Trump really think the Justice Department is his and Barr loves acting like his fixer:
In a highly unusual legal maneuver, the Department of Justice moved on Tuesday to replace President Trump’s private lawyers and defend him against a defamation lawsuit brought in a New York state court by the author E. Jean Carroll, who has accused him of raping her in a Manhattan department store in the 1990s.
Lawyers for the Justice Department said in court papers that Mr. Trump was acting in his official capacity as president when he denied ever knowing Ms. Carroll and thus could be defended in court by government lawyers — in effect underwritten by taxpayer money.
Citing a law called the Federal Tort Claims Act, the department lawyers asserted the right to take the case from Mr. Trump’s private lawyers and move the matter from state court to federal court. The law gives employees of the federal government immunity from lawsuits, though legal experts said that it has rarely, if ever, been used before to protect a president.
Ms. Carroll’s lawyer said in a statement issued Tuesday evening that the Justice Department’s move to intervene in the case was a “shocking” attempt to bring the resources of the United States government to bear on a private legal matter.
Flop sweat.
PPCLI
This is really a desperate maneuver. This raises the profile of this case 100 fold, and now it will be big headline news. Why pay that forseeable price? It must be something huge.
I suspect the real value of this is getting it out of state court. They know if Trump is forced to give up that DNA sample he is cooked, so they need to find friendlier judges fast.
scott (the other one)
William Barr needs to be disbarred. No pun intended, because there is nothing funny about the situation. Even if it’s almost entirely symbolic, because symbolism matters.
JMG
If we retrofit this theory, Bill Clinton got a blow job as part of his Presidential duties.
Poe Larity
Kings and Emperors do not have “private” lawyers.
How many centuries do we have to go back?
gene108
@JMG:
Whatever the Paula Jones settlement was would have been paid by the U.S. Treasury.
Also, how is it legal to move a state case to a federal case, without it even going to trial or appealed?
IANAL, so please explain that to me.
prostratedragon
acting in his official capacity as president
Does the New York State court get to adjudicate this? I’m not so bereft of entertainment options these days that I’d look forward to the DOJ arguing this point, but what in Hell would they say?
Mike in NC
As a rich fucker who whined about government all his life (taxes! regulations! minimum wage!) it was obvious that Trump’s vision from Day One was to gut and break apart the federal executive branch. Career government civil servants to him are merely the hired help, and he thinks he should be able to fire them all at will for not kissing his fat ass often enough.
Geoboy
Every last one of these clowns who voluntarily participates in this stuff – throw them out of work, strip them of their licese to practice law permanently, and let them see how much fun it is to make the monthly mortgage payment on a McMansion when you’re handing fries out the window at the local McDonalds.
gene108
@John
Describes me in regards tot his right now. I have no doubt in my mind a judge like Neomi Rao, or Karen Henderson (GHWB appointee, who ruled with Rao in favor of Flynn) would absolutely agree to whatever Barr wanted. And we do not know how many of these Republican judges are actually out there that would do whatever it took to put Party over country and the rule of law.
John Revolta
So, the argument is that they’re not defending “Donald Trump”, they’re defending the “POTUS”.
Fine. But where does it say that it’s the Dept. of Justice’s job to do THAT?
prostratedragon
More from Ms. Carroll’s lawyer, Robbie Kaplan.
geg6
How is this even possible? Do they even have any defense attorneys on staff?
laura
The president is a broke ass joke and has decades of experience spending other people’s money to dig his crooked ass out of so many ditches. E. Jean Carroll is on one righteous quest and I wish her well in this endeavor.
Bill Barr should be spat upon and dragged for filth the rest of his life at the least.
Roger Moore
@PPCLI:
He’s been ordered to provide DNA, I assume to match semen on an article of clothing she kept. He is obviously willing to do anything to keep that from happening.
Cheryl Rofer
Bill Barr has moved up to take on MIchael Cohen’s job
sanjeevs
@Roger Moore: Guilty as fuck
oldgold
Trump is fighting providing a DNA sample that, if she is lying, would expeditiously and objectively exonerate him. What does that suggest?
lurker
@gene108: Many cases under federal law are only available (proper subject matter jurisdiction) in federal court – the FTCA is one of those laws, along with various others, such as admiralty, patents and copyrights but not trademarks, and all sorts of other issues.
In this case, the FTCA is normally applied to situations where there is a personal tort claim, such as a slip and fall at a government office. Because it is the U.S. government on the other end of the case, special rules apply, and Congress set up the FTCA to deal with it. If the FTCA was not there, someone might not be able to sue the government at all, based on the Constitution, so having the law there is a good thing.
It is not really meant to deal with a libel or slander situation, as government employees are not supposed to be in the business of saying things that are actually or potentially libelous or slanderous. However, injury from speech or printed comments is still considered a personal tort, and potentially falls under the FTCA, if the person accused of false public statements is acting in an official U.S. government capacity. That’s how this case gets under the FTCA. Other presidents would likely not get into this situation…
The other thing at play here is something called removal. If a case is alleged to be exclusively federal jurisdiction, such as a case under the FTCA, removal to a federal court is automatic upon notification through a request to remove in the state court proceeding – theoretically the case was never properly in state court in the first place.
Where this potentially gets more interesting is that one of the first things the federal court will look at is whether removal was proper. If the case is not really a federal case, the federal court will remand the case back to the state court to pick up where they left off. That kind of remand can leave the litigant in the position of dealing with a frustrated state court judge.
In this case, chances are that the case will ultimately make its way back to state court. However, any reasonable guess would be that this would not happen until after the election, and maybe even after the second term inauguration, so the Trump side of things probably sees some advantage in delay. For example, the dna sample will not be dealt with until after that time frame, whether in state or federal court.
Brachiator
Copy editors must grimly guffaw whenever they start a paragraph with this. Must happen a lot these days.
scav
jus primae noctis expanded to jus anyold noctis and the to-be-officially-defended right for anytime during the life of an anointed president. No doubt Barr will soon be relitigating that Time Out his Orangeness endured in pre-school.
Baud
@lurker:
The FTCA definition of “employee” doesn’t fit the president, but I agree that the goal is delay.
Another Scott
@lurker: Thank you.
Cheers,
Scott.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Cheryl Rofer: and given interviewers a new first line of questioning as Cohen starts his media book tour– “Is Bill Barr doing the same sort of thing you used to do as trump’s “fixer”? “
PPCLI
@Roger Moore: Well, yes. If you read the rest of my comment, you’ll see this was a rhetorical question.
MomSense
@oldgold:
He does not want that DNA sample in circulation. There are more victims
Kay
Gross, corrupt people. The stench coming out of the Trump DOJ has become overwhelming.
How is anything they do credible or trustworthy given how completely they’ve compromised themselves? They can’t wall the Trump corruption off from the rest of their work- the whole thing is dirty now. All these people who think they’re escaping this unscathed are delusional. The rot spreads ever day.
John Revolta
I just read a little more about this. Apparently if the DoJ takes over the defense, and loses, the Government (read: you & me) could be responsible for paying any damages. This is probably the real reason for this maneuver.
prostratedragon
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Let’s hope they use it, or that Cohen himself makes the observation.
Gravenstone
@oldgold: He’s likely abused so many women throughout his life, I’d be surprised if he remembers many individual incidents. He’s probably assuming he might have done it, because he’d done it to others. Basically has to take every accusation that gets this close to him seriously, because he probably can’t say one way or another whether she was one of those victims.
Baud
What’ll be interesting to see is what the Biden DOJ will do with this case, since there’s no mechanism I’m aware of for reversing this process.
JoyceH
@Baud:
I think there’s more to it than that. This case could just be kept percolating along for two months and get it past the election. Making this weird move ensures headlines, which will be bad publicity regardless of the outcome.
Seems to me that only one thing explains this – that Trump is so broke he can’t continue paying his lawyers.
Sab
OT: I love E Jean Carroll. I am a luddite so I can’t link, but google “Miss Jean’s Wild Ride” from Outside Magazine. Sort of a goofy east coast variant on “Travels with Charlie.”
lurker
@Baud: Thinking it through a little bit, without research, the DOJ could reverse course under a Biden administration, which would result in a remand. Not specifically within my wheelhouse, and there are some institutional considerations which would get tricky. However, the idea of the DoJ going to a court and saying we should not have proceeded with this case was recently tried out in a criminal prosecution involving some fellow named Michael Flynn. Not obvious that they could not confess error on this one and thereby allow for a remand
The bit about liability for damages is a good point as well.
Kay
What a pathetic chapter in a public service career. They’re all Michael Cohen now, cleaning up the sleazy Trump family messes.
When they took these jobs did they picture themselves defending a crooked real estate developer and his country club buddies? Because that’s where they are. Oh, well. We all make choices. This is theirs.
Kay
@Sab:
I like her too. I also find her credible. I believe what she said happened, happened.
Baud
@lurker:
The FTCA doesn’t expressly provide for a retraction of a certification. It does say that the district court can declare the certification was wrong.
WaterGirl
@lurker: Thanks for explaining all of that to us.
TS (the original)
@Cheryl Rofer:
The latter is now being interviewed on Rachel’s show
Another Scott
True? No idea.
(via nycsouthpaw)
Cheers,
Scott
patrick II
@Roger Moore:
She kept the coat she was wearing. It was hanging untouched (I have the feeling from revulsion) for all of these years. When she appeared on TV interviews it hadn’t seemed to occur to her that it was evidence. A friend suggested it was and should be tested. Evidently they found DNA. So, here we are, a rapist president, and that may not even be his worst crime.
SiubhanDuinne
@prostratedragon:
He’s already done so. The very first chapter (foreword) of his book says so, explicitly.
WaterGirl
@Baud: Would you mind explaining the implications of that distinction?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@TS (the original): interesting that Rachel launched straight into the interview. I wonder if she saw all the critiques of a couple of her recent dragged-out intros
Omnes Omnibus
No issues with you here. My question is how is it possible that a statement to the effect of “I couldn’t have raped her because she’s not my type” be within the scope of his official duties.
lurker
@Baud: Pretty sure that is uncharted territory then (shocking in this situation). I can see that being an interesting discussion in court. Federal judges are generally small c conservative, but I can see them finding a way to get a case off their docket, particularly one like this which would be an annoying hot potato.
@WaterGirl: Happy to explain, however I think baud is contributing important points as well, however many bits at a time.
Still trying to find a place for my baud campaign yard sign…
Elizabelle
@TS (the original):
Talk about a poker face. No expression on Cohen’s face as he listens.
Baud
@WaterGirl:
There’s no formal way that I know of for the next AG to retract the legal maneuver that Barr is using. The statute says that the federal court may send the case back to state court if the court finds that Barr acted wrongly.
If I’m right, then the Biden DOJ would have to argue to the court that Barr was wrong and the court would make a decision.
Omnes Omnibus
@WaterGirl: You can’t take it back, but a court can do it for you.
TS (the original)
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
I wondered if it was pre-recorded??
Another Scott
@lurker: I see what you did there…
:-D
Cheers,
Scott.
J R in WV
@Geoboy:
And exactly which MdD’s manager would hire a felon to handle Fries? Not gonna happen. Sweeping a street in front of a NYC Richy Rich tower maybe. Studying to be a doorman helper.
lurker
@Omnes Omnibus: Defending the substance of this move is not something I would want to try to take on – my explanation was intended to clarify how the case could move from state to federal court. All of this is offhand analysis based on some general experience.
I am not at all certain that suing the U.S. for the causes of action in this case (various forms of defamation, slander) is available under the FTCA, so that could either lead to the case being dismissed (Trump wins) or the case being held to not be an FTCA case, which goes back to the state court (not what Trump wants).
Any reading of my explanation as a defense of this move is reading something I did not intend – I can see a potential legal argument for it, but not one I would want to make.
Am also likely to sign off soon to deal with real world issues..
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@TS (the original): feels like it to me– frankly I think more of these remote interviews should be pre-recorded and edited for glitches and cross-talk (not Maddow specific)
I hope Cohen gets more attention brought to the house in FL and the Russian fertilizer magnate they’re talking about. That’s always struck me as too crazy to be legit.
WaterGirl
@Baud: @Omnes Omnibus:
Thank you. Thank you.
WaterGirl
@Omnes Omnibus:
This sentence is a thing of beauty.
Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)
@Baud:
Couldn’t Biden’s DOJ just reassign lawyers to the case on the orders that they are to do a really shitty job?
WaterGirl
@lurker: Now that you’ve commented, please don’t be a lurker any longer. :-)
Edit: What you said in #52 is exactly how I read your comment in the first place.
Another Scott
@WaterGirl: Similarly, …
Yup.
But Donnie is Lord God Emperor of All the Realms, so the rules don’t apply, donchaknow.
(groucho-roll-eyes.gif)
Here’s hoping that EJC takes him to the cleaners.
Cheers,
Scott.
Kay
@SiubhanDuinne:
Cohen is more honest than they are. By a mile. Trump was Cohen’s client. Cohen never pretended otherwise. These people are pretending to work for the United States and being paid by the people of the United States, while in fact serving only Donald Trump.
TS (the original)
@Another Scott:
As mentioned earlier, it would seem this manoeuvre is designed to ensure the American people, rather than trump, pay the bill.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Aleta
@lurker: @lurker: Thanks. I appreciate your clarity.
SiubhanDuinne
@Kay:
I’m about 2/3 of the way through his book. Considering he is someone who basically lied for a living for more than a decade, I am finding his writings imbued with truth and genuine remorse. Never thought I would say this, but despite everything, he’s one of the good guys now.
Central Planning
@TS (the original): If the American people pay EJC, I hope she takes all that money and enables other lawsuits against the soon-to-be ex-president.
lurker
@WaterGirl: For what it’s worth, I comment at a semi-regular frequency – at least every year or two. Used to comment once in a great while on soccer referee threads before that David Anderson guy took over for Richard Mayhew. However, I am guessing he misses refereeing more than I miss those threads, much as I enjoyed them.
Reading these threads is always much appreciated, even if I read most long after the blog has moved to the next post. Thank you for the encouragement.
TS (the original)
@Central Planning:
I don’t know the US legal system – but imagine this will all change when Pres Biden is in charge. Whether he can legally send this back to the state courts or force a Fed judge to do this @lurker & others may know.
Viva BrisVegas
The model for Barr is not Cohen, it’s Roy Cohn.
Trump’s original consigliere and prime candidate for worst person in history not known to be a mass murderer.
debbie
@John Revolta:
That will be the day I stop paying taxes.
Elizabelle
@SiubhanDuinne: Maybe you can write a book review for us?
I generally would like to reward Michael Cohen for being decent and buy his book BUT
I just cannot abide spending any more time reading about Donald Fucking Trump. Too much. He’s like the worst Kardashian ever, and I resent the amount of attention he demands and how it’s very hard to escape the deplorable Orange one.
It’s like we’re all undergoing Clockwork ORANGE aversion therapy in real time.
Never finished Mary Trump’s book. Just. Too. Much. Trump. Maybe some other time.
Omnes Omnibus
@Goku (aka Amerikan Baka): No.
Kay
@SiubhanDuinne:
That’s funny. My husband and I watched his testimony expecting to dislike him but we found him sympathetic too. He seems…redeemable in some way the rest of these people aren’t.
cain
@lurker:
It’s pretty weak sauce since this is an accusation towards Trump in the 90s – it has nothing to do with the federal govt in any shape way of form. It’s a huge leap to say that the Trump was acting as president when he denied he knew her. It’s tenuous at best.
Miss Bianca
@WaterGirl: I agree. A sort of laide beauté, but beauté nonetheless.
Elizabelle
[Trump] is devoid of empathy so long as he wins. — Michael Cohen
Speaking of Trump’s hatred of Obama, and that Trump did not actually believe the birther smear he started.
randy khan
@prostratedragon:
The way this works is that the act of filing a notice of removal whisks the case to federal court. However, you can contest the removal notice in front of the judge who gets the case and when it’s as ridiculous as this you should have a fairly good chance of getting it back to the state court.
Of course, that will take time, and it’s subject to appeals, so there’s very little chance she gets her deposition or DNA sample before the election.
One might ask why it took so long for the person in charge of deciding whether cases should be removed to federal court under the Federal Torts Claims Act to get around to it. Or one might not, knowing the answer already.
Mike in NC
@Viva BrisVegas: We may well learn some day that Donald Trump and Charles Manson were pen pals.
WaterGirl
@lurker: Every year or two, that makes you a regular!
Lurk less, comment more. :-)
WaterGirl
@Miss Bianca: Exactly.
lurker
@WaterGirl: suppose you think I should smile too… ; – )
randy khan
@Baud:
There is, in the sense that E. Jean Carroll can ask the federal court to determine that there was no basis for the removal and send it back to state court. I would think that a Biden DoJ could tell the court that the issue has now been reviewed and that, since the tweet was not an official government report and had nothing to do with any official government action, the guy who used to be in charge of making these decisions obviously just had a bad day and the filing to move it to federal court was a mistake.
Omnes Omnibus
@cain: It isn’t exactly the same thing, but I have gotten around choice of jurisdiction clauses in contracts (those things that say that you can only sure the company in a court in some inconvenient court in Guam) by making a claim under a law in my state that negates the jurisdiction clause. Once the case is in court in your state, the court can hear all the related counts. For example, I included a claim under the WI Consumer Protection Act with my contract claims in a case against a moving company for losing and or damaging a family’s good in an interstate move. As it turned out, I lost on the consumer claim but won big on the contract claims. The consumer claim allowed me litigate in Madison rather than Chicago (I have never been admitted to practice in IL).
TL;DR, Sometimes shit makes sense for procedural reasons even if it is not a winner on its face.
WaterGirl
@lurker: No smiling necessary!
Kay
Remember when we all got sternly scolded by political media because a comic made a joke about how Huckabee Sanders is a liar?
She invented a story about a dead soldier to protect Donald Trump and promote her career. Told this story with a lot of phony emoting and crocodile tears. All a big lie.
lurker
@WaterGirl: was thinking of the hamilton-burr colloquy …
https://youtu.be/C6GFb7FIB0Y?t=59
at about 1:00
HumboldtBlue
@SiubhanDuinne:
That discussion came up in another thread a few days ago, specifically regarding his coming clean, I remember making a comment about it being akin to a “confession,”
Kay
Carroll is writing a series in the Atlantic on all the women who have alleged that Trump assaulted/raped them, so maybe the thugs are trying to intimidate her and shut her up.
Fat chance. I don’t think she’s afraid of these coddled, soft degenerates.
Zelma
I watched Cohen and found him more likable and more intelligent than I expected. Not admirable; he clearly made lots of bad choices and lacked a moral center. But being the fixer for a two-bit real estate developer and reality TV star, while unattractive, is much less destructive than the people who are “fixing” things for Trump as president.
Kay
@Zelma:
Agreed. Cohen at least knew who he worked for- these people don’t even have that- they’re not supposed to be working for Donald Trump, yet that’s what they’re doing. Rule Number One- figure out who you work for. If you get that wrong nothing else is right.
WaterGirl
@lurker: Ha! I have not seen Hamilton yet.
I was thinking of the car magnet that says:
I try to follow that, though I am not always successful!
Steeplejack
@Zelma:
Same. I almost want to object to “likable,” but he seems genuinely chastened, which does make him more likable.
I didn’t catch the whole thing, because I had to go from the car (SiriusXM) to the apartment (TV) and put some stuff away.
Lawrence O’Donnell currently rehashing.
