New, with more to come: DOJ under Biden is keeping up the previous admin's effort to take over Trump's defense against a defamation lawsuit filed by writer E. Jean Carroll — an effort Biden criticized during the campaign.
This is the latest case that tests DOJ's traditional role of defending the power and prerogatives of the executive branch — any executive branch, regardless of president. What's unusual is that Biden had weighed in on this case specifically.
Carroll sued Trump in state court in New York in November 2019. Trump had litigated the case for months using privately retained lawyers. In September, however, DOJ filed notice that it was moving the case to federal court and intended to take over Trump’s legal defense on behalf of the US government.
The department argued at the time that Trump was covered by a federal law that protects federal employees from being sued as individuals over actions they take as part of their work, known as the Westfall Act. When Trump, as president, denied Carroll’s allegation and accused her of making it up to sell copies of her book, the Justice Department argued that this law applied.
If DOJ succeeded, the US government would become the defendant instead of Trump as an individual. That would likely end the lawsuit, since the government is shielded by a legal principle known as “sovereign immunity” against a range of civil claims, including libel.
...
Carroll's lawyer Roberta Kaplan also issued a statement saying they were confident they'd win on appeal.
"It is horrific that Donald Trump raped E. Jean Carroll in a New York City department store many years ago. But it is truly shocking that the current Department of Justice would allow Donald Trump to get away with lying about it, thereby depriving our client of her day in court. The DOJ’s position is not only legally wrong, it is morally wrong since it would give federal officials free license to cover up private sexual misconduct by publicly brutalizing any woman who has the courage to come forward. Calling a woman you sexually assaulted a ‘liar,’ a ‘slut,’ or ‘not my type,’ as Donald Trump did here, is not the official act of an American president," Kaplan said.
Like, I can kinda see their logic if I look at it sideways in a full moon with the lens turned just so. I think they are honestly just trying to get the precedent that the pres can use doj as his lawyers for "future" things. It's still shit.
New, with more to come: DOJ under Biden is keeping up the previous admin's effort to take over Trump's defense against a defamation lawsuit filed by writer E. Jean Carroll — an effort Biden criticized during the campaign.
This is the latest case that tests DOJ's traditional role of defending the power and prerogatives of the executive branch — any executive branch, regardless of president. What's unusual is that Biden had weighed in on this case specifically.
Carroll sued Trump in state court in New York in November 2019. Trump had litigated the case for months using privately retained lawyers. In September, however, DOJ filed notice that it was moving the case to federal court and intended to take over Trump’s legal defense on behalf of the US government.
The department argued at the time that Trump was covered by a federal law that protects federal employees from being sued as individuals over actions they take as part of their work, known as the Westfall Act. When Trump, as president, denied Carroll’s allegation and accused her of making it up to sell copies of her book, the Justice Department argued that this law applied.
If DOJ succeeded, the US government would become the defendant instead of Trump as an individual. That would likely end the lawsuit, since the government is shielded by a legal principle known as “sovereign immunity” against a range of civil claims, including libel.
...
Carroll's lawyer Roberta Kaplan also issued a statement saying they were confident they'd win on appeal.
"It is horrific that Donald Trump raped E. Jean Carroll in a New York City department store many years ago. But it is truly shocking that the current Department of Justice would allow Donald Trump to get away with lying about it, thereby depriving our client of her day in court. The DOJ’s position is not only legally wrong, it is morally wrong since it would give federal officials free license to cover up private sexual misconduct by publicly brutalizing any woman who has the courage to come forward. Calling a woman you sexually assaulted a ‘liar,’ a ‘slut,’ or ‘not my type,’ as Donald Trump did here, is not the official act of an American president," Kaplan said.
Twitter is on fire at the moment, over this.
