Justice Dept. wants to defend Trump against E. Jean Carroll

[Gil Bang 25898]

What the fucking fuck?   Surly Law Mafia, please explain what in the fuck is going on here. 

[4th&Five 41461]

Not a lawyer but I’ll have a go at it:

[Guest Lobo]

Dude, chillax.  There is massive precedence that shows that the Dept. of Justice has intervened on behalf of almost every sitting U.S. President in civil actions relating to private U.S. citizens regarding alleged wrongdoings decades before they ever became elected officials.  

I mean, do I need to tell you guys what happened in Hooters v. Taft?  

[lemonlime 5503]

14 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

Not a lawyer but I’ll have a go at it:

I am a lawyer. And this  

[SizzleChest 8275]

18 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Dude, chillax.  There is massive precedence that shows that the Dept. of Justice has intervened on behalf of almost every sitting U.S. President in civil actions relating to private U.S. citizens regarding alleged wrongdoings decades before they ever became elected officials.  

I mean, do I need to tell you guys what happened in Hooters v. Taft?  

Hooters had to show evidence?

[Ghost of LL 15492]

I'm at a loss--it makes absolutely no sense for the DOJ to appear in this suit.

[Party_Taco 3674]

I'm at a loss--it makes absolutely no sense for the DOJ to appear in this suit.

It makes total sense.

The DOJ is now solely in the business of protecting the president and the status quo. Having a believable rape accusation moving through the courts in an election year threatens both.

Everything is on the line now... expect absolutely chaos in the coming weeks. Norm shattering the likes of which we’re seeing here will barely register when this is all said and done.

[CowboyFred 1151]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm at a loss--it makes absolutely no sense for the DOJ to appear in this suit.

Vladeck is a great for you legal nerds 

[tx 3 putt 76372]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm at a loss--it makes absolutely no sense for the DOJ to appear in this suit.

The Don needs them cover his ass, so that part makes perfect sense 

[UpperWestside 6136]

I'm starting to believe our Orange Goblin-in-Chief may not be operating in good faith with us on a few things!

[atomheartbevo 89429]

2 hours ago, SizzleChest said:

Hooters had to show evidence?

Depends on your definition of "show".  Witnesses who were in the courtroom that day said you couldn't "see" the evidence, so much as you had to imagine that the evidence was there.  And the evidence that was there, you actually weren't sure if it was real or fake.

[Foggy Notion 1202]

lulz...

“Because Trump was acting officially when he called Carroll a liar, the U.S. should be substituted for the president as the defendant in the case, a Justice Department team led by Acting Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Bossert Clark said in the Tuesday filing, which argued the suit fell under the Federal Tort Claims Act. If approved by a judge, the responsibility for defending the case and paying any judgment would fall on the U.S. government.“

[High Plains Drifter 10976]

 

Somebody please reassure me the Robert's Court will slap this silliness down.

 

[Pescado_Rojo 19331]

50 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Somebody please reassure me the Robert's Court will slap this silliness down.

 

I mean, that has to be the play here right? They know it’s bullshit, but they also know it will take a while to work through the courts which will keep it out of a courtroom until after the election. 

[ultimaton 2966]

I'm sure Attorney General Warren will put the DoJ's best and brightest on this case come January.

[TwiceHorn 31273]

1 hour ago, CowboyFred said:

Vladeck is a great for you legal nerds 

Indeed.  A bright star on the faculty.

[Celery Man 20886]

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11668]

25 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

I mean, that has to be the play here right? They know it’s bullshit, but they also know it will take a while to work through the courts which will keep it out of a courtroom until after the election. 

that's my reaction.  do something crazy just so the court will have to sort it out.  take up enough time in the process.

[TwiceHorn 31273]

I can't immediately think of a statute or principle that would prohibit the DOJ from defending the president, but it's total self-dealing by the executive.

And, to be honest, I'm not sure they'd be that good at it.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11668]

If anyone wants to pull up the cases and see if they are right about claiming comments to the reporter are within the scope of the Presidency, here is what they cite. 

 

See, e.g., Does 1-10 v. v. Haaland, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2020 WL 5242402, at *6, *8 (6th Cir. 2020) (“unsolicited comments by elected officials on an event of widespread public interest” within scope); Wuterich v. Murtha, 562 F.3d 375, 384–85 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (statements made during a series of interviews to the media within scope); Council on American Islamic Relations v. Ballenger, 444 F.3d 659. 665 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (statement made to reporter during interview about his separation from his spouse within scope); Williams v. United States, 71 F.3d 502, 507 (5th Cir. 1995) (statements made during press interview within scope); Operation Rescue Nat’l v. United States, 975 F. Supp. 92, 94–95, 106 (D. Mass. 1997), aff’d, 147 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 1998) (same).

[Celery Man 20886]

[TwiceHorn 31273]

2 hours ago, Foggy Notion said:

lulz...

“Because Trump was acting officially when he called Carroll a liar, the U.S. should be substituted for the president as the defendant in the case, a Justice Department team led by Acting Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Bossert Clark said in the Tuesday filing, which argued the suit fell under the Federal Tort Claims Act. If approved by a judge, the responsibility for defending the case and paying any judgment would fall on the U.S. government.“

This is the end game, not DOJ representation.  The Federal Tort Claims Act is a waiver of sovereign immunity that permits citizens to sue the government for tort claims.  It does not waive immunity from most intentional torts, including defamation.

If they can convince the judge that it's an FTCA case, it gets dismissed immediately.

Edited September 9, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31273]

33 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

If anyone wants to pull up the cases and see if they are right about claiming comments to the reporter are within the scope of the Presidency, here is what they cite. 

 

See, e.g., Does 1-10 v. v. Haaland, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2020 WL 5242402, at *6, *8 (6th Cir. 2020) (“unsolicited comments by elected officials on an event of widespread public interest” within scope); Wuterich v. Murtha, 562 F.3d 375, 384–85 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (statements made during a series of interviews to the media within scope); Council on American Islamic Relations v. Ballenger, 444 F.3d 659. 665 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (statement made to reporter during interview about his separation from his spouse within scope); Williams v. United States, 71 F.3d 502, 507 (5th Cir. 1995) (statements made during press interview within scope); Operation Rescue Nat’l v. United States, 975 F. Supp. 92, 94–95, 106 (D. Mass. 1997), aff’d, 147 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 1998) (same).

Oh holy hell. That Haaland case is about the Covington Catholic dipshits who sued Warren and Haaland for their post-incident tweets.  The opinion puked out last week.

Quote

The district court issued an opinion and order in which * * *  It concluded that regardless of whether one agrees with Warren’s and Haaland’s communications, they were “intended to convey the politicians’ views on matters of public interest to their constituents.”  Therefore, “the statements were made within the scope of defendants’ employment as elected representatives” and they were entitled to the benefit of sovereign immunity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1). Id. This meant that the United States was substituted as Defendant in their place. However, because the United States has not waived its immunity to libel and slander suits, id. § 2680(h), the defamation claim could not proceed against the United States either.

So some dickbrain in the administration was following that, saw this and had a eureka moment for defending Dear Leader.

[TwiceHorn 31273]

So the question is going to be was Trump acting in his official capacity or in a personal capacity when he called Carroll a liar for lying about him and about things that happened before he took office.

In the above case, Sen. Warren and Rep. Haaland had no personal interest in the underlying story, their allegedly defamatory comments didn't involve them but were mere commentary on the situation.  Similar with the Operation Rescue case, where Teddy K said OR had a history of firebombing in connection with legislation protecting clinics against interference from outfits like OR. Same with Williams.

In all of those cases, the defendants received absolute sovereign immunity for defamatory remarks made as government officials and employees.  

Regardless of how this ends up, the claim of immunity is going to require either immediate dismissal (if the judge buys it) or trigger immediate appeal (if he doesn't).  So, it's going to effectively halt the thing until after the election.

Diabolical.

Edited September 9, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[horn4life 3755]

All this tells you is one thing. The Trump campaign if fucking broke!

These fees before were always picked up by the campaign, or via other non Trump pocket sources. 

It is NOT a coincidence that Trump is refusing to brag (release) about his fund raising numbers.  It must be embarrassing next to Biden's massive haul.  So if Trump supporters can't pay for Trumps defense somebody has to!  Only LOSERS pay for their own defense, pay their taxes, or serve in the military when called by their country.

[Biff Tannen 45494]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Regardless of how this ends up, the claim of immunity is going to require either immediate dismissal (if the judge buys it) or trigger immediate appeal (if he doesn't).  So, it's going to effectively halt the thing until after the election.

Diabolical

Is there a limit on how many times you can appeal?  Seems like there are several cases involving Dotard that are in like their 9th appeal. 

[TwiceHorn 31273]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

Is there a limit on how many times you can appeal?  Seems like there are several cases involving Dotard that are in like their 9th appeal. 

As a general rule, you only get "one bite at the apple."  But, the subpoena cases are having to go from appeal, back to the district court, where they can be appealed again on slightly different issues on a slightly different order or judgment.  The McGahn case is going back and forth between the original three judge appeal panel and the entire DC Circuit.

So each appeal is of a different issue that arose separately from the issue appealed originally.

[Guest Lobo]

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Is there a limit on how many times you can appeal?  Seems like there are several cases involving Dotard that are in like their 9th appeal. 

"Target Ninth Appeal

To make an audience feel

He really means it" 

-"Superconductor", Rush 

 

 

this is insane.  He needed two tries to brine a pornstar, and still got stuck paying her legal bills because he was too stupid to just say, "Your father would have wanted us to be together."   Now we gotta pay the DOJ to make a woman who has accused him of rape to go away.  Imagine if he were as bad at covering up sex with these two as he was at covering up sex with Ivanka.  

[horn4life 3755]

IF our country is still a democracy come December, it's gonna be fun to watch the Trump family start to bleed out before they all move in mass to Russia.

[Biff Tannen 45494]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

As a general rule, you only get "one bite at the apple."  But, the subpoena cases are having to go from appeal, back to the district court, where they can be appealed again on slightly different issues on a slightly different order or judgment.  The McGahn case is going back and forth between the original three judge appeal panel and the entire DC Circuit.

So each appeal is of a different issue that arose separately from the issue appealed originally.

Thanks. And for fuck’s sake. What good is a justice system if you can just run out the clock on appeals?

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2659]

I agree that this is more about the taxpayers picking up the fee (once again) for Dotard's misconduct rather than keeping the issue away from the public .... I mean DNA and stuff would in theory be devastating but you can't ever prove this wasn't consensual in Trumpkin eyes and they give no fucks --- and why not stick us all with the tab if his campaign has already been uber-raided by His Vaginess  

Spoiler

 

 

Edited September 9, 2020 by ChuckNorrisActionJeans
no spoiler.... wrist hit wrong key because wine n' Baileys experiment

[TwiceHorn 31273]

6 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Thanks. And for fuck’s sake. What good is a justice system if you can just run out the clock on appeals?

The problem here is that Trump is raising issues of first impression most of the time.  Meaning courts have not considered things like the extent of executive privilege, under what circumstances the House can hold executive branch officials in contempt for failing to comply with their subpoenas, etc.   These are fundamentally messy issues.

Donald Trump is a judicial tar baby, or pig pen if that's more palatable.

[Biff Tannen 45494]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

The problem here is that Trump is raising issues of first impression most of the time.  Meaning courts have not considered things like the extent of executive privilege, under what circumstances the House can hold executive branch officials in contempt for failing to comply with their subpoenas, etc.   These are fundamentally messy issues.

Donald Trump is a judicial tar baby, or pig pen if that's more palatable.

I get it I think. So basically he’s the only one (along with his enablers) that has ever been brazen enough to actually do these things, so there’s no precedent to fall back on right?  
 

There was a recent article talking about how he is the first president to not have any deference to the honor code and general good faith to the country that every other president has lived up to when assuming office. Guess this is part of that. 

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2659]

7 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I get it I think. So basically he’s the only one (along with his enablers) that has ever been brazen enough to actually do these things, so there’s no precedent to fall back on right?  
 

There was a recent article talking about how he is the first president to not have any deference to the honor code and general good faith to the country that every other president has lived up to when assuming office. Guess this is part of that. 

yes that's it, in a nutshell. The only functioning check left in the particular political climate we inhabit here, today, is the court system. And Trump is desperately trying to break down that last guardrail.

[TwiceHorn 31273]

13 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I get it I think. So basically he’s the only one (along with his enablers) that has ever been brazen enough to actually do these things, so there’s no precedent to fall back on right?  
 

There was a recent article talking about how he is the first president to not have any deference to the honor code and general good faith to the country that every other president has lived up to when assuming office. Guess this is part of that. 

Yes.

The issue of congressional subpoena enforcement against the executive branch has come up fewer than a half dozen times in the history of the country because most executives are willing to compromise with congress and resolve the issues.  Bush did it.  Obama did it.  Others have done it.  Trump refuses.

Executive privilege was an academic issue, mostly, until Nixon tried to assert it to withhold "the tapes"  Then it became a real, "living thing."  In the 70s.  No one else has "gone to the mat" on it, see preceding paragraph.

Trump doesn't respect the norms.  And it's not a matter of some high-mindedness or dogma (that's Barr if anyone), it's a refusal to give up incriminating evidence.

[TexArcher 37508]

3 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Somebody please reassure me the Robert's Court will slap this silliness down.

 

You want me to reassure you that Santa is finally bringing you Gal Gadot for Christmas this year, too?

[Horn Dogg 3808]

I know I’m stating the obvious, but this is some serious fucking bullshit that he’s trying to pull!

[ChiTownDoc 21101]

It’s obvious.   They know several more Trump cronies will end up in jail, including family members, if they don’t rig this election.  Prepare for an assload more bullshit.  This is nothing compared to what we will see in the coming 3 months.  

[TwiceHorn 31273]

9 hours ago, Horn Dogg said:

I know I’m stating the obvious, but this is some serious fucking bullshit that he’s trying to pull!

In the final analysis, this is not that big a deal and certainly not one of Trump's bigger depredations.

Carroll herself is pulling an end-around on civil statutes of limitation; it's a legal stunt.  It has some validity.  Trump is pulling an end-around on having to defend himself; it's also a legal stunt that may have some validity.  Even if her suit continued unabated, it's unlikely it would reach any kind of conclusion in time to affect the election.

It will be interesting to see how it pans out.  Because another unique thing is how Trump has commingled his personal affairs with his official affairs.  That's another sort of unprecedented aspect of his presidency that leads to legal uncertainty.  There are fairly clear rules about private citizen Trump and somewhat clear rules about president Trump; he has mixed the two together unlike we have ever seen.  Not to mention he's the nastiest private citizen that's ever held the office.

[TwiceHorn 31273]

Also, given that Trump may be entitled to sovereign immunity under the FTCA, it's not all that strange for the DOJ to enter an appearance.

In the cases cited above, when a government employee is sued for something coming under the FTCA under this 1988 Westfall Act, the United States is substituted as the party-defendant in lieu of the individual defendant.  https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Westfall_Act

It appears in the above cases that private counsel invoked the immunity, but government lawyers appeared in the cases, as well.

[DDD Dad 14251]

10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The problem here is that Trump is raising issues of first impression most of the time.  Meaning courts have not considered things like the extent of executive privilege, under what circumstances the House can hold executive branch officials in contempt for failing to comply with their subpoenas, etc.   These are fundamentally messy issues.

