None of that matters though. If the fentanyl wasn’t seized he’d be bitching about Bidens America being a dangerous, drug filled hellscape. If the fentanyl is seized they bitch about how Bidens America is bringing in all the illegals and their drugs. It’s all bad faith bullshit.
1 Like
- Fentanyl being seized is a sign of competence, not incompetence.
- The enough to kill 2 billion people is fucking stupid as shit. Might as well say that Lake Michigan is enough to kill everyone in Chicago.
1 Like
Of course. “10000 pounds” just set off my bullshit meter and I was somewhat surprised to find he wasn’t just making it up or repeating something he heard on a qanon podcast or something.
And it does seem like kind of a glaring self-own to complain about how well the seizures are going with Joe Biden running things.
I’m confident that every single one of those would be an upgrade. Of course, it’s basically unprovable, but I’d be really surprised if any of them were this feckless. Admittedly, I didn’t think Garland would be either.
Garland seems to be exactly what I expected. What were you expecting to be different?
You expected him to be stanning for Trump in the E Jean Carroll defamation suit?
I expect him (and anyone else who might have had the job) to defend presidential power regardless of whether Trump personally benefits in order to stave off potential future nuisance lawsuits by Republicans.
But the argument asserted in this case by the Justice Department this week has little to do with the alleged heinous actions of the former president or the legal positions taken by an exceptionally partisan department under Barr in other cases and circumstances. Rather, it is a pretty straightforward assertion on the limits of individual liability for government officials vital to the federal government’s legal position in thousands of pending cases throughout the nation based on the 1988 Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act (better known as the Westfall Act). The reassertion of this argument is, therefore, a “no-brainer” for the Justice Department’s Civil Division (and the entire department) and should therefore come as no surprise.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/whats-justice-department-doing-e-jean-carroll-lawsuit
1 Like
https://twitter.com/stevanzetti/status/1455338895793659910
https://twitter.com/rothschildmd/status/1455340541390909450
https://twitter.com/JoshuaHol/status/1455343259249688576
4 Likes
JFK Jr of the Kennedy family
2 Likes
this has lucy football written all over it. protecting the prez now will not stop republicans in the future, and they simply need to be destroyed as a party.
if i followed the money, i’d start with whoever made those tshirts.
If people want to agree that we need to destroy Republicans by any means necessary, then I can hop aboard that train. If you are squeamish about going too far, then you’re just Merrick Garland with different lines.
1 Like
I need to read obviously but I fail to see how her lawsuit, which pertains to events that happened well before Trump became President, pertains to presidential power in any way. ETA and didn’t the Paula Jones lawsuit settle this already?
1 Like
There are (at least) three reasons why continuing to assert the Westfall Act arguments in the Carroll case is a no-brainer for the Justice Department. First, notwithstanding the horrible allegations at the center of Carroll’s claim (and the number of similar claims made by others against Trump), the department must consider not just this case but also any future civil claims that might be filed against a president and whether courts should conclude that those future presidents are shielded from personal liability by the Westfall Act. It is the Justice Department’s responsibility and obligation to assert potentially valid legal arguments that would limit exposure of liability for federal officials.
Second, a wide array of federal officials make public statements to the press regarding activities that are clearly, or not so clearly, directly related to their official duties every day. The government has a vested interest in applying the widest possible definition of when such statements would be considered within the scope of employment for any of these officials who might be subject to legal action arising from what they have said.
Finally, the district court in the Carroll case expressly declined to rely on precedent from another federal circuit that reached a contrary conclusion about the scope of employment question. The Justice Department and its Civil Division have a vital interest in developing favorable legal precedent throughout the country. As a result, inconsistent federal analysis of the same legal issue is of particular importance to the department and the division. The district court’s rejection of the D.C. Circuit precedent would be enough reason to continue the appeal in this case absent any of the other factors.
The Trump administration violated so many norms. The Biden administration seeks to re-establish the norms. For Merrick Garland, that means obeying the legal norms that the Justice of Department is apolitical. Anyone who he was considering for the job was going act in line with this mission.
1 Like
does that include the guy who got caught insider trading from NY?
Love the shirt:
TRUMP
Kennedy
Keep the world great
Here’s where this breaks down for me:
- These are clearly not related to his official duties.
- The government does not have a vested interest in applying the widest possible standard. Certainly they want a wide standard, but widest possible? Nope. Hopefully, no one thinks that a government official should be off the hook for everything that they say about anything at all times while they in their position. I would think it is in the government’s best interest for bad people to get got.
Above completely sets aside the fact that Trump’s next DOJ will not give a fuck about any of this precedent and let anyone who wants to take shots at Biden.
And if you do happen to believe that such precedents are important, I think a much better one to establish would be that even if you are in the government you don’t have a free pass to do whatever the fuck you want. It would be nice if someone applies that to Trump the next time around (they won’t, and they wouldn’t even if such precedent existed, because they don’t give a shit about precedents of any kind).
1 Like