General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLetter from @HouseJudiciary Members to AG Garland of the @TheJusticeDept requesting that he reverse
Link to tweet
?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 Trumps personal attorneys in the rape defamation case of E. Jean Carroll.
Bettie
(15,998 posts)the House Judiciary committee!
MerryHolidays
(7,715 posts)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.
dalton99a
(81,068 posts)Unbelievable
Me.
(35,454 posts)dalton99a
(81,068 posts)Takket
(21,425 posts)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)Emphasis mine
Sur Zobra
(3,428 posts)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
Theyre 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)
Its 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)Bill Clinton was sued as President because he called Paula Jones a liar and the DOJ didnt defend him against the lawsuit so why is the DOJ defending Trumpass now for the same thing
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)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.
Sur Zobra
(3,428 posts)while he was still president
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)
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 didnt rape her. It wouldnt cover him on claims that she had lied about rape before or that she was too ugly to rape.
Sur Zobra
(3,428 posts)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)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)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.
Im sure someone will come along now and tell us its 11th dimensional chess and we shouldnt worry.
soothsayer
(38,601 posts)jalan48
(13,798 posts)Sewa
(1,242 posts)jalan48
(13,798 posts)Autumn
(44,762 posts)SunImp
(2,221 posts)moondust
(19,917 posts)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.
budkin
(6,691 posts)WTF is he doing!?
Sunsky
(1,737 posts)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.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)Vinca
(50,170 posts)knowing somehow the judge is going to tell them it's a no go. Otherwise, he's essentially Bill Barr the Second.
SunImp
(2,221 posts)PRETZEL
(3,245 posts)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?