Thread by @DirkSchwenk

@BarbMcQuade is a formidable legal mind and this article is quite good. Nevertheless, here is DIRK'S HOT TAKE EXPLAINING WHY THE TWITTER MOB AND BARB ARE WRONG ON THIS POINT.

https://twitter.com/BarbMcQuade/status/1402102279327686657

(I nevertheless take a moment to note I too am frustrated with the glacial pace of justice regarding the obvious trumpist crime wave of the past couple of years)

Key Point One: Ms. Carrol's suit is not about the attack she endured at Trump's hands back in the day. It alleges that Trump lied about the attack when she came forward about it in 2019. THE DOJ IS NOT DEFENDING A RAPE CASE.

Key Point One Point One: If you are reading a hottake about the DOJ defending a rape case ... it's bullshit or worse.

Key Point Two: Trump is a world-class POS who did many horrible things. The DOJ's job is to put that aside and try to make sense of what it should do, notwithstanding the fact that TFG is a steaming pile of crap.

From the DOJ's perspective, the question is this: should the DOJ defend a suit by a person that alleges that the POTUS (the office, not TFG) slandered her while the POTUS was in office relating to an allegation made against TFG while in the Office of POTUS?

To me, that answer is pretty clearly yes. If I ran for POTUS and Roger Stone, Manafort and Bannon recruited everyone I spoke poorly of while in office to sue me ... damn straight I'd want the DOJ to defend me. Otherwise, I would go bankrupt while in office.

Without that backstop, no non-Billionaire-ish person could be POTUS. (Or, alternatively, you set the table for the worst thing that Bill Clinton had to do - start a legal defense fund which allowed VERY questionable "donations" to defend against litigation.

Bottom Line: if this were a sexual assault case arising from events that occurred before Trump was in office - I'd agree, that's not a DOJ issue. But it isn't - it is about statements made by POTUS while in office. If those are grounds for suit - no regular person could be POTUS