Biden's Justice Dept may defend Trump in Capitol riot lawsuits

[ForgoTheConsequence]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by flibbitygiblets (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON, June 22 (Reuters) - Former U.S. President Donald Trump may have an unlikely ally to defend him against lawsuits alleging he incited the U.S. Capitol insurrection: President Joe Biden’s Justice Department.

The Biden administration paved the way for that possibility, say constitutional scholars and lawyers in the cases, by arguing in an unrelated defamation case against Trump that presidents enjoy sweeping immunity for their comments while in office - and the right to a defense by government lawyers. Biden’s Justice Department used that rationale in a surprise decision this month to continue defending Trump in a case filed by E. Jean Carroll, who contends Trump raped her 25 years ago and then lied about it while in office, defaming her.

That decision reaffirms the position the department took under the Trump administration. And it has profound implications for several ongoing lawsuits, including one filed by two U.S. Capitol Police officers seeking to hold Trump liable for injuries they suffered defending the building in the Jan. 6 attack.

Attorney Philip Andonian said he fears the Justice Department, under the same legal rationale, will also defend Trump in a case Andonian is pursuing on behalf of U.S. Representative Eric Swalwell, a California Democrat. Swalwell alleges Trump incited the deadly Jan. 6 riot in an effort to stop Congress from performing its duty to certify Biden as the election winner. Andonian called the logic behind the department’s decision to defend Trump against Carroll’s defamation suit “alarming.”

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/bidens-justice-dept-may-defend-trump-capitol-riot-lawsuits-2021-06-22/?taid=60d22c2f7dda3e0001b6ae14&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

[hlthe2b]

1. WTF! This "defense of Presidential powers at all cost" has gone too far.

[questionseverything]

2. This breaks my heart

The people will never see justice

[quaint]

3. I'm just discouraged, disheartened, dispirited and distressed.

[hamsterjill]

12. That makes two of us, at least.

I seem to get more so each and every passing day, too. I'm tired of it.

[Evolve Dammit]

30. I hear ya. It's pretty f'ing all the d's.

[agingdem]

4. Let's not go nuts..

the operative word is "may"...Andonian fears, Andonian is alarmed...is he warning the Justice Department to do the right thing and stay out of this?...sounds more like advance PR to me...hasn't happened, may never happen...and this is Reuters...and to be honest I think Cyrus Vance and Letitia James have a better chance of getting the orange cretin then the Justice Department...

[Escurumbele]

6. There shouldn't even be a "may", this should not be a conversation, period.

This is why people stop voting, this is why people think "they are all the same", this is why people think "they all protect each other, regardless of the party they are in."

This is not good, I am sure there are a lot of VERY PISSED Democrat voters who have heard this and feel betrayed. As I said, this should not even be a conversation, the SOB must defend himself with his own money, isn't he a billionaire? why should we, the tax payers, pay for his defense when most of us want him in jail?

This is extremely disappointing if it happens. Damn! I really hope it is fake news!

[agingdem]

14. but this is Swalwell's lawyer putting it out there...speculating

it's a shot across the bow.....let's see where this goes...I checked RawStory and sure enough there it is, complete with ominous headlines..the sky is falling and Merrick Garland is a disappointment and angry comments...enough already...we've got to stop dumping on Garland...

[Escurumbele]

16. Why do you say he is speculating? He cannot do that, if his raising concerns it is because it is

Read the Reuters article on the link provided, it doesn't sound good.

[agingdem]

19. I read the article...

to me it sounds very much like he's positing a worst case scenario...watch Glen Kirshner..he has a different perspective...

[Evolve Dammit]

32. Why is Garland not at least holding a press conference or three? Low profile?

[Ahpook]

31. Wholeheartedly agree

Time to stop fucking around with these people. We are in severely dangerous territory, and to say "may" do something is a stall out that we are all to familiar of. I am 100% positive this is only going to get worse, and we will not recognize our country in 2 to 4 years. It is now or never!

And you are correct about voters. I've heard plenty of people say if our party wasn't such "pus@@es" they'd be more willing to vote with us.

[wnylib]

20. Exactly. This entire article is built on

what one man's opinion is about what DOJ.MIGHT do. So what? They also might not do it, especially sinceDOJ is also investigating and prosecuting insurrectionists.

This is just an opinion piece. I will not get alarmed unless DOJ clearly says it will defend TFG.

[agingdem]

25. Right...

why the hell would the DOJ defend Trump when they're arresting, jailing, and prosecuting insurrectionists?..and when are we going to stop turning on our own?...

[wnylib]

27. When are we going to stop treating

opinion pieces as if they were news reports? We read an opinion piece about something that has not happened and for which there are no official announcements, and get our knickers in a twist over it. We are letting our feelings be manipulated by media.

[agingdem]

28. we Dems have a victim mentality...

damnit...we won the trifecta...Trump/Sessions/Barr/Rosenstein/McConnell and the rest of the rancid GOP boys in the band shattered every inch of government...Biden and his team are painstakingly putting the pieces back together...we've got to give them time and support and shut down the OMG what if's who insist on "be afraid/be very afraid nightmare scenarios..have they never heard of self-fulfilling prophesies??..we have enough crap on our table to deal with...I love Swalwell but he should tell his lawyer to STFU

[Daydream Writer]

5. I highly recommend this episode of the Opening Arguments podcast:

https://openargs.com/oa498-the-garland-doj-coverage-is-completely-wrong/

It explains why the headlines and even the articles themselves about these Garland decisions are completely misleading, and how this is even good news.

[Escurumbele]

7. Where does it say the DOJ won't help with trump's defense?

Can you provide the time when they talk about it please?

[Joinfortmill]

8. This is frightening.

[wnylib]

21. It's only one man's opinion on what MIGHT

happen. It is not a report that it is happening.

[PlanetBev]

9. Every time I read stuff like this

I lose the will to live. My heart drops into my stomach like a yo-yo 🪀.

[sprinkleeninow]

10. Also, judge nixing lawsuits re: the upside down bible photo op in front of that church.

😡

[NYC Liberal]

11. This is an OPINION from a couple of lawyers about what the DOJ MIGHT do sometime in the future.

[abqtommy]

13. Please point me/us to that section fo The Constitution that guarantees a serving or

former President "sweeping immunity".

[Escurumbele]

15. This is as bad as the opinion that says that a sitting president cannot be indicted

What kind of logic is that? So a crook can be in power for four years, destroy the country and the planet if he wants and he can't get indicted, or kill someone and get away with it, that is exactly what Kim Jun Un does, he kills people, everyone knows it, and he does it because he cannot be indicted.

And then when he is out of office, like trump, after committing crimes and treasonous actions against the country the tax payers have to pay for his defense...What kind of craziness is this?

I hope that this is all fake news, but its not according to the Reuters article, and Reuters is very serious reporting.

[PSPS]

17. Garland strikes again

[Bayard]

18. No. No. Absolutely NOT!

This would imply our Justice Dept. would also defend him against charges connected with election interference, such as threatening Raffensperger in GA, because he did it while in office.

Unacceptable. Don't even think it, Garland.

[gab13by13]

22. I argued that our DOJ was wrong

in defending MF45 in the E. Jeanne Carroll case yet several Duers disagreed. Precedence is a boeach. It won't cost MF45 a dime in those cases, taxpayers will foot the bill for his defense, sickening.

[Lonestarblue]

23. I don't know what law gives the president the right to sweeping immunity.

I would think that immunity would apply only to the performance of the duties of the president. How is it within the duty of a president to instigate a violent attack and call for the overthrow of a legal election? Following the idea that a president can say and do anything and enjoy absolute immunity because since he’s president everything he does is part of his duties is absurd. In that case Trump could have stood in public and addressed the Oath Keepers directly by telling them to go to the Capitol and murder Nancy Pelosi and that would simply have been an action taken during the performance of his duties. Not everything a president does or says is part of his duties, and that difference e needs to be clarified. Otherwise, the president truly is above the law.

[gab13by13]

24. This growing power of the presidency is abusive.

I got pissed when I heard experts say that the president's pardon power in unlimited, this is a flat out lie. Most of MF45's pardons could have been challenged.

I can't even watch cable news it makes me sick. Chris Hayes understands.

[former9thward]

37. They are unlimited.

Name a presidential pardon that has been overturned. There have been about 20,000 pardons and communtations in the last hundred years to choose from.

[JohnSJ]

26. This is why republicans win. Trump's actions were not for the country or the office, they were for

his own personal gain, and if the DOJ cannot see that, then this country is finished

[Mad_Mongol]

29. Calm down!

It's an *opinion* piece.

Built on flimsy arguments. A criminal indictment is far and away **NOT** a civil suit. Nor is Individual one equivalent to the office of the President.

The DOJ is presently representing the office of the President in a civil case. As it was handed off to the present DOJ from the former DOJ. How strongly or weakly the DOJ affects that defense is in doubt. If I were Garland, I would take the case to defend Presidential powers, but slow walk/drag it to saddle Trump with a loss.

There is no precedent for the DOJ to defend an individual (as a private citizen) in a criminal case.

Let's not make a mountain out of someone else's mole hill.

[Nasruddin]

33. Keep your friends close

and your enemies closer.

Imagine - a Donald Trump that becomes entangled with and dependent on the good graces of a prosecutor working for AG Garland.

[dsc]

34. This is what is wrong with journalism

First, it isn't Biden's DOJ, it is America's DOJ which Biden has made clear over and over and over and over and over again. Second, may is doing a whole lot of work here.

[George II]

35. The REAL Headline: Analysis: Biden's Justice Dept may defend Trump in Capitol riot lawsuits

ANALYSIS!!!!!!

[dickthegrouch]

36. The good ones will just claim Conflict of Interest

Then TFG gets the same bad ones he had when he was the faker in chief.
Better yet he can only get the ones who are already out of a job ('cept they'd be paid by us the taxpayers, again, for the same shitty job they did for him in the first place). I hope whatever arrangement he gets has total publicly paid fees capped at $150/hr.

[TeamProg]

38. I thought that NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW in the good 'ol U.S.A. ! U.S.A. ! U.S.A. ! n/t

[dalton99a]

39. This is fucked up.

[flibbitygiblets]

40. Forum moderator consensus reached to lock this thread

Reason: This is analysis, as stated in the actual article title: "Analysis: Biden’s Justice Dept may defend Trump in Capitol riot lawsuits"

Forum rules state "No analysis or opinion pieces."