Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

In reply to the discussion: Does Merrick Garland [View all]
 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
42. They're not acting as his private attorney
Tue Jun 8, 2021, 10:21 AM
Jun 2021

Something different.

Under the Westfall Act, when a government official is sued Ilin their private capacity for acts they committed when in office as part of their job, the federal government steps in and becomes the defendant in their place.

The rub is that while in some cases, it is very easy to determine whether someone was acting in there official or personal capacity almost immediately, in others, it can't be determined until the case proceeds to discovery and more evidence goes in the record for a judge to use to decide that issue.

The case of a president is one of the more difficult ones because their jobs are not as easily delineated between personal and official. Almost everything they do can have official implications. In this case presidents make statements all the time about a wide variety of things and the line between personal and official is very blurred. A court will probably have to decide whether Trump's statements about Carroll were purely personal or if they arose out of any official interest or duty. Of course most of us are sure they didn't, but our opinions is not a legal determination - that still has to be ruled on by a judge. In the meantime the Justice Department is seeking to step in to protect the government's interest in case the judge rules that this was official activity.

It's pretty complicated and confusing and even lawyers aren't agreeing on how DOJ should handle it. But that doesn't mean that Merrick Garland or DOJ are doing the wrong thing or should be attacked for choosing the option that they did. It's a perfectly reasonable and justifiable one.

Does Merrick Garland [View all] cilla4progress Jun 2021 OP
At some point, someone needs to get me up to speed. Baitball Blogger Jun 2021 #1
Check out some of the OPs. cilla4progress Jun 2021 #3
Garland failed to take down trump and everyone around him, including Putin. Hoyt Jun 2021 #4
He recovered money from the pipeline hackers Generic Brad Jun 2021 #5
That isn't it. He is defending trump against the Carroll rape charge, that is what is upsetting JohnSJ Jun 2021 #6
He's not defending Trump StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #11
It amounts to the same thing. Last year a federal judge ruled that the DOJ could not take over JohnSJ Jun 2021 #12
Actually, it DOESN'T amount to the same thing. StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #13
Please cilla4progress Jun 2021 #19
Wasn't it illegal in the first place to act as his private attorney? lagomorph777 Jun 2021 #40
They're not acting as his private attorney StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #42
I hope they go through an extensive discovery process. lagomorph777 Jun 2021 #43
It may be StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #44
Which should have never happened. Garland need to take an energy drink. walkingman Jun 2021 #49
No he's not defending Trump ChrisF1961 Jun 2021 #25
This has already been done with Paula Jones. The DOJ is going against what Biden campaigned JohnSJ Jun 2021 #28
Biden doesn't control the DOJ ChrisF1961 Jun 2021 #30
I agree, this is on Garland not Biden. However, the issue of what a sitting president is liable on JohnSJ Jun 2021 #31
Yes and if the DOJ didn't defend a President ChrisF1961 Jun 2021 #32
Effectively he is defending trump by proxy, and the last four years it was an example of a unitary JohnSJ Jun 2021 #34
No it isn't ChrisF1961 Jun 2021 #37
This message was self-deleted by its author JohnSJ Jun 2021 #39
This wasn't done with the Paula Jones case StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #45
Ok, But he was charged and fined for perjury in regard to Monica Lewensky, which occurred when he JohnSJ Jun 2021 #46
No, that's not a relevant or correct example, either StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #47
Ok, thanks for explaining JohnSJ Jun 2021 #48
I know. I was offline since noon yesterday. Sympthsical Jun 2021 #33
Seems a bit early to get on Biden or Garland, Ms. Siskind. Hoyt Jun 2021 #2
Gotta say, it seems a bit early to me also. Not even a full six months into a four year term ... marble falls Jun 2021 #8
Long game? Does Garland have game? Sneederbunk Jun 2021 #7
Amy Siskind from Wall Street? Budi Jun 2021 #9
No. He's just a short-sighted idiot who doesn't know what he's doing StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #10
This is from the ny times JohnSJ Jun 2021 #14
Interesting StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #15
I agree JohnSJ Jun 2021 #17
Yes, and like his stupid boss, they were supposed to fix everything in 4 months. GoCubsGo Jun 2021 #27
It's AG Garland's fault that Joe F*cking Manchin is obstructing Biden's agenda? Nt Fiendish Thingy Jun 2021 #16
Sarcasm, right? JohnSJ Jun 2021 #18
The problem maybe everyone is afraid speaknow Jun 2021 #20
Thinking more about that, I don't think or speaknow Jun 2021 #21
It's not a rape case StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #22
And it's going to be in the news canetoad Jun 2021 #23
This is the instant gratification mentality of ChrisF1961 Jun 2021 #24
Garland could be hoping DOJ is allowed rownesheck Jun 2021 #26
No. They will defend the issue to the best of their ability that a president is above any Civil JohnSJ Jun 2021 #29
Why are you touting corruption as if it were a good thing? nt RegularJam Jun 2021 #36
His long game is justice and competence. RegularJam Jun 2021 #35
Laurence Tribe cilla4progress Jun 2021 #38
That's the only game available, really. MineralMan Jun 2021 #41
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Does Merrick Garland»Reply #42