Donald Trump is a judicial tar baby, or pig pen if that's more palatable.

On a local level, Trump reminds me a lot of Gene Phillips.  They seem to have been cut from the same cloth.

[DDD Dad 14251]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also, given that Trump may be entitled to sovereign immunity under the FTCA, it's not all that strange for the DOJ to enter an appearance.

In the cases cited above, when a government employee is sued for something coming under the FTCA under this 1988 Westfall Act, the United States is substituted as the party-defendant in lieu of the individual defendant.  https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Westfall_Act

It appears in the above cases that private counsel invoked the immunity, but government lawyers appeared in the cases, as well.

So, he literally could walk out onto 5th Avenue and shoot someone....

[TwiceHorn 31273]

7 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

On a local level, Trump reminds me a lot of Gene Phillips.  They seem to have been cut from the same cloth.

I don't know (of) Gene Phillips, but yeah, I am reminded of a variety of bastard litigators and litigants that can be so hard to deal with.  Chris Weil and most of his clients; Larry Friedman, except that Friedman isn't that great a lawyer, so his obsteperousness bites him in the ass with some frequency.  Weil managed to toe the line really well.

Edited September 9, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[DDD Dad 14251]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

I don't know (of) Gene Phillips, but yeah, I am reminded of a variety of bastard litigators and litigants that can be so hard to deal with.  Chris Weil and most of his clients; Larry Friedman.

Ha.  Yes I've had to deal with both of them over the years.  Phillips had a reputation of using (arguably frivolous) litigation as a standard business tool.  There also were some allegations of mob ties and questionable real estate deals....

[Horn Dog 9672]

The new Trump defense doctrine:

1.  Trump did not do that!  Its a liberal hoax!

2.  Well, maybe  Trump did that, but he was joking and any ill effects were the fault of the liberals!

3. Ok Trump did it and he meant it....but he did it in an official government capacity and therefore it was the US government that did it, not Trump!

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

expect absolutely chaos in the coming weeks. Norm shattering the likes of which we’re seeing here will barely register when this is all said and done.

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - MASS HYSTERIA

[tx 3 putt 76372]

2 hours ago, Horn Dog said:

The new Trump defense doctrine:

1.  Trump did not do that!  Its a liberal hoax!

2.  Well, maybe  Trump did that, but he was joking and any ill effects were the fault of the liberals!

3. Ok Trump did it and he meant it....but he did it in an official government capacity and therefore it was the US government that did it, not Trump!

4. she's not even his type so no way he raped her !

[Horn Dogg 3808]

On 9/9/2020 at 7:23 AM, TwiceHorn said:

In the final analysis, this is not that big a deal and certainly not one of Trump's bigger depredations.

Carroll herself is pulling an end-around on civil statutes of limitation; it's a legal stunt.  It has some validity.  Trump is pulling an end-around on having to defend himself; it's also a legal stunt that may have some validity.  Even if her suit continued unabated, it's unlikely it would reach any kind of conclusion in time to affect the election.

It will be interesting to see how it pans out.  Because another unique thing is how Trump has commingled his personal affairs with his official affairs.  That's another sort of unprecedented aspect of his presidency that leads to legal uncertainty.  There are fairly clear rules about private citizen Trump and somewhat clear rules about president Trump; he has mixed the two together unlike we have ever seen.  Not to mention he's the nastiest private citizen that's ever held the office.

So if he wasn’t such a shithead we wouldn’t have to waste time and resources on stuff like this and the president could have time to focus on leading the country.

[TwiceHorn 31273]

12 minutes ago, Horn Dogg said:

So if he wasn’t such a shithead we wouldn’t have to waste time and resources on stuff like this and the president could have time to focus on leading the country.

True enough.  This is kind of a drop in the bucket of his shitassery.

[Horn Dogg 3808]

53 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

True enough.  This is kind of a drop in the bucket of his shitassery.

His shitassery knows no end.  Even dickeater Bob Stoops would be a better choice.