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
49 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Does Merrick Garland (Original Post) cilla4progress Jun 2021 OP
At some point, someone needs to get me up to speed. Baitball Blogger Jun 2021 #1
Check out some of the OPs. cilla4progress Jun 2021 #3
Garland failed to take down trump and everyone around him, including Putin. Hoyt Jun 2021 #4
He recovered money from the pipeline hackers Generic Brad Jun 2021 #5
That isn't it. He is defending trump against the Carroll rape charge, that is what is upsetting JohnSJ Jun 2021 #6
He's not defending Trump StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #11
It amounts to the same thing. Last year a federal judge ruled that the DOJ could not take over JohnSJ Jun 2021 #12
Actually, it DOESN'T amount to the same thing. StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #13
Please cilla4progress Jun 2021 #19
Wasn't it illegal in the first place to act as his private attorney? lagomorph777 Jun 2021 #40
They're not acting as his private attorney StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #42
I hope they go through an extensive discovery process. lagomorph777 Jun 2021 #43
It may be StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #44
Which should have never happened. Garland need to take an energy drink. walkingman Jun 2021 #49
No he's not defending Trump ChrisF1961 Jun 2021 #25
This has already been done with Paula Jones. The DOJ is going against what Biden campaigned JohnSJ Jun 2021 #28
Biden doesn't control the DOJ ChrisF1961 Jun 2021 #30
I agree, this is on Garland not Biden. However, the issue of what a sitting president is liable on JohnSJ Jun 2021 #31
Yes and if the DOJ didn't defend a President ChrisF1961 Jun 2021 #32
Effectively he is defending trump by proxy, and the last four years it was an example of a unitary JohnSJ Jun 2021 #34
No it isn't ChrisF1961 Jun 2021 #37
This message was self-deleted by its author JohnSJ Jun 2021 #39
This wasn't done with the Paula Jones case StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #45
Ok, But he was charged and fined for perjury in regard to Monica Lewensky, which occurred when he JohnSJ Jun 2021 #46
No, that's not a relevant or correct example, either StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #47
Ok, thanks for explaining JohnSJ Jun 2021 #48
I know. I was offline since noon yesterday. Sympthsical Jun 2021 #33
Seems a bit early to get on Biden or Garland, Ms. Siskind. Hoyt Jun 2021 #2
Gotta say, it seems a bit early to me also. Not even a full six months into a four year term ... marble falls Jun 2021 #8
Long game? Does Garland have game? Sneederbunk Jun 2021 #7
Amy Siskind from Wall Street? Budi Jun 2021 #9
No. He's just a short-sighted idiot who doesn't know what he's doing StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #10
This is from the ny times JohnSJ Jun 2021 #14
Interesting StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #15
I agree JohnSJ Jun 2021 #17
Yes, and like his stupid boss, they were supposed to fix everything in 4 months. GoCubsGo Jun 2021 #27
It's AG Garland's fault that Joe F*cking Manchin is obstructing Biden's agenda? Nt Fiendish Thingy Jun 2021 #16
Sarcasm, right? JohnSJ Jun 2021 #18
The problem maybe everyone is afraid speaknow Jun 2021 #20
Thinking more about that, I don't think or speaknow Jun 2021 #21
It's not a rape case StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #22
And it's going to be in the news canetoad Jun 2021 #23
This is the instant gratification mentality of ChrisF1961 Jun 2021 #24
Garland could be hoping DOJ is allowed rownesheck Jun 2021 #26
No. They will defend the issue to the best of their ability that a president is above any Civil JohnSJ Jun 2021 #29
Why are you touting corruption as if it were a good thing? nt RegularJam Jun 2021 #36
His long game is justice and competence. RegularJam Jun 2021 #35
Laurence Tribe cilla4progress Jun 2021 #38
That's the only game available, really. MineralMan Jun 2021 #41

Generic Brad

(14,316 posts)
5. He recovered money from the pipeline hackers
Mon Jun 7, 2021, 11:53 PM
Jun 2021

So apparently that is interpreted that he is protecting Trump and burying 1/6 investigations. You can’t make this shit up.

