HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Joyce Vance on Carroll la...

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 12:56 AM

Joyce Vance on Carroll lawsuit


?s=19

16 replies, 2017 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 16 replies Author Time Post
Reply Joyce Vance on Carroll lawsuit (Original post)
cilla4progress Jun 2021 OP
Sur Zobra Jun 2021 #1
dalton99a Jun 2021 #2
StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #3
zaj Jun 2021 #4
uponit7771 Jun 2021 #5
StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #9
gab13by13 Jun 2021 #7
StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #10
uponit7771 Jun 2021 #6
gab13by13 Jun 2021 #8
StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #12
uponit7771 Jun 2021 #13
StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #11
lagomorph777 Jun 2021 #14
StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #15
lagomorph777 Jun 2021 #16

Response to cilla4progress (Original post)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 01:45 AM

1. The decision is a

“some people are above the law” action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cilla4progress (Original post)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 01:49 AM

2. Are Trump appointees holding people hostages in the DOJ building?


Bizarre and disappointing.

Disgusting, actually


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cilla4progress (Original post)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 02:08 AM

3. DOJ's argument really isn't about Trump

 

It's about the Westfall Act's application to government employees.

I doubt the court will accept this argument in this case, but it's important that they make it. If they don't raise this here, they will have a hard time raising it in the future in cases much less odious than Trump's. For example, if (when) Trump or his henchmen sue Biden or Harris for something they say and do, DOJ would be hard-pressed to push back on it if they didn't raise this argument in this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 02:58 AM

4. And it's a defense of his words while in office...

... Which is far different than a defense of his actions before he was in office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 06:50 AM

5. Hmmm, who is to decide if Putin's Whore "was acting within the scope of [their] office" ...

... when he slandered someone while he was president?

Benedict Donald was keen to use every single damn loophole he could so he could do the wrong thing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #5)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 10:03 AM

9. A judge will decide.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 07:54 AM

7. So we are more concerned about frivolous law suits

against an honest president meanwhile there is the flip side of that coin. A criminal president can act with impunity knowing that he can't be prosecuted while president for his blatant criminal behavior.

Sorry but I'm with the federal judge and Joyce Vance on this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gab13by13 (Reply #7)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 10:10 AM

10. No.

 

No one - not even DOJ - is claiming a criminal president can act with impunity. DOJ will not make that decision - a judge will decide whether the act applies to Trump in this case

I understand why some people don't understand it because it's a complicated area of the law and even lawyers disagree about it. But in this instance, I'm going with Attorney General Merrick Garland, a brilliant, thoughtful and ethical jurist and attorney, over Joyce Vance, who is not in his position, doesn't have the information the AG has, didn't participate in the discussions and decisionmaking that led to this option, and isn't responsible for future cases that could be impacted by how this case is handled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cilla4progress (Original post)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 06:55 AM

6. Looks like DOJ is obligated under Westfall Act to defend Putin's Whore only until it's decided

... that he didn't act in within the scope of his office when he slandered someone while president.

We'll see, I do think the DOJ out to explain this ... its an easy explanation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #6)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 07:57 AM

8. Didn't a federal judge already determine

that the DOJ should not get involved? I realize I am slow but why can't DOJ simply say, sorry a federal judge made the determination. Why does DOJ have to say the federal judge was wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gab13by13 (Reply #8)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 10:11 AM

12. It was a trial court judge but the case in now on appeal.

 

The final determination has not yet been made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #12)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:08 AM

13. Hmmm, the judge determining whether Feds should be involved makes this more non partisan. FG45 ...

... crimes made crap more complicated than need be

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #6)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 10:11 AM

11. Yes

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cilla4progress (Original post)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:18 AM

14. DOJ should not be acting as Trump's personal lawyer.

This is disgraceful. The case is clearly not related to his presiduncial doodies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #14)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:51 AM

15. They're not

 

They would not be his personal lawyer. They would be substituted as the defendant.

I don't think that's going to happen, however.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #15)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 12:12 PM

16. Even worse!

I hope SCROTUS blows this nonsense out of the water.

Seems like a longshot though, with the packed court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread