Justice department to defend Trump in defamation rape case from 1990

[Rational Poster]

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.

Dude you went into deflect mode so fast you didn't even read the date this was posted.

Not a good look.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

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.

Will be overturned

 

[Crom Cruach]

If Trump is voted out does the DOJ still handle the legal case or does he have to start paying himself.

 

[rob mafia]

Dude you went into deflect mode so fast you didn't even read the date this was posted.

Not a good look.

i had already realized i was late, but i'd hardly call that deflecting.

 

[Rational Poster]

i had already realized i was late, but i'd hardly call that deflecting.

Ignores the story, attacks the OP.

"But I'm not defecting man"

 

[Son of Ireland 34]

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.

Im objective. I can criticize when needed. This is odd from Trump and how is it legal?

 

[rob mafia]

Ignores the story, attacks the OP.

"But I'm not defecting man"

WHAT story? there is no story. that's the point. he was criticizing ~nothing and advocating a felony as an alternative.



troll smarter, not harder.

 

[Rational Poster]

WHAT story? there is no story. that's the point. he was criticizing ~nothing and advocating a felony as an alternative.



troll smarter, not harder.

This is a post hoc rationalization of your error.

Just admit it and move on.

 

[Zankou]

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.

I was very surprised, but I guess the ruling is premised on the idea that Trump as an elected politician is not an employee in the same way that an appointed officer is.

I have no idea if that point of law is true or not. I’ve only run across this issue in the context of agency heads. If it’s true that an elected official is totally different relative to the Westfall Act, then there’s nothing to appeal, and this decision is correct.

The judge’s findings on scope are incorrect, however, and were plainly made as an attempt to shore up the decision with an alternative basis. The question is not whether the challenged acts were part of the job, as the decision puts it. It’s whether they were *foreseeable* in the course of employment. That’s why all sorts of wrongdoing is substituted; the entire premise of substituting is that the government pays for the wrongdoing of its employees, even though by definition such wrongdoing is not part of their job duties. Otherwise you could never substitute, since you are never being paid to crash vehicles, get drunk, get in fights, etc. To ask whether the alleged wrongful act was part of your job duties is to hopelessly misstate how the test works. It’s never part of your job duties, by definition, which is irrelevant.

 

[Teppodama]

Government resources should not be used to defend or prosecute any politician on issues not directly related to their political function.

 

[boxingskills]

So if one of Trump's resorts get sued for say bed bugs, then the Justice Department should represent him.
Some of us, believe in the idea of America, and do not approve of misuse of Presidential powers just because you like the guy.
Could you imagine if Obama did this, Fox would run wall to wall coverage and feign angst.
Of course you don't care because the members of the Orange Cult, gladly put Trump above this country. The whole Patriotism gimmick of the Trump Lickspittles is only used when its convenient but its not a strict ethos.

Bruh the MSM sucked up to Obama. They never reported him in a negative light at all.

 

[ultramanhyata]

How is this even legal?

Trump knows how to make the kinds of deals that lesser men can only dream about. It's called being a stable genius.

 

[emefer]

Bruh the MSM sucked up to Obama. They never reported him in a negative light at all.

What are you talking about? Have you ever watched fox news.

 

[Damien Karras]

This is why the OP kneels.

Don't worry about your tax money. It makes up very little in the grand scheme of things.

I thought the President was super rich and could afford a lawyer. Doesn't he have Giuliani on retainer?

 

[AtomicPanther]

You should read the entire 2 pages of the thread before making a fool of yourself.

You should change your settings so it all fit on 1 page.

You can really be sued for calling someone a liar? Man people are sue happy in this country.

 

[giusti825]

I thought sitting presidents had immunity from this kind of stuff.

Its a civil case, not a criminal case. However, they are suing an individual, who was not acting in an official capacity at the time. I don't see why the justice department is involved in a civil case against an individual for something unrelated to government business.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

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.

He's being sued for defamation, not rape and it happened while he was in office.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

not things they did BEFORE taking office

The alleged defamation happened last year.

 

[Madmick]

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.

Because the nutjob liar didn't pursue the lawsuit until after he became President.

It's pretty simple.