There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Biden’s Justice Department backs Donald Trump in DC protest suit

The Justice Department has agreed that the federal government will foot the bill if former President Donald Trump is found liable for violating the rights of protesters when National Guard troops and police forcibly drove racial justice demonstrators from a park near the White House in June 2020.

Archived at ghostarchive.org/archive/235Vg

oxjox ,
@oxjox@lemmy.ml avatar

They’re really running with dramatic and misleading headlines here. From what I’ve gathered, the actual story is at the very bottom of the page.

The former president was initially named as a defendant in the case solely in his official capacity, which would not allow for a financial award.

However, in March, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich gave the plaintiffs permission to amend their suit to seek damages from Trump. The suit was amended to name him personally liable the following month.

The JD is agreeing that if Trump were found personally liable, the fed would foot the bill. This is very strange and has little to no hope of success for the plaintiffs given, as flying squid mentioned, the recent SCOTUS decision. I would think they should have stuck with suing The President rather than Trump even if that meant no financial reward.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

As per the recent SCOTUS decision that it’s legal for the president to commit crimes if they are official presidential acts, I would think the DOJ’s hands are tied here.

oxjox ,
@oxjox@lemmy.ml avatar

I don’t know the specifics around this case but if for instance The President ordered protesters to be “taken care of” and they were killed, or even in the more realistic situation where police used excessive force, is it not possible that someone could sue the federal government for violating their rights? And I don’t mean first amendment rights but whatever case law prevents the use of excessive force (in addition to 1A supporting it). Would a reasonable judge find that even the President is permitted to violate human rights (I’m realizing how stupid this sounds as I type it) when there is no perceived threat?

Everyone has thrown around the example of POTUS killing anyone for any reason but is that an actual legit thing? I have a very hard time believing this would be the case in reality.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

You may have a hard time believing it, but that was what SCOTUS decided. If it is considered an official presidential act, the president can violate any law up to and including assassinating their political rival. That is exactly what Trump’s team argued a president could do before the ruling was decided in their favor.

dogslayeggs ,

Yep, the scenario of killing someone was actually in the official write-up of the judgement. It wasn’t an absolute yes, but it did say the courts would have to determine it on a case by case basis.

MediaBiasFactChecker Bot ,

Politico - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Politico:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/19/biden-trump-protest-suit-justice-department-00174860

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •