But, why is the DOJ still defending tRump against a rape accusation that happened before he got sovereign immunity or whatever while posing as president?
But, why is the DOJ still defending tRump against a rape accusation that happened before he got sovereign immunity or whatever while posing as president?
Rob, the defense is not against the rape (or rather, sexual assault, which unlike rape has a statute of limitations, now expired) but against a claim of libel because T***p called her a liar.
Still, it doesnтАЩt seem the DOJ should have been involved on this kind of civil case even when he lying prez, much less now that he is a lying nobody. He should have had his own lawyers at his expense, not ours.
And why today's DOJ is defending is to set (or continue?) a precedent in case a charge of similar nature would present itself in the future with any sitting president.
But, why is the DOJ still defending tRump against a rape accusation that happened before he got sovereign immunity or whatever while posing as president?
Rob, the defense is not against the rape (or rather, sexual assault, which unlike rape has a statute of limitations, now expired) but against a claim of libel because T***p called her a liar.
The libel occurred during T***p's presidency, which is the justification for defense by the DOJ.
Still, it doesnтАЩt seem the DOJ should have been involved on this kind of civil case even when he lying prez, much less now that he is a lying nobody. He should have had his own lawyers at his expense, not ours.
I agree. The justification was absurd.
And why today's DOJ is defending is to set (or continue?) a precedent in case a charge of similar nature would present itself in the future with any sitting president.
Hmmm