Tue Jun 8, 2021, 12:56 AM
cilla4progress (23,797 posts)
Joyce Vance on Carroll lawsuitLink to tweet ?s=19
|
16 replies, 2943 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
cilla4progress | Jun 2021 | OP |
Sur Zobra | Jun 2021 | #1 | |
dalton99a | Jun 2021 | #2 | |
StarfishSaver | Jun 2021 | #3 | |
zaj | Jun 2021 | #4 | |
uponit7771 | Jun 2021 | #5 | |
StarfishSaver | Jun 2021 | #9 | |
gab13by13 | Jun 2021 | #7 | |
StarfishSaver | Jun 2021 | #10 | |
uponit7771 | Jun 2021 | #6 | |
gab13by13 | Jun 2021 | #8 | |
StarfishSaver | Jun 2021 | #12 | |
uponit7771 | Jun 2021 | #13 | |
StarfishSaver | Jun 2021 | #11 | |
lagomorph777 | Jun 2021 | #14 | |
StarfishSaver | Jun 2021 | #15 | |
lagomorph777 | Jun 2021 | #16 |
Response to cilla4progress (Original post)
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 01:45 AM
Sur Zobra (3,428 posts)
1. The decision is a
“some people are above the law” action.
![]() |
Response to cilla4progress (Original post)
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 01:49 AM
dalton99a (78,111 posts)
2. Are Trump appointees holding people hostages in the DOJ building?
Bizarre and disappointing. Disgusting, actually |
Response to cilla4progress (Original post)
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 02:08 AM
StarfishSaver (18,486 posts)
3. DOJ's argument really isn't about Trump
It's about the Westfall Act's application to government employees.
I doubt the court will accept this argument in this case, but it's important that they make it. If they don't raise this here, they will have a hard time raising it in the future in cases much less odious than Trump's. For example, if (when) Trump or his henchmen sue Biden or Harris for something they say and do, DOJ would be hard-pressed to push back on it if they didn't raise this argument in this case. |
Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #3)
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 02:58 AM
zaj (3,433 posts)
4. And it's a defense of his words while in office...
... Which is far different than a defense of his actions before he was in office.
|
Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #3)
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 06:50 AM
uponit7771 (89,624 posts)
5. Hmmm, who is to decide if Putin's Whore "was acting within the scope of [their] office" ...
... when he slandered someone while he was president?
Benedict Donald was keen to use every single damn loophole he could so he could do the wrong thing |
Response to uponit7771 (Reply #5)
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 10:03 AM
StarfishSaver (18,486 posts)
9. A judge will decide.
Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #3)
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 07:54 AM
gab13by13 (18,164 posts)
7. So we are more concerned about frivolous law suits
against an honest president meanwhile there is the flip side of that coin. A criminal president can act with impunity knowing that he can't be prosecuted while president for his blatant criminal behavior.
Sorry but I'm with the federal judge and Joyce Vance on this one. |
Response to gab13by13 (Reply #7)
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 10:10 AM
StarfishSaver (18,486 posts)
10. No.
No one - not even DOJ - is claiming a criminal president can act with impunity. DOJ will not make that decision - a judge will decide whether the act applies to Trump in this case
I understand why some people don't understand it because it's a complicated area of the law and even lawyers disagree about it. But in this instance, I'm going with Attorney General Merrick Garland, a brilliant, thoughtful and ethical jurist and attorney, over Joyce Vance, who is not in his position, doesn't have the information the AG has, didn't participate in the discussions and decisionmaking that led to this option, and isn't responsible for future cases that could be impacted by how this case is handled. |
Response to cilla4progress (Original post)
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 06:55 AM
uponit7771 (89,624 posts)
6. Looks like DOJ is obligated under Westfall Act to defend Putin's Whore only until it's decided
... that he didn't act in within the scope of his office when he slandered someone while president.
We'll see, I do think the DOJ out to explain this ... its an easy explanation |
Response to uponit7771 (Reply #6)
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 07:57 AM
gab13by13 (18,164 posts)
8. Didn't a federal judge already determine
that the DOJ should not get involved? I realize I am slow but why can't DOJ simply say, sorry a federal judge made the determination. Why does DOJ have to say the federal judge was wrong?
|
Response to gab13by13 (Reply #8)
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 10:11 AM
StarfishSaver (18,486 posts)
12. It was a trial court judge but the case in now on appeal.
The final determination has not yet been made.
|
Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #12)
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:08 AM
uponit7771 (89,624 posts)
13. Hmmm, the judge determining whether Feds should be involved makes this more non partisan. FG45 ...
... crimes made crap more complicated than need be
|
Response to cilla4progress (Original post)
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:18 AM
lagomorph777 (30,613 posts)
14. DOJ should not be acting as Trump's personal lawyer.
This is disgraceful. The case is clearly not related to his presiduncial doodies.
|
Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #14)
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:51 AM
StarfishSaver (18,486 posts)
15. They're not
They would not be his personal lawyer. They would be substituted as the defendant.
I don't think that's going to happen, however. |
Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #15)
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 12:12 PM
lagomorph777 (30,613 posts)
16. Even worse!
I hope SCROTUS blows this nonsense out of the water.
Seems like a longshot though, with the packed court. |