However, there's an argument that the DOJ are wanting it both ways. They don't want to open up a precedent by actively choosing to do so, but they're also hoping that the judge overrules them, and it's a "we were forced to comply". It's a stupid position to take, but Washington brain (like Mueller going for the letter of the law, yet clearly hoping that he'd be forced into saying something, and Congress would be forced to do something) seems to remain an issue. That the Republicans can no longer be shamed into doing something, and Democrats don't have the procedural power due to the filibuster, and some asshole Democrats, doesn't change the bureaucracy wanting to keep a level of distance.
And it's not like Trump would be paying for this lawsuit. He'd either crowdfund it and get his gullible lackeys to pay for it, or he'd get someone looking to curry favor to do it for him. Sure, either is better than the taxpayer doing it, but it's not like Trump was going to be financially hit over this if the DOJ position is overturned.
This is a pretty bad look and doesn't make a lot of sense, even with the DoJ justification that was given.
I have to assume that the actual reasoning behind this are very inside baseball and have much less to do with Trump vs. the unintended consequences of not fighting it.
But I can also see the DoJ continuing this so the outcome of the case sets a black and white precedent (that granted, the next Trump administration will fight / ignore if it serves them, but at least it'll be there).
Also @enlightenedbum can you revise the title to 'Former' president or something similar?
It was jarring for a second - especially with how people have tried to 'both the same' the one discredited Tara Reade allegations and the mountain of credible Trump rape allegations.
there's a lot more to it than tara reade, who was not discredited
The Biden Administration's DOJ doesn't have to continue to argue/represent for every case that had been started under the Trump Administration's DOJ.
It doesn't, but the argument is, like copyright protection, if you don't actively defend it, you weaken the strength of your argument to do so in future.
This isn't likely "We think what the previous guy did was fine". More "We're protecting the institution, not the man."
I get that it's frustrating, and stupid, and annoying as fuck that the previous guy put the DOJ in this position. But I can see their point, even if I vehemently disagree with it.
Trump should be Wonka "Good day sir'd" out of government. But then we force the DOJ into having to make political choices on who to defend, and that's not something I'm sure is viable.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
This is a pretty bad look and doesn't make a lot of sense, even with the DoJ justification that was given.
I have to assume that the actual reasoning behind this are very inside baseball and have much less to do with Trump vs. the unintended consequences of not fighting it.
But I can also see the DoJ continuing this so the outcome of the case sets a black and white precedent (that granted, the next Trump administration will fight / ignore if it serves them, but at least it'll be there).
The reasoning the DOJ is giving seems fairly straightforward to me. Is there some legal reason why it's not sound?
Also @enlightenedbum can you revise the title to 'Former' president or something similar?
It was jarring for a second - especially with how people have tried to 'both the same' the one discredited Tara Reade allegations and the mountain of credible Trump rape allegations.
Vanity is the most conspicuous characteristic of US Senators en bloc , nourished by deferential acolytes and often expressed in loutish sexual advances to staffers, interns and the like. On more than one occasion CounterPunch’s editors have listened to vivid accounts by the recipient of just such advances, this staffer of another senator being accosted by Biden in the well of the senate in the weeks immediately following his first wife’s fatal car accident.
This is a pretty bad look and doesn't make a lot of sense, even with the DoJ justification that was given.
I have to assume that the actual reasoning behind this are very inside baseball and have much less to do with Trump vs. the unintended consequences of not fighting it.
But I can also see the DoJ continuing this so the outcome of the case sets a black and white precedent (that granted, the next Trump administration will fight / ignore if it serves them, but at least it'll be there).
The reasoning the DOJ is giving seems fairly straightforward to me. Is there some legal reason why it's not sound?
Rather, the lawyers wrote, because they believe Trump was an employee of the government and that he acted "within the scope of employment," the department, rather than Trump personally, should serve as defendant in the case.
In submitting the brief Monday, the department continued the argument it has been making for months: that a president's comments are an official function of his job, even if they pertain to a personal matter.
This part is bullshit. The President mouthing off and insulting / slandering someone who has a case against him unrelated to his job is not in any sense "within the scope of his employment"
+28
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
Rather, the lawyers wrote, because they believe Trump was an employee of the government and that he acted "within the scope of employment," the department, rather than Trump personally, should serve as defendant in the case.
In submitting the brief Monday, the department continued the argument it has been making for months: that a president's comments are an official function of his job, even if they pertain to a personal matter.
This part is bullshit. The President mouthing off and insulting / slandering someone who has a case against him unrelated to his job is not in any sense "within the scope of his employment"
then the court can decide that this was outside of scope.
I don't think this is as cut and dry as we would like it to be.
Rather, the lawyers wrote, because they believe Trump was an employee of the government and that he acted "within the scope of employment," the department, rather than Trump personally, should serve as defendant in the case.
In submitting the brief Monday, the department continued the argument it has been making for months: that a president's comments are an official function of his job, even if they pertain to a personal matter.
This part is bullshit. The President mouthing off and insulting / slandering someone who has a case against him unrelated to his job is not in any sense "within the scope of his employment"
Rather, the lawyers wrote, because they believe Trump was an employee of the government and that he acted "within the scope of employment," the department, rather than Trump personally, should serve as defendant in the case.
In submitting the brief Monday, the department continued the argument it has been making for months: that a president's comments are an official function of his job, even if they pertain to a personal matter.
This part is bullshit. The President mouthing off and insulting / slandering someone who has a case against him unrelated to his job is not in any sense "within the scope of his employment"
also, this was long before he was president ....
The slandering specifically, not the actual act.
+2
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
Rather, the lawyers wrote, because they believe Trump was an employee of the government and that he acted "within the scope of employment," the department, rather than Trump personally, should serve as defendant in the case.
In submitting the brief Monday, the department continued the argument it has been making for months: that a president's comments are an official function of his job, even if they pertain to a personal matter.
This part is bullshit. The President mouthing off and insulting / slandering someone who has a case against him unrelated to his job is not in any sense "within the scope of his employment"
Rather, the lawyers wrote, because they believe Trump was an employee of the government and that he acted "within the scope of employment," the department, rather than Trump personally, should serve as defendant in the case.
In submitting the brief Monday, the department continued the argument it has been making for months: that a president's comments are an official function of his job, even if they pertain to a personal matter.
This part is bullshit. The President mouthing off and insulting / slandering someone who has a case against him unrelated to his job is not in any sense "within the scope of his employment"
then the court can decide that this was outside of scope.
I don't think this is as cut and dry as we would like it to be.
It’s the DOJ. They are also capable of making a determination regarding what fits within the scope of elected officials’ employment, and they do so with regularity.
The idea that insulting or slandering someone from an elected office falls within the scope of their job is prima facie absurd.
Rather, the lawyers wrote, because they believe Trump was an employee of the government and that he acted "within the scope of employment," the department, rather than Trump personally, should serve as defendant in the case.
In submitting the brief Monday, the department continued the argument it has been making for months: that a president's comments are an official function of his job, even if they pertain to a personal matter.
This part is bullshit. The President mouthing off and insulting / slandering someone who has a case against him unrelated to his job is not in any sense "within the scope of his employment"
then the court can decide that this was outside of scope.
I don't think this is as cut and dry as we would like it to be.
It’s the DOJ. They are also capable of making a determination regarding what fits within the scope of elected officials’ employment, and they do so with regularity.
The idea that insulting or slandering someone from an elected office falls within the scope of their job is prima facie absurd.
If the President is giving a statement on some sort of official government function, and the subjects of that function decided it was slander I could see covering it. But just randomly mouthing off at someone not in that kind of context? No.
+6
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
Rather, the lawyers wrote, because they believe Trump was an employee of the government and that he acted "within the scope of employment," the department, rather than Trump personally, should serve as defendant in the case.
In submitting the brief Monday, the department continued the argument it has been making for months: that a president's comments are an official function of his job, even if they pertain to a personal matter.
