The case law and precedent is pretty unambiguous here. Barr is not taking over a lawsuit for personal conduct of Trump decades ago, its the sovereign immunity of federal employees and their foreseeable controversies during their time in the job. Carroll tried to sue for defamation about something Trump said while he was in office. The case law already has clear examples that even statements about personal scandals fall under federal jurisdiction when made by a politician to the press or via media, and all the legal precedents set by those suing Trump over his twitter blocks have established that his statements fall under his line of duty and job. You can't have it both ways and claim Trump is exclusively acting as a private citizen when he says something you want to sue him for, but as president when he blocks you on twitter.

Liberals shot themselves in the foot when it comes to case law here. The precedents to immunize personal scandals seal it:

is there a script that replaces all of goon-shills essays with the 'this is fine' meme? would be pretty hilarious, and also spot on...

you good with your tax dollars going to this?
Maybe we should hire Eric Holder do defend Biden on your dime.
You good?

If you want to repeal the Westfall Act you should ask your representatives to pass a bill

I'm not asking my Rep. I'm asking you? you approve of the fact tax dollars can go to protecting the pres.?
maybe if he wasn't such a loser he wouldn't be in court so much.
just maybe..

They don't go towards defending the president, the president is not the defendant in the case, the federal government is.
The law, with good reason, states that civil suits against federal employees acting in their office are suits against the office itself.

true or not
there's photos of jean caroll in the 90's it's just the same kind of blond, same chin and cheekbones...
like trump daughter, sad truth is donald always tried, unconsciously, to fuck the feminine clone of himself lol.
case closed

so why didn't Janet Reno defend Clinton.. I'm actually curious what is the difference?

When was Bill Clinton sued in civil court for actions taken during his presidency?
Again, this is a story about Carroll suing Trump for defamation for comments made while he was president, not for actions before he was president- unlike the Clinton v. Jones suit about acts before becoming president.
In fact Clinton v. Jones explicitly laid out how the president does have immunity for his actions during the presidency.
Its a rather blunt and obvious difference.



Yeah very believable story, the guy described by all his contemporary girlfriends as a perfect gentleman was just completely overcome by lust at the sight of a 53 year old repulsive man-hating feminist and decided to rape her using the exact same script that would later coincidentally become the plot of an episode of Law and Order SVU almost word for word. Being a playboy billionaire he just wasn't satisfied by all his relationships with supermodels and bimbos and tennis players and actresses and celebrities and felt what he really needed was to bang a crusty withered harpy that I wouldn't go near with a 10 ft pole.
Then despite spending her whole career up to that point writing about how women need to speak out against men and writing books about how women need no man- a feminist iconoclast- she decided to keep this incident completely secret and suppress it for decades even as Trump ran for and won the presidency, only mentioning it when she tried to reboot her failed career with a book release. And then transparently used the claim to sell the book. And gave interviews so absurdly unconvincing and demented that even the most credulous and sympathetic hosts like anderson cooper just blanked out at how full of shit she is.


lets play "One of these things is not like the others"



This post was edited by Goomshill on Sep 9 2020 09:36pm

if anyone thinks rape is about good looking they need listen to the world around them