General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: To everyone with their shorts in a bunch over DOJ's argument in the Trump in rape case [View all]MerryHolidays
(7,715 posts)Last edited Tue Jun 8, 2021, 01:06 AM - Edit history (1)
I get the point about defending institutions like the DoJ and the Presidency. The point is, however, this case NEVER should have been defended by the United States. trump could have hired his own lawyer.
I don't recall the DoJ defending President Clinton re: Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky. He hired private counsel and spent a fortune in doing it. It nearly bankrupted the President and Mrs. Clinton.
Even SCOTUS steps up to the plate when it makes a mistake in granting certiorari to hear a case and then changes its mind. If I recall, this is when SCOTUS "DIGs" a case, or "Dismissed as Improvidently Granted." In other words, the SCOTUS clearly indicates it was "improvident" to exercise its discretionary power under the Writ of Certiorari to hear a case.
There is no reason for the DoJ to keep on defending this ridiculous case. And it is ridiculous because the United States should have NO involvement in a case where the underlying facts that go to the truth or falsity of statements that trump made didn't even occur while he was President. Let trump deal with it.