Trump Tracker Too (2 Trump 2 Tracker) (10 Viewers)

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

The football board had the very useful Daily Trump Tracker thread, which was a good place to briefly discuss the latest ridiculous thing that might have ended 97% of prior Presidential administrations even if it didn't necessarily justify an entire thread devoted to it in 2017-2019 (because of the sheer volume of these things). Since I don't see anything like that here already, I'll add one myself.

 

[bdb13]

It's not even just the health, how much did he additionally damage the economy by not being proactive while he knew he was misleading us?

 

[bdb13]

Well this is a terrible day for Trump, his side announced they raised $210 million in August.. that's $150 million less than Biden.

Quote Reply

 

[superchuck500]

Ah yes, ethics, amirite?

U.S. Seeks to Defend Trump in Rape Accuser’s Defamation Suit

The U.S. Justice Department is seeking to take over the defense of President Donald Trump in a defamation suit brought by advice columnist E. Jean Carroll, who claims Trump raped her two decades ago.

www.bloomberg.com

The crazy thing is, it's not that wild of a position. The Carroll suit is for defamation, not rape. And it is based on Trump statements about her in 2019, when he was president.

If he was acting "within the scope of his employment" as president when he made those comments, the case should be brought against the United States, not the president - under the federal tort claims law. And interestingly enough, that law prohibits defamation claims against federal officials (as long as they're in scope).

So there's a threshold question here of whether the president was within the scope of his employment when he made those statements - if he was, DOJ is entirely correct in its position. I would have to look but I seem to recall a case or something some years ago that concluded that the president is within the scope of employment most of the time, unless he's acting in a purely personal capacity. But here, his comments (I believe) accused Carroll of lying and accused her of doing it to harm him politically.

It's going to be interesting to see how this one shakes out.

 

[bdb13]

We've got more:

 

[GrandAdmiral]

At this rate of stuff dropping today, I'm just waiting for the picture drop of Trump in a bra and thongs getting that "shower" they've rumored about.

 

[MT15]

The crazy thing is, it's not that wild of a position. The Carroll suit is for defamation, not rape. And it is based on Trump statements about her in 2019, when he was president.

If he was acting "within the scope of his employment" as president when he made those comments, the case should be brought against the United States, not the president - under the federal tort claims law. And interestingly enough, that law prohibits defamation claims against federal officials (as long as they're in scope).

So there's a threshold question here of whether the president was within the scope of his employment when he made those statements - if he was, DOJ is entirely correct in its position. I would have to look but I seem to recall a case or something some years ago that concluded that the president is within the scope of employment most of the time, unless he's acting in a purely personal capacity. But here, his comments (I believe) accused Carroll of lying and accused her of doing it to harm him politically.

It's going to be interesting to see how this one shakes out.

I saw a discussion on Twitter saying that the Act in question only applies to Federal employees and that the WH has long maintained that the President, being the head of government is not an “employee” and as such the Act (forget the name) wouldn’t apply. Also saw arguments that this is decidedly not part of his job, to respond to her allegations. So it wouldn’t be in scope, as it has nothing to do with his official duties.

 

[superchuck500]

I saw a discussion on Twitter saying that the Act in question only applies to Federal employees and that the WH has long maintained that the President, being the head of government is not an “employee” and as such the Act (forget the name) wouldn’t apply. Also saw arguments that this is decidedly not part of his job, to respond to her allegations. So it wouldn’t be in scope, as it has nothing to do with his official duties.

Well we should contact the SDNY and let the judge know that you have resolved the scope question.

 

[MT15]

This wasn’t SDNY, and that was also mentioned. Presumably the woman who took over wanted nothing to do with it, because it stinks to high heaven.

And, hey, I’m just reading the lawyer nerd discussions I see on Twitter. Trying to provide alternate opinions.

 

[superchuck500]

This wasn’t SDNY, and that was also mentioned. Presumably the woman who took over wanted nothing to do with it, because it stinks to high heaven.

And, hey, I’m just reading the lawyer nerd discussions I see on Twitter. Trying to provide alternate opinions.

I'm just messing with you. But citation or posting the tweets would make it easier to discuss. I can't find authority one way or the other on whether the president is a federal employee for purposes of the tort claims act. I see that at least three circuits have concluded that congresspersons and senators are.

 

[efil4]

At this rate of stuff dropping today, I'm just waiting for the picture drop of Trump in a bra and thongs getting that "shower" they've rumored about.

I been tellin yall..... That shirt is real.

 

[MT15]

And the sacrificial lamb has been chosen, , couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

 

[MT15]

Chuck, I’m looking for the twitter convo about employee status, but no luck so far.
here’s one thread though talking about the legal precedents



one more comment



cant find it, if I come across it later I will link it. Here’s the one about where the request came from

 

[superchuck500]

Chuck, I’m looking for the twitter convo about employee status, but no luck so far.
here’s one thread though talking about the legal precedents

This second tweet is definitely off the mark - the FTCA (I’ve done them) includes negligent and “wrongful acts” as defined by the law of the place where the act occurred (state law). But actually the kicker is where the negligent or wrongful act is committed by a federal employee in the scope of employment, the FTCA is the “exclusive remedy”.

So if those two threshold questions (is the president an employee for purposes of FTCA and was Trump within the scope of that employment when he made the allegedly defamatory statements) are answered YES, then the FTCA controls. And it expressly excludes defamation.

But I’m not saying the answers are yes, I have substantial doubt as to both. But need more analysis.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

This second tweet is definitely off the mark - the FTCA (I’ve done them) includes negligent and “wrongful acts” as defined by the law of the place where the act occurred (state law). But actually the kicker is where the negligent or wrongful act is committed by a federal employee in the scope of employment, the FTCA is the “exclusive remedy”.

So if those two threshold questions (is the president an employee for purposes of FTCA and was Trump within the scope of that employment when he made the allegedly defamatory statements) are answered YES, then the FTCA controls. And it expressly excludes defamation.

But I’m not saying the answers are yes, I have substantial doubt as to both. But need more analysis.

My organization is deemed under FTCA (I'm their point of contact) and this is absolutely true. At the point the employee is determined to be in the scope of their job, DOJ comes in and request to take over the case. At that point it goes from John Doe v. ABC Organization, Dr. Jane Dae, et al to John Doe v. US.

It's going to be Carroll's attorney's job to get the judge to rule that the answer to question 2, at a minimum, is "No."

 

[superchuck500]

My organization is deemed under FTCA (I'm their point of contact) and this is absolutely true. At the point the employee is determined to be in the scope of their job, DOJ comes in and request to take over the case. At that point it goes from John Doe v. ABC Organization, Dr. Jane Dae, et al to John Doe v. US.

It's going to be Carroll's attorney's job to get the judge to rule that the answer to question 2, at a minimum, is "No."

Both questions have to be yes - so if either is no, it gets remanded to state court and Trump remains the defendant.

 

[MT15]

Thanks guys. I sure hope she eventually gets him to give up a dna sample.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Both questions have to be yes - so if either is no, it gets remanded to state court and Trump remains the defendant.

I know.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

A perspective only white privilege can inform.

"…And do you have any sense that that privilege has isolated and put you in a cave, to a certain extent, as it put me – and I think lots of White, privileged people – in a cave and that we have to work our way out of it to understand the anger and the pain, particularly, Black people feel in this country? Do you see?" Woodward asked.

"No," the president said. "You, you really drank the Kool-Aid, didn't you? Just listen to you, wow. No, I don't feel that at all."

Trump dismisses question on white privilege: "You really drank the Kool-Aid"

In a conversation with journalist Bob Woodward, President Trump dismisses Woodward's question on white privilege.

www.cbsnews.com