Posted on 06/07/2021 7:19:18 PM PDT by Magnatron
The Justice Department argued in a brief filed Monday that it should be permitted to substitute itself for former President Donald Trump as defendant in a defamation lawsuit brought by a longtime magazine columnist, E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of rape, continuing the argument it had initiated under the previous administration even as the White House has changed hands.
"Then-President Trump's response to Ms. Carroll's serious allegations of sexual assault included statements that questioned her credibility in terms that were crude and disrespectful," Justice Department lawyers wrote in a brief to the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals. "But this case does not concern whether Mr. Trump's response was appropriate. Nor does it turn on the truthfulness of Ms. Carroll's allegations."
Rather, the lawyers wrote, because they believe Trump was an employee of the government and that he acted "within the scope of employment," the department, rather than Trump personally, should serve as defendant in the case.
"Speaking to the public and the press on matters of public concern is undoubtedly part of an elected official's job," they wrote. "Courts have thus consistently and repeatedly held that allegedly defamatory statements made in that context are within the scope of elected officials' employment -- including when the statements were prompted by press inquiries about the official's private life."
In October, a district judge rejected the Justice Department's attempt to replace Trump in the lawsuit. If the department had been allowed to intervene in the case, that likely would have led to its dismissal, because the government cannot be sued for defamation.
Carroll's lawsuit alleges that Trump defamed her when he denied raping her, said she wasn't his type and claimed she had made the allegation to boost sales of her new book.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
My being from Massachusetts has nothing to do with it. And I've been called many things in my life...but "parrot" is a new one. When the indictments come down...frivolous as they might be...more than a few people who have voted for him in the past will say to themselves "hey,maybe Chuck Todd was right after all".
Of course very,very few (if any) Freepers will take this attitude. But consider this...I saw a poll a few months ago from a well known firm which said that if respondents had known about Hunter's hard drive a good number of them might not have voted for The Big Guy.
See how easy it is?
I don’t consider women throwing themselves at men an example of ‘courting’.
Courting is when a man has a serious interest in a woman and works to convince her of his cause.
Men generally despise women who ‘throw’ themselves at men. (I’m sure men have plenty of vulgar names for those.)
"Darling," "Precious,", and "Beautiful," should get you by for a month, maybe two or three, depending on your wallet and shower habits.
You must be dating really superficial women.
Yup.
It's a great thing President Trump is very rich. The Garland DOJ is worse than Stalin's justice department. This pathetic attempt will be laughed out if court.
Keep telling yourself that.
Chuckle.
Soon there will be a dozen indctments filed against him by various prosecutors who,on orders from Rat Party Headquarters,are determined to keep him out of office.
You mean just like in 2016?
What stops us/red states from filing indictments against Dementia Joe for all the crimes has already committed?
What stops Red states??
Evidence.
The evidence required for conviction is in Ukraine, Russia or China.
Rudy gathered it up but absent input from Ukraine, there can be no trial conviction
Um, the crimes committed by Dementia Joe and his son are many and very serious. We are not just talking about Ukraine either.
This is going to be fun.....for us.
Bring it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.