Biden Justice Department defends Trump in suit over rape denial

[brooklynite]

Source: Politico

The Biden administration is pressing on with a controversial Justice Department defense of President Donald Trump in a defamation lawsuit brought by a writer who accused him of raping her at a New York City department store in the 1990s.

The brief filed on Monday night with a federal appeals court is an illustration of how administrations of sharply different political outlooks often flock to the same legal positions in court, even if it means seeming to excuse or immunize alleged bad conduct by their predecessors.

In the filing with the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Justice Department insisted that it was not endorsing Trump’s conduct toward the writer, E. Jean Carroll, even as it argued that a law governing suits against federal officials justified the government’s move to take over the former president’s defense in the case.

“In making and defending a Westfall Act certification … the Department of Justice is not endorsing the allegedly tortious conduct or representing that it actually furthered the interests of the United States. Nor is a reviewing court making any such determinations in upholding the Department’s certification,” the acting head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division, Brian Boynton, wrote in the new submission.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/07/biden-justice-department-defends-trump-in-suit-over-rape-denial-492088

[al bupp]

1. The government can always be counted on to defend the interests of government

This is why we need a strong and free press, as well as open and fair elections, unhindered by restrictive voting laws and ballot access.

[Lovie777]

2. To my understanding . . ..

President Biden was not involved nor aware of the decision of certain DOJ's to pursue this effed up matter.

[marble falls]

3. Another one of those headlines that doesn't accurately describe the article ...

... Politico's headlines have become click bait.

This has nothing to with the DoJ specifically defending Trump from rape.

[gab13by13]

4. No it has to do with DOJ

defending him from defamation, correct?

Meanwhile the SOS of Arizona has gone on TV dozens of times stating that federal election laws are being violated in Arizona by the cyber ninjas yet our DOJ chooses not to intervene there.

[JohnSJ]

7. +++

[orangecrush]

19. ++++++++++

[LymphocyteLover]

23. Yes, it's very frustrating

but what can we do? I doubt even Biden has anything to do with this.

[RockRaven]

5. The DOJ will never completely flip its position on an issue of defending its own power, privilege,

rights, etc., no matter how corrupt the initial decision was. The DOJ never concedes that they have behaved inappropriately when it comes to executive branch powers/privileges. And their appetite for executive authority is never satiated.

[gab13by13]

6. Do you agree?

I don't agree especially since there is no law set in stone that a sitting president can't be indicted.

[PSPS]

8. This is the 3rd time garland has done trump's bidding.

This kind of behavior will cost the democrats both the congress and the white house if it hasn't already. Many democrats will just go back to not voting.

[Cetacea]

9. 3D Chess some would say

K&R

[Elessar Zappa]

17. Then they're idiots.

If Democrats throw a temper tantrum and don’t vote then we deserve everything coming to us. Adults understand that no party is perfect and that the Republicans are far, far more dangerous than the Democrats.

[LymphocyteLover]

21. I highly doubt that... most people don't care about this enought to change their voting

given all sorts of other issues that affect voting more strongly.

The law is complicated.

[bucolic_frolic]

10. The Chief Executive cannot be subjected to a paralyzing series of private lawsuits

It's not to say this suit is without merit or the subject of egregious conduct. I think there is no mechanism for sorting the severity of lawsuits, so they're defending the institution.

[gab13by13]

12. A federal judge already ruled

the DOJ should not get involved.

So does this mean that the DOJ will defend Trump against the paralyzing civil law suit being brought against him by NY's Letitia James?

[George II]

11. I wonder how many people actually read the article to see what this is about. The 3rd and 4th....

....paragraphs sum up the position of the "Biden Administration" (i.e., the Justice Department) in this case.

[gab13by13]

15. Paragraphs 3 and 4 are not based on any law set in stone.

Many scholars feel that a sitting president can be indicted. I feel that a sitting president can be indicted, do you?

