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?
I addressed this in my original comment? It's not like people are ignoring it.
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"
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered 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?
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.
Well, until McConnell or the Kochs or the Mercers or Addelson et al start suing Biden for whatever as soon as the protections are lost.
+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?
I addressed this in my original comment? It's not like people are ignoring it.
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"
Trump denied the allegations Saturday, telling reporters as he departed the White House for Camp David, “I have no idea who this woman is.”
“I have no idea who this woman is. This is a woman who’s also accused other men of things, as you know. It is a totally false accusation,” Trump said. “I think she was married, as I read. I have no idea who she is.”
Trump also claimed he “never met this person” in a statement on Friday. The article published Friday includes a photo of Trump and Carroll talking in a group. Trump addressed the photograph on Saturday, but reiterated that he does not know Carroll.
“There’s some picture where we’re shaking hands. It looks like at some kind of event. I have my coat on. I have my wife standing next to me. And I didn’t know (Carroll’s) husband, but he was a newscaster,” said Trump, who was married to Ivana Trump at the time. “But I have no idea who she is,” he continued.
he was asked as part of his duties as president.
+2
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
"is the president's speech protected or not?" is also just...not the question here. that's a pretty egregious misread. the question is whether the president can ever be speaking as an individual, or if they are always speaking as a representative of the US government. the DOJ is arguing that the president is always speaking as a representative of the US government.
they are transparently doing it because maintaining sovereign immunity for the office of the president is more important to them than holding 45 accountable for slander.
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.
Well, until McConnell or the Kochs or the Mercers or Addelson et al start suing Biden for whatever as soon as the protections are lost.
oh shit, I guess 1) he'd better not slander and 2) we'd better construct our legal system in such a way that frivolous libel suits can be recognized and discarded
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?
I addressed this in my original comment? It's not like people are ignoring it.
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"
Trump denied the allegations Saturday, telling reporters as he departed the White House for Camp David, “I have no idea who this woman is.”
“I have no idea who this woman is. This is a woman who’s also accused other men of things, as you know. It is a totally false accusation,” Trump said. “I think she was married, as I read. I have no idea who she is.”
Trump also claimed he “never met this person” in a statement on Friday. The article published Friday includes a photo of Trump and Carroll talking in a group. Trump addressed the photograph on Saturday, but reiterated that he does not know Carroll.
“There’s some picture where we’re shaking hands. It looks like at some kind of event. I have my coat on. I have my wife standing next to me. And I didn’t know (Carroll’s) husband, but he was a newscaster,” said Trump, who was married to Ivana Trump at the time. “But I have no idea who she is,” he continued.
he was asked as part of his duties as president.
I quoted the statement from Carroll's attorney, and they use insulting language in quotations that is not present in what you just posted.
If you are going to defend Trump's words then defend all of the words he is being sued over not just the most officious-sounding ones.
Talking to reporters isn't actually an enumerated responsibility of the presidency. That's not actually part of the duties of the president, it's just a thing they do in order to try and make their enumerated responsibilities easier.
The optimist in me hopes that the current DOJ leadership is riding out this argument so the judges can set precedent. If they drop it this line of argument could very well come back for a future administration
+1
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?
I addressed this in my original comment? It's not like people are ignoring it.
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"
Trump denied the allegations Saturday, telling reporters as he departed the White House for Camp David, “I have no idea who this woman is.”
“I have no idea who this woman is. This is a woman who’s also accused other men of things, as you know. It is a totally false accusation,” Trump said. “I think she was married, as I read. I have no idea who she is.”
Trump also claimed he “never met this person” in a statement on Friday. The article published Friday includes a photo of Trump and Carroll talking in a group. Trump addressed the photograph on Saturday, but reiterated that he does not know Carroll.
“There’s some picture where we’re shaking hands. It looks like at some kind of event. I have my coat on. I have my wife standing next to me. And I didn’t know (Carroll’s) husband, but he was a newscaster,” said Trump, who was married to Ivana Trump at the time. “But I have no idea who she is,” he continued.
he was asked as part of his duties as president.
I quoted the statement from Carroll's attorney, and they use insulting language in quotations that is not present in what you just posted.
If you are going to defend Trump's words then defend all of the words he is being sued over not just the most officious-sounding ones.
i'm not defending his words, so cut the bullshit
where does the line get drawn between an official statement and not? we all (i assume) think that every tweet he made is an official statement. so, are official statements as the president immune from private action or no? Should they be? where is the demarcation?
kinda sounds like there needs to be a judicial review providing guidance here.
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?
I addressed this in my original comment? It's not like people are ignoring it.
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"
Trump denied the allegations Saturday, telling reporters as he departed the White House for Camp David, “I have no idea who this woman is.”
“I have no idea who this woman is. This is a woman who’s also accused other men of things, as you know. It is a totally false accusation,” Trump said. “I think she was married, as I read. I have no idea who she is.”
Trump also claimed he “never met this person” in a statement on Friday. The article published Friday includes a photo of Trump and Carroll talking in a group. Trump addressed the photograph on Saturday, but reiterated that he does not know Carroll.
“There’s some picture where we’re shaking hands. It looks like at some kind of event. I have my coat on. I have my wife standing next to me. And I didn’t know (Carroll’s) husband, but he was a newscaster,” said Trump, who was married to Ivana Trump at the time. “But I have no idea who she is,” he continued.
he was asked as part of his duties as president.
I quoted the statement from Carroll's attorney, and they use insulting language in quotations that is not present in what you just posted.
If you are going to defend Trump's words then defend all of the words he is being sued over not just the most officious-sounding ones.
i'm not defending his words, so cut the bullshit
where does the line get drawn between an official statement and not? we all (i assume) think that every tweet he made is an official statement. so, are official statements as the president immune from private action or no? Should they be? where is the demarcation?
kinda sounds like there needs to be a judicial review providing guidance here.
His tweets absolutely weren't official statements, that was the main problem, he was rocketing off totally unvetted brain diarrhea that was often in contrivance of the official statements.
Like your whole frame here is jacked because you fail to realize how much not official, totally extracuricular, shit he was doing. All of his tweets? That was all private citizen stuff, he even did it all from his private citizen account without even the tiniest trappings of officiallity
+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"
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?
I addressed this in my original comment? It's not like people are ignoring it.
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"
Trump denied the allegations Saturday, telling reporters as he departed the White House for Camp David, “I have no idea who this woman is.”
“I have no idea who this woman is. This is a woman who’s also accused other men of things, as you know. It is a totally false accusation,” Trump said. “I think she was married, as I read. I have no idea who she is.”
Trump also claimed he “never met this person” in a statement on Friday. The article published Friday includes a photo of Trump and Carroll talking in a group. Trump addressed the photograph on Saturday, but reiterated that he does not know Carroll.
“There’s some picture where we’re shaking hands. It looks like at some kind of event. I have my coat on. I have my wife standing next to me. And I didn’t know (Carroll’s) husband, but he was a newscaster,” said Trump, who was married to Ivana Trump at the time. “But I have no idea who she is,” he continued.
he was asked as part of his duties as president.
I quoted the statement from Carroll's attorney, and they use insulting language in quotations that is not present in what you just posted.
If you are going to defend Trump's words then defend all of the words he is being sued over not just the most officious-sounding ones.
i'm not defending his words, so cut the bullshit
where does the line get drawn between an official statement and not? we all (i assume) think that every tweet he made is an official statement. so, are official statements as the president immune from private action or no? Should they be? where is the demarcation?
kinda sounds like there needs to be a judicial review providing guidance here.
His tweets absolutely weren't official statements, that was the main problem, he was rocketing off totally unvetted brain diarrhea that was often in contrivance of the official statements.
Like your whole frame here is jacked because you fail to realize how much not official, totally extracuricular, shit he was doing. All of his tweets? That was all private citizen stuff, he even did it all from his private citizen account without even the tiniest trappings of officiallity
is the president a private citizen? at any time in their presidency?
because i sure don't think so.
edit
like i think you're forgetting he'd fucking fire people on twitter.
jmcdonald on
+2
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
a federal judge has already ruled that 1) Trump's comments did not fall within the scope of his duties as president, and 2) it doesn't matter anyway because he's not an employee of the government as defined by the relevant law.
+2
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
a federal judge has already ruled that 1) Trump's comments did not fall within the scope of his duties as president, and 2) it doesn't matter anyway because he's not an employee of the government as defined by the relevant law.
and now it's being appealed. just like it should 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"
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?
I addressed this in my original comment? It's not like people are ignoring it.
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"
Trump denied the allegations Saturday, telling reporters as he departed the White House for Camp David, “I have no idea who this woman is.”
“I have no idea who this woman is. This is a woman who’s also accused other men of things, as you know. It is a totally false accusation,” Trump said. “I think she was married, as I read. I have no idea who she is.”
Trump also claimed he “never met this person” in a statement on Friday. The article published Friday includes a photo of Trump and Carroll talking in a group. Trump addressed the photograph on Saturday, but reiterated that he does not know Carroll.
“There’s some picture where we’re shaking hands. It looks like at some kind of event. I have my coat on. I have my wife standing next to me. And I didn’t know (Carroll’s) husband, but he was a newscaster,” said Trump, who was married to Ivana Trump at the time. “But I have no idea who she is,” he continued.
he was asked as part of his duties as president.
