HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Court mulls: Was Trump's ...

Fri Dec 3, 2021, 04:54 PM

Court mulls: Was Trump's reply to rape claim part of job?

Source: Associated Press

By JENNIFER PELTZ 57 minutes ago

NEW YORK (AP) — Federal appeals judges asked Friday whether a U.S. president’s every remark is part of the job as they weighed whether former President Donald Trump can be held liable in a defamation case that concerns his response to a rape allegation.

Trump and the Justice Department say he was acting in his official capacity when he spoke to the media about writer E. Jean Carroll’s accusation, so they want to swap the U.S. government in for Trump himself as the defendant in her defamtion lawsuit.

The change might sound technical, but it could make a big difference. Federal law makes it difficult to sue U.S. government employees for job-related actions, and a law that sometimes allows such lawsuits specifically excludes libel and slander claims. That could keep Carroll’s case from going forward if courts decide Trump was acting as a government worker.


Read more: https://apnews.com/article/trump-defamation-lawsuit-e-jean-carroll-7943f39877672e3ec472f5bf902676a3

38 replies, 3081 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 38 replies Author Time Post
Reply Court mulls: Was Trump's reply to rape claim part of job? (Original post)
turbinetree Dec 3 OP
Fullduplexxx Dec 3 #1
erronis Dec 3 #5
intheflow Dec 3 #11
erronis Dec 3 #14
intheflow Dec 3 #16
erronis Dec 3 #24
Orrex Dec 3 #25
Fullduplexxx Dec 3 #30
Peregrine Took Dec 4 #32
Beartracks Dec 5 #37
Karma13612 Dec 3 #29
Peregrine Took Dec 4 #33
Greybnk48 Dec 3 #7
Fullduplexxx Dec 3 #31
dchill Dec 3 #21
Karma13612 Dec 3 #28
marie999 Dec 4 #34
Fullduplexxx Dec 4 #35
paleotn Dec 3 #2
groundloop Dec 3 #8
onenote Dec 3 #18
iemanja Dec 3 #13
Escurumbele Dec 3 #3
Scrivener7 Dec 3 #4
Trueblue1968 Dec 3 #10
bluestarone Dec 3 #19
rurallib Dec 3 #6
Zorro Dec 3 #9
elleng Dec 3 #12
Dan Dec 3 #15
chowder66 Dec 3 #17
gab13by13 Dec 3 #20
iemanja Dec 3 #22
abqtommy Dec 3 #23
DallasNE Dec 3 #26
gab13by13 Dec 3 #27
LastLiberal in PalmSprings Dec 4 #36
twodogsbarking Dec 5 #38

Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Fri Dec 3, 2021, 04:56 PM

1. Oh ffs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fullduplexxx (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 3, 2021, 05:15 PM

5. Pithy comment. Does it actually have any useful content?

Or are you just trying to say this is just a bunch of nonsense?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erronis (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 3, 2021, 05:41 PM

11. Oh, ffs, it's a perfectly fine post.

Old skool nettiquette on DU (and elsewhere) was to type "eom" or "n/t" when only responding with post headline, but that was due to so many people still being on dial-up and it would take forever for posts to load. Are you on dial-up? If not, just move along. No need to berate anyone for their immediate reaction to an OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intheflow (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 3, 2021, 05:44 PM

14. So for us neophytes, we need to spend time looking up "ffs"? And does that help the conversation?

I really object to people interjecting little emojis or 3-4 letter terms to show that they are trying to convey useful comment to a conversation.

Apparently you are just fine with STFU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erronis (Reply #14)

Fri Dec 3, 2021, 05:52 PM

16. If you didn't know what it meant,

you could have replied, "What's ffs mean? n/t"

That way you could interact with them as if there was an actual person on the other end of the post instead of jumping on them because they didn't live up to your snobbish standards of the needed depth of every post on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intheflow (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 3, 2021, 08:10 PM

24. You're also ignoring that the original comment had no context. Just a "ffs".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erronis (Reply #24)

Fri Dec 3, 2021, 08:33 PM

25. FFS is self-explanatory to anyone who's been conscious and online more than 45 seconds

If you don't know the abbreviation, then say so or look it up. Or ignore it.

Or spend several posts on a complaint that ultimately boils down to "I don't understand."


^For the sake of clarity, that image represents "rolling one's eyes," a common non-verbal response when faced with something tiresome, absurd, or otherwise pointless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #25)

Fri Dec 3, 2021, 11:27 PM

30. Thank you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erronis (Reply #14)

Sat Dec 4, 2021, 11:30 AM

32. I never saw the term before but understood right away what it meant.

Just the same way I felt.

If i stopped to write a correction or scold every time I saw something on social media that didn't sit right with me I would be very busy indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peregrine Took (Reply #32)

Sun Dec 5, 2021, 02:47 PM

37. LOL

To clarify, that means LOL.



======

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erronis (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 3, 2021, 10:29 PM

29. It's a perfect response

To the absurdity of the situation where the US government would step in and defend TFG in this suit brought by Carrol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Karma13612 (Reply #29)

Sat Dec 4, 2021, 11:30 AM

33. +100

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fullduplexxx (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 3, 2021, 05:27 PM

7. My first thought was ffs too! Next word I thought of was "ridiculous."

You have to laugh to keep from crying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Greybnk48 (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 3, 2021, 11:28 PM

31. Exactly.. thank you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fullduplexxx (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 3, 2021, 06:11 PM

21. Agreed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fullduplexxx (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 3, 2021, 10:26 PM

28. Agree 100%

👏👏👏👏👏👏

Seriously!
I mean, they seem to be willing to say ANYTHING qualifies as part of TFG’s “job”. And further, he never worked the job in all honesty. He grifted for 4 + years.

Make him answer for his bull crap for once!!!!!

FFS, indeed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fullduplexxx (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 4, 2021, 12:16 PM

34. I do not have any idea what it means, and I won't bother looking it up.

Nor do I care whether or not someone informs me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marie999 (Reply #34)

Sat Dec 4, 2021, 01:41 PM

35. You forgot the harumph ....well You're not missing anything

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Fri Dec 3, 2021, 04:58 PM

2. Who in current Justice Dept. is behind this? Who?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to paleotn (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 3, 2021, 05:30 PM

8. Doesn't sound like DOJ is on board, but rather could be decided by a GQP judge

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Reply #8)

Fri Dec 3, 2021, 05:54 PM

18. Three judge court with one Trump and two Clinton appointees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to paleotn (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 3, 2021, 05:43 PM

13. "Justice Department lawyer Mark Freeman"

according to the article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Fri Dec 3, 2021, 05:03 PM

3. Does that mean the president of the USA is a KING? That is what it sounds like...

Nowhere in the world doe this make sense, it just fails on any human level.

The president is not a king, he must be made accountable for his actions, otherwise we are in a pseudo monarchy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Fri Dec 3, 2021, 05:13 PM

4. Our DOJ in action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scrivener7 (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 3, 2021, 05:38 PM

10. Dept of Justice my foot. The DOJ should NOT be defending Trump. What he said was horrible

NO other president has ever been as hateful and foulmouthed as Rump

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trueblue1968 (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 3, 2021, 06:02 PM

19. WOW! i couldn't agree MORE

EVERY word you said is the TRUTH! TFG was above the law because he was the fucking president, and NOW he's an x president and seems like STILL above the fucking law?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Fri Dec 3, 2021, 05:15 PM

6. what a film-flam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Fri Dec 3, 2021, 05:36 PM

9. Wonkette was liveblogging the hearing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorro (Reply #9)

Fri Dec 3, 2021, 05:42 PM

12. Thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Fri Dec 3, 2021, 05:51 PM

15. Aside from the Tax Bill that Mitch put in front of him

For his signature, I cannot recall a damn thing that Trump did for the American people as a whole. Trump is the ultimate proof that shit floats to the top.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Fri Dec 3, 2021, 05:54 PM

17. I wonder if they would be taking this same tact if it was over the rape of a child. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Fri Dec 3, 2021, 06:10 PM

20. Goes to show,

people like me who said DOJ was doing nothing were wrong. FFS, DOJ claiming that defaming a rape victim is the official duty of a president is ridiculous.

Lawyers for Trump and the U.S. Justice Department argued at a hearing in Manhattan that Trump is protected from New York advice columnist E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuit because his denial of her 2019 claims fell within his duties as a government employee.

Barr's DOJ took on this case, then Merrick Garland agreed with Barr and allowed DOJ to defend the office of Trump's presidency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gab13by13 (Reply #20)

Fri Dec 3, 2021, 06:18 PM

22. It's shameful

The entire argument is absurd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Fri Dec 3, 2021, 07:42 PM

23. Ahem. This is all ridiculous. In 2016 We The People elected H. R. Clinton as

President. TFG was NEVER elected, he won the ratfucking. He was a criminal
when he took office and he's still a criminal. He's never been acting for anyone but
himself, his enablers, suckophants and boss sPUTIN. Put him in jail. Now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Fri Dec 3, 2021, 08:55 PM

26. It Is Said That A Good Lawyer Can Indict A Ham Sandwich Before A Grand Jury

So, of course, they can come up with a way that says the government was doing the talking that slandered Carroll - just like the Supreme Court said corporations are people. Everything is possible. Everything. But none of it makes any sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #26)

Fri Dec 3, 2021, 09:56 PM

27. You are correct,

but your and my tax dollars are paying for Trump's defense and providing good lawyers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Sat Dec 4, 2021, 01:59 PM

36. If TFG is the defendant, he has to pay his legal bills. If the court rules

that what he said occurred within the scope of his duties as president, he's totally off the hook and the taxpayers pick up the bill for defending the case.

As always with T****, it's about enriching himself at someone else's expense. If he wins this appeal, watch him turn around and sue Carroll and her publisher for defamation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Sun Dec 5, 2021, 08:31 PM

38. He isn't in prison yet?

That is all I want to see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread