead of running the Executive, is a good way to fuck with his ability to enact his agenda.
+8
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
Would love to know who was the last person who became President and was not a multimiionaire beforehand.
Truman. He was more or less destitute before agreeing to join the Pendergast machine as a county judge in the mid 1920s and never had much personal wealth and him and Bess are among the only former White House residents that actually drew on Social Security.
If you include just the farm Carter was only worth in the mid 6 figures, but he had other holdings and his dumb ass brother's business ventures (which he actually divested himself from, unlike 45).
BlackDragon480 on
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
Would love to know who was the last person who became President and was not a multimiionaire beforehand.
Bill Clinton and Barak Obama to name two. And Joe Biden was only a multi-millionaire recently. I don't think he was when he ran for VP (it does not seem to be the case)
I am entirely unbothered by the personal legal expenses of any president
bill clinton in particular is a real tough one to generate any sympathy for. he had legal expenses because *gesturing wildly* he did all that stuff!
a lot of this conversation has had people saying stuff like "You think people in government should have to experience consequenes??? For their actions??????"
A reminder that Kenn Starr began his investigations into the Clintons over a nothingburger land deal that they lost money on 4 years before Bill entered office.
sorry, is your point that janet reno should not have appointed a special prosecutor? I don't see any reason to argue about that because it's not relevant here. we're talking about civil court.
I think the point is that frivolous investigations/lawsuits are already a thing that happens to presidents. So opening the flood gates on who can sue and for what, while simultaneously saying the president is on their own for money is probably not a great idea.
To which I would respond that there already are some laws/rules in place to limit frivolous lawsuits. I do think the incentives in suing the president are far far higher than suing a regular person, so it’s possible the current protections would not be enough, but I certainly haven’t seen it argued clearly enough to know for sure. It seems equally possible that our current protections are just fine.
Also, it wouldn't just be limited to individuals and specific interest groups. Remove the immunity, and there's at LEAST a dozen Governors/State AG's that'd throw up challenges using state taxpayer funds, to attempt to both bankrupt, and if they're still sitting, prevent the President from doing their job.
AFAICT, the latter is part of the reason for the immunity in the first place too. Having the President spend days/weeks/months tied up in depositions and court, instead of running the Executive, is a good way to fuck with his ability to enact his agenda.
Yes and no. I don't think anyone is suggest the law should be repealed entirely. So the question is, if you treat the law as it was intended (where only actions taken as part of an employees responsibilities are considered actions taken by the government as opposed to actions taken by an individual), how much time/money/resources will someone as public as the president have to dedicate for (possibly frivolous) lawsuits on their actions not related to job responsibilities. And can the current laws and court system adequately protect against bad actors so that you can't completely halt presidential work by just lining up 10s to 100s of pointless court cases that they have to spend all their time on.
edit - I should say my past stance on things like this, and for things like fraud/corruption/emoluments cases, is that the president should have to respond/accept/argue to all cases against him. The only mitigations are you would change the rules for high profile employees so that they can be represented by an agent (rather than always having to show up themselves), and they would get a small team of lawyers, tax payer funded. Then just let all those cases go to trial. If they are frivolous or whatever the lawyers should handle it easily (never really involving the president), and they can counter sue if they want to prove a point or something about frivolous law suits. But all those cases become public record, and if there is dirt to be found, it gets out much faster than 4-20 years after they have left office.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
+1
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Would love to know who was the last person who became President and was not a multimiionaire beforehand.
Bill Clinton and Barak Obama to name two. And Joe Biden was only a multi-millionaire recently. I don't think he was when he ran for VP (it does not seem to be the case)
I mean he Clinton’s had a 700k net worth in 1992 and the obamas had a 1.3 million net worth in 2008. Which in both cases is definitely over a million today, so they were millionaires. Just not multi millionaires.
I mean, at this point if someone bought a house in a major city 10 years ago, they are likely over a million in net worth. Being a millionaire is no longer a particularly good measure of being rich.
I am entirely unbothered by the personal legal expenses of any president
bill clinton in particular is a real tough one to generate any sympathy for. he had legal expenses because *gesturing wildly* he did all that stuff!
a lot of this conversation has had people saying stuff like "You think people in government should have to experience consequenes??? For their actions??????"
A reminder that Kenn Starr began his investigations into the Clintons over a nothingburger land deal that they lost money on 4 years before Bill entered office.
sorry, is your point that janet reno should not have appointed a special prosecutor? I don't see any reason to argue about that because it's not relevant here. we're talking about civil court.
I think the point is that frivolous investigations/lawsuits are already a thing that happens to presidents. So opening the flood gates on who can sue and for what, while simultaneously saying the president is on their own for money is probably not a great idea.
To which I would respond that there already are some laws/rules in place to limit frivolous lawsuits. I do think the incentives in suing the president are far far higher than suing a regular person, so it’s possible the current protections would not be enough, but I certainly haven’t seen it argued clearly enough to know for sure. It seems equally possible that our current protections are just fine.
Also, it wouldn't just be limited to individuals and specific interest groups. Remove the immunity, and there's at LEAST a dozen Governors/State AG's that'd throw up challenges using state taxpayer funds, to attempt to both bankrupt, and if they're still sitting, prevent the President from doing their job.
AFAICT, the latter is part of the reason for the immunity in the first place too. Having the President spend days/weeks/months tied up in depositions and court, instead of running the Executive, is a good way to fuck with his ability to enact his agenda.
Yes. The President’s time and attention is more valuable than his money. Thus immunity from slander makes sense. It would only be a problem if you had some dumb ass President that casually slandered people.
Would love to know who was the last person who became President and was not a multimiionaire beforehand.
Bill Clinton and Barak Obama to name two. And Joe Biden was only a multi-millionaire recently. I don't think he was when he ran for VP (it does not seem to be the case)
I mean he Clinton’s had a 700k net worth in 1992 and the obamas had a 1.3 million net worth in 2008. Which in both cases is definitely over a million today, so they were millionaires. Just not multi millionaires.
I mean. If you're quibbling when the term "millionaire" came into being and was useful as a metric it wasn't the case that almost 12% of all households(and about 20% of households with an average age of 55+) in the United States qualified.
In 2040 we will be able to say that even more people were "really millionaires" if we want to use that metric. If we use the 1950's as a guide you would need about 11 million to be a "millionaire".
+2
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
My point about presidents being rich is that these lawsuits can get really expensive, especially if they get slammed with them, so that if they didn't have the immunity, no one except the worst would bother to run because they couldn't afford it.
It wasn't supposed to be about anything about median income or household worth or whatever.
My point about presidents being rich is that these lawsuits can get really expensive, especially if they get slammed with them, so that if they didn't have the immunity, no one except the worst would bother to run because they couldn't afford it.
It wasn't supposed to be about anything about median income or household worth or whatever.
I was agreeing with you. My point was that our last few democratic Presidents indeed were not "rich" even though they are now and even though they were more well off than the average person. So saying they're "millionaires" its incorrectly ascribing to them a means that is not appropriate. And that at least one of them had significant issues with the costs of lawsuits that should bring pause to anyone who suggests that there is no issue with Presidents having to pay out of pocket. Biden's rich friends have enough influence already.
+5
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
My point about presidents being rich is that these lawsuits can get really expensive, especially if they get slammed with them, so that if they didn't have the immunity, no one except the worst would bother to run because they couldn't afford it.
It wasn't supposed to be about anything about median income or household worth or whatever.
With the Republicans I don't think that 'if' would be an issue. They'd have process servers lined up to buy tickets for the next inauguration of a Democratic president.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
edited June 2021
y'all are being extremely obtuse here. courts are already capable of dealing with frivolous civil suits without bankrupting public figures. if it worked the way you are imagining it does, nobody would ever say anything about anyone else on TV.
y'all are being extremely obtuse here. courts are already capable of dealing with frivolous civil suits without bankrupting public figures. if it worked the way you are imagining it to, nobody would ever say anything about anyone else on TV.
The POTUS is a unique target concerning frivolous lawsuits. It's not irrational to imagine a situation where mass frivolous lawsuits screw some stuff up.
Also, it's less about the money and more about the President's time and attention. An unquestionably wealthy president would still have to take the time to deal with the lawsuits.