I quoted the statement from Carroll's attorney, and they use insulting language in quotations that is not present in what you just posted.
If you are going to defend Trump's words then defend all of the words he is being sued over not just the most officious-sounding ones.
i'm not defending his words, so cut the bullshit
where does the line get drawn between an official statement and not? we all (i assume) think that every tweet he made is an official statement. so, are official statements as the president immune from private action or no? Should they be? where is the demarcation?
kinda sounds like there needs to be a judicial review providing guidance here.
His tweets absolutely weren't official statements, that was the main problem, he was rocketing off totally unvetted brain diarrhea that was often in contrivance of the official statements.
Like your whole frame here is jacked because you fail to realize how much not official, totally extracuricular, shit he was doing. All of his tweets? That was all private citizen stuff, he even did it all from his private citizen account without even the tiniest trappings of officiallity
is the president a private citizen? at any time in their presidency?
because i sure don't think so.
edit
like i think you're forgetting he'd fucking fire people on twitter.
And you're forgetting that's not the fuckin way he was supposed to fuckin do that. That doing shit like that was fuckin outrageous.
+4
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered 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?
I addressed this in my original comment? It's not like people are ignoring it.
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"
Trump denied the allegations Saturday, telling reporters as he departed the White House for Camp David, “I have no idea who this woman is.”
“I have no idea who this woman is. This is a woman who’s also accused other men of things, as you know. It is a totally false accusation,” Trump said. “I think she was married, as I read. I have no idea who she is.”
Trump also claimed he “never met this person” in a statement on Friday. The article published Friday includes a photo of Trump and Carroll talking in a group. Trump addressed the photograph on Saturday, but reiterated that he does not know Carroll.
“There’s some picture where we’re shaking hands. It looks like at some kind of event. I have my coat on. I have my wife standing next to me. And I didn’t know (Carroll’s) husband, but he was a newscaster,” said Trump, who was married to Ivana Trump at the time. “But I have no idea who she is,” he continued.
he was asked as part of his duties as president.
I quoted the statement from Carroll's attorney, and they use insulting language in quotations that is not present in what you just posted.
If you are going to defend Trump's words then defend all of the words he is being sued over not just the most officious-sounding ones.
i'm not defending his words, so cut the bullshit
where does the line get drawn between an official statement and not? we all (i assume) think that every tweet he made is an official statement. so, are official statements as the president immune from private action or no? Should they be? where is the demarcation?
kinda sounds like there needs to be a judicial review providing guidance here.
His tweets absolutely weren't official statements, that was the main problem, he was rocketing off totally unvetted brain diarrhea that was often in contrivance of the official statements.
Like your whole frame here is jacked because you fail to realize how much not official, totally extracuricular, shit he was doing. All of his tweets? That was all private citizen stuff, he even did it all from his private citizen account without even the tiniest trappings of officiallity
is the president a private citizen? at any time in their presidency?
because i sure don't think so.
edit
like i think you're forgetting he'd fucking fire people on twitter.
And you're forgetting that's not the fuckin way he was supposed to fuckin do that. That doing shit like that was fuckin outrageous.
I don't think anyone is forgetting that.
+5
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?
I addressed this in my original comment? It's not like people are ignoring it.
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"
Trump denied the allegations Saturday, telling reporters as he departed the White House for Camp David, “I have no idea who this woman is.”
“I have no idea who this woman is. This is a woman who’s also accused other men of things, as you know. It is a totally false accusation,” Trump said. “I think she was married, as I read. I have no idea who she is.”
Trump also claimed he “never met this person” in a statement on Friday. The article published Friday includes a photo of Trump and Carroll talking in a group. Trump addressed the photograph on Saturday, but reiterated that he does not know Carroll.
“There’s some picture where we’re shaking hands. It looks like at some kind of event. I have my coat on. I have my wife standing next to me. And I didn’t know (Carroll’s) husband, but he was a newscaster,” said Trump, who was married to Ivana Trump at the time. “But I have no idea who she is,” he continued.
he was asked as part of his duties as president.
I quoted the statement from Carroll's attorney, and they use insulting language in quotations that is not present in what you just posted.
If you are going to defend Trump's words then defend all of the words he is being sued over not just the most officious-sounding ones.
i'm not defending his words, so cut the bullshit
where does the line get drawn between an official statement and not? we all (i assume) think that every tweet he made is an official statement. so, are official statements as the president immune from private action or no? Should they be? where is the demarcation?
kinda sounds like there needs to be a judicial review providing guidance here.
His tweets absolutely weren't official statements, that was the main problem, he was rocketing off totally unvetted brain diarrhea that was often in contrivance of the official statements.
Like your whole frame here is jacked because you fail to realize how much not official, totally extracuricular, shit he was doing. All of his tweets? That was all private citizen stuff, he even did it all from his private citizen account without even the tiniest trappings of officiallity
is the president a private citizen? at any time in their presidency?
because i sure don't think so.
edit
like i think you're forgetting he'd fucking fire people on twitter.
And you're forgetting that's not the fuckin way he was supposed to fuckin do that. That doing shit like that was fuckin outrageous.
nah. i know it is.
but that's how he did it.
so, is it an official action of the president or not?
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?
I addressed this in my original comment? It's not like people are ignoring it.
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"
Trump denied the allegations Saturday, telling reporters as he departed the White House for Camp David, “I have no idea who this woman is.”
“I have no idea who this woman is. This is a woman who’s also accused other men of things, as you know. It is a totally false accusation,” Trump said. “I think she was married, as I read. I have no idea who she is.”
Trump also claimed he “never met this person” in a statement on Friday. The article published Friday includes a photo of Trump and Carroll talking in a group. Trump addressed the photograph on Saturday, but reiterated that he does not know Carroll.
“There’s some picture where we’re shaking hands. It looks like at some kind of event. I have my coat on. I have my wife standing next to me. And I didn’t know (Carroll’s) husband, but he was a newscaster,” said Trump, who was married to Ivana Trump at the time. “But I have no idea who she is,” he continued.
he was asked as part of his duties as president.
I quoted the statement from Carroll's attorney, and they use insulting language in quotations that is not present in what you just posted.
If you are going to defend Trump's words then defend all of the words he is being sued over not just the most officious-sounding ones.
i'm not defending his words, so cut the bullshit
where does the line get drawn between an official statement and not? we all (i assume) think that every tweet he made is an official statement. so, are official statements as the president immune from private action or no? Should they be? where is the demarcation?
kinda sounds like there needs to be a judicial review providing guidance here.
His tweets absolutely weren't official statements, that was the main problem, he was rocketing off totally unvetted brain diarrhea that was often in contrivance of the official statements.
Like your whole frame here is jacked because you fail to realize how much not official, totally extracuricular, shit he was doing. All of his tweets? That was all private citizen stuff, he even did it all from his private citizen account without even the tiniest trappings of officiallity
is the president a private citizen? at any time in their presidency?
because i sure don't think so.
edit
like i think you're forgetting he'd fucking fire people on twitter.
And you're forgetting that's not the fuckin way he was supposed to fuckin do that. That doing shit like that was fuckin outrageous.
nah. i know it is.
but that's how he did it.
so, is it an official action of the president or not?
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?
No one is alleging the office of the president raped a woman
a federal judge has already ruled that 1) Trump's comments did not fall within the scope of his duties as president, and 2) it doesn't matter anyway because he's not an employee of the government as defined by the relevant law.
and now it's being appealed. just like it should be.
Because Trump using vulgar and insulting language to slander someone he raped falls within the scope of his duties as president?
Because using that language to talk about acts committed before he was in office falls within the scope of his duties as president?
If what you wanted was a line drawn in the sand that some of Trump's comments were beyond the pale and should be considered beyond the scope of his duties, then you would be calling for this appeal to be dropped by the DOJ, and the previous ruling standing.
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?
I addressed this in my original comment? It's not like people are ignoring it.
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"
Trump denied the allegations Saturday, telling reporters as he departed the White House for Camp David, “I have no idea who this woman is.”
“I have no idea who this woman is. This is a woman who’s also accused other men of things, as you know. It is a totally false accusation,” Trump said. “I think she was married, as I read. I have no idea who she is.”
Trump also claimed he “never met this person” in a statement on Friday. The article published Friday includes a photo of Trump and Carroll talking in a group. Trump addressed the photograph on Saturday, but reiterated that he does not know Carroll.
“There’s some picture where we’re shaking hands. It looks like at some kind of event. I have my coat on. I have my wife standing next to me. And I didn’t know (Carroll’s) husband, but he was a newscaster,” said Trump, who was married to Ivana Trump at the time. “But I have no idea who she is,” he continued.
he was asked as part of his duties as president.
I quoted the statement from Carroll's attorney, and they use insulting language in quotations that is not present in what you just posted.
If you are going to defend Trump's words then defend all of the words he is being sued over not just the most officious-sounding ones.
i'm not defending his words, so cut the bullshit
where does the line get drawn between an official statement and not? we all (i assume) think that every tweet he made is an official statement. so, are official statements as the president immune from private action or no? Should they be? where is the demarcation?
kinda sounds like there needs to be a judicial review providing guidance here.
His tweets absolutely weren't official statements, that was the main problem, he was rocketing off totally unvetted brain diarrhea that was often in contrivance of the official statements.
Like your whole frame here is jacked because you fail to realize how much not official, totally extracuricular, shit he was doing. All of his tweets? That was all private citizen stuff, he even did it all from his private citizen account without even the tiniest trappings of officiallity
is the president a private citizen? at any time in their presidency?
because i sure don't think so.
edit
like i think you're forgetting he'd fucking fire people on twitter.
And you're forgetting that's not the fuckin way he was supposed to fuckin do that. That doing shit like that was fuckin outrageous.
nah. i know it is.
but that's how he did it.
so, is it an official action of the president or not?
No it shouldn't be seen as one either it was an absolutely fuckin insane thing that anyone accepted it. If anyone tried to fire me over fuckin Twitter I'd fuckin sue them I don't care if it's the fuckin president. That is totally unacceptable at every fuckin level of our society. There's fuckin laws about how you have to fire people. He didn't get litigation for it because he's a fuckin cult leader and his abandoned cultists didn't want to anger the rest of the cult.
+5
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
a federal judge has already ruled that 1) Trump's comments did not fall within the scope of his duties as president, and 2) it doesn't matter anyway because he's not an employee of the government as defined by the relevant law.
and now it's being appealed. just like it should be.
Because Trump using vulgar and insulting language to slander someone he raped falls within the scope of his duties as president?
Because using that language to talk about acts committed before he was in office falls within the scope of his duties as president?
If what you wanted was a line drawn in the sand that some of Trump's comments were beyond the pale and should be considered beyond the scope of his duties, then you would be calling for this appeal to be dropped by the DOJ, and the previous ruling standing.
a federal judge has already ruled that 1) Trump's comments did not fall within the scope of his duties as president, and 2) it doesn't matter anyway because he's not an employee of the government as defined by the relevant law.
and now it's being appealed. just like it should be.
Because Trump using vulgar and insulting language to slander someone he raped falls within the scope of his duties as president?
Because using that language to talk about acts committed before he was in office falls within the scope of his duties as president?
If what you wanted was a line drawn in the sand that some of Trump's comments were beyond the pale and should be considered beyond the scope of his duties, then you would be calling for this appeal to be dropped by the DOJ, and the previous ruling standing.
which tweets are official and which ones aren't?
None of them, Tweets aren't official channels of communication they're avenues of personal communication.
0
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
edited June 2021
the fundamental notion here, that it is hard to draw a line between the president's actions as a representative of the government and their actions as a private citizen, and therefore we should just assume they're always acting as a representative of the government, is wrong, and in this specific case really lazy to boot. the president commented on something he was personally alleged to have done, as a private citizen, decades before he was elected. that is an extremely clear-cut situation.
the precedent this sets is that the president can be held individually accountable for what they say in regard to their own individual actions, taken before they're president. I don't see a problem with that.
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"
That's not really how it's phrased though in the DOJ's argument.
Via The Hill:
“Elected public officials can — and often must — address allegations regarding personal wrongdoing that inspire doubt about their suitability for office,” attorneys for the DOJ argued in the Monday filing. “Officials do not step outside the bounds of their office simply because they are addressing questions regarding allegations about their personal lives.”
Basically, the DOJ is arguing that addressing scandals is a part of the president's job. And it's not out of line to claim that I think. The question is where the courts draw the line here.
+6
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
a federal judge has already ruled that 1) Trump's comments did not fall within the scope of his duties as president, and 2) it doesn't matter anyway because he's not an employee of the government as defined by the relevant law.
and now it's being appealed. just like it should be.
Because Trump using vulgar and insulting language to slander someone he raped falls within the scope of his duties as president?
Because using that language to talk about acts committed before he was in office falls within the scope of his duties as president?
If what you wanted was a line drawn in the sand that some of Trump's comments were beyond the pale and should be considered beyond the scope of his duties, then you would be calling for this appeal to be dropped by the DOJ, and the previous ruling standing.
which tweets are official and which ones aren't?
None of them, Tweets aren't official channels of communication they're avenues of personal communication.
well, history says you're wrong. he made many official statements via twitter, and took many official actions via twitter. so, where again does the line get drawn?
i don't like it. you don't like it. but it happened.
a federal judge has already ruled that 1) Trump's comments did not fall within the scope of his duties as president, and 2) it doesn't matter anyway because he's not an employee of the government as defined by the relevant law.
and now it's being appealed. just like it should be.
Because Trump using vulgar and insulting language to slander someone he raped falls within the scope of his duties as president?
Because using that language to talk about acts committed before he was in office falls within the scope of his duties as president?
If what you wanted was a line drawn in the sand that some of Trump's comments were beyond the pale and should be considered beyond the scope of his duties, then you would be calling for this appeal to be dropped by the DOJ, and the previous ruling standing.
which tweets are official and which ones aren't?
None of them, Tweets aren't official channels of communication they're avenues of personal communication.
Is that true? For most of Trump's tenure, the forums were saying the opposite, that the Tweets all had to be preserved as part of his official presidential communications
Nah, that's personal fuckin business I am not fuckin paying him for. Oh you did some shit that calls into question your suitability for office? Too fuckin bad. Your campaigning to keep your job absolutely is not official business. Addressing such allegations is about your reelection, not enacting and enforcing laws. You know the actual official responsibilities of the president.
a federal judge has already ruled that 1) Trump's comments did not fall within the scope of his duties as president, and 2) it doesn't matter anyway because he's not an employee of the government as defined by the relevant law.
and now it's being appealed. just like it should be.
Because Trump using vulgar and insulting language to slander someone he raped falls within the scope of his duties as president?
Because using that language to talk about acts committed before he was in office falls within the scope of his duties as president?
If what you wanted was a line drawn in the sand that some of Trump's comments were beyond the pale and should be considered beyond the scope of his duties, then you would be calling for this appeal to be dropped by the DOJ, and the previous ruling standing.
which tweets are official and which ones aren't?
None of them, Tweets aren't official channels of communication they're avenues of personal communication.
Is that true? For most of Trump's tenure, the forums were saying the opposite, that the Tweets all had to be preserved as part of his official presidential communications
I’m pretty sure that the DOJ chimed in on it and said his tweets were official statements.
Nah, that's personal fuckin business I am not fuckin paying him for. Oh you did some shit that calls into question your suitability for office? Too fuckin bad. Your campaigning to keep your job absolutely is not official business. Addressing such allegations is about your reelection, not enacting and enforcing laws. You know the actual official responsibilities of the president.
Are you sure? I think legally it might be considered as such. I know I'm not sure if it's been decided one way or the other.
The optimist in me hopes that the current DOJ leadership is riding out this argument so the judges can set precedent. If they drop it this line of argument could very well come back for a future administration
The problem is that the judiciary developed an uncanny knack for the kicking the football down the road whenever issues with Trump's repeated line stepping of presidential authority came under review. In many cases they made it quite obvious that they don't want to have to be the ones making precedent.
This is a tough case though. On its face I actually tend to agree with the DoJ's position, because saying otherwise implies future presidents could be constantly harassed with libel and defamation suits. However...it's been demonstrated Trump made knowingly false statements about a civilian and at that point, I think the line has clearly been crossed that that shouldn't be protected speech.
It's one thing to say "I thoroughly assert my innocence and consider this case harassment" or similar statements, but it's another to abuse your authority to start openly calling the litigant names to an eagerly listening press gaggle.
Dark_Side on
+1
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
edited June 2021
for what reason are y'all trying to determine whether tweets constitute official communication? that's not at issue in the case. the DOJ isn't touching that argument, here. the words "twitter" and "tweet" appear zero times in their brief.
Shorty on
+2
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
for what reason are y'all trying to determine whether tweets constitute official communication? that's not at issue in the case. the DOJ isn't touching that argument, here. the words "twitter" and "tweet" appear zero times in their brief.
Many of the comments Trump made about Connell were in interviews or at rallies.
Tweets are irrelevent.
ok, so, that strengthens the DOJ position?
I assumed that he had to have thrown some sexist bullshit in a tweet somewhere that was also part of the lawsuit. if not i'm super surprised, but mea culpa.
Many of the comments Trump made about Connell were in interviews or at rallies.
Tweets are irrelevent.
ok, so, that strengthens the DOJ position?
I assumed that he had to have thrown some sexist bullshit in a tweet somewhere that was also part of the lawsuit. if not i'm super surprised, but mea culpa.
No because interviews and rallies are a thing a private citizen does to get the official responsibilities and duties of the presidency. Going on fox news and shit is not a responsibility or official duty of the president. In fact doing that whole bunch was a abrogation of official duties. It was a thing he was doing to protect himself personally at the expense of being able to carry out official duties.
If he said the shit in the state of the union that would have been an official duty of the presidency and you'd maybe have a case here. Talking to the news directly? That's all private citizen shit. You'll notice most Presidents don't talk directly to the news media for this reason, and have proxies do it for them outside of really friendly puff pieces.
Sleep on
+1
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
Many of the comments Trump made about Connell were in interviews or at rallies.
Tweets are irrelevent.
ok, so, that strengthens the DOJ position?
I assumed that he had to have thrown some sexist bullshit in a tweet somewhere that was also part of the lawsuit. if not i'm super surprised, but mea culpa.
No because interviews and rallies are a thing a private citizen does to get the official responsibilities and duties of the presidency. Going on fox news and shit is not a responsibility or official duty of the president. In fact doing that whole bunch was a abrogation of official duties. It was a thing he was doing to protect himself personally at the expense of being able to carry out official duties.
If he said the shit in the state of the union that would have been an official duty of the presidency. Talking to the news directly? That's all private citizen shit. You'll notice most Presidents don't talk directly to the news media for this reason, and have proxies do it for them outside of really friendly puff pieces.
yeah, i'm gonna say that i disagree significantly with your position here and leave it at that.
Many of the comments Trump made about Connell were in interviews or at rallies.
Tweets are irrelevent.
ok, so, that strengthens the DOJ position?
I assumed that he had to have thrown some sexist bullshit in a tweet somewhere that was also part of the lawsuit. if not i'm super surprised, but mea culpa.
No because interviews and rallies are a thing a private citizen does to get the official responsibilities and duties of the presidency. Going on fox news and shit is not a responsibility or official duty of the president. In fact doing that whole bunch was a abrogation of official duties. It was a thing he was doing to protect himself personally at the expense of being able to carry out official duties.
If he said the shit in the state of the union that would have been an official duty of the presidency. Talking to the news directly? That's all private citizen shit. You'll notice most Presidents don't talk directly to the news media for this reason, and have proxies do it for them outside of really friendly puff pieces.
yeah, i'm gonna say that i disagree significantly with your position here and leave it at that.
By your reasoning literally everything the president does is an official duty of the presidency. Under your reasoning he literally could have shot a dude on 5th ave and woulda been fine for it cause it was in the course of carrying out his official duties so he couldn't be held personally responsible for it.
Like by your reasoning the whole coup thing was legal and a thing the DoJ should be defending because the president was just trying to make sure he could keep his job and that's within his official duties.
Sleep on
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
Many of the comments Trump made about Connell were in interviews or at rallies.
Tweets are irrelevent.
ok, so, that strengthens the DOJ position?
I assumed that he had to have thrown some sexist bullshit in a tweet somewhere that was also part of the lawsuit. if not i'm super surprised, but mea culpa.
No because interviews and rallies are a thing a private citizen does to get the official responsibilities and duties of the presidency. Going on fox news and shit is not a responsibility or official duty of the president. In fact doing that whole bunch was a abrogation of official duties. It was a thing he was doing to protect himself personally at the expense of being able to carry out official duties.
If he said the shit in the state of the union that would have been an official duty of the presidency. Talking to the news directly? That's all private citizen shit. You'll notice most Presidents don't talk directly to the news media for this reason, and have proxies do it for them outside of really friendly puff pieces.
yeah, i'm gonna say that i disagree significantly with your position here and leave it at that.
By your reasoning literally everything the president does is an official duty of the presidency. Under your reasoning he literally could have shot a dude on 5th ave and woulda been fine for it cause it was in the course of carrying out his official duties so he couldn't be held personally responsible for it.
statements of the president during interviews and events seem pretty clear cut official actions.
+5
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
"the president is a bodily personification of the US government, which has decided that it cannot be held to account for slander and other transgressions" is a significantly more fucked up precedent than "the president is not acting in an official capacity when they issue public statements pertaining to their personal life before being elected"
Posts
I addressed this in my original comment? It's not like people are ignoring it.
Well, until McConnell or the Kochs or the Mercers or Addelson et al start suing Biden for whatever as soon as the protections are lost.
Trump denied the allegations Saturday, telling reporters as he departed the White House for Camp David, “I have no idea who this woman is.”
“I have no idea who this woman is. This is a woman who’s also accused other men of things, as you know. It is a totally false accusation,” Trump said. “I think she was married, as I read. I have no idea who she is.”
Trump also claimed he “never met this person” in a statement on Friday. The article published Friday includes a photo of Trump and Carroll talking in a group. Trump addressed the photograph on Saturday, but reiterated that he does not know Carroll.
“There’s some picture where we’re shaking hands. It looks like at some kind of event. I have my coat on. I have my wife standing next to me. And I didn’t know (Carroll’s) husband, but he was a newscaster,” said Trump, who was married to Ivana Trump at the time. “But I have no idea who she is,” he continued.
he was asked as part of his duties as president.
they are transparently doing it because maintaining sovereign immunity for the office of the president is more important to them than holding 45 accountable for slander.
oh shit, I guess 1) he'd better not slander and 2) we'd better construct our legal system in such a way that frivolous libel suits can be recognized and discarded
I quoted the statement from Carroll's attorney, and they use insulting language in quotations that is not present in what you just posted.
If you are going to defend Trump's words then defend all of the words he is being sued over not just the most officious-sounding ones.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
i'm not defending his words, so cut the bullshit
where does the line get drawn between an official statement and not? we all (i assume) think that every tweet he made is an official statement. so, are official statements as the president immune from private action or no? Should they be? where is the demarcation?
kinda sounds like there needs to be a judicial review providing guidance here.
