Yeah, I get that. It’s totally in character for Trump to pull any and all shenanigans to delay, stall, impede, and otherwise prevent legal actions against him from proceeding. What’s infuriating is the DOJ going along with this abuse of power, enabling it. Barr is an unmitigated toady. Any credence he had as a respectable attorney is long gone.
I’m looking forward to his disBarrment.
He is certainly not the respectable, capable, Establishment Republican AG he was for GHWB. I just can’t figure out why he’s doing this. He has to know he’s destroying his reputation and that history will not treat him kindly. Maybe the lure of power, and of a late-career return to the center of the action once more, was just too much for him.
Let’s not forget that he also has a strange tangential connection to Jeffery Epstein himself.
He is working feverishly behind the scenes to advance his fundamentalist Catholic agenda. Here is an older article that touches on it:
Barr does not respect our separation of church and state. He has made many changes to blur the line. It’s his life’s work. He’s happy to use Trump to accomplish it.
ETA: Here’s a more recent article.
I’m in two minds about this. Are we okay next year with conservatives filling thousands of law suits against President Biden which he has to defend personally?
Lawsuits against the President of the United States for his official acts have always been defended by the DOJ. This is a lawsuit against Donald Trump for alleged pre-White House misconduct. It would be unprecedented for the DOJ to represent him - or any of his predecessors - in such a case.
Sounds more elegant as l’état, c’est moi.
Actually, he is generally highly regarded.
His many foreign wars became a financial burden, yet his long reign is associated with the greatest age of French culture, symbolized by the Palace of Versailles.
All we got from Donald I is an ugly wall, and only five miles of that.
It was Louis XVI who ran into trouble.
No. In this lawsuit she isn’t suing him for rape, she’s suing him for libel. The supposedly libelous statement was made by Trump while in office.
And note, much as I loathe Trump, he’s innocent of rape until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, and hasn’t committed libel until proved to a preponderance of the evidence.
Ah, thanks. I misremembered.
I don’t know, Louis XVI inherited his grandfather’s debts, a case can be made that after Louis XIV there was no way of saving France.
Ok, I admit that I know next to nothing about French history, and can’t keep my Louis’ straight.
Here: Allan Sherman offers a history lesson on the Louitic Dynasty, focusing in particular on Lou-16:
It’s 'cause they use those roman numerals instead of real ones. XIV, XVI, they’re easy to confuse. 
Ok, I will admit to a board sin here. I heard the headline but not the details on tv, and linked to an article without reading it. My bad.
Looking more closely, this isn’t as bad as I thought.
He did make the statement during a press conference when asked about her accusations by the press. That does kinda make it an official act. So was he just defending himself as Donald J. Trump from an accusation about acts prior to him becoming President, or was he defending himself as Predident against an accusation made against him as such?
I suppose a parallel case is when President Clinton said, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” Except not only was he President during the comment, he was defending himself from actions taken during his term in office, for actions that took place in and around the White House. They weren’t official actions. What did the DOJ do then?
And I see that Trump’s DOJ acted to try to keep the Clinton grand jury info secret. Seems a bit self-serving, trying to create precedents that might apply to him later.
Clinton had private counsel, while President, as to the various civil lawsuits he was facing, and as to his impeachment trial in the Senate.
So this brilliant delaying tactic only succeeded in putting the words “Trump” and “Rape” front and center in the headlines one week before the election. Thank God, American authoritarians are so incompetent.
Srsly. But the next one might not be.
Yes. The fate of the republic should not depend upon the incompetence of a would-be tyrant.
Of course, we may still see how craven any Trump appointed appellate judges/justices will be…