Remember now a federal judge already ruled the DOJ should not get involved. Maybe if Trump saves some money on lawyer fees he can do more rallies where he can preach against the rule of law.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

13. DOJ continues appeal on behalf of Trump in defamation case brought by sexual assault accuser

National Security

Justice Dept. continues appeal on behalf of Trump in defamation case brought by sexual assault accuser

By Shayna Jacobs
June 7, 2021 at 10:06 p.m. EDT

NEW YORK — The Justice Department's Civil Division under President Biden is continuing the Trump-era push to represent the former president in a defamation lawsuit brought by author E. Jean Carroll, according to a Monday night appellate court filing.

The lawsuit brought by Carroll — who accused Donald Trump two years ago of sexually assaulting her in the 1990s — has been stalled in litigation over whether the Justice Department had standing to represent him on the grounds that his denials in response to her claim were made while performing his presidential duties.

The legal maneuver would have required a judge to find that a federal tort law that protects government employees from civil liability applies to a sitting president.

Last year, a federal judge in Manhattan rejected the Justice Department’s effort to enter the case on the grounds that both elements were missing from the equation.

{snip}

By Shayna Jacobs
Shayna Jacobs is a federal courts and law enforcement reporter on the national security team at The Washington Post, where she covers the Southern and Eastern districts of New York. Twitter https://twitter.com/shaynajacobs

[Lonestarblue]

14. I cannot understand how it is the responsibility of the DOJ to defend Trump for a personal act.

His defamation was not an official act done in the performance of his duty as president. So far, I’m fairly disappointed in the DOJ. This continued support of Trump seems totally unwarranted. And I hope that they are investigating his role and Roger Stone’s role in the January 6 attack since no one else is, but I’m losing faith that anyone part of planning and paying for that insurrection will be held accountable.

And the fact that they’re doing nothing about the violation of federal laws in the Arizona fraud audit is is particularly concerning. A mild warning is not enough. And now that Pennsylvania plans to do the same thing, how about a preemptive strike by ordering those ballots stay in the hands of state officials as required.

[gab13by13]

16. I agree. I am not a patient person.

The insurrection did not end on 1/6 but it is getting stronger. People in high places need to go to jail or this insurrection will continue with impunity.

Then Chief of Staff Mark Meadows is allowed to go to DOJ and demand that they investigate bogus election fraud and nothing can be done to him for interfering with DOJ because there is no written law. Well there is no written law that says a sitting president can't be indicted either.

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." Explain to me why I should vote in the future if my state has a law where the person who gets the most votes, if he/she is a Democrat, may not be the winner? Where is our DOJ in Arizona?

[Elessar Zappa]

18. So you're not going to vote?

That’s what Republicans are counting on.

[Jay25]

28. I think they are saying their vote won't count anyway because repub. legislation will

allow them to toss out the votes that they don't like. The DOJ should be addressing repub voter suppression, instead they are defending Trump.

[LymphocyteLover]

22. because like it or not, the statements the shitbeast made were part of his official duties

and fall under government jurisdiction, as nauseating as the whole thing is.

[orangecrush]

20. This is bullshit

And had better stop.

The next remedy is the streets

Think about those optics.

And spare me the bullshit rationalizations.

[Polybius]

25. What would the "streets" protest be against?

The Biden Justice Department? That would be a bad idea for our hopes in 2022.

[rpannier]

27. What is the b.s.?

They're defending the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988, not trump directly
There are issues regarding the President and the protections the office does/does not hold

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

24. Hopefully, the DOJ already knows that they can't win. nt

[rpannier]

26. I don't have a problem with the DoJ in this

What the DoJ is doing is defending Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988 (aka the Westfall Act)
The Act protects federal employees for "negligent or wrongful act[s] or omission[s]...while acting within the scope of [their] office or employment", the employees are considered immune and the U.S. government becomes the defendant and the case is moved to federal court
Is the President a federal employee? Was he acting within the scope of his office?
This is one of those issues that should be settled by the Courts