General Discussion

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)

22. However, he has not been found to have engaged in slander

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 12:21 AM

Jun 2021

The issue is whether DOJ should be able to defend a president in a lawsuit brought based on something he did while in office. They're not arguing that he's immune from suit. The only issue is who represents him in court.

If Giuliani filed suit against Joe Biden tomorrow alleging that something he said in press conference last March slandered him, DOJ would probably want the option to defend him. And I doubt too many DUers would be demanding that they stay out of it and that Biden should hire private lawyers to represent him.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

60 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

To everyone with their shorts in a bunch over DOJ's argument in the Trump in rape case [View all] StarfishSaver Jun 2021 OP

Good points. Scottie Mom Jun 2021 #1

Yeah, my shorts are in a bunch, this is the third time on three weeks DOJ dem4decades Jun 2021 #2

Of course they won't do a bad job. That's the point. StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #5

Unbunch your shorts, there are institutional issues at stake here! BeyondGeography Jun 2021 #3

Sorry, but, cilla4progress Jun 2021 #25

Once again, you ride to the rescue and bring us sanity. Thank you. Ocelot II Jun 2021 #4

Great clip! StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #7

More Burnt To Many Protestants, Ma'am The Magistrate Jun 2021 #8

I did say it was apocryphal. It was an excellent play/movie Ocelot II Jun 2021 #10

True, Ma'am, It Is a Good Line The Magistrate Jun 2021 #16

I'm not praising More. But I agree with the sentiment expressed in this filmclip StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #15

It's A Mistake, My Friend The Magistrate Jun 2021 #6

I don't often disagree with you, but I do here StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #9

Nor I With You The Magistrate Jun 2021 #12

I'm gonna have to agree with The Magistrate on this one MerryHolidays Jun 2021 #18

+1000000 Pachamama Jun 2021 #50

Good point, FoxNewsSucks Jun 2021 #11

+1. Try and explain it to the average Democratic voter dalton99a Jun 2021 #26

But they are not defending the substance of Trump's defense; merely the principle Ocelot II Jun 2021 #13

Unfortunately, this is a fine but critical legal point that most laypeople don't understand StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #17

Engaging In Slander, Ma'am, Is Not Such An Act The Magistrate Jun 2021 #21

However, he has not been found to have engaged in slander StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #22

And It Should Not Do So, Ma'am The Magistrate Jun 2021 #23

You're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #24

And The Same To You, My Friend The Magistrate Jun 2021 #28

I see it the same, cilla4progress Jun 2021 #27

You are absolutely correct! Sur Zobra Jun 2021 #31

The DOJ should persist in an unusually corrupt action because of a superficial similarity to RockRaven Jun 2021 #14

Attorney General Garland, Lisa Monaco and Vanita Gupta have a far better understanding StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #19

Not everyone here is a "non lawyer" MerryHolidays Jun 2021 #20

I wish things wouldn't get cilla4progress Jun 2021 #29

Considering that your OP contains errors of fact and law that a non-non-lawyer would not make, RockRaven Jun 2021 #30

Trump is still the defendant in this case and is therefore still subject to personal liability, StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #35

Please discuss why SCOTUS can DIG a certiorari petition MerryHolidays Jun 2021 #40

Here is a thread with an article which clearly states the DOJ argument is otherwise. RockRaven Jun 2021 #58

This article doesn't contradict anything I wrote StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #59

Thank you! tosh Jun 2021 #32

It's uncomfortable trying to walk around with a wedgie. eom sprinkleeninow Jun 2021 #33

Did the DoJ defend Clinton against his accusers? W_HAMILTON Jun 2021 #34

No. The lawsuits against him were based on alleged behavior before he became president StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #36

The truth or falsity of the facts related to the underlying facts happened before 1/20/2017 MerryHolidays Jun 2021 #38

You're confusing evidence with the cause of action StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #41

I have no idea what you mean by that MerryHolidays Jun 2021 #44

I am not arguing that DOJ can't deviate from a previous administration StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #45

Using the word "confusing" is ad hominem, under any circumstances MerryHolidays Jun 2021 #49

She's not suing him for sexual assault StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #51

Nope. They can clearly make a distinction MerryHolidays Jun 2021 #52

This message was self-deleted by its author uponit7771 Jun 2021 #54

So is the lawsuit from E. Jean Carroll. W_HAMILTON Jun 2021 #42

That's not the basis of the lawsuit StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #43

So your "fine distinction" covers things that had nothing to do with being President? MerryHolidays Jun 2021 #46

Clinton was not sued for anything he did while president, so the Westfall Act did not apply. StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #47

Ok, fair enough. MerryHolidays Jun 2021 #48

Nah, Garland wants the court to speaknow Jun 2021 #37

Protect the Office. Snackshack Jun 2021 #39

Post removed Post removed Jun 2021 #53

Who's to decide if Putin's Whore's slander "was acting within the scope of [their] office"? uponit7771 Jun 2021 #55

The court will decide. StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #57

" future presidents won't be criminals like Trump" waddirum Jun 2021 #56

This from the House Judiciary Committee kinda' says it all MerryHolidays Jun 2021 #60