The US Presidency 2020

[blacktriangle]

It's all about money and politics (and by extension, power)

If support for the military is a "mile wide and an inch deep" in the general population, I'd assert that it's an Astronomical Unit wide and a micron deep among the elites and those that aspire to join them. It doesn't matter who you elect, it's all about self-interest and the military are seen at best as useful (and sometimes, necessary) idiots.

Trump isn't the only one who has these kind of thoughts. He just might be one of the few honest enough to speak them aloud.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Justice Department Intervenes To Take Over Trump's Defense In Defamation Lawsuit
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/09/910992023/justice-dept-intervenes-to-take-over-trumps-defense-in-defamation-lawsuit

September 9, 20204:49 AM ET  MARK KATKOV  Updated at 12:17 p.m. ET

The U.S. Justice Department on Tuesday moved to assume responsibility for defending President Trump in a defamation lawsuit brought by a woman who says Trump raped her in the 1990s.

E. Jean Carroll filed suit in New York state court last year after Trump, answering reporters' questions, denied knowing her and accused her of lying. Carroll, a columnist for Elle magazine, wrote in a memoir that Trump had raped her in the dressing room of a Manhattan department store in 1995 or 1996.

In an unusual five-page filing in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Justice Department argued that Trump's remarks were made in the performance of his official duties as president and that therefore government attorneys should assume Trump's defense from his private lawyers.

The filing asked the court to designate the United States, rather than Trump, as the defendant in Carroll's defamation suit and to move the case from state to federal court. Federal officials are generally immune from charges of defamation. If the DOJ's filing is successful, it would effectively bring Carroll's case to an end.

Carroll immediately condemned the legal maneuver, writing in a series of tweets, "TRUMP HURLS BILL BARR AT ME."

Addressing the president, Carroll said she is "ready! So is every woman who has ever been silenced!"

"BRING IT!"

Robbie Kaplan, Carroll's attorney, said in a statement that the Justice Department's argument is "shocking."

"It offends me as a lawyer, and offends me even more as a citizen," Kaplan wrote.

Carroll's lawsuit had reached a critical stage in state court. Last month, a judge rejected the president's request to temporarily halt the proceedings. Carroll has asked the judge to order Trump to provide a DNA sample as part of pretrial discovery. Trump may also be required to sit for a deposition if the case proceeds.

Barr: Standard practice

Attorney General William Barr said on Wednesday that the involvement of the Justice Department was routine.

Part of Trump's legal defense in the matter includes the position that he is shielded by a federal law protecting federal employees in defamation suits that are based on comments made during their official duties. Even remarks about things that took place before their government service are shielded, according to this legal position.

The attorney general said on Wednesday that the standard practice is for a federal employee being sued to alert the Justice Department so that it can defend her or him, which the White House has done in this case, Barr said.

The law and court precedents are clear that presidents enjoy the legal shield in question and that, as a federal worker in this situation, it's the Justice Department's role to become involved, Barr said.

"This was a normal application of the law. The law is clear, it is done frequently, and the little tempest that's going on is largely because of the bizarre political environment in which we live and ... and I'll just leave it at that," Barr said.

It wasn't immediately clear what role, if any, Barr himself had played in the process leading up to the Justice Department's submission of its brief on behalf of Trump in the New York case.


(the DOJ filing at link)

Nice to have the DOJ as your personal law firm.

 

[Donald H]

Justice Department Intervenes To Take Over Trump's Defense In Defamation Lawsuit
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/09/910992023/justice-dept-intervenes-to-take-over-trumps-defense-in-defamation-lawsuit

Nice to have the DOJ as your personal law firm.

You nailed it. Barr has this case all wrapped up for Trump. Seldom we agree but I'm not going to miss the opportunity!

Agreed?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

So he's not entitled to the same defense as every other elected official in NA?  How many times do you think our PM has lawsuits filed against him?  How many police officers, corrections, etc? 
Frig, no need to impeach a leader or get a civil servant fired, just have a couple thousand people sue and make them go broke....

 

[Donald H]

So he's not entitled to the same defense as every other elected official in NA?

Yes he does. I was inferring that Barr  will decide for Trump regardless of the facts. This inference on Barr is far, far from mine alone.

  How many times do you think our PM has lawsuits filed against him?  How many police officers, corrections, etc? 
Frig, no need to impeach a leader or get a civil servant fired, just have a couple thousand people sue and make them go broke....

A good point. Charge an innocent middle class person with murder and he'll go broke paying for a powerful defense. Charge an innocent (or guilty) wealthy person with murder and he'll walk, and still have lots of money left. O.J?

I'll assume for now that it could be the same in Canada.

How many police officers, corrections, etc?

Meaning they being sued or they doing the suing?

:cheers:

 

[FJAG]

So he's not entitled to the same defense as every other elected official in NA?  How many times do you think our PM has lawsuits filed against him?  How many police officers, corrections, etc? 
Frig, no need to impeach a leader or get a civil servant fired, just have a couple thousand people sue and make them go broke....

Let me take just a second to explain the mechanism of how this process works.

1. there needs to be a lawsuit that has been filed against an individual who is a public servant;

2. the wrongful act that the suit is based on must be for a "arising or resulting from the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment";

3. for the provision of the Act to kick in there must be "certification by the Attorney General that the defendant employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose"

Long story short, the purpose of the act is to protect civil servants from being personally sued for some act or neglects etc done by them "within the scope of their duties".

What Trump did is purportedly lie and defame the plaintiff respecting sexual conduct prior to his presidency. Explain to me how that is "within the scope of the duty" of a president. Had there been any other AG other than Barr, certification would in all probability never taken place.

See the Act here.

:cheers:







Post edited to confirm to site guidelines

 

[QV]

Had there been any other AG other than Barr, certification would in all probability never taken place.

Based on everything I've read and listened to, if I were an American, I'd have infinitely more trust in AG Barr than the last three AGs combined. 








Post edited to confirm to site guidelines

 

[mariomike]

Barr,

Frequently compared to the late Roy Cohn.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=%22roy+cohn%22+barr&form=ANNTH1&refig=705f6f6b90ce4b04948bfb79e244db9d&sp=-1&pq=%22roy+cohn%22+barr&sc=1-15&qs=n&sk=&cvid=705f6f6b90ce4b04948bfb79e244db9d

Roy seemed to have no principles. He smeared Jews even though he was Jewish. He tarred Democrats even though he was a Democrat. He persecuted gay people even though he was gay.

But, one thing I respect about him, according to his cousin, "Roy often told me the Kremlin blamed the U.S. for Russia’s failure to prosper, so Russian leaders were bent on destroying our democracy."







Post edited to confirm to site guidelines

 

[FJAG]

Based on everything I've read and listened to, if I were an American, I'd have infinitely more trust in AG Barr than the last three AGs combined.

Not me. Even Sessions seemed to have a sense of shame.

:cheers:

 

[shawn5o]

Justice Department Intervenes To Take Over Trump's Defense In Defamation Lawsuit
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/09/910992023/justice-dept-intervenes-to-take-over-trumps-defense-in-defamation-lawsuit

Carroll has asked the judge to order Trump to provide a DNA sample as part of pretrial discovery

Nice to have the DOJ as your personal law firm.

I cannot comment on the DOJ request as, you guessed it, I'm not a legal beagle but the quote I inserted is very interesting.

According to the Washington Post: (Jan. 30, 2020)
E. Jean Carroll, a New York–based writer who last summer accused President Trump of raping her in the 1990s, requested Thursday that he submit a DNA sample to determine whether his genetic material is on the black coat dress she said she was wearing during the alleged assault.

Carroll's lawyers served notice to a Trump attorney on Thursday, asking that Trump provide a sample for "analysis and comparison against unidentified male DNA present on the dress," the Associated Press first reported. Carroll's lawyers requested that Trump provide the DNA sample on March 2 in Washington.

