The Justice Department has agreed that the federal government will foot the bill if former President Donald Trump is found liable for violating the rights of protesters when National Guard troops and police forcibly drove racial justice demonstrators from a park near the White House in June 2020.
Archived at https://ghostarchive.org/archive/235Vg
As per the recent SCOTUS decision that it’s legal for the president to commit crimes if they are official presidential acts, I would think the DOJ’s hands are tied here.
There is no SCOTUS decision that forces the DOJ to make any arguments. They are going into court entirely of their own accord to protect some mysterious bullshit idea about the authority of the Executive branch that I don’t think they even really understand, but it’s just become such a reflexive thing for them to do since Nixon they keep doing it even when it means giving cover to a traitor like rhey are here.
I don’t know the specifics around this case but if for instance The President ordered protesters to be “taken care of” and they were killed, or even in the more realistic situation where police used excessive force, is it not possible that someone could sue the federal government for violating their rights? And I don’t mean first amendment rights but whatever case law prevents the use of excessive force (in addition to 1A supporting it). Would a reasonable judge find that even the President is permitted to violate human rights (I’m realizing how stupid this sounds as I type it) when there is no perceived threat?
Everyone has thrown around the example of POTUS killing anyone for any reason but is that an actual legit thing? I have a very hard time believing this would be the case in reality.
You may have a hard time believing it, but that was what SCOTUS decided. If it is considered an official presidential act, the president can violate any law up to and including assassinating their political rival. That is exactly what Trump’s team argued a president could do before the ruling was decided in their favor.
Could you cite that specific instance in the judgement for me?
I know exactly what you’re doing. You’re doing a “technically” because the ruling suggests that it could be criminal, but it would have to be decided by congress. A congress which has never once removed a president from office even when impeaching them for crimes.
I thought I was asking a pretty simple question and now I’m even more confused. Could you cite the part of the ruling that says your most recent claim?
The ruling is 119 pages long. I’m not going to go through the whole document and paste all the relevant parts.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Ah. Gotcha. I’ll do my own research to back up your claims. Thanks.
Yep, the scenario of killing someone was actually in the official write-up of the judgement. It wasn’t an absolute yes, but it did say the courts would have to determine it on a case by case basis.
I disagree with the ruling but don’t see it as too surprising. Let’s not forget that Obama ordered a drone strike on the American Anwar al-Awlaki. He was the target. Then another drone strike killed his 16 year old son (also American) a couple weeks later although he was not the target. Then Trump had a SEAL team go in which killed his 8 year old daughter (also not the target, I hope). The American government really hates the al-Awlakis…