• 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!

Your tax dollars at work: DOJ seeks to represent Trump in E. Jean Carroll suit

BlueTex

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
49,097
Reaction score
40,901
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Using tortured logic to enlist the DOJ to represent him in a civil lawsuit... Good lord...

The U.S. Justice Department is seeking to take over the defense of President Donald Trump in a defamation suit brought by advice columnist E. Jean Carroll, who claims Trump raped her two decades ago.

In a court filing Tuesday, the Justice Department said Trump was acting “within the scope” of his job as president when he said Carroll lied about the incident, prompting her lawsuit. The U.S. also moved the case to Manhattan federal court from a New York state court, where a judge last month denied his request to stall the suit.

The move could further delay a suit that was to soon have entered the evidence-gathering phase. Carroll is seeking to take the president’s deposition and force him to provide a DNA sample from a dress she claims she was wearing at the time of the alleged attack. It also comes as the Trump campaign has reportedly been facing a cash crunch due in part to its spending on legal fees in suits against the president.


U.S. Seeks to Provide Trump Defense in E. Jean Carroll Suit

I thought Trump was a billionaire... Why does he need the DOJ to represent him in a civil case?
 
Last edited:
Why are my tax dollars being used to defend Donald Trump from a 20-year-old sexual assault allegation?

That's a rhetorical question. The answer is that the DOJ has been completely corrupted into trump's personal law firm.

Corruption is awesome, everybody.
 
This is something that should legitimately outrage *everyone*.
 
Has DOJ ever defended a lawsuit? I thought they were more into prosecution........
 
Using tortured logic to enlist the DOJ to represent him in a civil lawsuit... Good lord...

The U.S. Justice Department is seeking to take over the defense of President Donald Trump in a defamation suit brought by advice columnist E. Jean Carroll, who claims Trump raped her two decades ago.

In a court filing Tuesday, the Justice Department said Trump was acting “within the scope” of his job as president when he said Carroll lied about the incident, prompting her lawsuit. The U.S. also moved the case to Manhattan federal court from a New York state court, where a judge last month denied his request to stall the suit.

The move could further delay a suit that was to soon have entered the evidence-gathering phase. Carroll is seeking to take the president’s deposition and force him to provide a DNA sample from a dress she claims she was wearing at the time of the alleged attack. It also comes as the Trump campaign has reportedly been facing a cash crunch due in part to its spending on legal fees in suits against the president.


U.S. Seeks to Provide Trump Defense in E. Jean Carroll Suit

I thought Trump was a billionaire... Why does he need the DOJ to represent him in a civil case?

As the election draws nearer, I wouldn't be surprised to see the campaign spending less and less..

Trump and allies have spent $58 million on legal bills and compliance work: report | TheHill
 
Has DOJ ever defended a lawsuit? I thought they were more into prosecution........

They defend the US government in lawsuits, djt has a distorted vision of who the DoJ represents.
 
Why should our court system be overtaxed with frivolous lawsuits by people like this advice columnist who felt the need to get internet famous?
 
Oh pooh! The SDNY gets to make a spectacle out of how much they hate Trump again. If they really want to hang him that much they need to buy some rope and pay off the Secret Service.
 
Why should our court system be overtaxed with frivolous lawsuits by people like this advice columnist who felt the need to get internet famous?

Are you proposing a federal SLAPP statute? The GOP isn't going to like that...
 
Oh pooh! The SDNY gets to make a spectacle out of how much they hate Trump again. If they really want to hang him that much they need to buy some rope and pay off the Secret Service.

It sure must be tiring having to claim that every single thing reflecting negatively on Trump is a double-secret Obama Deep State Plant witch hunt hoax.

You've got to be sitting there thinking "goddamn, do I really have to say this again? AGAIN? Really, Trump?"
 
It sure must be tiring having to claim that every single thing reflecting negatively on Trump is a double-secret Obama Deep State Plant witch hunt hoax.

You've got to be sitting there thinking "goddamn, do I really have to say this again? AGAIN? Really, Trump?"


I see then. SDNY doesn't really hate Trump it's just that every case before them screams Orange Man Bad. The law is the law and Trump is hitting for the other team. Must.... destroy .... Orange Man.
 
Ah, here's the strategy:

"DOJ is now arguing that when Trump said "she's not my type" he was ... acting in his official capacity & within the scope of his employment as President.

This is truly grotesque--they're saying that misogyny is the President's official duties/within the scope of his job.

Oh, and of course the FTCA doesn't ALLOW you to sue the United States for defamation, so if Trump's DOJ succeeds in convincing a court to substitute the United States for him as defendant, then that will be the end of the suit -- and E. Jean Carroll will have no remedy at all."

https://twitter.com/LeahLitman/status/1303450761070772224

If Trump succeeds, this would be a direct deviation from the ruling that Clinton (the President) is not immune to civil litigation. It would be yet another ruling in a parade of rulings that the President is above the law. Imagine if Republicans inherit a Democratic president as dismissive of the law as Trump is. Republicans would SOL.
 
Last edited:
Where are the Trump supporters to defend this use of tax dollars?
 
Back
Top Bottom