Namely, a DNA test for a dress that is 25+/- years old? She never took it to the dry cleaner's? She was a fashionista, a fashion magazine editor, if it was a favorite dress, she'd have it dry cleaned. She didn't dry clean her clothes?

:rofl:

Look. This is why I think she's lying - She never went public even in the heat of the election back when everyone was trying to take Trump down or even in the bitter reaction of hillary’s loss.

 

[Donald H]

Nice to have the DOJ as your personal law firm.


I cannot comment on the DOJ request as, you guessed it, I'm not a legal beagle but the quote I inserted is very interesting.

Namely, a DNA test for a dress that is 25+/- years old? She never took it to the dry cleaner's? She was a fashionista, a fashion magazine editor, if it was a favorite dress, she'd have it dry cleaned. She didn't dry clean her clothes?

:rofl:

Look. This is why I think she's lying - She never went public even in the heat of the election back when everyone was trying to take Trump down or even in the bitter reaction of hillary’s loss.

I think Monica kept the dress and the stain on it as a trophy Shawn, but that may not be the case this time. Anyway, it's all entertainment!

:cheers:

 

[Remius]

Not to quibble,  but a lot of celebrities and especially fashion types will only wear something once.

But 25 years seems like a long time. 

No chance in heck they get a DNA sample from Trump even if they have a coat dress from that time that might still have DNA on it.

 

[Weinie]

I think Monica kept the dress and the stain on it as a trophy Shawn, but that may not be the case this time. Anyway, it's all entertainment!

:cheers:

Monica's dress is now in a witness protection program disguised as a pair of curtains.

https://www.steynonline.com/8774/that-dress-twenty-years-on

 

[Donald H]

Bob Woodward's new book on Trump.
An explanation for why Trump would talk to Woodward on tape.

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/why-would-trump-agree-to-speak-with-woodward-91396165990

For those who haven't the time to watch this, the quick explanation is that Trump's vanity wanted a Woodward book!

And along with what Trump has said as told by the book, it appears that Bob Woodward is now burdened  with US nuclear arms secrets.

 

[Donald H]

What are Americans thinking about Trump getting another term? Is Trump's support growing or dying? One possible way to gauge that is to check out what the extreme right is saying. Breitbart!

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/09/james-mattis-warned-intellligence-chief-collective-action-may-be-required-against-trump/

We can take that as a suggestion that Mattis is either leading a conspiracy to take Trump down or is at least a  part of one.

And so the question is, are the American people going to be supportive of Trump over Mattis? In my opinion that's asking a lot of people who are always going to be loyal and supportive of their military and those like Mattis who represent that loyalty. Therefore, Breitbart has been left with having to post a story that is a loser for the Trump side.

Opinions?

Maybe Americans can love both Trump and Mattis at the same time? There's no way Breitbart can do that.

 

[QV]

In June of this year, the former defense secretary claimed that Trump was going against constitutional norms in his handling of the protests and riots that have swept the country since George Floyd’s death in police custody.

  Uh, so we know that is false.

 

[brihard]

Let me take just a second to explain the mechanism of how this process works.

1. there needs to be a lawsuit that has been filed against an individual who is a public servant;

2. the wrongful act that the suit is based on must be for a "arising or resulting from the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment";

3. for the provision of the Act to kick in there must be "certification by the Attorney General that the defendant employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose"

Long story short, the purpose of the act is to protect civil servants from being personally sued for some act or neglects etc done by them "within the scope of their duties".

What Trump did is purportedly lie and defame the plaintiff respecting sexual conduct prior to his presidency. Explain to me how that is "within the scope of the duty" of a president. Had there been any other AG other than Barr, certification would in all probability never taken place.

See the Act here.

:cheers:

Post edited to confirm to site guidelines

OK, I'll take a position that may surprise several people here. I have no issue with DOJ taking the case and defending it.

