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

[brooklynite]

Source: Washington Post

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.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/trump-lafayette-square-civil-lawsuit/2021/05/28/c413c840-bfb3-11eb-b26e-53663e6be6ff_story.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=wp_main

[Comfortably_Numb]

1. WTAF??

No words describe....

[WVreaper]

2. Ditto!

[pazzyanne]

27. Same here -

Watched that happen and there was no reasonable purpose for that to happen. It was political theater. General Mark Millney apologized for taking part in that fiasco.

"Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on his participation in Trump's bible photo op/tear gassing: "I should not have been there." He also says, "As a commissioned uniformed officer, it was a mistake that I have learned from."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/11/top-us-military-general-mark-milley-issues-public-apology-trump-church-photo-op

[brooklynite]

42. Political theater is not illegal.....

[pazzyanne]

44. But usually the theater is not cleared...

by clubbing people with batons, with riot shields and firing pepper balls at them, then forcibly pushing them out of the theater with mounted horsemen using law enforcement and the US military.

[LanternWaste]

65. And there's the back of your t-shirt.

[brooklynite]

43. Political theater is not illegal.....

[Marrah_Goodman]

80. Don't you just wish every criminal could just say "sorry, my bad" and get away with whatever?

But that's only for people in power. Not regular folks like us.

[ewagner]

48. This sounds "pro-forma"

I think there is no expectation on the part of DOJ that the petition will be granted.

At least...I sure as hell hope so!

[Layzeebeaver]

56. This

Let them run their processes according to precedent.

[Warpy]

79. Glenn Kirschner addresses this very thing

[Bettie]

3. Seriously?

Kind of feels like the first step in letting them entirely off the hook.

Hoping that is not happening.

[Crowman2009]

4. Who are these lawyers, and why are they still in the Justice Dept.?

Is this the garbage left over from the last administration?

[pazzyanne]

28. + 1 nt

[Layzeebeaver]

57. one of the jobs of the DOJ is to defend the government in civil and criminal cases

They are doing their job.

It's not just the current government, they also defend previous governments.

We may not like it but that's the way the system works.

The DOJ can't selectively choose 'WHICH" government or administration that wish to protect - imagine the can of worms that would be opened if we accept the DOJ can just do as they please. We had a taste of that under Barr!

[Marthe48]

5. I want every lawsuit against traitor heard

Let every single charge be heard, every shred of evidence entered into the record. So there is a record.

Stop giving all of the racist violence a pass.

Stop letting this traitor and his henchmen off the hook.

[Polybius]

6. Biden is a wonderful, good man with a heart of gold

While I disagree strongly with this, I hope no one comes down too hard on him in this thread.

[Mawspam2]

8. Not Biden, Merrick Garland. WTF?

[Polybius]

9. Him too

n/t

[JohnSJ]

16. Exactly

[Firestorm49]

59. Biden already stated that he'd like to "put this behind us" (the last administration),

and Merrick Garland has yet to show his fangs. But as we sit here and contemplate, time is racing past. I feel ridiculous stating this over and over, but we’re not in this dog fight. Republicans simply don’t give a shit, and their colors are on full display.

Fight! Damn it! If the filibuster needs to go, then do it, but quit standing around while Republicans continue to show that they run the game.

[Justice matters.]

32. He said he will respect the independence of the DOJ and not interfere.

As All Presidents Should And Must. Democrats respect institutions, dRumpfers don't (and lose).

That case is not over yet. The DOJ only "asked" to dismiss: Doesn't mean it will be.

We'll get to dRumpf and his co-conspirators like barR through other means.

[Firestorm49]

60. Well then, we best get moving!

[Marrah_Goodman]

81. I am not a politician fangirl

I don't care what side they are on. When someone fucks up, I won't be nice about it just because I think they are a nice guy.

[Fullduplexxx]

7. Meet the new boss ....same as the old boss

[questionseverything]

10. Exactly my thoughts

N/t

[questionseverything]

11. Exactly my thoughts

N/t

[Justice matters.]

33. Wrong thoughts. dRumpf interfered in the DOJ. Biden doesn't. nt

[Justice matters.]

31. President Biden stated he will not intervene in the DOJ's decisions.

As All Presidents Should.

[gab13by13]

40. This isn't about president Biden, it's about the decision.

[Dustlawyer]

64. This is why this crap keeps happening. Look forward not back!

If we don’t hold them accountable for their crimes they will keep committing crimes.

[BigmanPigman]

12. Huh?

What the fuck is going on? They (Garland and the DOJ) still have to decide if the fucking moron can be held for Obstruction of Justice (Senator Whitehouse told this to Rachel Maddow this week).

[Marrah_Goodman]

13. I'll say it again

I expect there to be zero consequences for Trump and his gang. He has never faced real consequences and I doubt he will now.

I hope I am wrong, but I don't think I am.

Fool me once...etc (merry Fitzmas)

[JohnSJ]

15. I think you are right, and if the party of qanon takes over again, the country is over

[Sherman A1]

39. Same here

If there are any consequences for any of them I will be surprised.

[oldsoftie]

46. I've said before; I'd rather see his businesses fail

than him go to jail
Trump going to jail just gives the MAGA crowd more "witch hunt" crap to yell. And you KNOW he would be yelling it loudest

Him failing as a businessman cant be blamed on revenge seeking democrats. And is probably a bigger embarrassment.

[PatSeg]

53. And a pathetic, broke old creep

isn't a very powerful inspiring leader and he will have even fewer resources to reach his crazed base. He can blame whoever he wants, but it is unlikely anyone will be listening. His money or perception of wealth was a huge selling point.

[oldsoftie]

72. Exactly! "Successful businessman" my ass

His dad probably had to bail him out of 100 failures

[PatSeg]

74. Yeah, I can't believe all those blue collar voters

bought into his hype. He couldn't have been a more obvious fraud if he'd worn a sign on his back.

[LiberalLovinLug]

75. Yup. No consequences. This is how it always goes down. Delay delay

Either through the natural process, or bad actors slowing it down, or both, by the time a case like this gets to the docket, the media have moved on, and the courts know they can dismiss it without too much fanfare.

[orangecrush]

14. WTAFF??!!!!!

THIS CANNOT STAND!!!

Time to start making lots of phone calls.

This is a huge middle finger to every one of us who risked our lives to go out and vote to remove the filthy sewer rat from office.

My fucking blood pressure is probably spiking right now.

[JohnSJ]

20. Who are you going to call? Biden pledged he would not interfere with the DOJ decisions like trump

did.

I doubt calling the DOJ will accomplish anything

Biden could fire the AG, but it is doubtful that will happen

[orangecrush]

21. Call everyone.

Enough outrage from Democratic voters to reach Joe's ears.

[LiberalFighter]

17. Their action is unacceptable. They have crossed the line.

[orangecrush]

18. What the HELL is going on here!!!?

[JohnSJ]

19. People should not lose sight of the fact that Biden has an independent Justice Department

Unlike trump, He doesn't interfered in their decisions.

[orangecrush]

22. When they make decisions like this

It's time to fire them.

[Jay25]

66. Yes it is!

[Jose Garcia]

23. The DOJ doesn't want to set a precedent that Biden or

future Presidents will be held to.

[orangecrush]

25. Translate zero accountability

For Trump.

[Jose Garcia]

29. That's the result, but probably not the reason

[Pachamama]

24. Big big mistake

This is so wrong

[jmowreader]

26. Sad to say, Trump had sovereign immunity

And because he also has more than 33 Republicans in the Senate, he could basically do whatever the hell he wanted in his official capacity while he was still in office.

Given that, he didn't rip off the government to the tune of millions while he was in office in his official capacity, so we can still go after him for that.

[GB_RN]

30. I Don't Like It, But I Get It

If it’s not dismissed, the next time the tRumptards were to have a shitfit and the feds broke it up, they’d sue Biden under this precedent. It’s bad optics, but they’re taking a longer view of it, IMO.

[notinkansas]

34. The next time?

Their shitfits happen every day. And we don't need to be hiding under a rock for fear of that.

I don't know that longer views are particularly useful under our current circumstances.

[LenaBaby61]

37. "the next time?"

IF there is a next time and the GQP manages to steal the House and Senate, this country will effectively become the USSR, only this time somebody might get hung at the US Capitol, and we who oppose them won't be able to to shit about it.

Yeah, I better start planning my move to Mexico much sooner rather than later, if this country is captured an or stolen by the GQP during the next big election cycles. I'm pretty sure Pres. Biden will be impeached and probably hauled off to jail, and whose gonna stop the GQP? 😳

[Scruffy1]

71. I think you are right.

Any ruling otherwise could be a time bomb. With the Supremes anything can happen. Look at Citizens United should scare the shit out of anyone seeking relief from them. It was as bad as the Dred Scott decision in taking a very narrow matter, which was already settled and using it to blow a gaping hole in the Constitution with judicial overreach.

[SunSeeker]

35. How was the gassing of peaceful protesters a "police action to protect a president"?

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.

I totally get that US officials should have immunity when carrying out police actions in good faith to protect the president, but this was not to protect the president. This was to clear Lafayette Square so Trump could have his photo op.

[Mr.Bill]

36. I think they've got bigger fish to fry.

This will look like no big deal when you see what is to come.

[Lonestarblue]

61. I'm waiting. I've been waiting for years.

I waited for the Mueller report. Nothing happened. I waited for indictments of Trump on obstruction of justice after he left office. Nothing happened. I waited for all the emoluments lawsuits. Nothing happened. I waited for the end of Trump’s presidency so Individual 1 could be prosecuted for campaign finance violations the same as Michael Cohen, who spent time in jail. Nothing happened, case dismissed. I waited for the inauguration committee fraud—still ongoing four years later, but will anything happen? Probably not.

I’m tired of waiting for justice to be enforced, but it never seems to come for most rich white men like Trump. For all the crooks like Bernie Madoff who do get caught and sent to prison, thousands more just skate around the law and never suffer any consequences. So far, Trump has been one of them.

I no longer believe in the basic fairness of the US legal system. It is filled with lawyers and judges who protect white people, especially rich white people, and businesses to the detriment of everyone else. Republicans have been passing laws to give their state legislatures the right to overturn the votes of the people. Lawsuits have been filed, but I doubt that many of these laws will be overturned because states have the right to regulate elections. One federal law, Senate bill 1, could negate most of these laws, bu Congress refuses to pass it. What does that say about our desire to maintain white privilege in this country, even if democratic principles get trampled into the ground to do so?

[Paladin]

67. My feelings exactly, I regret to say.

It's as if the Democratic Party is wearing a big sign on its back, saying "I'M A REALLY NICE PERSON! PLEASE KICK ME IN THE ASS!" and the Republicans are always more than willing to climb out of the sewers and oblige us. I believe it may take another civil war to put things back in order.

[Mr.Bill]

70. I agree totally.

I think there are people who just want to make a career out of perpetual investigations. But I have some hope that something will come from this.

[NJCher]

38. The comments by this judge are none too promising, either

It already seems to be authoritarian rights over people’s rights.

The excerpts from the DOJ seem lame, too.

[HariSeldon]

45. When the lawyering seems lame, it could mean a couple things

The most obvious are "I'm stuck with a case I don't really want to win" and "I'm stuck with a case where the law and the facts are against me." Neither one looks much like a full-on win for the DOJ, but maybe they are angling for the court to rule the President has immunity from such action taken "for the President's safety or necessarily for the discharge of the President's duties," which this was not.

[louseb]

41. This is quite understandable.

A civil lawsuit against former administration officials is pointless. They can't go to jail if found guilty anyways.

[Ace Rothstein]

47. This, among other things, is why we'll lose in 2022.

Who needs Republican voter suppression when the Dems give voters reasons to not vote for them anyway.

[LymphocyteLover]

50. this is the independent DOJ. I'm assuming they think the case is unwinnable.

they certainly have bigger fish to fry

[msfiddlestix]

49. Maybe the case should be brought before a Grand Jury for Criminal Charges?

Maybe this is being contemplated as opposed to a "lawsuit"?

Wouldn't the effect of a victorious lawsuit be awarding plaintiffs a significant financial judgment if brought before a civil jury?

Perhaps that isn't a good thing for justice, it would be better file criminal charges instead. Obviously that would mean taking it to a Grand Jury and see how it plays with the GJ.

I dunno, just thinking of other potential options.

[Layzeebeaver]

51. They are leading in support of existing law I would assume.

"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"

My underline for highlight.

I believe this is in-line with historical precedent - HOWEVER... If the court finds a different perspective, then all bets are off.

It also opens up the doors for wild and crazy lawsuits against the Biden administration by the Right wing crazies on a whole range of matters (some real and some not so real).

Let's not over react to this. Let the DOJ run their processes according to how they're historically conducted. Let the judge decide.

Personally, I believe there was foul play by Barr and Trump, and I hope it plays out to a conviction.

ALSO: let's not forget that there are a number of concurrent cases in play - it may be appropriate for the DOJ to try and fight a few for whatever reason - I really don't know the logic...

[LymphocyteLover]

52. I imagine they thought this was not a good case

and have bigger fish to fry.

I always felt like the Lafayette Square thing was one of the smaller scandals of the Trump administration

[bucolic_frolic]

54. They are protecting our institutions

Very unfortunate, but in some cases that may mean acting as if formerguy45 never happened. I would call this an excision.

[KPN]

68. You mean like the filibuster?

[Evolve Dammit]

55. I share the anger and hopeless feeling of other posters. Hopefully we'll know soon if justice is

going to be restored. If not, we are screwed. If DOJ is OK with "events" like Lafayette Square which was a total dictator, incendiary staged propaganda abuse of power, resulting in injuries to further divide and inflame, then it will be the norm. And so much more.

[samsingh]

58. wtf? Did Garland not get enough destruction from the repugs?

this is why we may lose Democracy.

[Cryptoad]

62. ...And some wonder why they call us,,,

Snowflakes,,,,,

[Bayard]

63. Why?

Why? Why? WHY?!

This is not, "moving on", and putting the past behind us! Its not holding miscreants accountable.

Are they only going for the most hideous and flagrant instances of misdeeds? Don't know about giving them the benefit of the doubt on this one.

I don't get it.

[Marcuse]

69. Institutionalism. To preserve precedent DOJ wants to go down with all flags flying.

Last edited Sat May 29, 2021, 01:37 PM - Edit history (1)

Another example is the AG opinion re not prosecuting sitting presidents, which works as long as the President and more than a third of the Senate are not corrupt.

The DOJ will continue to represent the former administration to the best of its ability as with its pitifully limp response to Judge Jackson’s ruling that Barr lied about the existence of Mueller’s evidence of obstruction.

Whenever you find yourself saying, “Somebody’s gotta pay!” that’s an indication that you’ve fallen into the world of “hard cases make bad law.” It’s a warning signal that you need to be extra careful to think through the logical implications of every legal rule you adopt, so you don’t inadvertently create legal rules that do not work well when they’re generalized to other cases (where the President is not corrupt). [link:https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-phrase-Hard-cases-make-bad-law-mean|
(I know, I know.)

[BradBo]

73. What the "F" is wrong with Biden!!!!

[Maggiemayhem]

76. Cue the excuses

I mean Gaetz was just advocating overthrowing the government. If you think this shit is over, you ain’t paying attention.

[MarcA]

77. Dems work to keep precedent and institutions while rethugs destroy them

If they are paying attention, the majority of the public will see it as Dems doing nothing.

[lees1975]

78. I get it, but...

Trump needs to suffer more than just the consequence of losing an election to make sure we never have a presidency like that again. He won't ever change his mind, but he needs to spend some time in prison as a deterrent to the next demagogue who might think that since Trump got away with it, he could too. Voters need to see it.