HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Letter from @HouseJudicia...

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 08:17 PM

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, 1913 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 29 replies Author Time Post
Reply Letter from @HouseJudiciary Members to AG Garland of the @TheJusticeDept requesting that he reverse (Original post)
soothsayer Jun 2021 OP
Bettie Jun 2021 #1
MerryHolidays Jun 2021 #2
dalton99a Jun 2021 #6
Me. Jun 2021 #3
dalton99a Jun 2021 #4
Takket Jun 2021 #5
FBaggins Jun 2021 #11
Sur Zobra Jun 2021 #15
FBaggins Jun 2021 #16
Sur Zobra Jun 2021 #22
FBaggins Jun 2021 #23
Sur Zobra Jun 2021 #24
FBaggins Jun 2021 #27
Sur Zobra Jun 2021 #28
FBaggins Jun 2021 #29
Ligyron Jun 2021 #7
soothsayer Jun 2021 #10
jalan48 Jun 2021 #8
Sewa Jun 2021 #12
jalan48 Jun 2021 #13
Autumn Jun 2021 #20
SunImp Jun 2021 #26
moondust Jun 2021 #9
budkin Jun 2021 #14
Sunsky Jun 2021 #17
Arazi Jun 2021 #18
Vinca Jun 2021 #19
SunImp Jun 2021 #25
PRETZEL Jun 2021 #21

Response to soothsayer (Original post)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 08:18 PM

1. GOOD! Well done by

the House Judiciary committee!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bettie (Reply #1)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 08:24 PM

2. I agree

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MerryHolidays (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 09:33 PM

6. It was wrong then and it is wrong now


Unbelievable


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to soothsayer (Original post)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 09:08 PM

3. Excellent

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to soothsayer (Original post)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 09:10 PM

4. Garland should have said NO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to soothsayer (Original post)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 09:20 PM

5. well said, and I'd like a response from DOJ explaining their decision

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Takket (Reply #5)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 09:50 PM

11. That's in their filing

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #11)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:18 AM

15. So the DOJ is affirming

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sur Zobra (Reply #15)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 04:37 AM

16. Nope

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #16)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:34 PM

22. So the Westfall Act only applies to torts

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sur Zobra (Reply #22)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 01:35 PM

23. Your memory is faulty

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #23)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 04:34 PM

24. Didn't Clinton lie about Paula Jones

 

while he was still president

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sur Zobra (Reply #24)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 05:08 PM

27. Can't speak to the truthfulness of course...

… 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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #27)

Thu Jun 10, 2021, 12:24 PM

28. The Legal Information site at Cornell

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sur Zobra (Reply #28)

Thu Jun 10, 2021, 12:51 PM

29. Trump is also represented by private counsel

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).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to soothsayer (Original post)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 09:39 PM

7. A lot of people are starting to lose faith in the attorney general

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ligyron (Reply #7)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 09:48 PM

10. Maybe he'll explain his reasoning to them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to soothsayer (Original post)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 09:39 PM

8. Well, this should rattle the feathers of a few DU legal experts who have been supporting Garland.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #8)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 10:41 PM

12. Lol, it should

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sewa (Reply #12)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 10:44 PM

13. I guess staying at the Holiday Inn isn't fool proof when it comes to expertise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sewa (Reply #12)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 07:16 AM

20. But it won't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 04:48 PM

26. Most of them will slink off and ignore these kinds of topics and continue to be angry karens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to soothsayer (Original post)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 09:41 PM

9. K/R

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to soothsayer (Original post)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:00 PM

14. An embarrassing decision by Garland

WTF is he doing!?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to soothsayer (Original post)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 06:08 AM

17. Thanks for this

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to soothsayer (Original post)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 06:47 AM

18. Recommended

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to soothsayer (Original post)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 07:14 AM

19. I hope Garland has a good reason for this like trying to make the DOJ apolitical again and

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #19)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 04:36 PM

25. I hope so too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to soothsayer (Original post)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 07:30 AM

21. I know there's been a lot of threads here over the last couple of days

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread