• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Barr has now made it very clear, The DOJ is Trump's personal law firm!!

RaleBulgarian said:
His “charitable” act is a slap in the face of Americans. Just one of his weekend trips to his own clubs in FL or NJ costs the American people millions of dollars more, and as an added bonus for Trump, he directly profits from those weekends.
Click to expand...

Well anyone who doesn't know that Trump is a conman probably has a few screws loose.
 
AmNat said:
Oh look, you didn't read the article. How surprising.
Click to expand...

The laws says that they can not be sued if they are acting in their official capacity. Do you consider that trump was acting in his official capacity when he defamed the lady, really? How do you think that the courts will think? THis is all about pushing this past the election and hoping that it will then just go away whether trump wins or loses.
 
AmNat said:
It's well established precedent that federal elected officials can't be sued for defamation. Ms. Carroll should be fined for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
Click to expand...
You have it ass backwards. And it isn’t just elected officials, it’s all public figures.

“In the context of defamation actions (libel and slander) as well as invasion of privacy, a public figure cannot succeed in a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements in the United States unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice by knowing the falsity or by reckless disregard for the reckless disregard for the truth. The legal burden of proof in defamation actions is thus higher in the case of a public figure than in the case of an ordinary person.”
Public figure - Wikipedia
 
AmNat said:
A politician's comments regarding his personal life can affect his re-election prospects and therefore fall within the immunity provided by the Westfall Act.

Why It is Pointless to Sue a Member of Congress for Defamation | Point of Order
Click to expand...

That is bullsh*t of the number one kind and you know it. And the case you linked before was a congressman making a statement about the review of a military action which of course lies within the purview of his official capacity. Other wise every time a congressman made a statement about an issue under contention he would be sued for defamation. Trump defamed a woman by calling her a liar on an issue that has nothing and I mean nothing to do with his official capacity. Trumpsters really would be okay with Trump shooting someone on 5th avenue. They would say it was his presidential duty to do so.
 
Ikari said:
Well anyone who doesn't know that Trump is a conman probably has a few screws loose.
Click to expand...
A lousy con man. Only daddy’s money and fleets of attorneys have kept him out of prison.
 
independentusa said:
That is bullsh*t of the number one kind and you know it. And the case you linked before was a congressman making a statement about the review of a military action which of course lies within the purview of his official capacity. Other wise every time a congressman made a statement about an issue under contention he would be sued for defamation. Trump defamed a woman by calling her a liar on an issue that has nothing and I mean nothing to do with his official capacity. Trumpsters really would be okay with Trump shooting someone on 5th avenue. They would say it was his presidential duty to do so.
Click to expand...

Members of congress are protected by the speech and debate clause of the constitution. That does not apply to the president. The Westfall Act would apply to the president if the matter in dispute was an official act.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
You have it ass backwards. And it isn’t just elected officials, it’s all public figures.

“In the context of defamation actions (libel and slander) as well as invasion of privacy, a public figure cannot succeed in a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements in the United States unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice by knowing the falsity or by reckless disregard for the reckless disregard for the truth. The legal burden of proof in defamation actions is thus higher in the case of a public figure than in the case of an ordinary person.”
Public figure - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

And that is what courts are about when it comes to defamation cases, to determine if it was done with malice. And anyone who believes like Barr that the president was acting within his official capacity as president has to really be a full blown Trumpster, like Barr.
 
independentusa said:
U.S. Justice Department Is Looking To Take Over Trump's Defense In Assault Lawsuit Against Him
That's right, the DOJ is now going to defend Trump in a civil defamation case. There is no way that the government should be using tax payers money to defend Trump in a personal case brought against him by another American citizen. Trump brought this case upon himself by his actions and he must pay for his own attorneys. I can not conceive if anyone thinking that this is the right thing for the DOJ to be doing. Even the most ardent Trump follower and especially every real conservatives all ought to be saying hell no. I suspect that will not be the case, but this just shows that those who have been saying that Barr is acting not like the AG, but Trump's personal attorney are correct.
Click to expand...

Didn’t the DOJ take the Paula Jones case all the way to the Supreme Court on behalf of then President Bill Clinton?
 
BlueTex said:
BS... HE IS NOT A MEMBER OF CONGRESS... You are conflating TWO different legal concepts..
Click to expand...

The same immunity applies to employees of the executive branch.
 
AmNat said:
The same immunity applies to employees of the executive branch.
Click to expand...

LMAO... On what planet? Have you actually read the speech and debate clause?

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
 
Our tax dollars are to go to defend an accused rapist.
 
AmNat said:
It's well established precedent that federal elected officials can't be sued for defamation. Ms. Carroll should be fined for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
Click to expand...

The DOJ is arguing that trump was talking in this official capacity as president and therefore cannot be sued because of it.
which is 100% the case as courts have ruled on time and time again.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
No such precedent exists. This post is a lie.
Click to expand...

You would be wrong. countless senators and congress people have been sued in the past
for slander etc ...

they got out of it simply by claiming they were speaking in their official capacity and can't be sued.
 
ludin said:
You would be wrong. countless senators and congress people have been sued in the past
for slander etc ...

they got out of it simply by claiming they were speaking in their official capacity and can't be sued.
Click to expand...

LMAO... Congress members are protected by the speech or debate clause... It's right in the constitution you claim to know so well.. The president isn't a member of congress...
 
ludin said:
You would be wrong. countless senators and congress people have been sued in the past
for slander etc ...

they got out of it simply by claiming they were speaking in their official capacity and can't be sued.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt that Trump tried that already.

But again, he's not a member of Congress.
 
AmNat said:
It's well established precedent that federal elected officials can't be sued for defamation. Ms. Carroll should be fined for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many Republican grasp that the DOJ taking over the case means that Bill Clinton shouldn't have been allowed to be sued.
 
ludin said:
you have to remember three rules.

1. These people do not care about facts.
2. It doesn't matter what evidence you post they will simply deny it.
3. The best way to beat them is to just walk away.
Click to expand...

I corrected the link... Clinton was not represented by the DOJ... If you have proof otherwise, post it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom