As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Trump Found To Have Committed Sexual Assault by NY Jury

1235721

Posts

  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Why do people keep pretending that these things only happen via random unexpected attacks?
    Because people have to feel safe in their daily life. It's much more recomforting to believe the threat is remote and not someone you trust. If only because you actually have to trust people to, you know, live.

    That's what I don't understand. How does it feel more safe to believe you are subject to completely random attacks you can't control, as opposed to having knowledge of where the actual threat is, and since it's what you know, where you know, and who you know, you have a level of control over it, that can give you actual defense and safety?
    ... I don't know about you, but I don't exactly spend a lot of time planning how I'm going to defend myself against my friends and family.

  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    ITT: The Dude With Herpes is outed as Batman.

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
  • The Dude With HerpesThe Dude With Herpes Lehi, UTRegistered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Why do people keep pretending that these things only happen via random unexpected attacks?
    Because people have to feel safe in their daily life. It's much more recomforting to believe the threat is remote and not someone you trust. If only because you actually have to trust people to, you know, live.

    That's what I don't understand. How does it feel more safe to believe you are subject to completely random attacks you can't control, as opposed to having knowledge of where the actual threat is, and since it's what you know, where you know, and who you know, you have a level of control over it, that can give you actual defense and safety?
    ... I don't know about you, but I don't exactly spend a lot of time planning how I'm going to defend myself against my friends and family.

    Well, I wish I could say I didn't actually do that, but I've got (or had, some are gone) family on more than one side, with issues enough that I've (we've) actually had to plan for potential situations that could endanger our kids. But even in those situations, I still feel like knowing the potential danger gave us a way to actually feel safe, because we could then have actual control (as much as you can anyway) over those threats, so that it didn't have to be something we worried about constantly.

    Steam: Galedrid - XBL: Galedrid - PSN: Galedrid
    Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
    Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand

  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Her account was also corroborated by several people she confided in about the incident. They include a friend in New York and Dorris’s mother, both of whom she called immediately after the alleged incident, as well as a therapist and friends she spoke to in the years since. All said Dorris had shared with them details of the alleged incident that matched what she later told the Guardian.

    I assume Trump will claim he never met her despite all the photos.

    The lawyers are all "How could he do this a room away from other people and get away with it" and "If this happened, why did she still meet with him in the following days." Because misogyny.

    Yep, it's no different to the "If she didn't want to have sex, she would have fought back" style thinking. That shock it's happening, fear of being hurt further, shock or fear of consequences following, or any number of other outcomes, are all dismissed, because in the past, they've been dismissed.

    Same with the refusal to come forward immediately that the Kavanaugh/Ford and Trump/Carroll allegations suffered from publicly. "Why didn't she come forward then?". Have you SEEN how women are treated when they accuse someone of rape? THAT'S FRIKKIN' WHY. Well, why did they come forward now? For any number of reasons, and in the high profile cases, quite possibly because the threat of letting that shithead into power (I believe that was Christine Blasey Ford's reasoning) is more important to them than the personal consequences of doing so.

    There are several possible reasons why this woman might have responded the way she did after her alleged attack. Shouldn't change how the charges are handled.

    Sadly, it probably will. And based on how it's played out before, it'll probably work.

    Even if Trump isn't a "hiding in the bushes, rape at knifepoint" rapist, and regardless of the facts or outcome of this case, there's no doubt, zero, in my mind he's sexually assaulted women, for which he'll never face consequences.

    On that last point, it's always struck me as idiotic that image even exists. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the vast majority of sexual assaults perpetrated by people who know their victim? Either a direct family member or neighbor (broadly speaking, that might mean someone in someones church congregation, etc)? And not someone hiding in the dark onto unsuspecting victims? It feels like the idiot image of gun violence victims, that "criminals" who shoot people are random muggers on the street, and not, you know, reality, where it is primarily themselves, or someone else in the home or immediate social circle.

    Why do people keep pretending that these things only happen via random unexpected attacks? Why, against all clear and available information, do people still act shocked when it is their local youth pastor, or the victims SO, or parent, who gets arrested or accused of this?

    I mean, I understand how a narrative, once in place, is hard to weed out; I just don't understand the actual benefit this misconception of sexual assault is supposed to provide? It feels so increasingly rare these days that anyone doesn't have someone they know in their social circle, and more likely their immediate extended family, that has been victims of sexual assault. How does this image of a perp in the bushes still exist? It's like cancer, who doesn't know someone anymore who hasn't either had cancer, died from cancer, or is currently suffering from it? It'd be like still believing that you only get cancer because of your sins...which I guess...fucking hell, we truly have barely stepped one foot out of the caves. :( EDIT: Do people accuse others who have cancer detected in a late stage of being responsible for the cancer? Do they say "well, why did you wait so long to check?" Why are we so god damned stupid?

    Because it is widespread enough that people do not want to risk their friends or even their own questionable behavior getting labeled as harassment or assault. After all, they're a good and decent guy, not a rapist. Similar to racism. I would never sic a german shepherd on a black guy, even if blacks are all lazy criminals, aside from Jamal at work, he's one of the good ones. And I'd never jump out of the bushes at a jogger, or even catcall someone like Jill in accounting when she wears that low cut top and I just can't stop staring.

    Also, it needs to be remembered, that for a LOOOOONG period of time, marital rape was not a thing (including sometimes not illegal). For a slightly shorter, but not by much, date rape was not a thing. Inability to legally consent (specifically through alchohol impairment or voluntary drug consumption) wasn't considered rape. As was 'encouragement' modifiers as mitigation (ie, 'look at what she was wearing', 'she was asking for it', etc)

    So the only rape most people had to actually consider as rape, was the man in the bushes with a knife. That assholes continue to argue that the above aren't really "rape", has it reinforced into the minds of people who don't really want to consider the ramifications of people they know, or themselves.

    That guy who got a coworker/fellow student falldown drunk while in his 20's, to take her home to have sex with her? He's going to want to not think of himself as a rapist, twenty years later. I mean, how many "teen/college hijinks" movies are based on guys getting women drunk so they'll sleep with them? Superbad was only 13 years ago.

    Much easier to just chalk rape up to "man in the bushes", and anything else as "not really rape".

  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    Yeah, I think there's an element present we see with a lot of issues, like racism.

    "Being a racist makes one a bad person, I'm not a bad person, ergo I can't really be racist. And I never actually joined the Klan, and keep my language acceptable in mixed company, soo...."

    People are uncomfortable taking an introspective account for their thoughts and actions. They are the hero in their own story, and thus anything they did was either okay or had extenuating circumstances applied that made it okay.

    The times they plied someone with alcohol, or got a bit too aggressive, but they backed down in the end so no harm done right? Just a little groping and kissing. They never had a knife hiding in the bushes, just a hot date that abruptly cooled off because she turned out to be a prude or whatever...

    Refusing to take the next step to consider that other people's feelings and bodily autonomy are important, that consent is important for a whole host of reasons, and that with some actual taking account of their actions, some of the shit they did might jump from the grey area they might like to think it exists in, to 'uh, err, I assaulted that woman'.

    But that's what bad people do, and they're not a bad person, ergo...

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
  • The Dude With HerpesThe Dude With Herpes Lehi, UTRegistered User regular
    edited September 2020
    MorganV wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Her account was also corroborated by several people she confided in about the incident. They include a friend in New York and Dorris’s mother, both of whom she called immediately after the alleged incident, as well as a therapist and friends she spoke to in the years since. All said Dorris had shared with them details of the alleged incident that matched what she later told the Guardian.

    I assume Trump will claim he never met her despite all the photos.

    The lawyers are all "How could he do this a room away from other people and get away with it" and "If this happened, why did she still meet with him in the following days." Because misogyny.

    Yep, it's no different to the "If she didn't want to have sex, she would have fought back" style thinking. That shock it's happening, fear of being hurt further, shock or fear of consequences following, or any number of other outcomes, are all dismissed, because in the past, they've been dismissed.

    Same with the refusal to come forward immediately that the Kavanaugh/Ford and Trump/Carroll allegations suffered from publicly. "Why didn't she come forward then?". Have you SEEN how women are treated when they accuse someone of rape? THAT'S FRIKKIN' WHY. Well, why did they come forward now? For any number of reasons, and in the high profile cases, quite possibly because the threat of letting that shithead into power (I believe that was Christine Blasey Ford's reasoning) is more important to them than the personal consequences of doing so.

    There are several possible reasons why this woman might have responded the way she did after her alleged attack. Shouldn't change how the charges are handled.

    Sadly, it probably will. And based on how it's played out before, it'll probably work.

    Even if Trump isn't a "hiding in the bushes, rape at knifepoint" rapist, and regardless of the facts or outcome of this case, there's no doubt, zero, in my mind he's sexually assaulted women, for which he'll never face consequences.

    On that last point, it's always struck me as idiotic that image even exists. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the vast majority of sexual assaults perpetrated by people who know their victim? Either a direct family member or neighbor (broadly speaking, that might mean someone in someones church congregation, etc)? And not someone hiding in the dark onto unsuspecting victims? It feels like the idiot image of gun violence victims, that "criminals" who shoot people are random muggers on the street, and not, you know, reality, where it is primarily themselves, or someone else in the home or immediate social circle.

    Why do people keep pretending that these things only happen via random unexpected attacks? Why, against all clear and available information, do people still act shocked when it is their local youth pastor, or the victims SO, or parent, who gets arrested or accused of this?

    I mean, I understand how a narrative, once in place, is hard to weed out; I just don't understand the actual benefit this misconception of sexual assault is supposed to provide? It feels so increasingly rare these days that anyone doesn't have someone they know in their social circle, and more likely their immediate extended family, that has been victims of sexual assault. How does this image of a perp in the bushes still exist? It's like cancer, who doesn't know someone anymore who hasn't either had cancer, died from cancer, or is currently suffering from it? It'd be like still believing that you only get cancer because of your sins...which I guess...fucking hell, we truly have barely stepped one foot out of the caves. :( EDIT: Do people accuse others who have cancer detected in a late stage of being responsible for the cancer? Do they say "well, why did you wait so long to check?" Why are we so god damned stupid?

    Because it is widespread enough that people do not want to risk their friends or even their own questionable behavior getting labeled as harassment or assault. After all, they're a good and decent guy, not a rapist. Similar to racism. I would never sic a german shepherd on a black guy, even if blacks are all lazy criminals, aside from Jamal at work, he's one of the good ones. And I'd never jump out of the bushes at a jogger, or even catcall someone like Jill in accounting when she wears that low cut top and I just can't stop staring.

    Also, it needs to be remembered, that for a LOOOOONG period of time, marital rape was not a thing (including sometimes not illegal).
    For a slightly shorter, but not by much, date rape was not a thing. Inability to legally consent (specifically through alchohol impairment or voluntary drug consumption) wasn't considered rape. As was 'encouragement' modifiers as mitigation (ie, 'look at what she was wearing', 'she was asking for it', etc)

    So the only rape most people had to actually consider as rape, was the man in the bushes with a knife. That assholes continue to argue that the above aren't really "rape", has it reinforced into the minds of people who don't really want to consider the ramifications of people they know, or themselves.

    That guy who got a coworker/fellow student falldown drunk while in his 20's, to take her home to have sex with her? He's going to want to not think of himself as a rapist, twenty years later. I mean, how many "teen/college hijinks" movies are based on guys getting women drunk so they'll sleep with them? Superbad was only 13 years ago.

    Much easier to just chalk rape up to "man in the bushes", and anything else as "not really rape".

    It's shit like this where my brain starts to break down and spin and die. I realize I'm a product of my environment, my time, etc. I just literally cannot wrap my head around things like this, ideas like "those people aren't actually people" or "you can't rape your wife, if you're married it's always consenting". It seems so plainly obvious that personal relationships are so vulnerable, because the people you trust are the people who can hurt you the most. And I know that attitude stems from women being viewed more as property or at least financial arrangements, so your wife wasn't your partner, they were yours, and all the logic you'd apply to your personal belongings applied to them. I understand intellectually how those ideas were "the norm". I just don't get how that being wrong wasn't plainly obvious; I can't emotionally remove myself from this moment, to comprehend how it was "normal" thought to think of things those ways.

    Recently in a family discussion, an in-law said that she feels like Jacob Blake being used as an person that is being held up as justification for protest etc, because he has a sexual assault accusation, is threatening. My wife told me this and my immediate reaction was: that's valid, but you (you being that in-law) had just said you feel like voting for Trump was the lesser of two evils, when the guy has more than a couple dozen credible sexual assault accusations, numerous payoffs of accusations, and a pretty firmly documented history of walking in on underage girls undressed, and having bought a pageant purely so he could do that. And the conversation goes nowhere. :(

    I told my wife yesterday that I have to bow out of political discussion with her family (it's become a thing they're doing; and while on paper I fully support open dialogue, it doesn't seem like it's leading to anyone actually becoming more informed or altering views), because as sad as it is, being regularly exposed to people I know who are acting in a way, and believing things, that are overtly and intentionally ignorant, makes me spiral into anger and depression, and the only way I can keep up hope in humanity is to pretend that there's reason to hope, and that requires minimizing exposure to willful and malicious ignorance. I get that is head in the sand, and ultimately counterproductive; but I can't stay afloat, emotionally, if I can't push it aside. :(

    The Dude With Herpes on
    Steam: Galedrid - XBL: Galedrid - PSN: Galedrid
    Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
    Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    "Stranger Danger" was and still is a very powerful meme and shapes the idea of how we view all sorts of crimes. Rape, murder, kidnapping, molestation, etc, etc.

    "It's coming from inside your house" is, afaik from the data, a more accurate summary of how these things happen but it runs into a bunch of issues in it's attempt to spread. The fucked up way we think of consent. A desire to trust the people around us and not to see them as being monsters.

    Basically I think from one end you get the whole "that seems mostly fine" and from the other end you get "and he's not bad guy".

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited September 2020
    shryke wrote: »
    "Stranger Danger" was and still is a very powerful meme and shapes the idea of how we view all sorts of crimes. Rape, murder, kidnapping, molestation, etc, etc.

    "It's coming from inside your house" is, afaik from the data, a more accurate summary of how these things happen but it runs into a bunch of issues in it's attempt to spread. The fucked up way we think of consent. A desire to trust the people around us and not to see them as being monsters.

    Basically I think from one end you get the whole "that seems mostly fine" and from the other end you get "and he's not bad guy".

    Also, racism. And coercion to help fund a police regime that is harmful to citizens.

    Fencingsax on
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    the DoJ maybe should take the lead on civil suits brought against the President?

    Imagine a not rich President. Now imagine that they have to defend themselves from every civil suit brought against them. Now imagine how Republicans would weaponize that. If that seems outlandish it really should not given that it has potentially happened already with Clinton.

    This doesn’t mean the president should be immune but having the state handle defense prevents politically motivated cases from having impact on the presidency while also allowing the normal course of justice to unfold.

    On the other hand this is clearly naked corruption by Barr. There is neither need nor precedence for this change and it was not pursued at an appropriate time. The only purpose it has is to induce delay into the process.


    I'm pretty sure that lawyers would break off their pinky toe to have an opportunity to represent the president pro bono, particularly if it means that they can counter sue.

    Pro-bono work is also gift, which, while the President is not prohibited from receiving, is similarly an issue as with debts. It doesn’t really make it better if the President is is indebted and then forgiven or if they accept millions of dollars of legal work for free.

    The campaign could pay for it, though that again, has other issues (can they do so after the campaign is over and there is no campaign to run? How are funds held in reserve disbursed etc etc. which have their own corruption issues.

    None of which seem as corrupting as placing the President above the bounds of the Law while in office. Especially for non-official acts.

    He wouldn’t be above the bounds of the law he would just be defended by the DoJ

    wbBv3fj.png
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    the DoJ maybe should take the lead on civil suits brought against the President?

    Imagine a not rich President. Now imagine that they have to defend themselves from every civil suit brought against them. Now imagine how Republicans would weaponize that. If that seems outlandish it really should not given that it has potentially happened already with Clinton.

    This doesn’t mean the president should be immune but having the state handle defense prevents politically motivated cases from having impact on the presidency while also allowing the normal course of justice to unfold.

    On the other hand this is clearly naked corruption by Barr. There is neither need nor precedence for this change and it was not pursued at an appropriate time. The only purpose it has is to induce delay into the process.


    I'm pretty sure that lawyers would break off their pinky toe to have an opportunity to represent the president pro bono, particularly if it means that they can counter sue.

    Pro-bono work is also gift, which, while the President is not prohibited from receiving, is similarly an issue as with debts. It doesn’t really make it better if the President is is indebted and then forgiven or if they accept millions of dollars of legal work for free.

    The campaign could pay for it, though that again, has other issues (can they do so after the campaign is over and there is no campaign to run? How are funds held in reserve disbursed etc etc. which have their own corruption issues.

    None of which seem as corrupting as placing the President above the bounds of the Law while in office. Especially for non-official acts.

    He wouldn’t be above the bounds of the law he would just be defended by the DoJ

    Semantics.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    the DoJ maybe should take the lead on civil suits brought against the President?

    Imagine a not rich President. Now imagine that they have to defend themselves from every civil suit brought against them. Now imagine how Republicans would weaponize that. If that seems outlandish it really should not given that it has potentially happened already with Clinton.

    This doesn’t mean the president should be immune but having the state handle defense prevents politically motivated cases from having impact on the presidency while also allowing the normal course of justice to unfold.

    On the other hand this is clearly naked corruption by Barr. There is neither need nor precedence for this change and it was not pursued at an appropriate time. The only purpose it has is to induce delay into the process.


    I'm pretty sure that lawyers would break off their pinky toe to have an opportunity to represent the president pro bono, particularly if it means that they can counter sue.

    Pro-bono work is also gift, which, while the President is not prohibited from receiving, is similarly an issue as with debts. It doesn’t really make it better if the President is is indebted and then forgiven or if they accept millions of dollars of legal work for free.

    The campaign could pay for it, though that again, has other issues (can they do so after the campaign is over and there is no campaign to run? How are funds held in reserve disbursed etc etc. which have their own corruption issues.

    None of which seem as corrupting as placing the President above the bounds of the Law while in office. Especially for non-official acts.

    He wouldn’t be above the bounds of the law he would just be defended by the DoJ

    Semantics.

    No

    wbBv3fj.png
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    I chose a bad time to read about this (lunch break at work). Her account is pretty goddamn specific and graphic and infuriating.

  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    the DoJ maybe should take the lead on civil suits brought against the President?

    Imagine a not rich President. Now imagine that they have to defend themselves from every civil suit brought against them. Now imagine how Republicans would weaponize that. If that seems outlandish it really should not given that it has potentially happened already with Clinton.

    This doesn’t mean the president should be immune but having the state handle defense prevents politically motivated cases from having impact on the presidency while also allowing the normal course of justice to unfold.

    On the other hand this is clearly naked corruption by Barr. There is neither need nor precedence for this change and it was not pursued at an appropriate time. The only purpose it has is to induce delay into the process.


    I'm pretty sure that lawyers would break off their pinky toe to have an opportunity to represent the president pro bono, particularly if it means that they can counter sue.

    Pro-bono work is also gift, which, while the President is not prohibited from receiving, is similarly an issue as with debts. It doesn’t really make it better if the President is is indebted and then forgiven or if they accept millions of dollars of legal work for free.

    The campaign could pay for it, though that again, has other issues (can they do so after the campaign is over and there is no campaign to run? How are funds held in reserve disbursed etc etc. which have their own corruption issues.

    None of which seem as corrupting as placing the President above the bounds of the Law while in office. Especially for non-official acts.

    He wouldn’t be above the bounds of the law he would just be defended by the DoJ

    Semantics.

    No

    If the DOJ is defending the president he's effectively beyond the reach of the law or about as far as a citizen can concievably get while still in the same nation.

    Thus: Yes.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    While the President cannot accept gifts to defer the costs of litigation litigants can as they’re not bound by election or public office ethics laws or by any issues of corruption.

    Plus, just because the DoJ would be defending the case does not mean that the DoJ would have unlimited budget or unethical scope.

    The alternative is that for any president who is not hilariously wealthy any suit creates an avenue for corruption.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    the DoJ maybe should take the lead on civil suits brought against the President?

    Imagine a not rich President. Now imagine that they have to defend themselves from every civil suit brought against them. Now imagine how Republicans would weaponize that. If that seems outlandish it really should not given that it has potentially happened already with Clinton.

    This doesn’t mean the president should be immune but having the state handle defense prevents politically motivated cases from having impact on the presidency while also allowing the normal course of justice to unfold.

    On the other hand this is clearly naked corruption by Barr. There is neither need nor precedence for this change and it was not pursued at an appropriate time. The only purpose it has is to induce delay into the process.


    I'm pretty sure that lawyers would break off their pinky toe to have an opportunity to represent the president pro bono, particularly if it means that they can counter sue.

    Pro-bono work is also gift, which, while the President is not prohibited from receiving, is similarly an issue as with debts. It doesn’t really make it better if the President is is indebted and then forgiven or if they accept millions of dollars of legal work for free.

    The campaign could pay for it, though that again, has other issues (can they do so after the campaign is over and there is no campaign to run? How are funds held in reserve disbursed etc etc. which have their own corruption issues.

    None of which seem as corrupting as placing the President above the bounds of the Law while in office. Especially for non-official acts.

    He wouldn’t be above the bounds of the law he would just be defended by the DoJ

    Semantics.

    No

    If the DOJ is defending the president he's effectively beyond the reach of the law or about as far as a citizen can concievably get while still in the same nation.

    Thus: Yes.

    Well, up until states bring charges.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    the DoJ maybe should take the lead on civil suits brought against the President?

    Imagine a not rich President. Now imagine that they have to defend themselves from every civil suit brought against them. Now imagine how Republicans would weaponize that. If that seems outlandish it really should not given that it has potentially happened already with Clinton.

    This doesn’t mean the president should be immune but having the state handle defense prevents politically motivated cases from having impact on the presidency while also allowing the normal course of justice to unfold.

    On the other hand this is clearly naked corruption by Barr. There is neither need nor precedence for this change and it was not pursued at an appropriate time. The only purpose it has is to induce delay into the process.


    I'm pretty sure that lawyers would break off their pinky toe to have an opportunity to represent the president pro bono, particularly if it means that they can counter sue.

    Pro-bono work is also gift, which, while the President is not prohibited from receiving, is similarly an issue as with debts. It doesn’t really make it better if the President is is indebted and then forgiven or if they accept millions of dollars of legal work for free.

    The campaign could pay for it, though that again, has other issues (can they do so after the campaign is over and there is no campaign to run? How are funds held in reserve disbursed etc etc. which have their own corruption issues.

    None of which seem as corrupting as placing the President above the bounds of the Law while in office. Especially for non-official acts.

    He wouldn’t be above the bounds of the law he would just be defended by the DoJ

    Semantics.

    No

    If the DOJ is defending the president he's effectively beyond the reach of the law or about as far as a citizen can concievably get while still in the same nation.

    Thus: Yes.

    Well, up until states bring charges.

    A sitting president cannot be charged with a crime. QED

  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    the DoJ maybe should take the lead on civil suits brought against the President?

    Imagine a not rich President. Now imagine that they have to defend themselves from every civil suit brought against them. Now imagine how Republicans would weaponize that. If that seems outlandish it really should not given that it has potentially happened already with Clinton.

    This doesn’t mean the president should be immune but having the state handle defense prevents politically motivated cases from having impact on the presidency while also allowing the normal course of justice to unfold.

    On the other hand this is clearly naked corruption by Barr. There is neither need nor precedence for this change and it was not pursued at an appropriate time. The only purpose it has is to induce delay into the process.


    I'm pretty sure that lawyers would break off their pinky toe to have an opportunity to represent the president pro bono, particularly if it means that they can counter sue.

    Pro-bono work is also gift, which, while the President is not prohibited from receiving, is similarly an issue as with debts. It doesn’t really make it better if the President is is indebted and then forgiven or if they accept millions of dollars of legal work for free.

    The campaign could pay for it, though that again, has other issues (can they do so after the campaign is over and there is no campaign to run? How are funds held in reserve disbursed etc etc. which have their own corruption issues.

    None of which seem as corrupting as placing the President above the bounds of the Law while in office. Especially for non-official acts.

    He wouldn’t be above the bounds of the law he would just be defended by the DoJ

    Semantics.

    No

    If the DOJ is defending the president he's effectively beyond the reach of the law or about as far as a citizen can concievably get while still in the same nation.

    Thus: Yes.

    Well, up until states bring charges.

    A sitting president cannot be charged with a crime. QED

    That's kind of a dangerous precedent. Do they want Joe Biden to be able to legally mow down his enemies with a shotgun? After all, he doesn't really have to worry much about prosecution afterwards, at his age.

    I feel they haven't thought this through.

  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    * only applies to Republicans

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    the DoJ maybe should take the lead on civil suits brought against the President?

    Imagine a not rich President. Now imagine that they have to defend themselves from every civil suit brought against them. Now imagine how Republicans would weaponize that. If that seems outlandish it really should not given that it has potentially happened already with Clinton.

    This doesn’t mean the president should be immune but having the state handle defense prevents politically motivated cases from having impact on the presidency while also allowing the normal course of justice to unfold.

    On the other hand this is clearly naked corruption by Barr. There is neither need nor precedence for this change and it was not pursued at an appropriate time. The only purpose it has is to induce delay into the process.


    I'm pretty sure that lawyers would break off their pinky toe to have an opportunity to represent the president pro bono, particularly if it means that they can counter sue.

    Pro-bono work is also gift, which, while the President is not prohibited from receiving, is similarly an issue as with debts. It doesn’t really make it better if the President is is indebted and then forgiven or if they accept millions of dollars of legal work for free.

    The campaign could pay for it, though that again, has other issues (can they do so after the campaign is over and there is no campaign to run? How are funds held in reserve disbursed etc etc. which have their own corruption issues.

    None of which seem as corrupting as placing the President above the bounds of the Law while in office. Especially for non-official acts.

    He wouldn’t be above the bounds of the law he would just be defended by the DoJ

    Semantics.

    No

    If the DOJ is defending the president he's effectively beyond the reach of the law or about as far as a citizen can concievably get while still in the same nation.

    Thus: Yes.

    Well, up until states bring charges.

    A sitting president cannot be charged with a crime. QED

    That's kind of a dangerous precedent. Do they want Joe Biden to be able to legally mow down his enemies with a shotgun? After all, he doesn't really have to worry much about prosecution afterwards, at his age.

    I feel they haven't thought this through.

    ...That's why the plan is for there to never be a free and fair election again.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    the DoJ maybe should take the lead on civil suits brought against the President?

    Imagine a not rich President. Now imagine that they have to defend themselves from every civil suit brought against them. Now imagine how Republicans would weaponize that. If that seems outlandish it really should not given that it has potentially happened already with Clinton.

    This doesn’t mean the president should be immune but having the state handle defense prevents politically motivated cases from having impact on the presidency while also allowing the normal course of justice to unfold.

    On the other hand this is clearly naked corruption by Barr. There is neither need nor precedence for this change and it was not pursued at an appropriate time. The only purpose it has is to induce delay into the process.


    I'm pretty sure that lawyers would break off their pinky toe to have an opportunity to represent the president pro bono, particularly if it means that they can counter sue.

    Pro-bono work is also gift, which, while the President is not prohibited from receiving, is similarly an issue as with debts. It doesn’t really make it better if the President is is indebted and then forgiven or if they accept millions of dollars of legal work for free.

    The campaign could pay for it, though that again, has other issues (can they do so after the campaign is over and there is no campaign to run? How are funds held in reserve disbursed etc etc. which have their own corruption issues.

    None of which seem as corrupting as placing the President above the bounds of the Law while in office. Especially for non-official acts.

    He wouldn’t be above the bounds of the law he would just be defended by the DoJ

    Who have legal protections that are not afforded other litigants. Before we even get into potential conflicts of interest for US Attorneys acting as prosecutors and also the President's personal defense lawyer.

  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    the DoJ maybe should take the lead on civil suits brought against the President?

    Imagine a not rich President. Now imagine that they have to defend themselves from every civil suit brought against them. Now imagine how Republicans would weaponize that. If that seems outlandish it really should not given that it has potentially happened already with Clinton.

    This doesn’t mean the president should be immune but having the state handle defense prevents politically motivated cases from having impact on the presidency while also allowing the normal course of justice to unfold.

    On the other hand this is clearly naked corruption by Barr. There is neither need nor precedence for this change and it was not pursued at an appropriate time. The only purpose it has is to induce delay into the process.


    I'm pretty sure that lawyers would break off their pinky toe to have an opportunity to represent the president pro bono, particularly if it means that they can counter sue.

    Pro-bono work is also gift, which, while the President is not prohibited from receiving, is similarly an issue as with debts. It doesn’t really make it better if the President is is indebted and then forgiven or if they accept millions of dollars of legal work for free.

    The campaign could pay for it, though that again, has other issues (can they do so after the campaign is over and there is no campaign to run? How are funds held in reserve disbursed etc etc. which have their own corruption issues.

    None of which seem as corrupting as placing the President above the bounds of the Law while in office. Especially for non-official acts.

    He wouldn’t be above the bounds of the law he would just be defended by the DoJ

    Who have legal protections that are not afforded other litigants. Before we even get into potential conflicts of interest for US Attorneys acting as prosecutors and also the President's personal defense lawyer.

    Also the fact that the president can appoint judges that are approved by a senate that is led by a man who has no problem rubberstamping whoever the fuck he puts up.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited September 2020
    moniker wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    the DoJ maybe should take the lead on civil suits brought against the President?

    Imagine a not rich President. Now imagine that they have to defend themselves from every civil suit brought against them. Now imagine how Republicans would weaponize that. If that seems outlandish it really should not given that it has potentially happened already with Clinton.

    This doesn’t mean the president should be immune but having the state handle defense prevents politically motivated cases from having impact on the presidency while also allowing the normal course of justice to unfold.

    On the other hand this is clearly naked corruption by Barr. There is neither need nor precedence for this change and it was not pursued at an appropriate time. The only purpose it has is to induce delay into the process.


    I'm pretty sure that lawyers would break off their pinky toe to have an opportunity to represent the president pro bono, particularly if it means that they can counter sue.

    Pro-bono work is also gift, which, while the President is not prohibited from receiving, is similarly an issue as with debts. It doesn’t really make it better if the President is is indebted and then forgiven or if they accept millions of dollars of legal work for free.

    The campaign could pay for it, though that again, has other issues (can they do so after the campaign is over and there is no campaign to run? How are funds held in reserve disbursed etc etc. which have their own corruption issues.

    None of which seem as corrupting as placing the President above the bounds of the Law while in office. Especially for non-official acts.

    He wouldn’t be above the bounds of the law he would just be defended by the DoJ

    Who have legal protections that are not afforded other litigants. Before we even get into potential conflicts of interest for US Attorneys acting as prosecutors and also the President's personal defense lawyer.

    The DoJ acting as lawyers for someone else is not a litigant. I don’t see the conflict of interest either...

    Edit: what protections are you talking about anyway?
    Gaddez wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    the DoJ maybe should take the lead on civil suits brought against the President?

    Imagine a not rich President. Now imagine that they have to defend themselves from every civil suit brought against them. Now imagine how Republicans would weaponize that. If that seems outlandish it really should not given that it has potentially happened already with Clinton.

    This doesn’t mean the president should be immune but having the state handle defense prevents politically motivated cases from having impact on the presidency while also allowing the normal course of justice to unfold.

    On the other hand this is clearly naked corruption by Barr. There is neither need nor precedence for this change and it was not pursued at an appropriate time. The only purpose it has is to induce delay into the process.


    I'm pretty sure that lawyers would break off their pinky toe to have an opportunity to represent the president pro bono, particularly if it means that they can counter sue.

    Pro-bono work is also gift, which, while the President is not prohibited from receiving, is similarly an issue as with debts. It doesn’t really make it better if the President is is indebted and then forgiven or if they accept millions of dollars of legal work for free.

    The campaign could pay for it, though that again, has other issues (can they do so after the campaign is over and there is no campaign to run? How are funds held in reserve disbursed etc etc. which have their own corruption issues.

    None of which seem as corrupting as placing the President above the bounds of the Law while in office. Especially for non-official acts.

    He wouldn’t be above the bounds of the law he would just be defended by the DoJ

    Who have legal protections that are not afforded other litigants. Before we even get into potential conflicts of interest for US Attorneys acting as prosecutors and also the President's personal defense lawyer.

    Also the fact that the president can appoint judges that are approved by a senate that is led by a man who has no problem rubberstamping whoever the fuck he puts up.

    The President can do that anyway and so it has no bearing on this suggestion

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Goum, do you not see the inherent problems with how the president is being represented by ostensibly the same organization that is supposed to seek justice against him in a court case potentially overseen by a judge appointed by him?

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    the DoJ maybe should take the lead on civil suits brought against the President?

    Imagine a not rich President. Now imagine that they have to defend themselves from every civil suit brought against them. Now imagine how Republicans would weaponize that. If that seems outlandish it really should not given that it has potentially happened already with Clinton.

    This doesn’t mean the president should be immune but having the state handle defense prevents politically motivated cases from having impact on the presidency while also allowing the normal course of justice to unfold.

    On the other hand this is clearly naked corruption by Barr. There is neither need nor precedence for this change and it was not pursued at an appropriate time. The only purpose it has is to induce delay into the process.


    I'm pretty sure that lawyers would break off their pinky toe to have an opportunity to represent the president pro bono, particularly if it means that they can counter sue.

    Pro-bono work is also gift, which, while the President is not prohibited from receiving, is similarly an issue as with debts. It doesn’t really make it better if the President is is indebted and then forgiven or if they accept millions of dollars of legal work for free.

    The campaign could pay for it, though that again, has other issues (can they do so after the campaign is over and there is no campaign to run? How are funds held in reserve disbursed etc etc. which have their own corruption issues.

    None of which seem as corrupting as placing the President above the bounds of the Law while in office. Especially for non-official acts.

    He wouldn’t be above the bounds of the law he would just be defended by the DoJ

    Who have legal protections that are not afforded other litigants. Before we even get into potential conflicts of interest for US Attorneys acting as prosecutors and also the President's personal defense lawyer.

    The DoJ acting as lawyers for someone else is not a litigant. I don’t see the conflict of interest either...

    Edit: what protections are you talking about anyway?

    They can open up an investigation on the person or entity suing the President. And can do that while still having to engage in Discovery for the initial suit, which gives them fishing expedition access to a lot of information that would otherwise be protected without a warrant.

    Sovereign immunity for everything they do as the President's personal defense attorney since it would be in their capacity as an official act.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited September 2020
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Goum, do you not see the inherent problems with how the president is being represented by ostensibly the same organization that is supposed to seek justice against him in a court case potentially overseen by a judge appointed by him?

    Wait why is the DoJ supposed to seek justice against him in a civil case brought by someone who is not the DoJ? The president is going to be in front of a judge potentially appointed by him regardless of whether or not the DoJ handles the defense

    The DoJ has plenty of disparate divisions and is able to segregate it’s lawyers from each other.

    Edit: which is to say I very much see it but don’t see how the DoJ being able to defend them in civil court changes anything about that situation
    moniker wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    the DoJ maybe should take the lead on civil suits brought against the President?

    Imagine a not rich President. Now imagine that they have to defend themselves from every civil suit brought against them. Now imagine how Republicans would weaponize that. If that seems outlandish it really should not given that it has potentially happened already with Clinton.

    This doesn’t mean the president should be immune but having the state handle defense prevents politically motivated cases from having impact on the presidency while also allowing the normal course of justice to unfold.

    On the other hand this is clearly naked corruption by Barr. There is neither need nor precedence for this change and it was not pursued at an appropriate time. The only purpose it has is to induce delay into the process.


    I'm pretty sure that lawyers would break off their pinky toe to have an opportunity to represent the president pro bono, particularly if it means that they can counter sue.

    Pro-bono work is also gift, which, while the President is not prohibited from receiving, is similarly an issue as with debts. It doesn’t really make it better if the President is is indebted and then forgiven or if they accept millions of dollars of legal work for free.

    The campaign could pay for it, though that again, has other issues (can they do so after the campaign is over and there is no campaign to run? How are funds held in reserve disbursed etc etc. which have their own corruption issues.

    None of which seem as corrupting as placing the President above the bounds of the Law while in office. Especially for non-official acts.

    He wouldn’t be above the bounds of the law he would just be defended by the DoJ

    Who have legal protections that are not afforded other litigants. Before we even get into potential conflicts of interest for US Attorneys acting as prosecutors and also the President's personal defense lawyer.

    The DoJ acting as lawyers for someone else is not a litigant. I don’t see the conflict of interest either...

    Edit: what protections are you talking about anyway?

    They can open up an investigation on the person or entity suing the President. And can do that while still having to engage in Discovery for the initial suit, which gives them fishing expedition access to a lot of information that would otherwise be protected without a warrant.

    Sovereign immunity for everything they do as the President's personal defense attorney since it would be in their capacity as an official act.

    The ability of the DoJ to defend the president in a civil suit does not give or remove their ability to investigate people suing the president. Like, sure the DoJ can be corrupt like that but they can be corrupt like that regardless

    I did not suggest sovereign immunity I suggested that the DoJ should defend the pres in civil court

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • AimAim Registered User regular
    Seems simpler for the government to be able to pay fees for defense attorney(s) to allow a destitute president access to a decent defense than have the DOJ take over.

  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Goum, do you not see the inherent problems with how the president is being represented by ostensibly the same organization that is supposed to seek justice against him in a court case potentially overseen by a judge appointed by him?

    He does, it just doesn't fit his narrative.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2020
    And the attempt to invoke the Westfall Act has been initially rejected:
    A federal judge on Tuesday denied the Justice Department's effort to intervene in a defamation lawsuit brought against President Donald Trump by a longtime magazine columnist who has alleged he raped her, paving the way for the case to proceed.

    Edit: Ruling can be read here. The judge makes two key points - one, the President is not an "employee" as per the Act; and two, his comments do not fall under the purview of his "employment".

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2020
    And this gets even crazier:
    The Justice Department was set to face questions from a federal judge on Wednesday about the government’s unusual effort to take over President Donald Trump’s private defense against a defamation lawsuit filed by the writer and columnist E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of rape.

    But less than an hour before the hearing was supposed to begin, the DOJ lawyer who was going to argue asked for a delay, saying that he’d been turned away from the Manhattan federal courthouse that morning because he hadn’t complied with the state’s coronavirus travel restrictions. The judge gave DOJ three options: send another lawyer to the courthouse, argue by phone, or cancel the hearing altogether and have the judge decide on each side’s written briefs alone.

    The Justice Department went for the last option, ending the proceeding shortly after it began.

    The last-minute switch means the judge won’t get a chance to publicly probe the Justice Department’s extraordinary step last month of seeking to take over Trump’s defense against Carroll’s libel case, arguing that Trump “was acting within the scope of his office as President of the United States” when he denied Carroll’s allegation that he raped her decades before. Nor will Carroll’s lawyers get to argue in court on her behalf and challenge the government’s position.

    The DoJ cut their own legal throats last week, because they refused to have a phone conference.

    Edit: TL; DR: DoJ tries to turn fucking up on COVID-19 restrictions into a delaying tactic, judge refuses to play along, DoJ pouts and takes their ball home, gets rude wake up call the following week.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    And this gets even crazier:
    The Justice Department was set to face questions from a federal judge on Wednesday about the government’s unusual effort to take over President Donald Trump’s private defense against a defamation lawsuit filed by the writer and columnist E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of rape.

    But less than an hour before the hearing was supposed to begin, the DOJ lawyer who was going to argue asked for a delay, saying that he’d been turned away from the Manhattan federal courthouse that morning because he hadn’t complied with the state’s coronavirus travel restrictions. The judge gave DOJ three options: send another lawyer to the courthouse, argue by phone, or cancel the hearing altogether and have the judge decide on each side’s written briefs alone.

    The Justice Department went for the last option, ending the proceeding shortly after it began.

    The last-minute switch means the judge won’t get a chance to publicly probe the Justice Department’s extraordinary step last month of seeking to take over Trump’s defense against Carroll’s libel case, arguing that Trump “was acting within the scope of his office as President of the United States” when he denied Carroll’s allegation that he raped her decades before. Nor will Carroll’s lawyers get to argue in court on her behalf and challenge the government’s position.

    The DoJ cut their own legal throats last week, because they refused to have a phone conference.

    Edit: TL; DR: DoJ tries to turn fucking up on COVID-19 restrictions into a delaying tactic, judge refuses to play along, DoJ pouts and takes their ball home, gets rude wake up call the following week.

    "I can't believe I got out of having to make this dumbass argument that easily." - That lawyer, probably.

  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Doc wrote: »
    And this gets even crazier:
    The Justice Department was set to face questions from a federal judge on Wednesday about the government’s unusual effort to take over President Donald Trump’s private defense against a defamation lawsuit filed by the writer and columnist E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of rape.

    But less than an hour before the hearing was supposed to begin, the DOJ lawyer who was going to argue asked for a delay, saying that he’d been turned away from the Manhattan federal courthouse that morning because he hadn’t complied with the state’s coronavirus travel restrictions. The judge gave DOJ three options: send another lawyer to the courthouse, argue by phone, or cancel the hearing altogether and have the judge decide on each side’s written briefs alone.

    The Justice Department went for the last option, ending the proceeding shortly after it began.

    The last-minute switch means the judge won’t get a chance to publicly probe the Justice Department’s extraordinary step last month of seeking to take over Trump’s defense against Carroll’s libel case, arguing that Trump “was acting within the scope of his office as President of the United States” when he denied Carroll’s allegation that he raped her decades before. Nor will Carroll’s lawyers get to argue in court on her behalf and challenge the government’s position.

    The DoJ cut their own legal throats last week, because they refused to have a phone conference.

    Edit: TL; DR: DoJ tries to turn fucking up on COVID-19 restrictions into a delaying tactic, judge refuses to play along, DoJ pouts and takes their ball home, gets rude wake up call the following week.

    "I can't believe I got out of having to make this dumbass argument that easily." - That lawyer, probably.

