Justice department to defend Trump in defamation rape case from 1990

Bloody Pulp said:
he was asked by a reporter and responded, and the suit was literally filed against the sitting president. Time to let this one go. It was almost it. But alas.
Click to expand...
I don't remember the DOJ representing him when the same happened with Stormy. How are the two different in your opinion?
 
Clifford_Harris said:
I don't remember the DOJ representing him when the same happened with Stormy. How are the two different in your opinion?
Click to expand...

Daniels was suing about an NDA from prior to Trumps election, not something that occurred after his election. If she had signed it after his election you might’ve had a point.
 
Bloody Pulp said:
Daniels was suing about an NDA from prior to Trumps election, not something that occurred after his election. If she had signed it after his election you might’ve had a point.
Click to expand...
That was one of her suits.... She was also suing for defamation based on a tweet Trump made.... Now keep in mind that the White House has said Trump's tweets are official Presidential announcements.
 
Sano said:
Imagine if Obama had the Justice Department defend him in a rape case. Honestly, imagine the outrage.
Click to expand...

Outrage at the accuser, sure.
 
Clifford_Harris said:
That was one of her suits.... She was also suing for defamation based on a tweet Trump made.... Now keep in mind that the White House has said Trump's tweets are official Presidential announcements.
Click to expand...

a federal judge tossed that case after only a few months and ordered Daniels to pay Trumps legal fees before DOJ stepped in.
 
Zankou said:
Btw, it’s crucial to understand at the threshold that Trump *cannot* be sued for the alleged sexual assault itself, because of statue of limitations.

He can only be sued for very recent conduct, which is why the plaintiff’s claims are necessarily attacks on his recent *statements* while in office, and she cannot sue him for alleged sexual assault decades ago.

At some level this is a legal sham, since she clearly wants to litigate the underlying sexual assault, but the law bars that, so she’s gotta go after Trump for pure statements made while in office — which is always going to be defended by DOJ.
Click to expand...

The contention seems to be that he whether he was acting as the President when he made the statement.





I guess if there is precedent of the DOJ defending something similar in the past this will get tossed quickly.

If not this goes to the Supreme Court eventually?
 
Octavian said:
It’s banana republic shit and you’re a clown on here day in, day out.
Click to expand...

Excellent rebuttal to Zankou explaining in great detail how you don’t know wtf you are talking about.
 
PolishHeadlock2 said:
The contention seems to be that he whether he was acting as the President when he made the statement.





I guess if there is precedent of the DOJ defending something similar in the past this will get tossed quickly.

If not this goes to the Supreme Court eventually?
Click to expand...


No, technically it’s an Attorney General decision, and is almost impossible to challenge.

In practice the AG’s authority is almost always delegated on this point to the US Attorney for the district where the suit was filed, and they in turn defer to the Civil chief.

Probably more detail than anyone wants to know.

If the federal officer was engaged in the challenged conduct because of his position ... as with answering press questions at a conference ... there’s essentially no way it wouldn’t be covered, regardless of the specific subject of those questions. Basically you have to be completely off the clock or on some truly bonkers ‘frolic and detour’ to lose DOJ defense coverage.

The most common way that happens is sexual assaults, as mentioned, since sex can’t be job related usually. BUT if a guard or officer is doing inspections and they are sued for alleged sexual assault in the inspection, DOJ will usually defend them even in that scenario, unless they conclude the crime was probably committed.
 
Zankou said:
No, technically it’s an Attorney General decision, and is almost impossible to challenge.
In practice the AG’s authority is delegated on this point to the US Attorney for the district where the suit was filed, and they in turn defer to the Civil chief.

Probably more detail than anyone wants to know.

If the federal officer was engaged in conduct because of his position ... as with answering press questions at a conference ... there’s essentially no way it wouldn’t be covered, regardless of the subject of those questions.
Click to expand...

<WellThere>


Again.


Props for the effort and explanations, regardless of how hard some want to ignore it.
 
Zankou said:
No, technically it’s an Attorney General decision, and is almost impossible to challenge.

In practice the AG’s authority is almost always delegated on this point to the US Attorney for the district where the suit was filed, and they in turn defer to the Civil chief.

Probably more detail than anyone wants to know.

If the federal officer was engaged in the challenged conduct because of his position ... as with answering press questions at a conference ... there’s essentially no way it wouldn’t be covered, regardless of the specific subject of those questions. Basically you have to be completely off the clock or on some truly bonkers ‘frolic and detour’ to lose DOJ defense coverage.

The most common way that happens is sexual assaults, as mentioned, since sex can’t be job related usually. BUT if a guard or officer is doing inspections and they are sued for alleged sexual assault in the inspection, DOJ will usually defend them even in that scenario, unless they conclude the crime was probably committed.
Click to expand...

What are your thoughts on this ruling?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/27/politics/e-jean-carroll-defamation-lawsuit-trump/index.html

(CNN)A federal judge on Tuesday denied the Justice Department's effort to effectively end a defamation lawsuit against President Donald Trump brought by a longtime magazine columnist who has alleged he raped her in a luxury department store dressing room, paving the way for the case to proceed.

The DOJ had sought to intervene in the case and substitute itself as defendant in the lawsuit filed by E. Jean Carroll, a move that likely would have curbed the proceedings, since the federal government can't be sued for defamation.
Trump has denied Carroll's allegations, telling reporters, "She's not my type," and alleging Carroll lied to boost her book sales.

In a 61-page opinion, US District Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled that Trump "is not an 'employee of the Government,' as Congress defined that term," and therefore the lawsuit isn't, as the Justice Department argued, against the United States.
 
PolishHeadlock2 said:
What are your thoughts on this ruling?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/27/politics/e-jean-carroll-defamation-lawsuit-trump/index.html

(CNN)A federal judge on Tuesday denied the Justice Department's effort to effectively end a defamation lawsuit against President Donald Trump brought by a longtime magazine columnist who has alleged he raped her in a luxury department store dressing room, paving the way for the case to proceed.

The DOJ had sought to intervene in the case and substitute itself as defendant in the lawsuit filed by E. Jean Carroll, a move that likely would have curbed the proceedings, since the federal government can't be sued for defamation.
Trump has denied Carroll's allegations, telling reporters, "She's not my type," and alleging Carroll lied to boost her book sales.

In a 61-page opinion, US District Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled that Trump "is not an 'employee of the Government,' as Congress defined that term," and therefore the lawsuit isn't, as the Justice Department argued, against the United States.
Click to expand...
Incredible that people want to legalize Prima Nocta. But I guess that's where we're fucking at.
 
44nutman said:
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/09/9109...ake-over-trumps-defense-in-defamation-lawsuit
Why are they representing Trump in a case that happened 26 years before he became President?
I do not want my tax dollars going to defend a President in cases that happened prior to becoming President. Trump needs to get the money out of the campaign fund and hire his own attorneys for this case.
This is a blatant misuse of the Justice Department.
Also this is not TDS or this is it, this is a President using the Justice Department which is paid by American tax dollars to represent him in personal business that has nothing to do with his Presidency.
Click to expand...

oh, hey. it's @44nutman 's daily tds thread.

dude, you're TDSing so hard that you're advocating he commit campaign finance fraud. come on, man.

44nutman said:
Thank you for the explanation.
They could have added the Westfall Act to the article, and I would not have bothered with the story.
So nothing nefarious to the story.
Click to expand...

and i'm like super late. lolz.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,074
Messages
55,465,997
Members
174,785
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top