The action is regarding and alleged civil tort of defamation. That alleged defamation arises from an utterance made in a presser in his official capacity as POTUS. He was questioned about allegations made against him. Were he not president, it's unlikely those reporters and he would have been in that situation, with him being asked those questions. He answered the question, as he is entitled to do.

A president, regardless of the content of his character, is allowed to defend same against attacks, the same as anyone. DOJ essentially indemnifies public officials against actions carried out in their official capacity. If the presser would not have happened but for Trump being president, then it's fair to argue there's a clear nexus between the alleged tort and his acting in the scope of his duties.

DOJ handling the case does not mean Trump is immune from ultimate accountability if there is eventually a verdict against him. It just means that he as a public functionary has his legal defense covered. Inevitably, in his role, all manner of actions will be initiated naming him. While this one is more lurid than most, it doesn't change his entitlement to have his legal defense mounted at public expense if there's a nexus to his duties.

I myself have been the beneficiary of our version of the same thing in a civil matter arising out of actions I took in the course of my duties. I won't begrudge anyone else receiving that same advantage tied to their employment if that's how the facts of the situation shake out.

It's not like the AG is able to exercise any special power to quash this. The lawyers will do their thing, will argue about jurisdiction and admissibility, but the rule of law allows for all of that. The plaintiff shouldn't be surprised that such machinations would take place, and the angry noises from her counsel are exactly what you would expect. But something like this is as much PR as it is law. Let's see what the evidence ultimately shows.

 

[Blackadder1916]

The action is regarding and alleged civil tort of defamation. That alleged defamation arises from an utterance made in a presser in his official capacity as POTUS. He was questioned about allegations made against him. Were he not president, it's unlikely those reporters and he would have been in that situation, with him being asked those questions. He answered the question, as he is entitled to do.

Just so the record is straight, Mr. Trump's (initial) denial was not an "utterance" in a presser, but in an issued statement.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/450116-trump-vehemently-denies-e-jean-carroll-allegation-shes-not-my-type

She first came forward with her allegations on Friday. Trump denied the allegations in a statement that day and then again while speaking with reporters on Saturday.

 

[brihard]

Just so the record is straight, Mr. Trump's (initial) denial was not an "utterance" in a presser, but in an issued statement.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/450116-trump-vehemently-denies-e-jean-carroll-allegation-shes-not-my-type

Ok. Doesn’t change anything in how I look at it. ‘In the course of his duties’.

 

[shawn5o]

It's a bit rich of someone with multiple draft deferments to pretend to lament the youth going off to fight while others stay at home and get wealthy...

Hi Brihard

There's another candidate that fits the above. It's old news but some ppl here may not be aware of this.


Joe Biden’s Draft Record Looks a Lot Like Donald Trump’s. Do Democrats Care?
Posted to Politics June 09, 2019 by Michael Graham

He was 6 feet tall and had an athlete’s build. He played football in high school and was active in sports throughout college. He spent one summer as a lifeguard at a local pool.

But after he graduated college in the spring of 1968 and became eligible for the draft and —possibly — combat duty in Vietnam, he received a diagnosis that let him avoid military service.

No, not bone spurs. Asthma.

And his name was Joe Biden.

Just a few months before President Donald Trump received his now-infamous diagnosis of “bone spurs in the heels,” former high school football star Biden got the same 1-Y draft deferment for “asthma as a teenager.” It was one of five deferments Biden received (the same number as notorious GOP “draft dodger” Dick Cheney) and allowed him to avoid being drafted at the height of the war. The year 1968 was one of the bloodiest of the Vietnam conflict with 296,406 Americans drafted into military service — the second-highest during the war.

…

And criticism of an opponent’s military background — or lack thereof — isn’t unusual either, as the Bill Clinton and John Kerry campaigns can attest. But by highlighting Trump’s record, they’re also turning a spotlight on other candidates who were eligible for service during the Vietnam War, including Biden.

Read the rest at Inside Sources