The Department of Justice has decided to continue defending Donald Trump in a case filed by E. Jean Carroll, who claims Trump raped her in the mid-90s. The case does not concern the alleged rape itself but Trump's repeated attacks on Carroll after she went public with her accusations in June 2019. Carroll sued Trump for defamation in November 2019.
The moral of the story. Don't let crooks become president. Otherwise, they will literally get away with murder once they are president. The unitary executive theory ensures they are immune from everything!
Maybe I'm just naïve but how is it that everything that's been done (like Barr getting involved to begin with) is as partisan as it gets with Republicans in charge. Then when Democrats finally get control back, they aren't willing to do anything partisan because it could "further the divide". I'm only 31 but I've seen this same song and dance before. Merrick Garland needs to do what should have been done from the start. The DOJ should not be defending trump and using these absurd and ridiculous standards to do so. Excellent article and hopefully enough people are reading you to make a difference.
I’m concerned, too, and appreciate your deep and clear explanation, Judd. This can be an opportunity to draw a line somewhere between presidential impunity and overall legality. We had Trump. He had impunity. He was apparently correct when he stated he could shoot someone on the streets of New York and get away with it. Is there no line? It is time to draw it and Garland is missing that opportunity.
It seems to me that if Garland pushes Ballenger by continuing the fight he may believe if he can get a ruling that departs from Ballenger then the DOJ and others may be able to go after Trump for other personal lies he has stated and be a warning to - God forbid- any other president we may have in the future to curtail such speech or make that President liable. In essence, a clarification in one new way that the president is not a King.
"Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead!" The time ticks away that anything is going to be accomplished by the 2022 midterms. My bloomers stay in a bunch.
Thank you for your excellent assessment of the DOJ. Garland it grows apparent was a mistake. I say daily we need a Kamala as Attorney General. I am beyond sad at the Dems lack of stones in dealing with any of the Trump mess, the GOP, voting rights and especially Jan. 6.
Is this just follow through til the 2nd Circuit says a political office holder can of course be sued for libel?
Do we have an act of passive-aggressive behavior in that the brief throws Donnie under the bus? If Carroll succeeds on the appellate level, the DOJ brief already says what Donnie did is wrong. Team Carroll has a at least a pretty good start for an SJ motion.
If successful, does a resulting decision give Old Joe some defense when a conservative piece of shit sues him for libel-while-POTUS?
I know it's unlikely, but is this just the DOJ civil service doing what it does under the appointees' radar?
Thank you for spelling out Merrick's baffling decision so clearly, Judd. It really does seem absurd.
The moral of the story. Don't let crooks become president. Otherwise, they will literally get away with murder once they are president. The unitary executive theory ensures they are immune from everything!
“ arguing it to an absurd, an indefensible degree."
This defense of Trump is so completely indefensible it’s unbelievable. It needs to stop and Garland should actually apologize to Carroll.
Another "institutionalist" like Mueller?
Maybe I'm just naïve but how is it that everything that's been done (like Barr getting involved to begin with) is as partisan as it gets with Republicans in charge. Then when Democrats finally get control back, they aren't willing to do anything partisan because it could "further the divide". I'm only 31 but I've seen this same song and dance before. Merrick Garland needs to do what should have been done from the start. The DOJ should not be defending trump and using these absurd and ridiculous standards to do so. Excellent article and hopefully enough people are reading you to make a difference.
I’m concerned, too, and appreciate your deep and clear explanation, Judd. This can be an opportunity to draw a line somewhere between presidential impunity and overall legality. We had Trump. He had impunity. He was apparently correct when he stated he could shoot someone on the streets of New York and get away with it. Is there no line? It is time to draw it and Garland is missing that opportunity.
It seems to me that if Garland pushes Ballenger by continuing the fight he may believe if he can get a ruling that departs from Ballenger then the DOJ and others may be able to go after Trump for other personal lies he has stated and be a warning to - God forbid- any other president we may have in the future to curtail such speech or make that President liable. In essence, a clarification in one new way that the president is not a King.
With regards to Merrick Garland and the DOJ.
"Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead!" The time ticks away that anything is going to be accomplished by the 2022 midterms. My bloomers stay in a bunch.
Thank you for your excellent assessment of the DOJ. Garland it grows apparent was a mistake. I say daily we need a Kamala as Attorney General. I am beyond sad at the Dems lack of stones in dealing with any of the Trump mess, the GOP, voting rights and especially Jan. 6.
Is this just follow through til the 2nd Circuit says a political office holder can of course be sued for libel?
Do we have an act of passive-aggressive behavior in that the brief throws Donnie under the bus? If Carroll succeeds on the appellate level, the DOJ brief already says what Donnie did is wrong. Team Carroll has a at least a pretty good start for an SJ motion.
If successful, does a resulting decision give Old Joe some defense when a conservative piece of shit sues him for libel-while-POTUS?
I know it's unlikely, but is this just the DOJ civil service doing what it does under the appointees' radar?