Justice Dept. asks judge to toss lawsuit against Trump, Barr for violent clearing of Lafayette Squar

[spanone]

Justice Dept. asks judge to toss lawsuit against Trump, Barr for violent clearing of Lafayette Square

Lawyers for the Justice Department urged a federal judge on Friday to dismiss lawsuits against former president Donald Trump, former attorney general William P. Barr and other officials for last June’s violent clearing of demonstrators from Lafayette Square by U.S. military and police.

Trump and other U.S. officials are immune from civil lawsuits over police actions taken to protect a president and to secure his movements, government lawyers said of the actions taken ahead of a photo op of Trump holding a Bible in front of the historic St. John’s Church. A crowd of more than 1,000 largely peaceful demonstrators were protesting the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis before the park was cleared.

A year to the week after Floyd’s death, Justice Department lawyers argued that the lawsuits should also be tossed because last November’s presidential election made future violations unlikely. The government said the square has been reopened, and President Biden’s administration does not share Trump’s stated hostility toward Floyd and the racial justice movement.

The American Civil Liberties Union of D.C., Black Lives Matter, other civil liberties groups and individual protesters accuse Trump and senior officials of driving the June 1 events. Military, federal and local police forcibly cleared the square using batons, clubs, horses, pepper spray, smoke and fired projectiles 30 minutes before a citywide curfew began. Images of violence drew a national backlash against Trump’s calls for “overwhelming force” to put down those he called “THUGS” and domestic terrorists. The nation’s top military official later apologized for walking with Trump before television cameras that day.

***PayWall***https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/trump-lafayette-square-civil-lawsuit/2021/05/28/c413c840-bfb3-11eb-b26e-53663e6be6ff_story.html

[nebby70]

1. ..by this logic ...

... if I rob a bank of a zillion dollars and escape to a tropical island ...
... then I'm immune from prosecution since I'm unlikely to rob another bank ...
... someone, anyone, explain to me why the DOJ came up with this crap ...

[Me.]

2. This Is So Discouraging

Whatever happened to 'no one is above the law'. Not only did these 2 deprive a 1000 people of their rights, they hurt and harmed them in the process. I hope the judge refuses and spanks DOJ in the process.

[spanone]

3. You'd think trump & barr would have to hire the attorneys etc. etc. etc......

[Me.]

6. Apparently The THe DOJ Is Stilll Working For THem

[Hortensis]

15. No. It's about ability to maintain physical presidential security.

Unfortunately, it's felt a decision might weaken that. It's not about institutionalizing police state abuse of citizens.

[Me.]

16. I'm Having A Hard Time Seeing How That Has Anything To Do With The Matter At Hand

We are talking about an unnecessary photo op for campaign purposes. The Sec. of Defense at the time said he thought it was wrong to do and the military general involved later apologized. There always seems to be a reason not to pursue highly placed officials which is also the matter of the memo case which the DOJ is also appealing. It seems to me institutions are becoming more important than the citizens they are there to serve. And there is no law which states that officials must be protected no matter what they do especially when the matters involved were deliberate and insisted upon.

[Hortensis]

18. Well, what Trump and those officials did should be very illegal,

but perhaps this particular case isn't the best way to establish that. I just take their word for it, but I am satisfied, since it is a Democratic administration position, that it is well intentioned -- and taken in spite of angering those who imagine it shows Democrats approving jack-booted thuggery against citizens.

Knowing the big picture of who we are and what we believe in saves me from a lot of the anxiety that keeps those who don't roiling.

[Me.]

19. What Worries Me Is The Matter Of Institutionalization

It seems to be a thing with both sides, where protection of 'the institution' can take precedence and often has.

[Hortensis]

20. Laws have always been in place that allow the authorities to clear the streets

for the safety of the president. It's abuse of citizens for the reasons Trump did it that should be illegal.

As for a "thing" of both sides, you do know there's literally no such thing as liberal fascism, right? And that at its most basic liberals believe in equality, all men created equal, while conservatives believe in hierarchical societies with classes of increased privilege above others?

