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

oxjox , 6 hours ago

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.

gAlienLifeform OP , 9 minutes ago

It could be more detailed, but the headline is accurate, the DOJ jumped into the middle of this case when they didn’t have to (just like they did with the E. Jean Carol one until enough people called them on their shittiness to get them to reverse course) and now is volunteering to commit taxpayer dollars to pay any damages Trump could be found liable for as part of a broader effort to have this whole lawsuit because the DOJ really doesn’t like talking about police officers committing brutality after being ordered by their superiors to do so.

Justice Department attorneys said in a notice filed in federal court in Washington late Monday that Trump is entitled to U.S. government support in the civil case because the suit’s allegations stem from his work as president.

“On the basis of the information now available … I find that Donald J. Trump was acting within the scope of federal office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the plaintiffs’ claims arise,” wrote James Touhey Jr., the head of the Torts Branch in DOJ’s Civil Division.

Justice Department attorneys also filed a motion to dismiss the claims against Trump

Also,

I would think they should have stuck with suing The President rather than Trump even if that meant no financial reward.

I know they can and I’m pretty sure they are pursuing both forms of liability. Lawsuits usually involve plaintiffs making a bunch of different arguments with the expectation that one or more will get dismissed.

FlyingSquid , 6 hours ago

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 , 6 hours ago

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 , 6 hours ago

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.

oxjox , 1 hour ago

If it is considered an official presidential act, the president can violate any law up to and including assassinating their political rival.

Could you cite that specific instance in the judgement for me?

FlyingSquid , 1 hour ago

I know exactly what you’re doing. You’re doing a “technically” because the ruling suggests that it could be criminal, but it would have to be decided by congress. A congress which has never once removed a president from office even when impeaching them for crimes.

dogslayeggs , 3 hours ago

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.

SeaJ , 1 hour ago

I disagree with the ruling but don’t see it as too surprising. Let’s not forget that Obama ordered a drone strike on the American Anwar al-Awlaki. He was the target. Then another drone strike killed his 16 year old son (also American) a couple weeks later although he was not the target. Then Trump had a SEAL team go in which killed his 8 year old daughter (also not the target, I hope). The American government really hates the al-Awlakis…

gAlienLifeform OP , 6 minutes ago

There is no SCOTUS decision that forces the DOJ to make any arguments. They are going into court entirely of their own accord to protect some mysterious bullshit idea about the authority of the Executive branch that I don’t think they even really understand, but it’s just become such a reflexive thing for them to do since Nixon they keep doing it even when it means giving cover to a traitor like rhey are here.

MediaBiasFactChecker Bot , 6 hours ago

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