Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: To everyone with their shorts in a bunch over DOJ's argument in the Trump in rape case [View all]Scottie Mom
(5,812 posts)1. Good points.
KnR. 👍
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
60 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
To everyone with their shorts in a bunch over DOJ's argument in the Trump in rape case [View all]
StarfishSaver
Jun 2021
OP
I'm not praising More. But I agree with the sentiment expressed in this filmclip
StarfishSaver
Jun 2021
#15
But they are not defending the substance of Trump's defense; merely the principle
Ocelot II
Jun 2021
#13
Unfortunately, this is a fine but critical legal point that most laypeople don't understand
StarfishSaver
Jun 2021
#17
The DOJ should persist in an unusually corrupt action because of a superficial similarity to
RockRaven
Jun 2021
#14
Attorney General Garland, Lisa Monaco and Vanita Gupta have a far better understanding
StarfishSaver
Jun 2021
#19
Considering that your OP contains errors of fact and law that a non-non-lawyer would not make,
RockRaven
Jun 2021
#30
Trump is still the defendant in this case and is therefore still subject to personal liability,
StarfishSaver
Jun 2021
#35
Here is a thread with an article which clearly states the DOJ argument is otherwise.
RockRaven
Jun 2021
#58
No. The lawsuits against him were based on alleged behavior before he became president
StarfishSaver
Jun 2021
#36
The truth or falsity of the facts related to the underlying facts happened before 1/20/2017
MerryHolidays
Jun 2021
#38
So your "fine distinction" covers things that had nothing to do with being President?
MerryHolidays
Jun 2021
#46
Clinton was not sued for anything he did while president, so the Westfall Act did not apply.
StarfishSaver
Jun 2021
#47
Who's to decide if Putin's Whore's slander "was acting within the scope of [their] office"?
uponit7771
Jun 2021
#55