SiubhanDuinne
@HumboldtBlue:
One of Lawrence O’Donnell’s guests just pointed out that the reason he thinks Cohen is telling the truth now is that he’s not claiming he knew things that would be damning but very difficult to prove.
For example, Rachel asked Cohen if he had ever heard Trump use the N-word. It would have been so easy for him to say yes, and impossible to prove otherwise, but Cohen said he personally never heard him use the term. In the great scheme of things, it’s a small point — but telling, and to Cohen’s overall credibility, I think.
Another Scott
@TS (the original): My expectation and hope is that this maneuver fails and that the original trial court does not take kindly to the stunt.
So that you and I (and she) do not end up paying, but rather Donnie (and his minions who give him money) does.
Cheers,
Scott.
lurker
@WaterGirl: Have seen that, but had not thought of that in this context. The line from the musical is going for the opposite of your comment, which seemed particularly amusing and ironic.
Hamilton gets circulation in all sorts of surprising contexts in my world, but that is a story for another day…or not.
Thanks for the dialog. Will try to devote some of my copious free time to commenting…
Jeffro
@PPCLI:
Yes on all 6 of your points!
Thanks for helping the Dems win the news cycle for the rest of the week, trumpov, you racist rapist corrupt moron.
Jeffro
Democrat: it suggests Biden’s lead will grow a point or two.
trumpublican: it suggests that DEEEEEEP STATE DERP DE DERP!
national snooze media: both sides have a point
Jean Carroll: hello, how about that sample, you prick?
Kay
We bought stamped post cards from the postal service and when people come into the county Biden headquarters we ask them to write one to a voter. Not everyone participates- which is fine! This is a very Trumpy area and people are sometimes reluctant to “come out” as Democrats. But the people who do participate really seem to enjoy it. We provide the names and addresses. We got them from the voter list, which is a public record. One of our members went thru and gave them “grades” as voters depending on their record of turning out- a 1 is low, a 5 is high-we’re targeting the lower numbers. Just registered D’s.
Jeffro
@Another Scott: yup. the orange rapist moron would get bounced from, well, any job for this.
lurker
@Another Scott:
@randy khan:
There are various stories I have heard over the years about these types of moves. One in particular goes that a particularly contentious case had a hearing going on, when an assistant to an attorney came into the courtroom and passed a note to counsel, who promptly stood up and announced at the next pause in conversation that the case had been removed (to federal court). Supposedly the federal judge, looking at the case and the removal process, heard that the case was removed during a hearing and said “he removed it during a hearing?” and then shook his head. The federal judge then ordered that the removal was improper and remanded the case back to state court.
Why did the judge shake his head – clearly counsel acted rudely in the process of removing the case, and now was going back to the same court and judge who had wasted court time on a hearing which the removal made a waste of time, so counsel would get to deal with that (likely annoyed) judge.
Removal late in the game like this, with an outstanding discovery order for a dna sample, is likely to provoke something of the same reaction.
HumboldtBlue
@SiubhanDuinne:
He’s no dumbass that’s for sure and I swear it feels like he’s glad to come clean.
Ruckus
@MomSense:
If he can be made to give one sample, that stampede would be heard around the world and the number of suits filed might overwhelm the courts. Worth the risk though.
Ruckus
@Kay:
Yes the stench out of the DOJ is epic, but then it really is the same stench coming out of every pore of the shitforbrains maladministration.
mrmoshpotato
SERIOUSLY? SERIOUSLY! MOTHERFUCKER!
Sorry officer. His crotch repeatedly got in the way of my bat that was traveling at high speed in that direction.
mrmoshpotato
@JMG: Bill Clinton’s penis happened to find itself inside Monica Lewinsky’s mouth.
WaterGirl
@lurker: We can pretend that I’m clever enough to have been making the Hamilton reference. Let’s go with that!
mrmoshpotato
You’re being nice – seriously.
Ruckus
@Omnes Omnibus:
How could, and of course the tag, IAANL, part of his official duties be to rape someone? That of course would make him absolutely above the law and I really don’t see that anywhere in the law. Suing him may not be the answer, impeachment might be the only recourse but then he wasn’t president at the time so I don’t see how he could not be tried for damages, unless of time limitations. IOW this seems to be so far outside of what the law intends and how it has been interpreted for a long time.
