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

Takket

(21,421 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.

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
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Letter from @HouseJudicia...»Reply #5