His tweets absolutely weren't official statements, that was the main problem, he was rocketing off totally unvetted brain diarrhea that was often in contrivance of the official statements.
Like your whole frame here is jacked because you fail to realize how much not official, totally extracuricular, shit he was doing. All of his tweets? That was all private citizen stuff, he even did it all from his private citizen account without even the tiniest trappings of officiallity
is the president a private citizen? at any time in their presidency?
because i sure don't think so.
edit
like i think you're forgetting he'd fucking fire people on twitter.
and now it's being appealed. just like it should be.
And you're forgetting that's not the fuckin way he was supposed to fuckin do that. That doing shit like that was fuckin outrageous.
I don't think anyone is forgetting that.
nah. i know it is.
but that's how he did it.
so, is it an official action of the president or not?
Were his shits official statements?
No one is alleging the office of the president raped a woman
Because Trump using vulgar and insulting language to slander someone he raped falls within the scope of his duties as president?
Because using that language to talk about acts committed before he was in office falls within the scope of his duties as president?
If what you wanted was a line drawn in the sand that some of Trump's comments were beyond the pale and should be considered beyond the scope of his duties, then you would be calling for this appeal to be dropped by the DOJ, and the previous ruling standing.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
No it shouldn't be seen as one either it was an absolutely fuckin insane thing that anyone accepted it. If anyone tried to fire me over fuckin Twitter I'd fuckin sue them I don't care if it's the fuckin president. That is totally unacceptable at every fuckin level of our society. There's fuckin laws about how you have to fire people. He didn't get litigation for it because he's a fuckin cult leader and his abandoned cultists didn't want to anger the rest of the cult.
which tweets are official and which ones aren't?
None of them, Tweets aren't official channels of communication they're avenues of personal communication.
the precedent this sets is that the president can be held individually accountable for what they say in regard to their own individual actions, taken before they're president. I don't see a problem with that.
That's not really how it's phrased though in the DOJ's argument.
Via The Hill: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/557266-biden-doj-to-defend-trump-in-e-jean-carroll-defamation-lawsuit
Basically, the DOJ is arguing that addressing scandals is a part of the president's job. And it's not out of line to claim that I think. The question is where the courts draw the line here.
well, history says you're wrong. he made many official statements via twitter, and took many official actions via twitter. so, where again does the line get drawn?
i don't like it. you don't like it. but it happened.
Is that true? For most of Trump's tenure, the forums were saying the opposite, that the Tweets all had to be preserved as part of his official presidential communications
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
I’m pretty sure that the DOJ chimed in on it and said his tweets were official statements.
Are you sure? I think legally it might be considered as such. I know I'm not sure if it's been decided one way or the other.
The problem is that the judiciary developed an uncanny knack for the kicking the football down the road whenever issues with Trump's repeated line stepping of presidential authority came under review. In many cases they made it quite obvious that they don't want to have to be the ones making precedent.
This is a tough case though. On its face I actually tend to agree with the DoJ's position, because saying otherwise implies future presidents could be constantly harassed with libel and defamation suits. However...it's been demonstrated Trump made knowingly false statements about a civilian and at that point, I think the line has clearly been crossed that that shouldn't be protected speech.
It's one thing to say "I thoroughly assert my innocence and consider this case harassment" or similar statements, but it's another to abuse your authority to start openly calling the litigant names to an eagerly listening press gaggle.
where did the alleged defamation take place?
Tweets are irrelevent.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
ok, so, that strengthens the DOJ position?
I assumed that he had to have thrown some sexist bullshit in a tweet somewhere that was also part of the lawsuit. if not i'm super surprised, but mea culpa.
No because interviews and rallies are a thing a private citizen does to get the official responsibilities and duties of the presidency. Going on fox news and shit is not a responsibility or official duty of the president. In fact doing that whole bunch was a abrogation of official duties. It was a thing he was doing to protect himself personally at the expense of being able to carry out official duties.
If he said the shit in the state of the union that would have been an official duty of the presidency and you'd maybe have a case here. Talking to the news directly? That's all private citizen shit. You'll notice most Presidents don't talk directly to the news media for this reason, and have proxies do it for them outside of really friendly puff pieces.
yeah, i'm gonna say that i disagree significantly with your position here and leave it at that.
By your reasoning literally everything the president does is an official duty of the presidency. Under your reasoning he literally could have shot a dude on 5th ave and woulda been fine for it cause it was in the course of carrying out his official duties so he couldn't be held personally responsible for it.
Like by your reasoning the whole coup thing was legal and a thing the DoJ should be defending because the president was just trying to make sure he could keep his job and that's within his official duties.
statements of the president during interviews and events seem pretty clear cut official actions.
some real weird priorities going on here