The White House Is Wrong In Seeking To Have DOJ Take Over The Defamation Case Against Trump . . . But A Court Will Have To Grant It [Updated]

The Department of Justice (DOJ) moved yesterday to take over the representation in the defamation suit brought by author E. Jean Carroll, who has accused President Donald Trump of raping her.  I strongly disagree with the use of the Justice Department in such circumstances.  However, the court may have little choice to grant the motion.  This is a case where the legal answer is not the right answer.

The brief motion filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relies on the Federal Tort Claims Act to seek to take over the litigation. It is based on attenuated logic that, while the alleged rape occurred 30 years ago, Trump’s denial (which is the basis for the defamation claim” occurred while he was president. As a result, the Justice Department is claiming that the comment was made as part of his official duties and thus it should be defended by the Justice Department, and not private counsel.

In my view, the framing of the comment as an official act is wrong and this move undermines the integrity of the Justice Department. Barr defended the decision.  There is case law supporting the position. It has been used by other presidents. I strongly disagree with the request, which presumably came from the White House.  That is where the primary blame should fall. From the first year of the Administration, I have been critical of the President’s blurring the lines between his private and official legal cases. This has been a long pending lawsuit handled by private counsel. It should have remained so.  Indeed, Trump has the advantage in the litigation, as discussed below.

Barr could reasonably view this as a nondiscretionary act on his part once the request is made, particularly given past invocations during the Bush and Obama Administrations. However, I would argue that there is discretion here. The issue is the meaning of “while acting within the scope of his office or employment.”  The case law has added a broad interpretation to the mandatory language of the Act. This decision is consistent with that case law.  I believe that the Act should be amended to exclude clearly personal matters like this one.

Nevertheless, the correct decision under the law would be to grant this ill-conceived motion.  The reason is the Westfall Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1), which states:

“(2) Upon 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, any civil action or proceeding commenced upon such claim in a State court shall be removed without bond at any time before trial by the Attorney General to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place in which the action or proceeding is pending. Such action or proceeding shall be deemed to be an action or proceeding brought against the United States under the provisions of this title and all references thereto, and the United States shall be substituted as the party defendant. This certification of the Attorney General shall conclusively establish scope of office or employment for purposes of removal.”

I do not see the room for judicial discretion in this “shall” provision. It was written to give entire discretion to the Justice Department in certifying such cases.

There is an irony here for critics however in opposing this motion.  For years, critics have argued in federal court that tweets and comments by the President in areas like immigration should be treated as official statements. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit adopted such an approach in prior litigation.

However, this is clearly a personal matter and not a comment on any government policy or action.  It should not be a matter for the Justice Department.  None of this gives credence to the underlying claim.  This would be a very difficult case to prove. Carrol is essentially suing over what is called an “exculpatory no” statement in criminal law.  Trump had every right to deny the underlying rape, but he did so as an individual, not as the president.

141 thoughts on “The White House Is Wrong In Seeking To Have DOJ Take Over The Defamation Case Against Trump . . . But A Court Will Have To Grant It [Updated]”

  1. this is just another piece of left wing PCrap in preparation for the replacement a Supreme Court Justice and like all the rest of the crap has no material meaning outside the world of left wing anti American Fascism.

  2. Trump is accused if singing a song in the Rose Garden which was recorded. It was directed to his wife.

    Pardon my hard on!
    I never promised you a Rose Garden!

    Those are the first two sentences. Is that language ok if said on the grounds of the White House by the Pres?

  3. In another thread, someone pointed out that a judge dismissed the Covington students’ suit against Sen. Warren and Rep. Haaland for this reason. I looked up one ruling, from U.S. District Court Judge Bertelsman.

    Among other things, he notes “it is abundantly clear that Warren’s statement posted via her official Twitter account on a matter of national interest — an incident on the National Mall with perceived political ramifications — was meant to communicate her position on the event as an elected representative. … the crux of the issue for the applicability of the FTCA is whether the party was acting within the scope of her office or employment. For purposes of the Westfall Act, a ‘determination of whether an employee was acting within the scope of employment is a question of law, not fact, made in accordance with the law of the state where the conduct occurred.’ … The Court concludes that the challenged statements by defendants Warren and Haaland — whether one agrees with them or finds them objectionable — are communications intended to convey the politicians’ views on matters of public interest to their constituents.”

    The Covington students sued in Kentucky, and Bertelsman used Kentucky law.

    Carroll sued in New York, and the judge who rules on the DOJ’s motion will presumably use NY’s law re: whether Trump was acting within the scope of his office. It’s been assigned to Judge Lewis Kaplan (SDNY), and we’ll have to wait and see how he rules. I hope he rules quickly. I won’t be surprised if the losing side appeals.

  4. This is a case where the legal answer is not the right answer.

    I’m surprised at you Turley. When is the rule of law not the right answer? For 4 years the DOJ/FBI/IC operated on the flawed principle that the right answer is not the legal answer in their failed effort to unseat a duly elected president. You’re advocating for the DOJ to once again ignore the law for what you feel is the right thing to do. If the law is flawed, then change the law.

    1. “When is the rule of law not the right answer? ”

      Are you a fan of the No True Scotsman fallacy, Olly?
      That X is the law doesn’t tell us that X is right. Whether something is right (in the sense of morally correct) is a matter of opinion. It’s no surprise that people have different opinions.

      1. That X is the law doesn’t tell us that X is right.

        No, it tells us that X is the law.

        Whether something is right (in the sense of morally correct) is a matter of opinion.

        Duh. The difference is opinions of the law are settled through how they are administered, legislation or the courts. Unless of course you believe the law is for suckers and our feelings are more important than the law. No thanks.

  5. If a person is raped they have to report it to the police or shut up for life. Wait 30 years? Easy to make things up. She needs a mental exam.
    The Justice Dept needs to defend the pres.
    Nuff said.

    1. “If a person is raped they have to report it to the police or shut up for life.”

      Nope.

      Someone who is raped can choose to report it or not.
      Someone who is raped can choose to talk about it with friends / relatives / a doctor / … or not.
      Someone who is raped can choose to make a public statement later or not.

      It’s not your decision to make.

      And she’s suing for defamation. If Trump had simply said “Her allegations aren’t true,” Carroll wouldn’t have had a defamation case. FWIW, if the suit moves forward, she claims that she did tell people at the time, and they can be witnesses.

      1. and someone who makes a years late phony accusation of rape, can be called a liar and a phony. Im calling Carroll a liar and a phony. im free to do that. she’s a scurrilous liar and not about some trivial matter, either. one that harms all of us as Americans potentially. She is a cur, a female dog, you know,. I forget the word for that…?

        1. I wonder how many women you know who’ve been raped or assaulted, Kurtz, but who’ve never told you because you’re such a pig about it.

          1. I know plenty who were assaulted and I know some that have lied about it too. But don’t worry about me. Feel free to imagine what pleases you. Imagine I have a yellow hair combover if that’s what thrills you.

            But if there is any serious question as to the validity of my generalization, go talk to a woman divorce lawyer sometime and test my assertion that a late report is a weak report. Maybe true or maybe not, but always weaker than a fast report. The longer it goes stale the weaker it gets. Carroll’s is super weak and so was Tara Reade’s.

            You fool your buddy svelaz into thinking you’re a lawyer and you gracefully admitted that you are not. Here’s the thing. Obviously, you’re not. Some things you can only learn by experience. Now Im sharing it with you for free, because you’re trolling me. Silly me. But others may benefit from the information .

            I just recited a truth that all believe in our system whether the stupid newspapers tell it or not. Heck you could just watch tv dramas and figure this out.

            A late report is a weak report.

            Here’s another thing. I can tell you’re one of those people who forgets that men get sexually assaulted too. A lot actually. A lot of boys and a lot of men.

            from RAINN:

            “As of 1998, 2.78 million men in the U.S. had been victims of attempted or completed rape.5
            About 3% of American men—or 1 in 33—have experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime.5
            1 out of every 10 rape victims are male.”

            So don’t get all high and mighty talking about rape like it’s some special harm that only comes to women.
            What i said is true of any report of sexual assault. A fresh report is a credible one, and the staler they get, the weaker they are
            The exception is generally just kids, for obvious reasons.

            Now shove off and go troll somebody else with more of your haughty and inconsequential conjectures

  6. Meanwhile, audiotape was released today of Trump telling Bob Woodward on February 7 that COVID is “more deadly than even your strenuous flus,” and on 3/19 saying “I wanted to- I wanted to always play it down. I still like playing it down, because I don’t want to create a panic.” Compare that with what he was saying publicly at the time.
    https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/09/politics/bob-woodward-rage-book-trump-coronavirus/index.html

    He knew, and he downplayed it to serve his personal ends. He is a disgusting and danderous person, and I hope he is voted out in November.
    No doubt his sycophants will excuse this too. Trump was apparently correct when he said “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.” His supporters will accept anything from him.

    1. Putin pays to shoot US soldier’s and Trump still doesn’t lose voters. Trump lies about how bad the virus is, and he still doesn’t lose voters.

    2. CTHD, today we have 189,000 dead, we are seeing 30,000-45,000 new cases per day, it took thousands of nursing home deaths before anyone restricted nursing home so it got reduced there, colleges are seeing huge spikes in dorms and still less than 50% of people wear mask. (AND NO THE PRESIDENT CAN NOT DICTATE USE NATIONALLY)

      So had he said 2,000,000 would die, 20,000,000 will get it and this is the “Black Plague”, do you REALLY think people would have listened?

      I think the outcome would be the same. Just google some March Pelosi comments.

      1. Ron,

        You say “I think the outcome would be the same,” and I’m baffled that you think the President’s decisions and actions have no impact. Why do you assume that he’s so powerless?

        And why on earth would you think that the most honest and productive thing for Trump to have said in February would be something like “2,000,000 would die, 20,000,000 will get it,” as if Trump’s only 2 choices were that or saying what he said? If you want to discuss it, think about what an honest, competent President would have said and done on an ongoing basis.

        Here are some examples of what he DID say between Feb. 7 and March 19, despite knowing what he knew:
        Feb. 23: “We have it very much under control in this country.”
        Feb. 24: “The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA.”
        Feb. 26: “We’re going to be pretty soon at only 5 people, and we could be at just 1 or 2 people over the next short period of time”
        Feb. 27: “It’s going to disappear. One day it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.”
        March 6: “Anybody that wants a test can get a test … they’re making millions of more as we speak. But as of right now and yesterday, anybody that needs a test — that’s the important thing — and the tests are all perfect. … I like the numbers being where they are. I don’t need to have the numbers double because of one [cruise] ship that wasn’t our fault.”
        March 9: “So last year 37,000 Americans died from the common Flu. It averages between 27,000 and 70,000 per year. Nothing is shut down, life & the economy go on. At this moment there are 546 confirmed cases of CoronaVirus, with 22 deaths. Think about that!”

        I’m sure I could collect more quotes, but this sample is NOT what a competent and caring president says, knowing what he knew, and having the power that he has.

        I know that Trump can’t mandate mask wearing. But he could have called on everyone (except those with medical contraindications) to wear them as a small sacrifice for the country’s well-being, he could have encouraged all governors to mandate wearing them in public settings, he could have invoked the DPA to have them produced and made freely available to people who needed them, he could have consistently modeled wearing one, … And that’s just a tiny example of what he could have done but didn’t do. He’s totally unfit. He’s not the only person responsible for the massive deaths / massive #s of people with health complications / massive #s of people with economic problems, but he is the single-most responsible person, as he is the single-most powerful person in the country.

        1. There are too many people in this country that are not going to listen to any politician, especially Trump!!! Everyone on the left thinks government can control any issue as long as the president takes a position. That is wrong because 1/3 rd are totally against Trump and another 3rd are really Libertarian when it comes to personal responsibility. Govt tells them to do something and they do the opposite. N.C. has mask mandates. Unless its a business that makes people wear them, such as one has it on for entering and they get kicked out if they take it off, just only 1/2 wear them. And they are mandated! Look at CA. They locked down tighter than Dicks hat ban. People rebelled, went where they were banned. Then CA began reopening and now they have the highest number of cases. NY locked down and stayed locked down, they are doing well after losing thousands due to Cuomo’s orders to send Covid patients to nursing homes, but now 70% of resturants and a high percent of businesses in NY City are projected to close permanently. Can the whole country survive what NY did in March.

          You can be someone that would blindly follow a politician, but I am one who understands Americans. A virus like Covid will not ge controlled by politicians. Even Nancy Pelosi!!
          https://dailycaller.com/2020/03/30/flashback-nancy-pelosi-san-francisco-chinatown-coronavirus-trump/

          1. Do you think that our government representatives are totally powerless to do anything?
            Because that’s what it sounds like, but maybe I’ve misunderstood.

            If that’s not what you mean to imply, then please clarify: what things **do** you think the government can do and should have done?

            “You can be someone that would blindly follow a politician …”

            But it’s not a choice between “blindly” following someone vs. ignoring the person entirely, nor are politicians the only ones who are relevant. Whether I do or don’t follow someone’s advice depends on whether I trust the person and whether the person has expertise. I’m much more likely to follow Fauci than Trump, as I both trust Fauci and know that he has relevant expertise.

            “Everyone on the left thinks government can control any issue as long as the president takes a position.”

            Nonsense. I’m on the left, and I don’t believe that, nor does anyone else on the left I know. Projecting that kind of garbage onto people who have different views than you is counterproductive.

            1. First, check this out. Pay particular attention to Fauci comments. This is an excellent non political summary. Fauci is not the expert you think
              https://noqreport.com/2020/04/20/covid-19-from-the-start-the-definitive-coronavirus-timeline/

              Second, look around. Maybe where you are people are doing what their governor is telling them to do. In N.C., in my central section of the state, about 1/2 the people are following dictates. That is where my views are coming from. Sturgis just saw thousands, some spreading the virus. You think these people are going to follow dictates? Then, when things were jot known, and now, when they are?

              I suspect you live in a large metropolitan area where government is much more a part of peoples lives than where I live. Its comes down to those who will follow mandates (like in NYC) and those that wont ( like in many red state suburban areas). Just like now, about 50-50.

  7. Trump, his father, and his ilk have been escaping justice for crimes they have committed and will continue to commit through loopholes and formidable legal maneuvering for decades. This is no different. In his private life Trump was seen as a thief, crook, bankruptcy expert, liar, and womanizer, etc. He had the money and power to avoid answering for his crimes. Trump has been found guilty numerous times, paid penalties, but never admitted wrongdoing. Trump is the stuff cheap movies are made of. Trump is no where acceptable as Presidential material. One can accept that these scumbags exist in business and are protected by the law as it is stretched and perverted almost to the breaking point. Scup like Trump should never get anywhere near public office. Those who voted for Trump have no idea what morality is or what was intended by the founding fathers. 86 this piece of vile excrement in November. The future of America depends on it.

  8. Carroll’s lawsuit is a defamation action based on Trump calling her a liar in response to her claim that he raped her. She has the dress she was wearing at Bergdorf Goodman when he shoved her into a dressing room and forced himself on her,and she claims it contains DNA. The reason Barr is just now acting is because the state court was poised to order Trump to give a DNA sample for comparison. He also lost multiple motions in state court up to this point. And, there’s photographic evidence that Trump lied when he said he never even met her: there is a photo with him, Carroll and her husband at the time taken before the incident.

    So, was Trump acting in the course and scope of his office when he called Carroll a liar, and, therefore, it is appropriate to substitute the United States of America as a defendant? Not even the most-ardent Trumpster (including Turley) can come up with any logic to convert his slander of Carroll into the duties of the POTUS Here’s one big point you left out, Turley: the United States cannot be sued for slander or defamation, so if Barr’s little stunt works, Carroll has no recourse and her case will be dismissed.

    All of which brings us back to the point about Barr: his “certification” that Trump was acting in the scope and his office when he called Carroll a liar is just plain false, and is in bad faith and is solely for political reasons. Barr should be impeached for prosecuted for dereliction of duty. Barr proves once again that he will stretch the law to protect Trump.

    1. One person’s defamation suit is trivial compared to the duties of the POTUS.

      There is no charge of rape, don’t try and slip that past the readers. This is a defamation suit not a criminal action.

      Of course if she had been raped, she could have reported it on time. She didn’t. That speaks for itself

      She could have had the DNA sample taken in the usual way at the hospital and put in a rape kit. She didnt.

      This is lawfare in the form of a defamation suit based on a phony story. Not more.

      1. Of course she didn’t report it at the time. The writers for Law & Order didn’t finish that script until 2012.

  9. I couldn’t find an actual verbatim copy of Trump’s June 21 2019 statement of denial as to E.Jean Carroll’s allegations, however–an excerpt I saw on twitter (after an unsatisfactory google search) showed that the statement supposedly came from “President Donald J. Trump” so arguably there is at least a shred of a factual basis upon which DOJ’s argument can stand. Additionally, even if not explicitly, Carroll’s attack on Trump is inherently political in nature, and done for political purposes, to “take down” Trump’s presidency. Her lawsuit complaint is an inherently political document, on its face; the actual allegations of defamation against Trump are limited to a single page (his June 21 2019 denial statement). The entirety of her lawsuit is extremely puzzling if not viewed as a political take down. I don’t quite understand her theory of the case. She is not suing him for the alleged rape itself, (I guess due to statute of limitations); she’s suing him for defamation because he denied raping her. Even if what he said is false–i.e. that he actually did rape her (good luck proving that in court, even if they had sex, she can’t prove it wasn’t consensual), how does it defame her reputation in a way that causes compensable damage to her? He’s a public figure, and by publishing her allegations in the press, she’s arguably made herself a public figure too–assuming she wasn’t already a public figure due to her status as an advice columnist in NY Magazine. Therefore doesn’t she have to prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence under NY Times v. Sullivan? How does she do that? Even if they did have sex many years ago, how does she prove 1) the sex and 2) that it was non-consensual? The fact that these allegations originally came from her in the context of her driving cross country while writing a book about a list of 21 men that she hates (including Trump as one of the men) suggests that she’s a complete nutbag.

    1. They will write books in the future about the depth and extent of delusional devotion by those in the cult of Trump. You don’t seem to get it, do you? The reason why the United States cannot be sued for defamation is to prevent public officials from concerns about defamation actions resulting from commenting on matters of public interest. The law does not exist to protect a chronic, habitual liar who is accused of rape and who defames his accuser. The timing is also telling: Trump was on the verge of being required to produce a DNA sample to compare to the sample on Carroll’s dress, and he had lost several motions directed at trying to get the case dismissed. So, along comes his personal “fixer” to save the day. And, Trump lied when he said he never met her, so trying to say the sexual encounter was consensual won’t fly, either. A jury would see through this in a New York minute. I can hear summation now: “first he says he never met her, which the photos prove is a lie, and now he says the sex was consensual. Which lie are you supposed to believe?”

      The bigger point is the prostitution of Bill Barr. Trump was not acting in either the course or scope of his duties as (fake) POTUS when he called Carroll a liar. Nothing about the rape or his slander had any thing to do with his phony “presidency”. The law on what constitutes “scope and course of employment” is very well-developed in the tort and workers compensation fields. Applied here, Barr’s “certification” is in bad-faith and a dereliction of his duties, which are supposed to be to uphold the law.

      And, BTW, Carroll was an advice columnist for Elle Magazine, which fired her after she made her allegations public.

      1. They will write books in the future about how we vanquished our enemies, saw them driven before us, and we heard the lamentation of their women

    2. “I couldn’t find an actual verbatim copy of Trump’s June 21 2019 statement of denial ”

      They’re in her suit, starting on p. 15: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6538586-E-Jean-Carroll-v-Trump.html

      Your claim that “the actual allegations of defamation against Trump are limited to a single page (his June 21 2019 denial statement)” is false, and since you “don’t quite understand her theory of the case,” you should read the suit.

  10. E. Jean Carroll is a lunatic whose writing defies description. Her episode with Trump exists only in her imagination. He’s not the only noteworthy man she’s claimed raped her.

    1. How about we check out the DNA? Nope, Trump won’t give a sample, just like he won’t show his financials. It’s easier to just lie about these things and hide the evidence.

      1. How bout this lady report the rape on time and then she could have had the DNA taken at the hospital.

        But she didn’t. Definitely not on time.

        Perhaps because either she never even had sex with them, or, it was consensual and she is making up the lack of consent years later to extort the POTUS of money or engage in a form of lawfare that other people are putting her up to do. Lame!

        1. Kurtz, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, less than 1/3 of victims of sexual assault report it: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv16.pdf
          You probably know a number of women who’ve been raped. They just don’t talk to you about it. If I’d been raped, I certainly wouldn’t want to talk to someone with your attitude.

          “or, it was consensual”

          Trump denies knowing her at all. Let them get a DNA sample from him and test it against the DNA on her dress. If Trump weren’t an assh*le and he’d simply denied that her claim was true, she’d have no basis for a defamation suit. But he lacks self-control. He leers at teen girls saying “Look at that piece of ass, I would love some of that,” he’s walked in on naked teen girls and women, he admits to kissing women without consent, to grabbing women by the p*ssy, and multiple other women have alleged that he assaulted them. Did he rape E. Jean Carroll? I don’t know. But her defamation suit should be allowed to proceed, as should Summer Zervos’s.

