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 General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Ocelot II

(116,106 posts)
55. Actually it isn't. It's an argument that the president was acting
Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:46 AM
Jun 2021

within the scope of his presidency when he said what he said, not that it was OK to say it. If he was acting in that capacity the government is obligated to raise a defense on his behalf and substitute itself as the defendant. The catch, of course, is that the government can't be sued for defamation, so the government would be off the hook for damages. in Clinton v. Jones, the Supreme Court case held that a sitting president of the United States is not immune from litigation for acts done before taking office and unrelated to the office, but this is a case involving an act done while the president was in office. So they have to rely on Nixon v. Fitzgerald, which held that a president is absolutely immune from litigation for discretionary acts done while in office. The decision is very broad, and although it doesn't define exactly which activities Fitzgerald covers, the case is generally interpreted to mean that as long the action is within the broadest understanding of the president's function as president, he's immune. The reason the appeal is being taken by the current DoJ is not to protect Trump but to determine, by an appellate court, where that line is. The notion that a president can make allegedly libelous statements regarding a situation not related to his function as president is a huge stretch and it will probably fail, as it should. But it is in no regard inappropriate for the DoJ to want to get an answer to the question for the sake of future administrations.

I am glad someone is calling out this bullshit. NewHendoLib Jun 2021 #1
+100 Sneederbunk Jun 2021 #3
I love her to death, but neither Rachel nor anyone else criticizing DOJ for not "cleaning up" DOJ StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #2
That may be MerryHolidays Jun 2021 #4
Same here SheltieLover Jun 2021 #7
If I am to believe Rachel... sheshe2 Jun 2021 #15
This StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #19
This is what has been keeping me sane SheltieLover Jun 2021 #24
I don't even watch tv, She, as I have no stomach for bs SheltieLover Jun 2021 #41
I know that, SL. sheshe2 Jun 2021 #45
I want to agree completely, as it would make me feel good. SleeplessinSoCal Jun 2021 #76
Pres Biden promised to be hands off with the DOJ, so ecstatic Jun 2021 #89
Well. sheshe2 Jun 2021 #105
We both have the highest regard for Joe and Barack. MerryHolidays Jun 2021 #104
Ditto. KPN Jun 2021 #67
The argument by the judge against trump in the Carroll case was that trump was not using his office JohnSJ Jun 2021 #10
True, but H2O Man Jun 2021 #12
Nailed it. sheshe2 Jun 2021 #23
I thought that you H2O Man Jun 2021 #31
No grasp? cilla4progress Jun 2021 #65
Seems to me like Garland made a wrong decision on this one. Bluepinky Jun 2021 #70
Not just this one; it's an ominous pattern reminisent of Chamberlain's concessions to Hitler. triron Jun 2021 #93
Stop with the FUD. DiamondShark Jun 2021 #112
that's what i'm thinking--in the name of bi-partisanship he's over fucking correcting. ugh! orleans Jun 2021 #74
Reminds me of Chamberlain's concessions to Hitler. triron Jun 2021 #98
For every court battle, remember one thing... DiamondShark Jun 2021 #111
You are right. H2O Man Jun 2021 #96
Yeah, Rachel isn't infallible.. she knows Cha Jun 2021 #43
My thought of what may be going on..... TheRealNorth Jun 2021 #44
You are dead on StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #49
Based on what IS visible though, they're cleaning nothing. You can put to one side anything that OnDoutside Jun 2021 #79
Unless you have an in with the Presidential Personnel Office, Office of Personnel Management, StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #81
I said "Based on what is visible" and by that metric it's pretty shit. OnDoutside Jun 2021 #85
It's not a matter of me being "content" StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #86
It actually is, and on the visible evidence of this thread, you appear overly defensive on the OnDoutside Jun 2021 #101
Almost seems like you are bending over backward trying to whitewash what is quite visible. Sorry. triron Jun 2021 #94
Not at all. I'm bending over backward trying to explain a complicated area of the law to people who StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #95
And you do?? Lol! USALiberal Jun 2021 #87
No, I don't nor do I claim otherwise StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #88
Perhaps the DOJ could improve their messaging then? nt PufPuf23 Jun 2021 #102
Perhaps StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #103
How does she know what's really going on inside the department? Ocelot II Jun 2021 #5
She doesn't leftieNanner Jun 2021 #13
Thanks elleng Jun 2021 #20
They've publicly announced they're going to fight the E Jean Carroll case, are you ignoring that ? OnDoutside Jun 2021 #80
K and R Ferrets are Cool Jun 2021 #6
Early on, I liked her. sheshe2 Jun 2021 #8
+1. Used to love MSNBC and Maddow, but switched to something else. Hoyt Jun 2021 #16
I don't know sheshe, but whether they are doing something behind the scenes or not, by the JohnSJ Jun 2021 #21
Ranting for ratings...great line. Love her or hate her, ya know this is going on PortTack Jun 2021 #77
She did the same thing during Obama's first two years ChrisF1961 Jun 2021 #82
I'm with her - every public action and lack of action since Garland took the helm RainCaster Jun 2021 #9
SheShe2 has a good point, Garland is supposed to get all that done in less than 3 months? We're not uponit7771 Jun 2021 #11
True, however H2O Man Jun 2021 #14
That made me laugh out loud. Hoyt Jun 2021 #18
The demand for H2O Man Jun 2021 #22
+1 uponit7771 Jun 2021 #27
Lol! StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #30
This sheshe2 Jun 2021 #32
StarfishSaver is a DU Treasure! H2O Man Jun 2021 #35
Thanks, friend StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #38
Great quote, but it was from Jim Palmer, not me StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #37
Thanks for that. Reminds me why I have her on ignore. Crunchy Frog Jun 2021 #46
Rachel Maddow is neither immature nor uninformed on political issues. Dark n Stormy Knight Jun 2021 #99
? H2O Man Jun 2021 #114
She has the right to her opinion... brooklynite Jun 2021 #17
Yes there was opinion, but there was also observations of actions, or lack of actions being done by JohnSJ Jun 2021 #26
Her assumption that all actions must be observed and if she can't see them nothing's happening StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #33
True, but the argument can also be made if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it is JohnSJ Jun 2021 #39
Gotta keep the ol' powder dry, people! Hugh_Lebowski Jun 2021 #25
Yes, we DO know the drill StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #29
I'm not a legal expert as you seem to be but it is evident to me that Garland... jcgoldie Jun 2021 #36
It may not be a popular political call, but it is a sound legal one StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #40
sure except that the argument is in defense of Donald Trump defaming a person he raped. jcgoldie Jun 2021 #42
The argument is NOT in defense of Trump defaming anyone StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #47
Was Donald Trump acting in his role as President when he defamed the woman he raped? jcgoldie Jun 2021 #50
It's very different StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #51
Of course he wasn't acting in an official capacity jcgoldie Jun 2021 #54
Because they need the court to rule on it StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #56
The purpose may be to get a court ruling.... TheRealNorth Jun 2021 #48
Actually it isn't. It's an argument that the president was acting Ocelot II Jun 2021 #55
thanks for the explanation... and based on that the question I have remains jcgoldie Jun 2021 #60
They didn't "take up the case" StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #84
Garland has been awful so far budkin Jun 2021 #28
The argument is that he isn't defending trump, but the executive branch to say what he wants without JohnSJ Jun 2021 #34
My god, he has been there for less than 100 days bottomofthehill Jun 2021 #72
It almost seems like Garland has been threatened by Trump or Repubs to not stir the pot. Bluepinky Jun 2021 #73
It's not right, and it's not ok budkin Jun 2021 #75
You are stating that Garland is being blackmailed? sheshe2 Jun 2021 #107
Thanks for pointing this out. triron Jun 2021 #110
Nothing in his background gave me high hopes. One of the few disappointments Biden chose. LizBeth Jun 2021 #92
Turns out GaRland is a HUGE deception (if he doesn't start doing his job soon). Justice matters. Jun 2021 #52
Who are you giving this instruction to? StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #57
I'm giving my personal opinion on a forum. Justice matters. Jun 2021 #58
I see StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #63
Ok. I have not been elected President of the United States. Justice matters. Jun 2021 #64
You think if he hasn't "cleaned up the house of the dRumpf left overs" in 90 days StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #66
Yes. Find another "Doctor" who is able to do the job completely. Justice matters. Jun 2021 #68
What's with the random dollar signs and capital Rs? StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #69
This message was self-deleted by its author vapor2 Jun 2021 #53
what can the DOJ do about the voter suppression laws jg10003 Jun 2021 #59
I think the criticism is that they could have interjected themselves somehow in the Arizona circus jcgoldie Jun 2021 #61
The canceR is spReading fast. Justice matters. Jun 2021 #62
Pressure from the media to take real action to secure democracy is a good thing. Pressure from the KPN Jun 2021 #71
Here's the video for those who missed it: Rhiannon12866 Jun 2021 #78
Thanks JohnSJ Jun 2021 #83
100% Agree. There must be a few Trump left overs from Trump's DOJ. UCmeNdc Jun 2021 #90
That's why I watch these people only during Republican Presidencies treestar Jun 2021 #91
Meh. Elessar Zappa Jun 2021 #97
Go Rachel budkin Jun 2021 #100
She is asking tonite whether Garland's DOJ will have the guts to open an investigation into Trump. triron Jun 2021 #106
knr triron Jun 2021 #108
Kick burrowowl Jun 2021 #109
knr triron Jun 2021 #113
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Rachel is really slamming...»Reply #55