Widespread Anti-SLAPP style laws being in place first seems like it'd be pertinent, but even that comes with concerns about who is sitting on those benches.
What if judges in some deep red states are all like 'cool, sue the shit out of the president for every last slight, real or imagined'?
I'm not a fan of Trump or a similar style president being protected, but I'm also thinking it's highly likely the GOP would collectively do everything in their power to bury a president from a thousand directions at once.
Even as someone who agrees that many of the policies and handshakes and 'gentlemen's agreements' that the US political system is built upon should be better codified, I'm not seeing a good end to stripping away those protections. At least not in the current political climate.
The courts are indeed capable of noting and rejecting frivolous lawsuits, but not every judge in every jurisdiction is going to agree with what is defined as frivolous.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Widespread Anti-SLAPP style laws being in place first seems like it'd be pertinent, but even that comes with concerns about who is sitting on those benches.
What if judges in some deep red states are all like 'cool, sue the shit out of the president for every last slight, real or imagined'?
I'm not a fan of Trump or a similar style president being protected, but I'm also thinking it's highly likely the GOP would collectively do everything in their power to bury a president from a thousand directions at once.
Even as someone who agrees that many of the policies and handshakes and 'gentlemen's agreements' that the US political system is built upon should be better codified, I'm not seeing a good end to stripping away those protections. At least not in the current political climate.
The courts are indeed capable of noting and rejecting frivolous lawsuits, but not every judge in every jurisdiction is going to agree with what is defined as frivolous.
There would probably have to be special rules for extremely public figures like the president. Like make all their cases have to be tried in DC. Allow their lawyer to represent without requiring the president to be present. Stuff like that. But I don’t think it’s insurmountable, and on the off chance a wild goose chase turns up something real, I’d still rather have found out.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Widespread Anti-SLAPP style laws being in place first seems like it'd be pertinent, but even that comes with concerns about who is sitting on those benches.
What if judges in some deep red states are all like 'cool, sue the shit out of the president for every last slight, real or imagined'?
I'm not a fan of Trump or a similar style president being protected, but I'm also thinking it's highly likely the GOP would collectively do everything in their power to bury a president from a thousand directions at once.
Even as someone who agrees that many of the policies and handshakes and 'gentlemen's agreements' that the US political system is built upon should be better codified, I'm not seeing a good end to stripping away those protections. At least not in the current political climate.
The courts are indeed capable of noting and rejecting frivolous lawsuits, but not every judge in every jurisdiction is going to agree with what is defined as frivolous.
There is a middle ground between "The President cannot be practically held accountable for literally anything" and "The Presidency is paralysed by never-ending personal lawsuits for frivolous cases" and the current reality is much closer to the former than the latter
KetBra on
+10
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Widespread Anti-SLAPP style laws being in place first seems like it'd be pertinent, but even that comes with concerns about who is sitting on those benches.
What if judges in some deep red states are all like 'cool, sue the shit out of the president for every last slight, real or imagined'?
I'm not a fan of Trump or a similar style president being protected, but I'm also thinking it's highly likely the GOP would collectively do everything in their power to bury a president from a thousand directions at once.
Even as someone who agrees that many of the policies and handshakes and 'gentlemen's agreements' that the US political system is built upon should be better codified, I'm not seeing a good end to stripping away those protections. At least not in the current political climate.
The courts are indeed capable of noting and rejecting frivolous lawsuits, but not every judge in every jurisdiction is going to agree with what is defined as frivolous.
There is a middle ground between "The President cannot be practically held accountable for literally anything" and "The Presidency is paralysed by never-ending personal lawsuits for frivolous cases" and the current reality is much closer to the former and the latter
The problem is that middle ground is much thinner than you think.
I mean a fairly simple of impossible to implement because fucking GOP would be to pass a law with these details
-The President/VP/cabinet/extend as needed are exempt from civil suits for their job functions and their job functions only. Sue the government itself for that
-Define exactly what job functions mean for each. In this case since literally the only tie to it being a job function was "asked about it while President" no that doesn't count
-Federal Anti-SLAPP law that covers suits for outside the job stuff, a little stronger than usual
0
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
Widespread Anti-SLAPP style laws being in place first seems like it'd be pertinent, but even that comes with concerns about who is sitting on those benches.
What if judges in some deep red states are all like 'cool, sue the shit out of the president for every last slight, real or imagined'?
I'm not a fan of Trump or a similar style president being protected, but I'm also thinking it's highly likely the GOP would collectively do everything in their power to bury a president from a thousand directions at once.
Even as someone who agrees that many of the policies and handshakes and 'gentlemen's agreements' that the US political system is built upon should be better codified, I'm not seeing a good end to stripping away those protections. At least not in the current political climate.
The courts are indeed capable of noting and rejecting frivolous lawsuits, but not every judge in every jurisdiction is going to agree with what is defined as frivolous.
There is a middle ground between "The President cannot be practically held accountable for literally anything" and "The Presidency is paralysed by never-ending personal lawsuits for frivolous cases" and the current reality is much closer to the former and the latter
The problem is that middle ground is much thinner than you think.
you have not at any point provided any evidence for this.
I mean a fairly simple of impossible to implement because fucking GOP would be to pass a law with these details
-The President/VP/cabinet/extend as needed are exempt from civil suits for their job functions and their job functions only. Sue the government itself for that
-Define exactly what job functions mean for each. In this case since literally the only tie to it being a job function was "asked about it while President" no that doesn't count
-Federal Anti-SLAPP law that covers suits for outside the job stuff, a little stronger than usual
the first one could be done with a judge's ruling on the case in question. the DOJ could also make that decision.
Widespread Anti-SLAPP style laws being in place first seems like it'd be pertinent, but even that comes with concerns about who is sitting on those benches.
What if judges in some deep red states are all like 'cool, sue the shit out of the president for every last slight, real or imagined'?
I'm not a fan of Trump or a similar style president being protected, but I'm also thinking it's highly likely the GOP would collectively do everything in their power to bury a president from a thousand directions at once.
Even as someone who agrees that many of the policies and handshakes and 'gentlemen's agreements' that the US political system is built upon should be better codified, I'm not seeing a good end to stripping away those protections. At least not in the current political climate.
The courts are indeed capable of noting and rejecting frivolous lawsuits, but not every judge in every jurisdiction is going to agree with what is defined as frivolous.
There is a middle ground between "The President cannot be practically held accountable for literally anything" and "The Presidency is paralysed by never-ending personal lawsuits for frivolous cases" and the current reality is much closer to the former and the latter
The problem is that middle ground is much thinner than you think.
you have not at any point provided any evidence for this.
I mean a fairly simple of impossible to implement because fucking GOP would be to pass a law with these details
-The President/VP/cabinet/extend as needed are exempt from civil suits for their job functions and their job functions only. Sue the government itself for that
-Define exactly what job functions mean for each. In this case since literally the only tie to it being a job function was "asked about it while President" no that doesn't count
-Federal Anti-SLAPP law that covers suits for outside the job stuff, a little stronger than usual
the first one could be done with a judge's ruling on the case in question. the DOJ could also make that decision.
Yes but then in the later case the next asshole admin can just change it back. Executive order and policy is good law is better.
0
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
edited June 2021
they'd have a harder time with a judge's ruling, but yes. there are a bunch of valid legislative solutions here. waiving sovereign immunity for slander (and all the other things which currently enjoy exceptions) would work as well.
well, "work" in the sense that at the very least the individuals who elected officials harm could have their days in court. wouldn't address the problem that elected officials can just do all these crimes as long as they do it in public.
they'd have a harder time with a judge's ruling, but yes. there are a bunch of valid legislative solutions here. waiving sovereign immunity for slander (and all the other things which currently enjoy exceptions) would work as well.
well, "work" in the sense that at the very least the individuals who elected officials harm could have their days in court. wouldn't address the problem that elected officials can just do all these crimes as long as they do it in public.
Personally I feel like that is too narrow. Let state AGs or activist groups sue for corruption or other crazy stuff if there is merit for it. Just make the front end work heavy for the group suing, and provide some back end punishments for suits thrown out as frivolous/meritless. But bring on all of the cases. And I guess also make sure that they have to be tried somewhere that would at least pretend to be impartial.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Widespread Anti-SLAPP style laws being in place first seems like it'd be pertinent, but even that comes with concerns about who is sitting on those benches.
What if judges in some deep red states are all like 'cool, sue the shit out of the president for every last slight, real or imagined'?
I'm not a fan of Trump or a similar style president being protected, but I'm also thinking it's highly likely the GOP would collectively do everything in their power to bury a president from a thousand directions at once.
Even as someone who agrees that many of the policies and handshakes and 'gentlemen's agreements' that the US political system is built upon should be better codified, I'm not seeing a good end to stripping away those protections. At least not in the current political climate.
The courts are indeed capable of noting and rejecting frivolous lawsuits, but not every judge in every jurisdiction is going to agree with what is defined as frivolous.
There is a middle ground between "The President cannot be practically held accountable for literally anything" and "The Presidency is paralysed by never-ending personal lawsuits for frivolous cases" and the current reality is much closer to the former and the latter
The problem is that middle ground is much thinner than you think.
A vague assertion that can neither be shown or argued against.
Everything just comes down to America is an alpha test that got thrown into Production and half the C suite doesn't want any patches that impact functionality.
"Just In: A federal judge has DENIED Trump’s request to put a hold on the defamation suit filed against him by E Jean Carroll, who claims he raped her. This allows the case to proceed even while an Appeals Court weighs whether the former guy is (somehow) immune from the suit."
"U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan today denied Trump’s December 2020 request to stay the case brought against him by Carroll. The judge’s brief order was made “without prejudice,” meaning Trump may try again. Here's more on the story:" https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-15/trump-loses-effort-to-delay-rape-accuser-s-case-during-appeal?sref=zzZnj7Fi
- Duty2Warn aren't blue-checked, but the article is Bloomberg, and they're just repeating information from it.
I don't know what's more depressing, that Trump likely won't ever see real consequences (indicating how shitty the justice system is), or that even if he were to see real consequences*, it likely won't move the polls on his political viability (indicating how shitty the electorate is).
* And by real consequences, I mean actually being charged and going to trial. Don't even mean conviction and prison time, which is significantly less likely.
+16
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
that part about determining whether he's immune to the suit is way, way more important, especially since they'll probably rule in his favor. I read the brief for the DOJ's appeal back in June and the arguments are all pretty airtight, simply because the DOJ gets to determine what is and isn't part of the president's duties, and it has decided that slandering Carroll was part of his duties. garland's gonna have to reverse course for a good outcome here and that seems pretty unlikely.
Aaaaand we're back. In a realm of Trump's multitudinal crimes, the most disturbing ones keep coming back up, like bile in the back of my throat, whenever this subject comes up.
Apparently earlier this year, New York passed the Adult Survivors Act.
The Adult Survivors Act opens a one-year window, during which adult survivors of sexual violence that occurred in New York state can bring their cases in civil court against their abusers or any individuals or institutions that enabled their abuses. The ASA will only set aside the civil statute of limitations for the duration of the one-year window, starting on November 24, 2022, and closing on November 23, 2023. When the window expires, the existing statute of limitations will, once again, take effect.
Roberta A. Kaplan, the journalist’s lawyer, explained in her letter to the judge that Carroll is now preparing to file a separate lawsuit under New York’s Adult Survivors Act “on the earliest possible date,” which is Nov. 24.
Kaplan also explained that Trump—as he has done in nearly every court case of late—is refusing to turn over court-mandated evidence.
Regarding the second para, I'm shocked, shocked I say, that Trump and his team are refusing court orders.
For starters, does this “one year window” law sound odd to anyone else? Like justice isn’t supposed to work like a coupon. If someone misses their chance they are just fucked, I guess.
Posts
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Anyone can sue anyone for any reason, see also the parade of nonsense fiesta election lawsuits. The existence of a suit doesn't say anything about whether someone actually did a thing.
you yourself said "someone directly patroned by same", did you not mean that or do you think that it does not apply to them? because it definitely does.
My point is that multimillionaire wouldn't cut it anymore.
We have some safeguards in place already presumably. See the lack of lawsuits with absolutely no basis in reality. So the bar here is to not just shit talk private citizens. This is not a very high bar. It is the same bar the rest of us live with every day.
A reminder that Kenn Starr began his investigations into the Clintons over a nothingburger land deal that they lost money on 4 years before Bill entered office.
sorry, is your point that janet reno should not have appointed a special prosecutor? I don't see any reason to argue about that because it's not relevant here. we're talking about civil court.
I think the point is that frivolous investigations/lawsuits are already a thing that happens to presidents. So opening the flood gates on who can sue and for what, while simultaneously saying the president is on their own for money is probably not a great idea.
To which I would respond that there already are some laws/rules in place to limit frivolous lawsuits. I do think the incentives in suing the president are far far higher than suing a regular person, so it’s possible the current protections would not be enough, but I certainly haven’t seen it argued clearly enough to know for sure. It seems equally possible that our current protections are just fine.
AFAIK, the Obamas. They were worth just over a million (including all assets, most of which was a house) upon entering office and afaik most of that net worth was because of his books selling like crazy after his 2004 convention speech made him a celebrity.
I'm pretty sure most people here would view only millionaires being able to run for high public office to be a bad thing.
firstly, that's already true, with the policy you keep going to bat for in place.
secondly, you have yet to provide any evidence that making the president personally liable for their own speech unrelated to their duties as president, in regard to their own personal life, would present them with any extra burden in legal fees.
Also, it wouldn't just be limited to individuals and specific interest groups. Remove the immunity, and there's at LEAST a dozen Governors/State AG's that'd throw up challenges using state taxpayer funds, to attempt to both bankrupt, and if they're still sitting, prevent the President from doing their job.
AFAICT, the latter is part of the reason for the immunity in the first place too. Having the President spend days/weeks/months tied up in depositions and court, instead of running the Executive, is a good way to fuck with his ability to enact his agenda.
Truman. He was more or less destitute before agreeing to join the Pendergast machine as a county judge in the mid 1920s and never had much personal wealth and him and Bess are among the only former White House residents that actually drew on Social Security.
If you include just the farm Carter was only worth in the mid 6 figures, but he had other holdings and his dumb ass brother's business ventures (which he actually divested himself from, unlike 45).
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Bill Clinton and Barak Obama to name two. And Joe Biden was only a multi-millionaire recently. I don't think he was when he ran for VP (it does not seem to be the case)
Yes and no. I don't think anyone is suggest the law should be repealed entirely. So the question is, if you treat the law as it was intended (where only actions taken as part of an employees responsibilities are considered actions taken by the government as opposed to actions taken by an individual), how much time/money/resources will someone as public as the president have to dedicate for (possibly frivolous) lawsuits on their actions not related to job responsibilities. And can the current laws and court system adequately protect against bad actors so that you can't completely halt presidential work by just lining up 10s to 100s of pointless court cases that they have to spend all their time on.
edit - I should say my past stance on things like this, and for things like fraud/corruption/emoluments cases, is that the president should have to respond/accept/argue to all cases against him. The only mitigations are you would change the rules for high profile employees so that they can be represented by an agent (rather than always having to show up themselves), and they would get a small team of lawyers, tax payer funded. Then just let all those cases go to trial. If they are frivolous or whatever the lawyers should handle it easily (never really involving the president), and they can counter sue if they want to prove a point or something about frivolous law suits. But all those cases become public record, and if there is dirt to be found, it gets out much faster than 4-20 years after they have left office.
Yes. The President’s time and attention is more valuable than his money. Thus immunity from slander makes sense. It would only be a problem if you had some dumb ass President that casually slandered people.
I mean. If you're quibbling when the term "millionaire" came into being and was useful as a metric it wasn't the case that almost 12% of all households(and about 20% of households with an average age of 55+) in the United States qualified.
In 2040 we will be able to say that even more people were "really millionaires" if we want to use that metric. If we use the 1950's as a guide you would need about 11 million to be a "millionaire".
It wasn't supposed to be about anything about median income or household worth or whatever.
I was agreeing with you. My point was that our last few democratic Presidents indeed were not "rich" even though they are now and even though they were more well off than the average person. So saying they're "millionaires" its incorrectly ascribing to them a means that is not appropriate. And that at least one of them had significant issues with the costs of lawsuits that should bring pause to anyone who suggests that there is no issue with Presidents having to pay out of pocket. Biden's rich friends have enough influence already.
With the Republicans I don't think that 'if' would be an issue. They'd have process servers lined up to buy tickets for the next inauguration of a Democratic president.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
The POTUS is a unique target concerning frivolous lawsuits. It's not irrational to imagine a situation where mass frivolous lawsuits screw some stuff up.
Also, it's less about the money and more about the President's time and attention. An unquestionably wealthy president would still have to take the time to deal with the lawsuits.
What if judges in some deep red states are all like 'cool, sue the shit out of the president for every last slight, real or imagined'?
I'm not a fan of Trump or a similar style president being protected, but I'm also thinking it's highly likely the GOP would collectively do everything in their power to bury a president from a thousand directions at once.
Even as someone who agrees that many of the policies and handshakes and 'gentlemen's agreements' that the US political system is built upon should be better codified, I'm not seeing a good end to stripping away those protections. At least not in the current political climate.
The courts are indeed capable of noting and rejecting frivolous lawsuits, but not every judge in every jurisdiction is going to agree with what is defined as frivolous.
There would probably have to be special rules for extremely public figures like the president. Like make all their cases have to be tried in DC. Allow their lawyer to represent without requiring the president to be present. Stuff like that. But I don’t think it’s insurmountable, and on the off chance a wild goose chase turns up something real, I’d still rather have found out.
There is a middle ground between "The President cannot be practically held accountable for literally anything" and "The Presidency is paralysed by never-ending personal lawsuits for frivolous cases" and the current reality is much closer to the former than the latter
The problem is that middle ground is much thinner than you think.
-The President/VP/cabinet/extend as needed are exempt from civil suits for their job functions and their job functions only. Sue the government itself for that
-Define exactly what job functions mean for each. In this case since literally the only tie to it being a job function was "asked about it while President" no that doesn't count
-Federal Anti-SLAPP law that covers suits for outside the job stuff, a little stronger than usual
you have not at any point provided any evidence for this.
the first one could be done with a judge's ruling on the case in question. the DOJ could also make that decision.
Yes but then in the later case the next asshole admin can just change it back. Executive order and policy is good law is better.
well, "work" in the sense that at the very least the individuals who elected officials harm could have their days in court. wouldn't address the problem that elected officials can just do all these crimes as long as they do it in public.
Personally I feel like that is too narrow. Let state AGs or activist groups sue for corruption or other crazy stuff if there is merit for it. Just make the front end work heavy for the group suing, and provide some back end punishments for suits thrown out as frivolous/meritless. But bring on all of the cases. And I guess also make sure that they have to be tried somewhere that would at least pretend to be impartial.
A vague assertion that can neither be shown or argued against.
"Just In: A federal judge has DENIED Trump’s request to put a hold on the defamation suit filed against him by E Jean Carroll, who claims he raped her. This allows the case to proceed even while an Appeals Court weighs whether the former guy is (somehow) immune from the suit."
"U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan today denied Trump’s December 2020 request to stay the case brought against him by Carroll. The judge’s brief order was made “without prejudice,” meaning Trump may try again. Here's more on the story:"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-15/trump-loses-effort-to-delay-rape-accuser-s-case-during-appeal?sref=zzZnj7Fi
- Duty2Warn aren't blue-checked, but the article is Bloomberg, and they're just repeating information from it.
I don't know what's more depressing, that Trump likely won't ever see real consequences (indicating how shitty the justice system is), or that even if he were to see real consequences*, it likely won't move the polls on his political viability (indicating how shitty the electorate is).
* And by real consequences, I mean actually being charged and going to trial. Don't even mean conviction and prison time, which is significantly less likely.
Apparently earlier this year, New York passed the Adult Survivors Act.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-to-face-sexual-battery-suit-under-new-survivors-law-e-jean-carroll?ref=scroll
"Trump to Face Sexual Battery Suit Under New ‘Survivors’ Law"
Regarding the second para, I'm shocked, shocked I say, that Trump and his team are refusing court orders.