This part is bullshit. The President mouthing off and insulting / slandering someone who has a case against him unrelated to his job is not in any sense "within the scope of his employment"
then the court can decide that this was outside of scope.
I don't think this is as cut and dry as we would like it to be.
It’s the DOJ. They are also capable of making a determination regarding what fits within the scope of elected officials’ employment, and they do so with regularity.
The idea that insulting or slandering someone from an elected office falls within the scope of their job is prima facie absurd.
let's engage in a hypothetical. Joe Biden goes off on a rant when asked by a reporter about billionaires who don't pay taxes. he says:
"man, fuck Jeff Bezos. that shitbird hasn't paid taxes in fucking forever. he's a piece of shit and everyone should let him know it."
and then Bezos sued Biden for slander.
Should the DOJ just walk away from it? Or should they not?
Like, I get the argument that we don't want to make the POTUS vulnerable to being swamped with lawsuits that could bankrupt them and/or distract them from the necessary functions of governance. But Trump is not the best example to hinge that argument upon; if anything, he showed that the presidency is a good way to get out of culpability both for crimes committed prior to entering office and during his tenure.
And when it comes to actual rape, something he continues to be accused of, I think We The People have a vested interest in keeping elected office from being a "safe zone" from those accusations, since the only recourse for ejecting someone has proven to be completely inadequate unless it is overwhelmingly partisan.
If the DOJ absolutely must defend Trump in this case for institutional reasons or whatever, can't they just half-ass it? Like, they are legally required to be there but they are not going to actually try very hard or do anything beyond the bare minimum because fuck Donald Trump?
Surely they can do that in a way that's not so obvious so they can have token deniability.
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
Like, I get the argument that we don't want to make the POTUS vulnerable to being swamped with lawsuits that could bankrupt them and/or distract them from the necessary functions of governance. But Trump is not the best example to hinge that argument upon; if anything, he showed that the presidency is a good way to get out of culpability both for crimes committed prior to entering office and during his tenure.
And when it comes to actual rape, something he continues to be accused of, I think We The People have a vested interest in keeping elected office from being a "safe zone" from those accusations, since the only recourse for ejecting someone has proven to be completely inadequate unless it is overwhelmingly partisan.
the lawsuit isn't about the rape. it's about his conduct as president.
that's the crux of the issue here.
he's a rapist piece of shit. that's functionally irrelevant from the DOJ position.
edit
like, I'm not saying that the DOJ is right here. but i am saying that they have to do their due diligence and I really can't fault the argument presented in the CNN summary i linked.
Rather, the lawyers wrote, because they believe Trump was an employee of the government and that he acted "within the scope of employment," the department, rather than Trump personally, should serve as defendant in the case.
In submitting the brief Monday, the department continued the argument it has been making for months: that a president's comments are an official function of his job, even if they pertain to a personal matter.
This part is bullshit. The President mouthing off and insulting / slandering someone who has a case against him unrelated to his job is not in any sense "within the scope of his employment"
then the court can decide that this was outside of scope.
I don't think this is as cut and dry as we would like it to be.
It’s the DOJ. They are also capable of making a determination regarding what fits within the scope of elected officials’ employment, and they do so with regularity.
The idea that insulting or slandering someone from an elected office falls within the scope of their job is prima facie absurd.
let's engage in a hypothetical. Joe Biden goes off on a rant when asked by a reporter about billionaires who don't pay taxes. he says:
"man, fuck Jeff Bezos. that shitbird hasn't paid taxes in fucking forever. he's a piece of shit and everyone should let him know it."
and then Bezos sued Biden for slander.
Should the DOJ just walk away from it? Or should they not?
why?
Personally, I think Biden is a big boy that can make big boy decisions and doesn't need the taxpayers to foot the bill for him if he decides he isn't going to behave like an adult in office.
I don't think we've had a president yet that couldn't afford to pay a private attorney to handle things like that, and just because Trump is a manchild that stole from taxpayers at every possible turn it doesn't mean that should set a precedent for how the president should behave in the future.