Am I making any sense here? Or is his entire line bullshitis extremeis.
lurker
@WaterGirl: really don’t need to have the last word on this, but 👍 (thumbs-up, in case that does not come through)
(tricky since i am not on a phone … providing emojis in the editor might be something for the next site revision, or the revision after that one)
Steeplejack
@Ruckus:
The thing that is alleged to be part of Trump’s duties is not the rape but the “she’s not my type” statement, which Trump made when he was in office. Maybe because he made it on Twitter (?) and his Twitter feed has been determined to be official communication. (He is prevented from blocking anyone on his feed.) A big stretch, but not the craziest thing we’ve seen.
WaterGirl
@mrmoshpotato: They should seriously start impeached proceedings on Bill Barr tomorrow.
* unless they think that would hurt our chances in November.
Steeplejack
@lurker:
If you’re on a Windows box you can get the emoji menu by pressing [Windows key] + [period]. I think there’s something similar for Mac.
prostratedragon
@randy khan: So (also summing up what others have said above) the Federal court has the initiative here. Still, those scope of Presidential duties arguments must be some really gratuitous amusements.
lurker
@Steeplejack: good to know, will give it a try. thx
Ruckus
@Steeplejack:
I guess I was more asking, if he gets away with this, does it mean that he is totally free of worry about being sued or tried for really anything – shooting someone on 5th ave – as long as he is president? Really because he’s not really in good health but he might be able to pull enough BS to be “reelected” and live out his life without a criminal record, which he seems to deserve rather a lot, especially if he won’t be tried for it.
Another Scott
I’ve never heard Popehat’s show, but tomorrow’s should be good.
Cheers,
Scott.
The Moar You Know
@SiubhanDuinne: NO HE ISN’T. He’s a manipulative psychopath who is finding it both convenient and profitable (he needs money) to tell a gullible American public, the portion of us who are desperate to see Trump gone, what they want to hear. You will never know what he did for Trump or anyone else. Nobody will.
TS (the original)
@Steeplejack:
Trying it out – I didn’t know this (very limited computer skills)
🤞 😎😎
mrmoshpotato
LOL!
ITAGMFAW! Impeach The Attorney General MotherFucker As Well!
ETA – The Soviet shitpile will scream that “they” “impeached your favorite Attorney General.”
Steeplejack
@TS (the original):
👌
Sebastian
@Another Scott:
It means that the US government has to pay the damages, not DJT
mrmoshpotato
@The Moar You Know:
@SiubhanDuinne: Oh FUCK NO! Michael Cohen needs to be in the dock at the American Nuremberg Trials.
As I said before, FUCK EVERYONE WHO REMAINED SILENT SO THEY COULD WRITE A FUCKING BOOK!
And, as always, FUCK RICK WILSON, etal!
mrmoshpotato
Slight, but important correction – it means American taxpayers have to pay the damages.
narya
@Ruckus: Wellll, IANAL but do deal with FTCA. To pull THIS particular stunt he has to be able to argue successfully that the thing for which he is getting this support is an official act. Thus, in this case, what’s at issue is not the original alleged act, but the defamation suit that is about that alleged act. I mean, Barr is sufficiently corrupt that anything can happen (or, more to the point, delay can happen); in all of the current round of lawsuits and appeals and such, the object is not winning the particular suit, it’s delaying the actual case being adjudicated. It’s a variation on the tactics he has always used: “You want me to pay you? Sue me; I have more lawyers and access to more money.”
BruceFromOhio
It ain’t private no more.
Librarian
@TS (the original): It was prerecorded. Chris Hayes played part of it during his show.
Ilefttxwhenannlost
@scott (the other one):
Ilefttxwhenannlost
@scott (the other one):
@Kay: agree…much like Anita hill and all the me too’s…public assertion is brave and nflg…and this matches pussy grabber we know