E. Jean Carroll lawsuit: Judge to hear DOJ request to represent Trump in rape defamation lawsuit

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: CNN

The Justice Department is set to argue in federal court Wednesday that President Donald Trump acted in his official capacity when denying a rape claim made by a longtime magazine columnist, and therefore shouldn't be sued personally for defamation.

In an effort to replace Trump as the defendant in a lawsuit filed by the former columnist, E. Jean Carroll, who has accused him of raping her in a dressing room at a luxury Manhattan department store in the 1990s, the Justice Department is expected to tell a federal judge that Trump's response to Carroll's claims was an effort to preserve his ability to perform the duties of the presidency.

If the Justice Department is allowed to intervene, it would likely torpedo Carroll's lawsuit, since the federal government can't be sued for defamation.

In a court filing earlier this week, lawyers for the department wrote with reference to Carroll's rape claim, which appeared in a 2019 book she wrote, that "even false allegations that the President committed such a crime could obviously impact the President's ability to effectively govern."

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/e-jean-carroll-lawsuit-judge-to-hear-doj-request-to-represent-trump-in-rape-defamation-lawsuit/ar-BB1agvNk?li=BBnbfcQ&ocid=hplocalnews

---

Billy Barr almost makes John Mitchell and Ed Meese look good by comparison.

[elleng]

1. Bull shit.

Who wrote this? Not gonna tell us in which court, and who's presiding?

[JudyM]

2. Laughable but also unconscionable.

“... could obviously impact the President's ability to effectively govern."

[mpcamb]

4. Suppose the charge was cutting her in half with a chain saw. Same logic apply?

That's the absurdity of this notion as a defense.
Same with self pardon.
Same with blanket pardon for all your crook buddies.

No one is above the law.
Say it over and over for these non-defenses.

[JudyM]

8. It's all so absurd, perfect word for it.

[LiberalLovinLug]

5. So he really could shoot someone on 5th avenue.

And his personal AG would argue any pursuit of charging or indicting the President would also "impact the President's ability to effectively govern"

[bucolic_frolic]

3. Trying to make Trump into one big, giant LLC paid for by taxpayers?

So he can escape responsibility? He's not two people. He's one. Hope the judge laughs this out of court.

If he doesn't, then we can all stop paying taxes because my roles as a worker, breadwinner, consumer are all being adversely impacted by attempts to tax me.

See how that works? You're not the person they claim you are.

[cstanleytech]

6. That has to have broken the bullshit meter.

[EndlessWire]

7. Just makes me mad.

Let's see if I have this straight: They're going to court to substitute the DOJ as defendant, and because they can't be sued for defamation, they will then get the suit torpedoed.

And this makes Trump judgement proof? For defamation nee rape? That's cockeyed logic, as said upthread. He could do ANYTHING, and as soon as he said, "I didn't do it," he can't be sued?

He gets to operate unfettered, saying anything he wants to harm people, and he's going to get away with it?

I believe he is a rapist: of women, of children, of our country. And, I don't know if he has a countersuit or not, but I'll bet they let that stand.

Shame on you, William Barr.