Fed lawyers: Trump not liable for 'crude' remarks at accuser

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP

By LARRY NEUMEISTER

NEW YORK (AP) — Donald Trump cannot be held personally liable for “crude and disrespectful” remarks he made about a woman who accused him of rape because he made the comments while he was president, U.S. Justice Department lawyers told an appeals court late Monday.

Responding to misconduct allegations is part of the president’s job, the government’s lawyers told the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. As such, it is the United States itself — and not Trump — who should be the defendant in a defamation lawsuit brought by columnist E. Jean Carroll, who says Trump raped her in the mid-1990s in an upscale Manhattan department store.

In defending Trump in its filing Monday, the Justice Department is carrying on an effort that began under former U.S. Attorney General William Barr while Trump was still in office.

Barr’s intervention last October was criticized on the campaign trail by then-Democratic candidate Joe Biden, who said it was inappropriate for the Justice Department to attempt to intervene in a private legal battle over Trump’s personal conduct.



FILE - In this March 4, 2020, file photo, E. Jean Carroll talks to reporters outside a courthouse in New York. On Monday, June 7, 2021, Justice Department lawyers said former President Donald Trump cannot be held personally liable for “crude and disrespectful” remarks he made while president about Carroll, who accused him of rape. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig, File)


Read more: https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-business-government-and-politics-fa3da020c17de463ceabe11500796bcc

[Aristus]

1. We really need to get rid of this "Presidential infallability" thing.

If Bill Clinton can be made to undergo legal scrutiny and consequences for a consensual act between two adults, Trump should be sanctioned for sexual misconduct.

[Haggard Celine]

3. I totally agree!

I'm sick of it, too. No one should be above the law. If anything, elected officials should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us.

[lagomorph777]

2. Shameful. DOJ needs to cease and desist, and apologize for this action.

I know there are DUers who want to excuse this, but it is inexcusable.

[totodeinhere]

11. It is very excusable and those who are too blind to see that need help.

The idea is to concentrate recourses on the big offenses. Little things like this are a distraction. They will get him eventually.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

20. It's not little to the victims.

What a shameful comment.

[Trueblue1968]

13. dog bULLSHIT. tRUMP'S REMARKS WERE not PART OF HIS JOB.

[The Magistrate]

4. This Is Bullshit Cubed, Sir

We are not a monarchy, the head of the executive branch is not 'the law speaking', and his farts are not government business.

The head of the executive is, and remains, a citizen, as liable for his or her personal conduct just like everyone else.

[ananda]

16. Well said. Exactly!

!!!

[slumcamper]

5. Let's hope this effort magnifies the legal absurdity of this "argument." n/t

[C_U_L8R]

6. This better be some inverse jiu-jitsu maneuver

or the DOJ needs to deeply reflect on its mission and values.

[Lucky Luciano]

9. Nope, this is all part of the eleventy dimensional chess!

Lots of that to go around.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15498749

[no_hypocrisy]

7. Not buying it.

Trump said it personally, not part of U.S. policy. Being President is irrelevant.

[Texin]

8. It'll be interesting to see if the federal judge buys into that argument.

[totodeinhere]

10. I don't think it will matter in the long run. There are enough other things to get him on.

n/t

[cheri010353]

12. It matters a lot if you're E. Jean Carroll

Or any of the many, many women he has similarly attacked. Or for that matter, any self-respecting woman and those who care about them.

[totodeinhere]

29. I get your point. n/t

[AZLD4Candidate]

14. So all Americans are created equal, but some are more equal than others. Gotcha!

[bucolic_frolic]

15. I understand the president can't be tied up with frivolous litigation

because it could become a political strategy of the opposition, which it is when republicans went after Bill Clinton.

But I disagree with this ruling. Slander is slander, malice is malice, rudeness has an impact. Tort law is not suspended because someone is president.

[JohnnyRingo]

17. Does Joe Biden know he can do anything he damn well pleases?

For The People act? Just tell the republicans you passed it by yourself.
Mitch obstructing? Relieve him of his post.
Trump causing trouble? Take him to Gitmo.

If republicans squawk, tell them because you're the president and you can do anything you want.
They would have to agree.

[bahboo]

18. this is just fucking absurd....

[Traildogbob]

19. Never has

And never will be held accountable for anything. Not even murder or attacking our god damned country. Justice in this country is a damn joke. Why should any of us follow any laws. Oh right, money.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

21. He wont be held accountable for anything.

You're right. Those who still think he is going to prison are in the clouds.

[turbinetree]

22. So in other words the king has clothes and can get away with anything

that impugns a person character with slander..., I guess I was raised differently...

[George II]

23. Anyone criticizing this move should research the Westfall Act and it's purpose.

[NYC Liberal]

26. Imagine what the Republicans would be doing without it.

Biden and every Democratic official would be sued nonstop by right-wing nut jobs for anything they did or said in office. Do we want the Dotard to be able to sue Biden personally any time he says something even mildly critical?

[Lancero]

27. "while engaged in their duties for the government"

Harassing rape victims is now a governmental duty?

...Considering how we treat rape victims in this country, this makes a sad and horrific amount of sense. We truly are a nation that glorifies rapists.

[FBaggins]

28. I think George II means that you should actually research it

Harassing rape victims is now a governmental duty?

That isn't what it says at all. The law obviously can't be about the tortious conduct itself, but whether the tort occurred as part of otherwise official actions.

If speeding by the president's limo were a tort, the parallel construction wouldn't be saying that speeding is a governmental duty, but rather that driving the president to the airport is. The question here isn't whether harassing rape victims is part of presidents' official duties, but whether answering reporters' questions at a press conference is.

I don't know whether or not I agree... but it isn't an unreasonable position and isn't surprising that the executive branch would take that position or that some in the legislative branch would disagree.

[AllaN01Bear]

24. the doj needs to quit protecting the thing.

[Skittles]

25. so...the average worker is held more accountable than the "president"

alrighty then