General Discussion

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)

47. Clinton was not sued for anything he did while president, so the Westfall Act did not apply.

Reply to MerryHolidays (Reply #46)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 02:18 AM

Jun 2021

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

60 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

To everyone with their shorts in a bunch over DOJ's argument in the Trump in rape case [View all] StarfishSaver Jun 2021 OP

Good points. Scottie Mom Jun 2021 #1

Yeah, my shorts are in a bunch, this is the third time on three weeks DOJ dem4decades Jun 2021 #2

Of course they won't do a bad job. That's the point. StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #5

Unbunch your shorts, there are institutional issues at stake here! BeyondGeography Jun 2021 #3

Sorry, but, cilla4progress Jun 2021 #25

Once again, you ride to the rescue and bring us sanity. Thank you. Ocelot II Jun 2021 #4

Great clip! StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #7

More Burnt To Many Protestants, Ma'am The Magistrate Jun 2021 #8

I did say it was apocryphal. It was an excellent play/movie Ocelot II Jun 2021 #10

True, Ma'am, It Is a Good Line The Magistrate Jun 2021 #16

I'm not praising More. But I agree with the sentiment expressed in this filmclip StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #15

It's A Mistake, My Friend The Magistrate Jun 2021 #6

I don't often disagree with you, but I do here StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #9

Nor I With You The Magistrate Jun 2021 #12

I'm gonna have to agree with The Magistrate on this one MerryHolidays Jun 2021 #18

+1000000 Pachamama Jun 2021 #50

Good point, FoxNewsSucks Jun 2021 #11

+1. Try and explain it to the average Democratic voter dalton99a Jun 2021 #26

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

Engaging In Slander, Ma'am, Is Not Such An Act The Magistrate Jun 2021 #21

However, he has not been found to have engaged in slander StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #22

And It Should Not Do So, Ma'am The Magistrate Jun 2021 #23

You're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #24

And The Same To You, My Friend The Magistrate Jun 2021 #28

I see it the same, cilla4progress Jun 2021 #27

You are absolutely correct! Sur Zobra Jun 2021 #31

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

Not everyone here is a "non lawyer" MerryHolidays Jun 2021 #20

I wish things wouldn't get cilla4progress Jun 2021 #29

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

Please discuss why SCOTUS can DIG a certiorari petition MerryHolidays Jun 2021 #40

Here is a thread with an article which clearly states the DOJ argument is otherwise. RockRaven Jun 2021 #58

This article doesn't contradict anything I wrote StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #59

Thank you! tosh Jun 2021 #32

It's uncomfortable trying to walk around with a wedgie. eom sprinkleeninow Jun 2021 #33

Did the DoJ defend Clinton against his accusers? W_HAMILTON Jun 2021 #34

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

You're confusing evidence with the cause of action StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #41

I have no idea what you mean by that MerryHolidays Jun 2021 #44

I am not arguing that DOJ can't deviate from a previous administration StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #45

Using the word "confusing" is ad hominem, under any circumstances MerryHolidays Jun 2021 #49

She's not suing him for sexual assault StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #51

Nope. They can clearly make a distinction MerryHolidays Jun 2021 #52

This message was self-deleted by its author uponit7771 Jun 2021 #54

So is the lawsuit from E. Jean Carroll. W_HAMILTON Jun 2021 #42

That's not the basis of the lawsuit StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #43

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

Ok, fair enough. MerryHolidays Jun 2021 #48

Nah, Garland wants the court to speaknow Jun 2021 #37

Protect the Office. Snackshack Jun 2021 #39

Post removed Post removed Jun 2021 #53

Who's to decide if Putin's Whore's slander "was acting within the scope of [their] office"? uponit7771 Jun 2021 #55

The court will decide. StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #57

" future presidents won't be criminals like Trump" waddirum Jun 2021 #56

This from the House Judiciary Committee kinda' says it all MerryHolidays Jun 2021 #60