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

[turbinetree]

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

[Fullduplexxx]

1. Oh ffs

[erronis]

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

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

[intheflow]

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.

[erronis]

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.

[intheflow]

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.

[erronis]

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

[Orrex]

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.

[Fullduplexxx]

30. Thank you

[Peregrine Took]

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.

[Beartracks]

37. LOL

To clarify, that means LOL.



======

[Karma13612]

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.

[Peregrine Took]

33. +100

[Greybnk48]

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

You have to laugh to keep from crying.

[Fullduplexxx]

31. Exactly.. thank you

[dchill]

21. Agreed.

[Karma13612]

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

[marie999]

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.

[Fullduplexxx]

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

[paleotn]

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

[groundloop]

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

[onenote]

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

[iemanja]

13. "Justice Department lawyer Mark Freeman"

according to the article.

[Escurumbele]

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.

[Scrivener7]

4. Our DOJ in action.

[Trueblue1968]

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

[bluestarone]

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?

[rurallib]

6. what a film-flam

[Zorro]

9. Wonkette was liveblogging the hearing

It's an interesting commentary and summary.

https://www.wonkette.com/liveblog-e-jean-carroll-takes-on-trump-at-the-second-circuit

[elleng]

12. Thanks

[Dan]

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.

[chowder66]

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

[gab13by13]

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.

[iemanja]

22. It's shameful

The entire argument is absurd.

[abqtommy]

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.

[DallasNE]

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.

[gab13by13]

27. You are correct,

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

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

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.

[twodogsbarking]

38. He isn't in prison yet?

That is all I want to see.