Should DOJ defend Trump in defamation suit by E Jean Carroll?

[freakyguy41]

Why should a woman be saying such things about the President of the United States?

It's an obvious publicity stunt by a faded women's magazine "writer" looking for an easy last hurrah payday.

Carroll is accusing trump of what she believes he did to her. It's up to her to prove such allegations but she has the right to accuse him... just as he has the right to face his accusers.
HOWEVER, this thread is about whether or not We the People should be paying for trump's defense... and I see no reason why WE should be paying for his defense. He didn't have to tweet anything... he could have ignored her accusations but instead he created a bigger problem and now expects We the People to pay for his defense.

"an obvious publicity stunt by a faded women's magazine "writer" looking for an easy last hurrah payday." Really? And of course you have proof of that? No huh... you just need to say that to support your trump narrative?
So let's see... trump cheated on wife # 1 to date and marry wife # 2 and then cheated on wife # 2 to date and marry a Kit Kat Club pole-dancing, illegal immigrant whore as wife # 3 and then he cheated on the whore with at least one porn star who he paid not to publicly disclose before the last election. Cohen has already testified that trump paid the Russians to bury the pee tapes. There is a recording of trump stating he grabs women by the pussy and he just kisses them whether they're married or not. We have 14 women who have made similar accusations about trump that Carroll has... and trump is facing a criminal trial for statutory rape in NY when he's no longer president.... but you want to contend, without any evidence, that Carroll's accusations are just a publicity stunt.... to me, your completely biased claim without evidence is KoolAid swilling.

 

[freakyguy41]

Wait, is it morning already?

Dam.


Anyway, Federal law kind of mandates that the DOJ do this. That YOU don't personally believe it should be done, is irrelevant to the fact that Federal law says it WILL BE done.

Sorry to pop your bubble but when it comes to you getting things "popped", you weren't exactly a virgin anyway.

Quote the law that says the DOJ has to provide the POTUS with defense on any issue or action taken. If trump wants to personally defame someone, that action has nothing to do with carrying out his duties as president and therefore the law really says trump should pay for his own defense.

 

[HisArpy]

So you are saying "follow the law" right? So if a Court says, "supply DNA" and the Appeals Court says, "supply DNA"...should you supply DNA? Or what about tax records?

Obviously, you don't understand the words "request for Certeorari." Further, the Appeals court in the Tax case sent the case back to the trial court to "flesh out the record" because the basis for issuing the order FAILED the required Constitutional test.

The current order is going to be appealed for the exact same reason and send back for the exact same reason as the first. It's DEFECTIVE and the appeals court will have no choice but to say so based on what the SCOTUS said about the first one.

But then either your news feed didn't tell you that so you have no actual knowledge of what you speak; or you left all that out in your zeal to create a lie.

You get to choose which. Not that anyone will believe your choice was anything other than you choosing to lie no matter which choice you make.

The DOJ is not a President's personal lawyer. Did Clinton ask the DOJ to defend him when he was accused of something similar with Jones? Did they step in and say "we will take over this?"

First, the DOJ isn't representing Trump "as his personal lawyer." They're representing the President of the United States against a claim that he did something while performing his duties of office.

This is the entirety of the defense for the DEFAMATION claim.

Interestingly enough, Carrol made the sexual assault claims in something she wrote. At that point, Trump had a privilege of responding to the allegations. That he did so, and that Carrol claims she was defamed by his response will likely test the limits of the privilege. I suspect Trump will prevail in the end because this area of law is well established.

The sexual assault claim is a different matter. Since the Statute of Limitations has run, I suspect that there won't be any need for any defense. Thus the claims by YOU that Trump shouldn't be entitled to a defense fail to encompass all the facts and law on the matter.

Which, again, isn't all that unusual from you since you miss a lot of what's going on because of your severe TDS.

 

[HisArpy]

Carroll is accusing trump of what she believes he did to her. It's up to her to prove such allegations but she has the right to accuse him... just as he has the right to face his accusers.
HOWEVER, this thread is about whether or not We the People should be paying for trump's defense... and I see no reason why WE should be paying for his defense. He didn't have to tweet anything... he could have ignored her accusations but instead he created a bigger problem and now expects We the People to pay for his defense.

"an obvious publicity stunt by a faded women's magazine "writer" looking for an easy last hurrah payday." Really? And of course you have proof of that? No huh... you just need to say that to support your trump narrative?
So let's see... trump cheated on wife # 1 to date and marry wife # 2 and then cheated on wife # 2 to date and marry a Kit Kat Club pole-dancing, illegal immigrant whore as wife # 3 and then he cheated on the whore with at least one porn star who he paid not to publicly disclose before the last election. Cohen has already testified that trump paid the Russians to bury the pee tapes. There is a recording of trump stating he grabs women by the pussy and he just kisses them whether they're married or not. We have 14 women who have made similar accusations about trump that Carroll has... and trump is facing a criminal trial for statutory rape in NY when he's no longer president.... but you want to contend, without any evidence, that Carroll's accusations are just a publicity stunt.... to me, your completely biased claim without evidence is KoolAid swilling.