          1. Don’t worry about me as a person. I am insignificant. But nobodies like me once we get old enough, have had a lot of talks with women. yes I do know women who have been raped, and chose never to talk about it nor report it, and yet were credible.
            However, I also know women who have lied. Women that made up false reports. And more than a few like that have crossed my desk. It does happen that women sometimes lie.

            You see there is no way out of weighing credibility in a situation like this.

            This is why I approached the question of did Biden sexually assault Tara Reade carefully. True, he is handsy and often makes inappropriate touches as we have all seen. True, he knew Tara Reade and had the opportunity. But on the other hand, Tara Reade did not report until years later. Why? Perhaps because she may have welcomed the conduct at the time and then changed her mind years later. Or perhaps because she made it up as a total lie.

            See there is no way around weighing credibility of women’s sexual accusations. “Believe women” is nonsense. Go talk to a woman divorce lawyer about this subject if you think I am such a bad guy and you may just find that my viewpoint that a late accusation, is a weak one, is basically what everybody in law enforcement from cops to lawyers to judges believe.

            Yes. I am giving you the normal viewpoint here CTHD. A late accusation is a weak one. Maybe true, or maybe not, but always weak

            The only big exception to this is children who are sexually abused. obviously they may not understand the gravity of the incident and may be bullied into hiding the truth.

            But Carroll was no child when the alleged incident happened. So that does not apply to her at all. Simple as that.

            1. Here’s another thing: who among the people you listed, is a chronic, habitual liar? Trump has literally NO credibility whatsoever. For example, only 1/3 of Americans would even consider receiving a vaccine while he is in office, and that number reflects his hard-core base. That is a sad statistic, but we’ve all seen how he bullies people who won’t do what he wants, even licensed professionals like attorneys (Jeff Sessions), and doctors (Dr. Redfield, who went along with the Trump demand to no longer recommend testing for asymptomatic people exposed to COVID-19, against the advice and recommendations of virtually all public health experts because 40% of carriers are asymptomatic). We see how he lies about treatments–hydryoxychloroquine is a prime example, and how he won’t let doctors conduct COVID-19 updates because he thinks the truth will hurt him politically. He downplayed the risk, and because there is still no clear, national strategy or mask mandate, infections are the highest in the world. Americans are not welcome to travel to the EU, Mexico or Canada. People are afraid to send their children to in-person schools. We also see how he is pinning his reelection hopes on a vaccine being available before the election, so now, most Americans do not trust either the CDC or the FDA to look out for our interests, because we know that Trump couldn’t care less how many Americans get COVID-19 or how many of us die, and we know he forces professionals to do his bidding at the risk of being fired and lied about. Therefore if there is an announcement that a vaccine is available, you won’t see long lines of people wanting to get a dose.

              You speak of “weighing credibility”, but Trump has no credibility. Simple as that.

          2. Here’s another thing CTHD, you troll

            For all you know, my mother was raped and never reported it. Or maybe she was and she did. For all you know, I’ve been falsely accused of it. For all you know, I have been raped. Such things don’t matter to the subject. But you’r projecting your personal conjectures about me on this subject in an offensive way. Why? Like I said all past week, you are a troll.

            See, you’re a troll, so that’s what you do. You waste time, you provoke, and you troll

            I make a lot of strong comments, but I am not conjecturing about people’s offscreen personas. I have avoided that back and forth. I have made some insults but Im’ keeping them based only on what i see here. Calling you a troll is strictly based on you trolling people here online. I dont know anything about you offscreen. But you pretend to know me when you do not. You intend to provoke me. You crave attention. Who I am doesn’t matter. I am nobody. Just another fat old white guy in the midwest. You can call me a racist bigot sexist fascist whatever, I could care less. But I observe you provoking me and you are only proving my point that your whole purpose here is malicious time wasting and has nothing to do with whatever content you pretend to argue.

            Snotty witchy troll. That’s not speculating offscreen, that’s what I get 100% from the dreck you peck out here every day in plain sight. Troll, pathetically pretending to advocate ideas.

            1. If you think I’m a troll, Kurtz, you shouldn’t feed me.

              Since your comment above strikes me as trolling, I will not respond further.

  11. I would agree if our society was not as corrupt as it is today. And this goes for Trump, Biden or anyone else in that office. How could anyone afford to defend themselves from multiple accusations, especially during a first term, filed by anti-_____ individuals that get support from an opposition party/group.

    For instance, Biden has been accused of sexual misbehavior by multiple individuals. If a G.O.P. group found any small bit of evidence to support multiple womens suits, knowing they would not result in a favorable outcome for the claimant, but would do political harm, I could envision back to back to back claims.

    Today, moral corruption has created an environment that results in personal destruction based on lies and innuendo.

  12. Interesting issue. However, it is important to mention, that the DOJ, brings there, precise analogous cases, also dealing with comments to press, while also, concerning personal issues. I quote:

    “Numerous courts have recognized that elected officials act within the scope of their office or employment when speaking with the press, including with respect to personal matters, and have therefore approved the substitution of the United States in defamation actions. See, e.g., Does 1-10 v. v. Haaland, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2020 WL 5242402, at *6, *8 (6th Cir. 2020) (“unsolicited comments by elected officials on an event of widespread public interest” within scope); Wuterich v. Murtha, 562 F.3d 375, 384–85 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (statements made during a series of interviews to the media within scope); Council on American Islamic Relations v. Ballenger, 444 F.3d 659. 665 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (statement made to reporter during interview about his separation from his spouse within scope); Williams v. United States, 71 F.3d 502, 507 (5th Cir. 1995) (statements made during press interview within scope); Operation Rescue v. United States, 975 F. Supp. 92, 94–95, 106 (D. Mass. 1997), aff’d, 147 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 1998)(same).

    End of quotation:

    Anyway, the analogy with Twitter and Trump is problematic. For there, the court didn’t deal with the content, but rather, defining the arena, as “public forum” notwithstanding the specific content of the tweets.

    Thanks

      1. For example, in Southern district of NY, Knight v. Trump, I quote:

        “Here, these factors strongly support the conclusion that the interactive space is a designated public forum. “The @realDonaldTrump account is generally accessible to the public at large without regard to political affiliation or any other limiting criteria,” “any member of the public can view his tweets,” and “anyone [with a Twitter account] who wants to follow the account [on Twitter] can do so,” unless that person has been blocked. Stip. ¶ 36. Similarly, anyone with a Twitter account who has not been blocked may participate in the interactive space by replying or retweeting the President’s tweets. Stip. ¶¶ 21, 22, 28, 36. Further, the account — including all of its constituent components– has been held out by Scavino as a means through which the President “communicates directly with you, the American people!” Stip. ¶ 37 (alterations incorporated). And finally, there can be no serious suggestion that the interactive space is incompatible with expressive activity: rather, Twitter as a platform is designed to allow users “to interact with other Twitter users in relation to [their tweets],” Stip. ¶ 13, and users can use Twitter to “petition their elected representatives and otherwise engage with them in a direct manner,” Packingham, 137 S. Ct. at 1735. The interactivity of Twitter is one of its defining characteristics, and indeed, the interactive space of the President’s tweets accommodates a substantial body of expressive activity. Stip. ¶¶ 41-43. Taking these factors together, we conclude that the interactive space of a tweet from the @realDonaldTrump account constitutes a designated public forum.”

        I shall provide you a link, later……

        Thanks

  13. AG Barr says the murder rate in Chicago has been cut about half since Operation Legend began.

    I am sure it will amaze some here that actually enforcing the law reduces crime.

    Unlike Mayor Lightfoot, BLM and loudmouths like Kamala, it seems AG Barr is actually saving black lives.

    They will protest, of course. Black lives don’t really matter to Black Lives ‘Matter’.

  14. Your defense of Bill Barr is getting thinner by the day. He might have been a “good” guy once upon a time. His recent statements completely missing the mark on how voter fraud is (or is not) a problem are a serious problem. He seems to be making up facts nearly as often as our dear leader.

  15. It wrong and it should be denied in the interest of justice. At best, it’s being interposed at this time to cause delay in a case that has been pending for a while. I’m sick of this kind of “certification” is enough although the faces are otherwise. I don’t think that is how the law is supposed to be applied but the we are now in Trump’s America.

Leave a Reply