Rather, the lawyers wrote, because they believe Trump was an employee of the government and that he acted "within the scope of employment," the department, rather than Trump personally, should serve as defendant in the case.
In submitting the brief Monday, the department continued the argument it has been making for months: that a president's comments are an official function of his job, even if they pertain to a personal matter.
This part is bullshit. The President mouthing off and insulting / slandering someone who has a case against him unrelated to his job is not in any sense "within the scope of his employment"
then the court can decide that this was outside of scope.
I don't think this is as cut and dry as we would like it to be.
It’s the DOJ. They are also capable of making a determination regarding what fits within the scope of elected officials’ employment, and they do so with regularity.
The idea that insulting or slandering someone from an elected office falls within the scope of their job is prima facie absurd.
let's engage in a hypothetical. Joe Biden goes off on a rant when asked by a reporter about billionaires who don't pay taxes. he says:
"man, fuck Jeff Bezos. that shitbird hasn't paid taxes in fucking forever. he's a piece of shit and everyone should let him know it."
and then Bezos sued Biden for slander.
Should the DOJ just walk away from it? Or should they not?
why?
If that's an actual concern, just make speeches given during official functions (e.g. in Congress) automatically not slander.
Interviews, etc, are not official functions, and should not be protected by the government.
This work well for us in Canada. You can even compare what politicians say inside and outside the House of Commons to figure out what they can and cannot prove.
Rather, the lawyers wrote, because they believe Trump was an employee of the government and that he acted "within the scope of employment," the department, rather than Trump personally, should serve as defendant in the case.
In submitting the brief Monday, the department continued the argument it has been making for months: that a president's comments are an official function of his job, even if they pertain to a personal matter.
This part is bullshit. The President mouthing off and insulting / slandering someone who has a case against him unrelated to his job is not in any sense "within the scope of his employment"
then the court can decide that this was outside of scope.
I don't think this is as cut and dry as we would like it to be.
It’s the DOJ. They are also capable of making a determination regarding what fits within the scope of elected officials’ employment, and they do so with regularity.
The idea that insulting or slandering someone from an elected office falls within the scope of their job is prima facie absurd.
let's engage in a hypothetical. Joe Biden goes off on a rant when asked by a reporter about billionaires who don't pay taxes. he says:
"man, fuck Jeff Bezos. that shitbird hasn't paid taxes in fucking forever. he's a piece of shit and everyone should let him know it."
and then Bezos sued Biden for slander.
Should the DOJ just walk away from it? Or should they not?
why?
If that's an actual concern, just make speeches given during official functions (e.g. in Congress) automatically not slander.
Interviews, etc, are not official functions, and should not be protected by the government.
This work well for us in Canada. You can even compare what politicians say inside and outside the House of Commons to figure out what they can and cannot prove.
Rather, the lawyers wrote, because they believe Trump was an employee of the government and that he acted "within the scope of employment," the department, rather than Trump personally, should serve as defendant in the case.
In submitting the brief Monday, the department continued the argument it has been making for months: that a president's comments are an official function of his job, even if they pertain to a personal matter.
This part is bullshit. The President mouthing off and insulting / slandering someone who has a case against him unrelated to his job is not in any sense "within the scope of his employment"
then the court can decide that this was outside of scope.
I don't think this is as cut and dry as we would like it to be.
It’s the DOJ. They are also capable of making a determination regarding what fits within the scope of elected officials’ employment, and they do so with regularity.
The idea that insulting or slandering someone from an elected office falls within the scope of their job is prima facie absurd.
let's engage in a hypothetical. Joe Biden goes off on a rant when asked by a reporter about billionaires who don't pay taxes. he says:
"man, fuck Jeff Bezos. that shitbird hasn't paid taxes in fucking forever. he's a piece of shit and everyone should let him know it."
and then Bezos sued Biden for slander.
Should the DOJ just walk away from it? Or should they not?
why?
If that's an actual concern, just make speeches given during official functions (e.g. in Congress) automatically not slander.
Interviews, etc, are not official functions, and should not be protected by the government.
This work well for us in Canada. You can even compare what politicians say inside and outside the House of Commons to figure out what they can and cannot prove.
yes. laws are different in other countries.
this doesn't help with this instance.
Then the DOJ should not act as the president lawyers. Problem solved.
+3
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
Rather, the lawyers wrote, because they believe Trump was an employee of the government and that he acted "within the scope of employment," the department, rather than Trump personally, should serve as defendant in the case.
In submitting the brief Monday, the department continued the argument it has been making for months: that a president's comments are an official function of his job, even if they pertain to a personal matter.
This part is bullshit. The President mouthing off and insulting / slandering someone who has a case against him unrelated to his job is not in any sense "within the scope of his employment"
then the court can decide that this was outside of scope.
I don't think this is as cut and dry as we would like it to be.
It’s the DOJ. They are also capable of making a determination regarding what fits within the scope of elected officials’ employment, and they do so with regularity.
The idea that insulting or slandering someone from an elected office falls within the scope of their job is prima facie absurd.
let's engage in a hypothetical. Joe Biden goes off on a rant when asked by a reporter about billionaires who don't pay taxes. he says:
"man, fuck Jeff Bezos. that shitbird hasn't paid taxes in fucking forever. he's a piece of shit and everyone should let him know it."
and then Bezos sued Biden for slander.
Should the DOJ just walk away from it? Or should they not?
why?
If that's an actual concern, just make speeches given during official functions (e.g. in Congress) automatically not slander.
Interviews, etc, are not official functions, and should not be protected by the government.
This work well for us in Canada. You can even compare what politicians say inside and outside the House of Commons to figure out what they can and cannot prove.
yes. laws are different in other countries.
this doesn't help with this instance.
Then the DOJ should not act as the president lawyers. Problem solved.
they are defending the office of the president. not the president itself. that is the assertion.
i really think everyone needs to take a step back from this being trump and the nature of the crime he is likely guilty of and evaluate the actual position being made.
Is the presidents speech protected or not? what is the scope of that protection? does the DOJ have the right to unilaterally decide the extent of that scope?
Rather, the lawyers wrote, because they believe Trump was an employee of the government and that he acted "within the scope of employment," the department, rather than Trump personally, should serve as defendant in the case.
In submitting the brief Monday, the department continued the argument it has been making for months: that a president's comments are an official function of his job, even if they pertain to a personal matter.
This part is bullshit. The President mouthing off and insulting / slandering someone who has a case against him unrelated to his job is not in any sense "within the scope of his employment"
then the court can decide that this was outside of scope.
I don't think this is as cut and dry as we would like it to be.
It’s the DOJ. They are also capable of making a determination regarding what fits within the scope of elected officials’ employment, and they do so with regularity.
The idea that insulting or slandering someone from an elected office falls within the scope of their job is prima facie absurd.
let's engage in a hypothetical. Joe Biden goes off on a rant when asked by a reporter about billionaires who don't pay taxes. he says:
"man, fuck Jeff Bezos. that shitbird hasn't paid taxes in fucking forever. he's a piece of shit and everyone should let him know it."
and then Bezos sued Biden for slander.
Should the DOJ just walk away from it? Or should they not?
why?
If that's an actual concern, just make speeches given during official functions (e.g. in Congress) automatically not slander.
Interviews, etc, are not official functions, and should not be protected by the government.
This work well for us in Canada. You can even compare what politicians say inside and outside the House of Commons to figure out what they can and cannot prove.
yes. laws are different in other countries.
this doesn't help with this instance.
Then the DOJ should not act as the president lawyers. Problem solved.
they are defending the office of the president. not the president itself. that is the assertion.
i really think everyone needs to take a step back from this being trump and the nature of the crime he is likely guilty of and evaluate the actual position being made.
Is the presidents speech protected or not? what is the scope of that protection? does the DOJ have the right to unilaterally decide the extent of that scope?
The president is no more protected than anyone else, and should not be more protected than anyone else.
+1
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
sorry, at what point did this become a free speech issue?
+4
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
Rather, the lawyers wrote, because they believe Trump was an employee of the government and that he acted "within the scope of employment," the department, rather than Trump personally, should serve as defendant in the case.
In submitting the brief Monday, the department continued the argument it has been making for months: that a president's comments are an official function of his job, even if they pertain to a personal matter.
This part is bullshit. The President mouthing off and insulting / slandering someone who has a case against him unrelated to his job is not in any sense "within the scope of his employment"
then the court can decide that this was outside of scope.
I don't think this is as cut and dry as we would like it to be.
It’s the DOJ. They are also capable of making a determination regarding what fits within the scope of elected officials’ employment, and they do so with regularity.
The idea that insulting or slandering someone from an elected office falls within the scope of their job is prima facie absurd.
let's engage in a hypothetical. Joe Biden goes off on a rant when asked by a reporter about billionaires who don't pay taxes. he says:
"man, fuck Jeff Bezos. that shitbird hasn't paid taxes in fucking forever. he's a piece of shit and everyone should let him know it."
and then Bezos sued Biden for slander.
Should the DOJ just walk away from it? Or should they not?
why?
If that's an actual concern, just make speeches given during official functions (e.g. in Congress) automatically not slander.
Interviews, etc, are not official functions, and should not be protected by the government.
This work well for us in Canada. You can even compare what politicians say inside and outside the House of Commons to figure out what they can and cannot prove.
yes. laws are different in other countries.
this doesn't help with this instance.
Then the DOJ should not act as the president lawyers. Problem solved.
they are defending the office of the president. not the president itself. that is the assertion.
i really think everyone needs to take a step back from this being trump and the nature of the crime he is likely guilty of and evaluate the actual position being made.
Is the presidents speech protected or not? what is the scope of that protection? does the DOJ have the right to unilaterally decide the extent of that scope?
The president is no more protected than anyone else, and should not be more protected than anyone else.
well, you're wrong. there's no polite way to say it.
Doesn't the white house have lawyers for this distinct problem already? Like I thought all of this type of shit fell under white house council which operates separately from the DoJ? The whole problem with the DoJ getting involved in defending the president is that the DoJ is supposed to be a mostly prosecutorial organization.
Posts
Hope they're only representing him prepaid.
Y'all were wondering how Trump was going to pay for the defense in the E. Jean Carroll lawsuit? Well...
From the article:
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
"institutional interests"
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Twitter is on fire at the moment, over this.
However, there's an argument that the DOJ are wanting it both ways. They don't want to open up a precedent by actively choosing to do so, but they're also hoping that the judge overrules them, and it's a "we were forced to comply". It's a stupid position to take, but Washington brain (like Mueller going for the letter of the law, yet clearly hoping that he'd be forced into saying something, and Congress would be forced to do something) seems to remain an issue. That the Republicans can no longer be shamed into doing something, and Democrats don't have the procedural power due to the filibuster, and some asshole Democrats, doesn't change the bureaucracy wanting to keep a level of distance.
And it's not like Trump would be paying for this lawsuit. He'd either crowdfund it and get his gullible lackeys to pay for it, or he'd get someone looking to curry favor to do it for him. Sure, either is better than the taxpayer doing it, but it's not like Trump was going to be financially hit over this if the DOJ position is overturned.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I have to assume that the actual reasoning behind this are very inside baseball and have much less to do with Trump vs. the unintended consequences of not fighting it.
But I can also see the DoJ continuing this so the outcome of the case sets a black and white precedent (that granted, the next Trump administration will fight / ignore if it serves them, but at least it'll be there).
It was jarring for a second - edit - just stop.
Honestly just save this to the clipboard because it's usable multiple times daily
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
there's a lot more to it than tara reade, who was not discredited
hitting hot metal with hammers
It doesn't, but the argument is, like copyright protection, if you don't actively defend it, you weaken the strength of your argument to do so in future.
This isn't likely "We think what the previous guy did was fine". More "We're protecting the institution, not the man."
I get that it's frustrating, and stupid, and annoying as fuck that the previous guy put the DOJ in this position. But I can see their point, even if I vehemently disagree with it.
Trump should be Wonka "Good day sir'd" out of government. But then we force the DOJ into having to make political choices on who to defend, and that's not something I'm sure is viable.
The reasoning the DOJ is giving seems fairly straightforward to me. Is there some legal reason why it's not sound?
Counterpunch laying out groundwork for false accusations against Biden over a decade in advance.
Edit; Took long enough finding the source I missed Elki's post.
That thread never got reopened after further developments came out.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/07/politics/e-jean-carroll-trump-lawsuit-justice-department/index.html
i'm struggling to argue against the points brought up in this article.
This part is bullshit. The President mouthing off and insulting / slandering someone who has a case against him unrelated to his job is not in any sense "within the scope of his employment"
then the court can decide that this was outside of scope.
I don't think this is as cut and dry as we would like it to be.
also, this was long before he was president ....
The slandering specifically, not the actual act.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/21/politics/trump-new-york-magazine-assault-e-jean-carroll/index.html
the subject of the lawsuit is the allegations of slander.
that happened when he was president.
It’s the DOJ. They are also capable of making a determination regarding what fits within the scope of elected officials’ employment, and they do so with regularity.
The idea that insulting or slandering someone from an elected office falls within the scope of their job is prima facie absurd.
If the President is giving a statement on some sort of official government function, and the subjects of that function decided it was slander I could see covering it. But just randomly mouthing off at someone not in that kind of context? No.
let's engage in a hypothetical. Joe Biden goes off on a rant when asked by a reporter about billionaires who don't pay taxes. he says:
"man, fuck Jeff Bezos. that shitbird hasn't paid taxes in fucking forever. he's a piece of shit and everyone should let him know it."
and then Bezos sued Biden for slander.
Should the DOJ just walk away from it? Or should they not?
why?
And when it comes to actual rape, something he continues to be accused of, I think We The People have a vested interest in keeping elected office from being a "safe zone" from those accusations, since the only recourse for ejecting someone has proven to be completely inadequate unless it is overwhelmingly partisan.
Surely they can do that in a way that's not so obvious so they can have token deniability.
the lawsuit isn't about the rape. it's about his conduct as president.
that's the crux of the issue here.
he's a rapist piece of shit. that's functionally irrelevant from the DOJ position.
edit
like, I'm not saying that the DOJ is right here. but i am saying that they have to do their due diligence and I really can't fault the argument presented in the CNN summary i linked.
Personally, I think Biden is a big boy that can make big boy decisions and doesn't need the taxpayers to foot the bill for him if he decides he isn't going to behave like an adult in office.
I don't think we've had a president yet that couldn't afford to pay a private attorney to handle things like that, and just because Trump is a manchild that stole from taxpayers at every possible turn it doesn't mean that should set a precedent for how the president should behave in the future.
If that's an actual concern, just make speeches given during official functions (e.g. in Congress) automatically not slander.
Interviews, etc, are not official functions, and should not be protected by the government.
This work well for us in Canada. You can even compare what politicians say inside and outside the House of Commons to figure out what they can and cannot prove.
yes. laws are different in other countries.
this doesn't help with this instance.
Then the DOJ should not act as the president lawyers. Problem solved.
they are defending the office of the president. not the president itself. that is the assertion.
i really think everyone needs to take a step back from this being trump and the nature of the crime he is likely guilty of and evaluate the actual position being made.
Is the presidents speech protected or not? what is the scope of that protection? does the DOJ have the right to unilaterally decide the extent of that scope?
The president is no more protected than anyone else, and should not be more protected than anyone else.
well, you're wrong. there's no polite way to say it.