^ this is just sad. The mental contortions required to fail this badly needs someone to intervene here.

You should seek help.

 

[HisArpy]

Timmeh has some rather novel interpretations of the law.

*shrug*


It's what lawyers do. The fact that you're unaware of this isn't surprising.

 

[rockcasbah]

Let's see....her career as an advice columnist and author was pretty much zero after 2003 according to Wikipedia, though she remained on the masthead at Elle until 2019.

Her father was an Inventor, her mother, a Politician.

In 2019 she left her mostly titular job at Elle at age 75 and released a new book, her first new work since about 2003.

The new book is about all the reasons why women don't need men, a common theme in her career.

It was during the launch of her book that she rolled out the story about Trump in a Bergdorf's dressing room in 1996 as part of an article she wrote in support of the book about some of her "bad dates" over the decades.

So yeah, see this for what it is...she's trying to plump up her bank account.

"an obvious publicity stunt by a faded women's magazine "writer" looking for an easy last hurrah payday." Really? And of course you have proof of that? No huh... you just need to say that to support your trump narrative?
So let's see... trump cheated on wife # 1 to date and marry wife # 2 and then cheated on wife # 2 to date and marry a Kit Kat Club pole-dancing, illegal immigrant whore as wife # 3 and then he cheated on the whore with at least one porn star who he paid not to publicly disclose before the last election. Cohen has already testified that trump paid the Russians to bury the pee tapes. There is a recording of trump stating he grabs women by the pussy and he just kisses them whether they're married or not. We have 14 women who have made similar accusations about trump that Carroll has... and trump is facing a criminal trial for statutory rape in NY when he's no longer president.... but you want to contend, without any evidence, that Carroll's accusations are just a publicity stunt.... to me, your completely biased claim without evidence is KoolAid swilling.

 

[HisArpy]

Quote the law that says the DOJ has to provide the POTUS with defense on any issue or action taken. If trump wants to personally defame someone, that action has nothing to do with carrying out his duties as president and therefore the law really says trump should pay for his own defense.

This is personal opinion based on rancor rather than logic.

You don't WANT Trump to be defended because you've already judged him guilty. Except that's not the way it works.

Finally, I 'm not going to do your homework for you. You obviously know that the law exists, what it covers, and that the DOJ is invoking it to come to the President's defense. Me providing you with a citation isn't going to change anything except to give you more fodder to lie.

Sorry, I don't facilitate other people's vices.

 

[Aglaopheme]

You don’t have a very good track record, harpy, but feel free to keep adding to it.

 

[HisArpy]

You don’t have a very good track record, harpy, but feel free to keep adding to it.

Hay Bitch Queen, good morning.


It seems to me that if the DOJ and I agree on what the law says, YOUR opinion regarding that certitude is meaningless.

 

[schism666]

Hay Bitch Queen, good morning.


It seems to me that if the DOJ and I agree on what the law says, YOUR opinion regarding that certitude is meaningless.

gotta love a bitter misogynist. "bitch" is a thread about rape is worse than aj calling adrina "it." you're a real piece of shit, rapey. derp.

 

[HisArpy]

gotta love a bitter misogynist. "bitch" is a thread about rape is worse than aj calling adrina "it." you're a real piece of shit, rapey. derp.

Good morning fuckwad. For the record, if you can't post something nice, then you should certainly expect something not nice in return.

Which response you get is in your hands.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Good morning fuckwad. For the record, if you can't post something nice, then you should certainly expect something not nice in return.

Which response you get is in your hands.

she told the truth about your lies. go wash those filthy felines, you vile waste of human flesh.

 

[HisArpy]

she told the truth about your lies. go wash those filthy felines, you vile waste of human flesh.

Good morning FuckwadAlt, did you forget which account you used to post your last bit of bullshit?

 

[rockcasbah]

http://www.celebs101.com/gallery/Karen_Mcdougal/58028/karen_mcdougal_photo_95.jpg

Karen MacDougall is my favorite Trump Mistress.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Good morning FuckwadAlt, did you forget which account you used to post your last bit of bullshit?

No, haven't you realized that more than one person despises your sorry ass?

 

[rockcasbah]

No, haven't you realized that more than one person despises your sorry ass?

Being "liked" has always been very important to you.

Pretty easy for us to figure out why.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Being "liked" has always been very important to you.

Pretty easy for us to figure out why.

Proof? Links?

 

[Aglaopheme]

Hay Bitch Queen, good morning.


It seems to me that if the DOJ and I agree on what the law says, YOUR opinion regarding that certitude is meaningless.

No one is shocked that you agree with Barr’s silly ploy, just as no one is shocked that you feel the need to behave in the manner that you do.

 

[RobDownSouth]

*shrug*


It's what lawyers do. The fact that you're unaware of this isn't surprising.

Oh I'm completely aware of it. You have a rather charming habit of re-interpreting laws and precedent, using your patented pretzel logic to "prove" that up is actually down and left is actually right.

While it's not as extreme as Bobo's "2 plus 2 equals 5 if you squint really really hard", it's not far behind.

 

[Dribble]

Why create a new alt and bump an old news thread? Point Click click gone...forever.