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]StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)24. You're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours
So I'll just thank you for an interesting back and forth and bid you a pleasant good night.
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