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
11. He's not defending Trump
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 12:13 AM
Jun 2021

DOJ filed a brief arguing that it should continue to represent Trump in the case.

JohnSJ

(93,722 posts)
12. It amounts to the same thing. Last year a federal judge ruled that the DOJ could not take over
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 12:21 AM
Jun 2021

Trump's defense, despite that the litigation over the matter is ongoing.

This happened before trump was president, so why the DOJ feels an obligation to represent trump is going to get a lot of push back, and in my view it will be derserved

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
42. They're not acting as his private attorney
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 10:21 AM
Jun 2021

Something different.

Under the Westfall Act, when a government official is sued Ilin their private capacity for acts they committed when in office as part of their job, the federal government steps in and becomes the defendant in their place.

The rub is that while in some cases, it is very easy to determine whether someone was acting in there official or personal capacity almost immediately, in others, it can't be determined until the case proceeds to discovery and more evidence goes in the record for a judge to use to decide that issue.

The case of a president is one of the more difficult ones because their jobs are not as easily delineated between personal and official. Almost everything they do can have official implications. In this case presidents make statements all the time about a wide variety of things and the line between personal and official is very blurred. A court will probably have to decide whether Trump's statements about Carroll were purely personal or if they arose out of any official interest or duty. Of course most of us are sure they didn't, but our opinions is not a legal determination - that still has to be ruled on by a judge. In the meantime the Justice Department is seeking to step in to protect the government's interest in case the judge rules that this was official activity.

It's pretty complicated and confusing and even lawyers aren't agreeing on how DOJ should handle it. But that doesn't mean that Merrick Garland or DOJ are doing the wrong thing or should be attacked for choosing the option that they did. It's a perfectly reasonable and justifiable one.

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
44. It may be
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 10:43 AM
Jun 2021

But there are surely a lot of reasons they are doing this.

But the bottom line is I think this argument won't be accepted by the court, so the case will probably proceed with Trump as the named party anyway with lots of discovery He surely doesn't want.

walkingman

(7,991 posts)
49. Which should have never happened. Garland need to take an energy drink.
Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:55 AM
Jun 2021

He certainly doesn't seem to be cleaning up the DOJ.

 

ChrisF1961

(457 posts)
25. No he's not defending Trump
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 04:52 AM
Jun 2021

The DOJ is defending a President in a civil lawsuit for something said as President. If they hadn’t done this it would have opened Biden up to civil lawsuits launched by the right wing.

JohnSJ

(93,722 posts)
28. This has already been done with Paula Jones. The DOJ is going against what Biden campaigned
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 07:47 AM
Jun 2021

on, and what a federal judge has already ruled on

It also says to me that the DOJ does not believe trump is liable for January 6th, and nothing wrong with the “big lie”

I believe this will cause division among Democrats, and only hope it doesn’t hurt us in 2022








 

ChrisF1961

(457 posts)
30. Biden doesn't control the DOJ
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 08:00 AM
Jun 2021

nor should he. Garland should do what he thinks is right without being beholden to anything Biden campaigned.

As far as what it also says, total BS with no grounding in any reality.

JohnSJ

(93,722 posts)
31. I agree, this is on Garland not Biden. However, the issue of what a sitting president is liable on
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 08:06 AM
Jun 2021

is very much what this is about, and trump’s actions when he was president are very much what the DOJ is arguing about

 

ChrisF1961

(457 posts)
32. Yes and if the DOJ didn't defend a President
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 08:12 AM
Jun 2021

from civil lawsuits, it would open Biden up to harassment. They are defending a principle, not Trump.

JohnSJ

(93,722 posts)
34. Effectively he is defending trump by proxy, and the last four years it was an example of a unitary
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 08:21 AM
Jun 2021

President.

It is also a matter of time when this extends to if a president is liable to criminal acts

 

ChrisF1961

(457 posts)
37. No it isn't
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 09:00 AM
Jun 2021

It is a single principle, which protects Biden. Stop trying to spin it into something that it isn't.

Response to ChrisF1961 (Reply #37)

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
45. This wasn't done with the Paula Jones case
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 10:46 AM
Jun 2021

That was an entirely different situation. She accused him of behavior conducted before he became president - there was no implication of the Westfall Act in any of it, so there was no involvement by DOJ.

And DOJ is doing exactly what Biden campaigned on - he said he would not get involved in or influence DOJ, but would let them make their own decisions without interference from him. That's what he's doing. The fact that he expressed his opinion about the case does not mean they're going against what he campaigned on - in fact his justice department taking an action that seems to be in conflict with his personal opinion about a case is further proof that he's living up to his campaign promise.

JohnSJ

(93,722 posts)
46. Ok, But he was charged and fined for perjury in regard to Monica Lewensky, which occurred when he
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:38 AM
Jun 2021

was president. Is that a valid example?

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
47. No, that's not a relevant or correct example, either
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:54 AM
Jun 2021

He was never charged with perjury, which is a crime. He was impeached on that basis, but that's completely different. And he was later fined by the Arkansas Supreme Court, which was an administrative matter related to his law license.

But even if he had been charged with a crime - which he wasn't - that would have been a criminal matter unrelated to the Federal Tort Claims Act or Westfall Act, which are the operative authorities in this case.

Sympthsical

(9,538 posts)
33. I know. I was offline since noon yesterday.
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 08:21 AM
Jun 2021

Woke up at 4 AM to go to gym. Reading along as I walk there, and I'm like, "I have totally missed something somewhere."

marble falls

(59,583 posts)
8. Gotta say, it seems a bit early to me also. Not even a full six months into a four year term ...
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 12:00 AM
Jun 2021

Let alone, we have two more elections to get us the kind of Congress we need to have to really begin serious work to fix the 45th's four years.

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
10. No. He's just a short-sighted idiot who doesn't know what he's doing
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 12:10 AM
Jun 2021

and the Attorney General and former chief judge of the DC Circuit definitely doesn't know nearly as much about the law or his job as non-lawyer observers on Twitter and DU.

Too bad Biden didn't know any better than to appoint this guy to be the chief law enforcement officer in the land.



 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
15. Interesting
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 12:25 AM
Jun 2021

It's nice to see that Biden, as promised, is allowing the Justice Department to act independently, even when it is inconsistent with something he said in a debate.

GoCubsGo

(32,436 posts)
27. Yes, and like his stupid boss, they were supposed to fix everything in 4 months.
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 07:45 AM
Jun 2021

It shouldn't matter that they're dealing with the most tangled, fucked-up situation since the Great Depression. Amy and her ilk want their Oompa Loompas NOW!

speaknow

(321 posts)
21. Thinking more about that, I don't think or
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 02:38 AM
Jun 2021

my hunch is Garland didn't do his home work.
He didn't purge the staff that is loyal to Barr.
Because that rape case is really a civil case.

canetoad

(17,447 posts)
23. And it's going to be in the news
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 03:17 AM
Jun 2021

For some time to come.

To defend against defamation, he has to essentially defend himself against rape. Could be juicy.

rownesheck

(2,343 posts)
26. Garland could be hoping DOJ is allowed
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 05:58 AM
Jun 2021

to defend the orange dipshit. That way they can do a shitty job of it and Tubby McWetpants will be convicted and sent to prison. Hell, that's what I would push for if I was AG.

JohnSJ

(93,722 posts)
29. No. They will defend the issue to the best of their ability that a president is above any Civil
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 07:57 AM
Jun 2021

indictment, and it won’t be too hard to see this extending to criminal charges also

What trump has effectively reign has effectively done is say a sitting president is above the law, and that is what is at stake





MineralMan

(146,575 posts)
41. That's the only game available, really.
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 09:40 AM
Jun 2021

So, of course he does. He's not going to show his hand, either. Why would he?

We'll find out what he's been up to in due time. Some Democrats need to learn patience. Truly.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Does Merrick Garland