Justice Department wants to defend Trump in E. Jean Carroll defamation lawsuit

[_subgenius]

But if he were innocent, it would be stupid of him not to provide it.

You guys are starting to sound like Dick Cheney
he famously stated, in defense of patriot act, that if you aren't doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about. Because of brains like yours Hoover could open mail and listen to phone calls.
I am just now realizing that when you guys talk about living under a dictator its because you want to.

[_Gunnar]

But if he were innocent, it would be stupid of him not to provide it.

You guys are starting to sound like Dick Cheney
he famously stated, in defense of patriot act, that if you aren't doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about. Because of brains like yours Hoover could open mail and listen to phone calls.
I am just now realizing that when you guys talk about living under a dictator its because you want to.

:question: :question: :question: :confused: :confused:
That made not the slightest bit of sense!

Can you explain why Trump would choose not to provide compelling evidence in his favor, if it were so readily available?

[_Res Ipsa]

I'm answering my own question now.

Is this even freaking allowed? It's not, right? This is his personal business.

OUR MISSION STATEMENT

To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.

https://www.justice.gov/about

You forgot the fine print: "Except for Trump and the people he likes today."

[_Res Ipsa]

Ok. I sent Senator Romney a request to act. This is what pops up after you use their msg’ing system: “Thank you, your message has been sent.”

- Doc

I got a response from an e-message I sent my Congresscritter back at the start of the pandemic a couple days ago. I think phone calls get marginally more attention.

[_Res Ipsa]

Here is what I believe is the controlling Supreme Court case: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/549/225/

The answer is yes, he can do this, at least for now.

If the statements made by Trump that form the basis of the lawsuit were made in the course of his official duties as President, he is absolutely immune. The statute is designed to protect federal employees from the cost and burden of having to defend lawsuits arising out of actions performed in the scope of their duties. it doesn't matter if Barr is full of crap. His certification that Trump made the statement in the course of performing his duties is conclusive as to removal of the case from the state court to federal court. The case can never be remanded back to the state court. The case will be presumed to be brought against the United States and not Trump personally unless and until the federal District Court determines that the making the statements were outside Trump's official duties. If the District court so rules, that can be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. Unless that ruling is upheld, the Justice Department will continue to defend, the case will not be against Trump individually, and Ms. Carroll will have no right to a jury trial.

The delay is real and substantial. There is zero chance that any discovery will be conducted for at least a year. More like two or more. If it had stayed in the state court, discovery could proceed at any time.

This is what Trump does. The statute is a good thing, as it prevents the filing of lawsuits in bad faith that would financially ruin federal employees due to the cost of defense. But, like everything else in a system of government, it assumes a basic level of good faith by those in power. Barr knows he's full of crap, but he also knows the federal court system will not tell him he's full of crap until long after the election. This is the archtypical example of "why we can't have nice things."

[_Jersey Girl]

Thanks for explaining that to us, RI. It's depressing, but I'd rather know than not know.

If you have time to entertain a question. Cohen said in a recent interview that he predicts that if Trump loses the election, his exit plan would be to resign, Pence moves up and Pence would offer a pardon.

A pardon for what exactly? Is he criminally charged with anything at this point? If so, either I have not seen it or I simply don't understand.

[_Res Ipsa]

Thanks for explaining that to us, RI. It's depressing, but I'd rather know than not know.

If you have time to entertain a question. Cohen said in a recent interview that he predicts that if Trump loses the election, his exit plan would be to resign, Pence moves up and Pence would offer a pardon.

A pardon for what exactly? Is he criminally charged with anything at this point? If so, either I have not seen it or I simply don't understand.

The Presidential pardon power is constitutionally pretty broad. I think the Pence could simply pardon him from any and all crimes committed during his term as president, whatever they might be. Might be instructive to look at Nixon's pardon. Or those issued by Reagan in connection with Iran-Contra.

ETA: I've been scarce because I've been working two jobs. The second -- census enumerator -- just wound down. So I have a little more time than I've had for a couple of months.

[_Jersey Girl]

Thanks for explaining that to us, RI. It's depressing, but I'd rather know than not know.

If you have time to entertain a question. Cohen said in a recent interview that he predicts that if Trump loses the election, his exit plan would be to resign, Pence moves up and Pence would offer a pardon.

A pardon for what exactly? Is he criminally charged with anything at this point? If so, either I have not seen it or I simply don't understand.

The Presidential pardon power is constitutionally pretty broad. I think the Pence could simply pardon him from any and all crimes committed during his term as president, whatever they might be. Might be instructive to look at Nixon's pardon. Or those issued by Reagan in connection with Iran-Contra.

ETA: I've been scarce because I've been working two jobs. The second -- census enumerator -- just wound down. So I have a little more time than I've had for a couple of months.

:surprised:

I think the Pence could simply pardon him from any and all crimes committed during his term as president

That's it. That's it right there. It's a good thing you showed up here today! You have been missed!

[_ajax18]

To me, this is perhaps the most disheartening thing about the Trump Presidency. During Watergate, Republicans instinctively defended the President. But when the evidence became overwhelming, they gently pushed Nixon out the door.

I'm not sure what good pushing Trump gently out the door would do to help keep people gainfully employed, enforce the border, lower taxes, cut welfare spending, cut foreign aid, stop serving as the world's police, or continue to be permitted to police our own streets, protect our own private property, or even drive down the street without getting into a life or death violent struggle with a social justice warrior. In fact, all of this would be pushed back severely if we were to be disloyal to Trump. Hence we are being loyal to conservative principles.

[_Themis]

I'm not sure what good pushing Trump gently out the door would do to help keep people gainfully employed, enforce the border, lower taxes, cut welfare spending, cut foreign aid, stop serving as the world's police, or continue to be permitted to police our own streets, protect our own private property, or even drive down the street without getting into a life or death violent struggle with a social justice warrior. In fact, all of this would be pushed back severely if we were to be disloyal to Trump. Hence we are being loyal to conservative principles.

hmm Not one mention of fiscal responsibility. You really do have a fantasy view of the world.