    This is 100% how I take this

  • SiliconStewSiliconStew Registered User regular
    Doc wrote: »
    And this gets even crazier:
    The Justice Department was set to face questions from a federal judge on Wednesday about the government’s unusual effort to take over President Donald Trump’s private defense against a defamation lawsuit filed by the writer and columnist E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of rape.

    But less than an hour before the hearing was supposed to begin, the DOJ lawyer who was going to argue asked for a delay, saying that he’d been turned away from the Manhattan federal courthouse that morning because he hadn’t complied with the state’s coronavirus travel restrictions. The judge gave DOJ three options: send another lawyer to the courthouse, argue by phone, or cancel the hearing altogether and have the judge decide on each side’s written briefs alone.

    The Justice Department went for the last option, ending the proceeding shortly after it began.

    The last-minute switch means the judge won’t get a chance to publicly probe the Justice Department’s extraordinary step last month of seeking to take over Trump’s defense against Carroll’s libel case, arguing that Trump “was acting within the scope of his office as President of the United States” when he denied Carroll’s allegation that he raped her decades before. Nor will Carroll’s lawyers get to argue in court on her behalf and challenge the government’s position.

    The DoJ cut their own legal throats last week, because they refused to have a phone conference.

    Edit: TL; DR: DoJ tries to turn fucking up on COVID-19 restrictions into a delaying tactic, judge refuses to play along, DoJ pouts and takes their ball home, gets rude wake up call the following week.

    "I can't believe I got out of having to make this dumbass argument that easily." - That lawyer, probably.

    This is 100% how I take this

    My cynical take is "we don't care what happens at this stage, our intent has always been to appeal to scotus to rule the president is immune to all lawsuits and prosecutions for all activities past, present, and future."

    Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    Doc wrote: »
    And this gets even crazier:
    The Justice Department was set to face questions from a federal judge on Wednesday about the government’s unusual effort to take over President Donald Trump’s private defense against a defamation lawsuit filed by the writer and columnist E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of rape.

    But less than an hour before the hearing was supposed to begin, the DOJ lawyer who was going to argue asked for a delay, saying that he’d been turned away from the Manhattan federal courthouse that morning because he hadn’t complied with the state’s coronavirus travel restrictions. The judge gave DOJ three options: send another lawyer to the courthouse, argue by phone, or cancel the hearing altogether and have the judge decide on each side’s written briefs alone.

    The Justice Department went for the last option, ending the proceeding shortly after it began.

    The last-minute switch means the judge won’t get a chance to publicly probe the Justice Department’s extraordinary step last month of seeking to take over Trump’s defense against Carroll’s libel case, arguing that Trump “was acting within the scope of his office as President of the United States” when he denied Carroll’s allegation that he raped her decades before. Nor will Carroll’s lawyers get to argue in court on her behalf and challenge the government’s position.

    The DoJ cut their own legal throats last week, because they refused to have a phone conference.

    Edit: TL; DR: DoJ tries to turn fucking up on COVID-19 restrictions into a delaying tactic, judge refuses to play along, DoJ pouts and takes their ball home, gets rude wake up call the following week.

    "I can't believe I got out of having to make this dumbass argument that easily." - That lawyer, probably.

    This is 100% how I take this

    My cynical take is "we don't care what happens at this stage, our intent has always been to appeal to scotus to rule the president is immune to all lawsuits and prosecutions for all activities past, present, and future."

    Which, given that Trump keeps insisting Obama be arrested, is yet another square on hypocrisy bingo.

  • evilmrhenryevilmrhenry Registered User regular
    Doc wrote: »
    And this gets even crazier:
    The Justice Department was set to face questions from a federal judge on Wednesday about the government’s unusual effort to take over President Donald Trump’s private defense against a defamation lawsuit filed by the writer and columnist E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of rape.

    But less than an hour before the hearing was supposed to begin, the DOJ lawyer who was going to argue asked for a delay, saying that he’d been turned away from the Manhattan federal courthouse that morning because he hadn’t complied with the state’s coronavirus travel restrictions. The judge gave DOJ three options: send another lawyer to the courthouse, argue by phone, or cancel the hearing altogether and have the judge decide on each side’s written briefs alone.

    The Justice Department went for the last option, ending the proceeding shortly after it began.

    The last-minute switch means the judge won’t get a chance to publicly probe the Justice Department’s extraordinary step last month of seeking to take over Trump’s defense against Carroll’s libel case, arguing that Trump “was acting within the scope of his office as President of the United States” when he denied Carroll’s allegation that he raped her decades before. Nor will Carroll’s lawyers get to argue in court on her behalf and challenge the government’s position.

    The DoJ cut their own legal throats last week, because they refused to have a phone conference.

    Edit: TL; DR: DoJ tries to turn fucking up on COVID-19 restrictions into a delaying tactic, judge refuses to play along, DoJ pouts and takes their ball home, gets rude wake up call the following week.

    "I can't believe I got out of having to make this dumbass argument that easily." - That lawyer, probably.

    This is 100% how I take this

    My cynical take is "we don't care what happens at this stage, our intent has always been to appeal to scotus to rule the president is immune to all lawsuits and prosecutions for all activities past, present, and future."

    My cynical take is that the orders are to delay this enough that any damaging headlines come after the election.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Judge to feds: "Why are you still here?":


    Federal judge to TheJusticeDept:

    Get out of the docket in EJeanCarroll's lawsuit against realDonaldTrump.

    The DOJ aren't his lawyers anymore.

    Trump's private attorneys are.
    The author is a reporter specializing in legal matters.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • WiseManTobesWiseManTobes Registered User regular
    Does this mean his new defense is just Rudy?

    Steam! Battlenet:Wisemantobes#1508
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    Does this mean his new defense is just Rudy?

    That'd be news to him. Let's check in on how he-

    ozozdwM.jpg

  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    I hope Rudy Giuliani is defending Trump from the wolves in the SDNY who want his ass for tax fraud.

  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    Lawyers are only abandoning his election efforts, as far as I know his other lawyers haven't quit on him yet.

  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Hevach wrote: »
    Lawyers are only abandoning his election efforts, as far as I know his other lawyers haven't quit on him yet.

    :(

Sign In or Register to comment.