We would never have had Trump if people understood that those who claimed there's little difference between the liberal Democratic and conservative Republican parties were either mental whackjobs or despicable liars, or both. Even before the GOP moved to the extreme right, making the fundamental differences obvious to all but whackjobs, they were always extremely real and profound.

I'm a little surprised to find us disagreeing on this, since I've always tended to respect and agree with your positions. It's worth noting that "protection of the institution" has become the Democratic Party's greatest priority by far, the issue all others depend on, destruction of "the institution" the Republicans'. It's not necessarily a bad thing depending on who's doing it and why. And keeping our president alive in these dangerous times is definitely a priority.

Itm, it should be obvious that we don't have to worry that Biden will order armed police and troops to violently clear peaceful demonstrators just so he can posture as an authoritarian strongman to please his voters. As Trump did. Not only is Biden not Trump, Biden's voters are not fascistic trumpists.

[Me.]

22. I'm Surprised Too

and perhaps it's my anger speaking but rubber bullets and tear gas used on peaceful protestors who had a right to be there is is not and should not be acceptable in 'law', especially for a photo op. I hope the ACLU and other groups on this suit continue on to the highest court if necessary.

I have no thought of Biden behaving like the former in any way, my feeling on this matter has to do with a lawsuit against the former and Barr being allowed to go forward and let a jury decide. I will also be very interested in what the judge in this matter has to say.

[Hortensis]

26. Short form, it's about abuse of power. That's what we need

to be able to slam those who do with. They should be too afraid of us to risk it.

[Me.]

27. Total & Absolute Agreement

🌸

[malaise]

9. This is just one of many more criminal matters

they will face

Justice is coming!

[spanone]

12. this was a big one. the right to protest is in the constitution a photo op is not

[triron]

14. Thanks for pointing this out. Not 'small potatoes'.

[Me.]

17. Well Put

[czarjak]

4. WTF!

[sop]

5. "Trump and other U.S. officials are immune from civil lawsuits over police actions taken to protect

a president and to secure his movements."

Would they still be immune had the cops opened fire and killed dozens of people while clearing Lafayette Square, or are they immune because they only beat up and gassed them? Is the DOJ really saying a president and his henchmen can do anything to "protect" a presidential photo-op, or is it just a matter of the degree of violence?

[Me.]

7. THe Only Reason THat There Is Immunity

is because some judge somewhere, sometime, said the President had immunity. It is not law nor in the Constitution as far as I know but the rights of the people to protest are

[UTUSN]

8. Illegal orders, besides not being obeyed, should have liability.

[tikka]

10. Someone authorized this action. They need to be found and fired.

[Towlie]

11. And Chauvin should walk because he's no longer a cop, so future cop-killings by him are unlikely?

 
←

Doesn't make a bit of sense, does it?

[BSdetect]

13. Why has this been allowed to proceed? Flex some muscle to deal with the crime.

[intheflow]

21. What the actual fuck?

The DOJ is saying because Trump wasn't reelected, his use of force against peaceful protesters for a fucking photo op is so much of a nothing-burger the case sould be dropped? This is a bad look, Mr. Garland.

[Me.]

23. A Good Synopsis Of The Hearing

Appears here:

https://wtop.com/dc/2021/05/judge-hears-arguments-in-suits-against-trump-barr-over-2020-lafayette-square-protest/

[triron]

24. OK thanks. Do you want to summarize it or say anything about it's contents?

[Me.]

29. A Couple Of Points of Interest In The Conversation

“Friedrich (the judge) also said the crowd dispersal came before the 7 p.m. curfew, which was imposed by Bowser, after two nights of destructive protests in the nation’s capital.”

“You just can’t wail on someone with batons if they’re running away from you,” said Friedrich."

“Mastro (protestor’s attorney) said if the defendants’ argument that all tactics are allowed to protect presidential security, “In theory, Lafayette Square could have been cleared with live ammunition.”

[spanone]

25. Thanks for that!

👍🏼

[msfiddlestix]

28. Hope against Hope, the Judge will refuse to drop the case.

I haven't googled, don't know if this judge is the former guy's appointee, or a Heritage Fascist pic, I hope the Judge will decline the DOJ's request in this instance. Wonder how long it will be for the Judge to make a decision on their motion?