Politics

1249 readers

45 users here now

For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.

Rule 1-3, 6 & 7 No longer applicable

Rule 4: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.

Rule 5: Be excellent to each other. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.

The Epstein Files: Trump, Trafficking, and the Unraveling Cover-Up

Info Video about techniques used in cults (and politics)

Bookmark Vault of Trump's First Term

USAfacts.org

The Alt-Right Playbook

Media owners, CEOs and/or board members

Video: Macklemore's new song critical of Trump and Musk is facing heavy censorship across major platforms.

Monitor every stock trade Congress and the White House makes

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

pelespirit@sh.itjust.works

Trump asks supreme court to throw out $83m E Jean Carroll defamation verdict (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 2 days ago by pelespirit@sh.itjust.works to c/politics@sh.itjust.works

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Donald Trump and the justice department are asking the US supreme court to toss an $83m defamation verdict won by writer E Jean Carroll after she accused him of sexual assault, saying he cannot be sued for comments he made while he was president.

It is the second time Trump has asked the justices to nix damages awarded by a jury to Carroll, a longtime New York advice columnist and former talkshow host. The supreme court refused in June to hear his appeal of another verdict, for $5m, that found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation.

The latest case centers on comments Trump made during his first term as US president. The justice department wants to invoke the Westfall Act, which shields government employees from being sued for doing their jobs.

“Absent this Court’s intervention, the sitting President is facing nearly a hundred million dollars of personal liability for conduct that was well within the scope of his federal office,” federal attorneys wrote. “That alone deserves this Court’s attention.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

There's a key difference between this case and the 5 million dollar case.

In this case, Donald Trump was the president when he made the defamatory statements. In the other case, he was not the president when he made the specific defamatory statements that were in the case.

In Trump v. U.S. (2024), the supreme court invested the presidency with criminal immunity for official acts. In this case, Trump wants to extend that to full civil immunity as well and they argue that defaming Carroll was an official act of the presidency.

[–] Jaysyn@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Remember Bill Clinton?

SCotUS has already determined that the PotUS can be held civilly liable.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

I do remember Bill Clinton. Bill is not a good precedent here because Bill's lawsuit stemmed entirely from Bill's pre-presidential behavior.

In E. Jean Caroll's other $5 million lawsuit, SCOTUS declined to intervene. And that lawsuit is based on Trump's non-presidential statements, same as Bill.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago

How can they make him immune to civil cases? That would be insane.