Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

soothsayer

(38,601 posts)
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 09:17 PM Jun 2021

Letter from @HouseJudiciary Members to AG Garland of the @TheJusticeDept requesting that he reverse


?s=21


Ted Lieu
@tedlieu
Letter from @HouseJudiciary Members to AG Garland of the @TheJusticeDept requesting that he reverse his decision for the DOJ to act as Trump’s personal attorneys in the rape defamation case of E. Jean Carroll.







29 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Letter from @HouseJudiciary Members to AG Garland of the @TheJusticeDept requesting that he reverse (Original Post) soothsayer Jun 2021 OP
GOOD! Well done by Bettie Jun 2021 #1
I agree MerryHolidays Jun 2021 #2
It was wrong then and it is wrong now dalton99a Jun 2021 #6
Excellent Me. Jun 2021 #3
Garland should have said NO. dalton99a Jun 2021 #4
well said, and I'd like a response from DOJ explaining their decision Takket Jun 2021 #5
That's in their filing FBaggins Jun 2021 #11
So the DOJ is affirming Sur Zobra Jun 2021 #15
Nope FBaggins Jun 2021 #16
So the Westfall Act only applies to torts Sur Zobra Jun 2021 #22
Your memory is faulty FBaggins Jun 2021 #23
Didn't Clinton lie about Paula Jones Sur Zobra Jun 2021 #24
Can't speak to the truthfulness of course... FBaggins Jun 2021 #27
The Legal Information site at Cornell Sur Zobra Jun 2021 #28
Trump is also represented by private counsel FBaggins Jun 2021 #29
A lot of people are starting to lose faith in the attorney general Ligyron Jun 2021 #7
Maybe he'll explain his reasoning to them soothsayer Jun 2021 #10
Well, this should rattle the feathers of a few DU legal experts who have been supporting Garland. jalan48 Jun 2021 #8
Lol, it should Sewa Jun 2021 #12
I guess staying at the Holiday Inn isn't fool proof when it comes to expertise. jalan48 Jun 2021 #13
But it won't. Autumn Jun 2021 #20
Most of them will slink off and ignore these kinds of topics and continue to be angry karens. SunImp Jun 2021 #26
K/R moondust Jun 2021 #9
An embarrassing decision by Garland budkin Jun 2021 #14
Thanks for this Sunsky Jun 2021 #17
Recommended Arazi Jun 2021 #18
I hope Garland has a good reason for this like trying to make the DOJ apolitical again and Vinca Jun 2021 #19
I hope so too SunImp Jun 2021 #25
I know there's been a lot of threads here over the last couple of days PRETZEL Jun 2021 #21

MerryHolidays

(7,715 posts)
2. I agree
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 09:24 PM
Jun 2021

There are a lot of D folks, including at DU, justifying DoJ's stance on this.

Like the HJC, I too agree it is unjustifiable.

Takket

(21,425 posts)
5. well said, and I'd like a response from DOJ explaining their decision
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 10:20 PM
Jun 2021

specifically how drumpf's comments relate to his job.

I have felt fighting things like the Barr memo may have had some justification... the idea that you remove any and all impressions that DOJ is not doing its job for "political reasons". In other words if you do everything even remotely reasonable for drumpf he can't turn around later and use DOJ's "hatred" of him in some sort of appeal.

But this... this is bullshit. There are some nuanced legal arguments I've seen made here tonight and you know what, they may be right, but this is still bullshit. This is a slap in the face from an administration (of which Garland is a large part) that ran on lifting up women. It was pathetic legal argument when they made it before, because Barr's DOJ was serving as drumpf's personal lawyer and cobbling together whatever flimsy legal argument they could to make it sound palatable.

Garland's DOJ is maybe trying again to make sure they aren't accused of exhibiting ANY bias against drumpf? But he's just going to scream it anyway, and I don't think anyone outside of the MAGA cult would have been saying it in this case, so let them scream. They're going to do it anyway.

The women that came to the polls to boot a rapist out of office and install our first female VP deserve better than this.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
11. That's in their filing
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 10:50 PM
Jun 2021

Emphasis mine

When members of the White House media asked then-President Trump to respond to Ms. Carroll’s serious allegations of wrongdoing, their questions were posed to him in his capacity as President. Likewise, when Mr. Trump responded to those questions with denials of wrongdoing made through the White House press office or in statements to reporters in the Oval Office and on the White House lawn, he acted within the scope of his office. Elected public officials can—and often must—address allegations regarding personal wrongdoing that inspire doubt about their suitability for office. Such wrongdoing can include not only the serious charges of criminal behavior leveled here, but a range of activities including fraud and malfeasance. Officials do not step outside the bounds of their office simply because they are addressing questions regarding allegations about their personal lives. Thus, in Ballenger, the D.C. Circuit concluded that a congressman acted within the scope of employment when he allegedly engaged in defamation during an interview to explain the reasons for his separation from his wife. 444 F.3d at 662.
 

Sur Zobra

(3,428 posts)
15. So the DOJ is affirming
Wed Jun 9, 2021, 01:18 AM
Jun 2021

that Government officials are above the law. If Trumpass really had shot and killed someone on 5th Ave. when he was still POTUS, then the DOJ would defend him

Unbelievable, and disgustingly wrong

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
16. Nope
Wed Jun 9, 2021, 05:37 AM
Jun 2021

They’re saying that he IS covered by the law (in this case the Westfall Act - which would not protect him if he shot someone on 5th Ave)

It’s a bit like concerns with the doctrine of qualified immunity… except that Westfall is actually a law and not just a judicial creation

 

Sur Zobra

(3,428 posts)
22. So the Westfall Act only applies to torts
Wed Jun 9, 2021, 01:34 PM
Jun 2021

Bill Clinton was sued as President because he called Paula Jones a liar and the DOJ didn’t defend him against the lawsuit so why is the DOJ defending Trumpass now for the same thing

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
23. Your memory is faulty
Wed Jun 9, 2021, 02:35 PM
Jun 2021

Almost all of the Jones lawsuit involved conduct that allegedly occurred prior to becoming president and was not in any way related to his official duties as president.

The more important gap in your memory is that DOJ did defend him against the lawsuit. The Solicitor General argued the case.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
27. Can't speak to the truthfulness of course...
Wed Jun 9, 2021, 06:08 PM
Jun 2021

… but that claim was dismissed


Lastly, the Court addresses the President's argument that plaintiff's defamation claim in Count IV fails because it is founded on statements that are absolutely privileged, not actionable as a matter of law, and fails to allege defamation with the requisite specificity. The Court agrees with the President that the statements at issue in this case are absolutely privileged as a matter of law and, therefore, grants the President's motion for dismissal of this claim on that basis.


I think Trump started with the Clinton case earlier on, but that probably only would have covered his claim that he didn’t rape her. It wouldn’t cover him on claims that she had lied about rape before or that she was too ugly to rape.
 

Sur Zobra

(3,428 posts)
28. The Legal Information site at Cornell
Thu Jun 10, 2021, 01:24 PM
Jun 2021

says that Clinton was represented by private counsel when he filed a petition for certiorari in Clinton v. Jones, which was supported by the Solicitor General. The case was resolved while Clinton was still POTUS.

Trumpass is not currently POTUS. The DOJ should not continue to defend him while he is a private citizen.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
29. Trump is also represented by private counsel
Thu Jun 10, 2021, 01:51 PM
Jun 2021

The DOJ is representing the interests of the United States.

The difference is that if the DOJ's argument prevails, Trump is removed from the case (as with other Westfall Act cases).

Ligyron

(7,592 posts)
7. A lot of people are starting to lose faith in the attorney general
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 10:39 PM
Jun 2021

The idea that this lack of action on his part is due to ongoing investigations and protecting evidence for grand jury consumption only is starting to wear a little thin.

And him defending Trump in this lawsuit about caps it.

I’m sure someone will come along now and tell us it’s 11th dimensional chess and we shouldn’t worry.

moondust

(19,917 posts)
9. K/R
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 10:41 PM
Jun 2021

Are some Barr pals at DOJ responsible for pressuring AG Garland into doing this?



Rachel says cleaning up DOJ after TFG and Barr is the last government job she would want.

Sunsky

(1,737 posts)
17. Thanks for this
Wed Jun 9, 2021, 07:08 AM
Jun 2021

Not all Democrats just go along to get along. That's how the Republicans operate, not us. Garland's DOJ is wrong. This is a huge misstep.
Many here who excuse Garland's behavior today, condemned Barr for the same action yesterday (the height of hypocrisy). I don't remember seeing any post supportive of Barr's action on this defamation case.

Vinca

(50,170 posts)
19. I hope Garland has a good reason for this like trying to make the DOJ apolitical again and
Wed Jun 9, 2021, 08:14 AM
Jun 2021

knowing somehow the judge is going to tell them it's a no go. Otherwise, he's essentially Bill Barr the Second.

PRETZEL

(3,245 posts)
21. I know there's been a lot of threads here over the last couple of days
Wed Jun 9, 2021, 08:30 AM
Jun 2021

essentially arguing the merits (or demerits) for AG Garland's stance on this matter. The more I'm reading, trying to understand, both arguments and it's making me start to wonder.

Is it possible that Ms. Carroll's attorneys can file a motion in the suit that challenges that DOJ's representation in this matter falls outside the scope of the Westfall Act? Is it possible that this may be a calculated measure by the DOJ to have a court decide? I think it's fair to say that sometimes laws do not serve the public's interest. This may very well be one of those and since Congress won't take it up voluntarily, they may be forced to do so as a result of court decisions, appeals, Supreme Court rulings?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Letter from @HouseJudicia...