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
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: DOJ seeks to block subpoena for Trump deposition [View all]
dem4decades
(13,979 posts)3. I'm sick of DOJ protecting Trump.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
86 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
If they were to protect the office of the President, they would get out of the way
Anti-Racist Hero
Jan 2022
#63
Even when it happened under a prior administration, the DOJ won't fail to attempt to cover up
RockRaven
Jan 2022
#4
I have to agree. Subtle but principled DoJ work flies over their heads. . . . nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Jan 2022
#33
It's not part of the duties of President. That is not the point of the filing. . . . nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Jan 2022
#54
What is the "principle" you are referring to? What is "the point" of the filing?
SunSeeker
Jan 2022
#66
This is nuts. What "other sources" are better than Trump himself on Trump's thinking?
SunSeeker
Jan 2022
#6
Read the DOJ legal filing, the answers are there written by constitutional experts.
Alexander Of Assyria
Jan 2022
#18
The DOJ filing is written by line DOJ attorneys, not "constitutional experts."
SunSeeker
Jan 2022
#20
More expert than you or me, I would wager...and they got lots of lawyers, all kinds.
Alexander Of Assyria
Jan 2022
#48
I do give Biden's DOJ the benefit of the doubt. That's a fundamental disagreement.
Alexander Of Assyria
Jan 2022
#78
Have you a link for the legal filing? It's not used in the quoted article
muriel_volestrangler
Jan 2022
#50
That doesn't say anything about "protecting the office of the presidency"
muriel_volestrangler
Jan 2022
#53
Tbh thought your first comment was inquisitorial, not the usual hostility on social mdia.
Alexander Of Assyria
Jan 2022
#76
I think your reply #55 was your mistake - you introduced the hostility then
muriel_volestrangler
Jan 2022
#79
I think the bottom line is they had reason to fire OTHER than Trumps opinion.
oldsoftie
Jan 2022
#38
That is in dispute in the litigation. This discovery is designed to determine why he was fired.
SunSeeker
Jan 2022
#42
Yes. Fundamental legal procedure 101..if discovery motioned for is findable elsewhere, go there.
Alexander Of Assyria
Jan 2022
#46
No argument on that. Other source readily identifiable is whole DOJ position.
Alexander Of Assyria
Jan 2022
#77
If you take the word "Trump" out of this case, you understand what they're doing.
oldsoftie
Jan 2022
#72
You can't take Trump out of the case. Trump's abusive actions ARE the case. nt
SunSeeker
Jan 2022
#82
No, a case is based on facts not particular persons. You can take his name out.
oldsoftie
Jan 2022
#83
Fine, the case is about a President abusing his office to get an FBI agent fired.
SunSeeker
Jan 2022
#84
I'd like to see Trump catapulted into a volcano, but this move seems pretty standard to me
Orrex
Jan 2022
#10
Well, then I'd say that DoJ's response would default to its general view re: presidential testimony
Orrex
Jan 2022
#71
Garland is trying to play everything by the book, but the book doesn't apply to Trump.
SunSeeker
Jan 2022
#85
DoJ is the defendant, and they don't want some frikkin bozo witnesss destroying their defense?
L. Coyote
Jan 2022
#14
What mis-guided bullshit. We don't need the republicans to sabotage us, we have the DOJ
JohnSJ
Jan 2022
#22
Unfortunately that is standard reaction on everything not understood and dispatched by Twitter.
Alexander Of Assyria
Jan 2022
#47
Strzok might be able to show no other source exists, but why must Strzok clear that hurdle?
SunSeeker
Jan 2022
#29
"Strzok might be able to show no other source exists" then he would have to give a deposition.
cstanleytech
Jan 2022
#34