So, Will Liberals Go Ballistic When They Figure Out Which Trump Positions Biden's DOJ Intends on Defending?

Posted: Jun 15, 2021 4:25 PM
So, Will Liberals Go Ballistic When They Figure Out Which Trump Positions Biden's DOJ Intends on Defending?

Source: AP Photo/John Raoux

So, will this cause consternation with the Left or trigger a full-blown meltdown. There are areas where the Biden administration is totally going in the opposite direction; I don’t need to tell you that. The situation at the border is a prime example. No, we’re focusing on the Department of Justice right now. Attorney General Merrick Garland is defending past Trump administration positions, some of which are related the Russian collusion fiasco while others deal with defamation suits filed against the former president. It’s blindsided some people for sure, so here’s are the Trump DOJ legal fights that the Biden DOJ has taken over. Oh, and it also leeches into immigration as well. I know Biden caved when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez threw a tantrum that Joe was keeping the Trump-era caps on refugees. The president relented after her Twitter tirade. Still, they’re doing some legal maneuverings that are not sitting well with some in the Democrats’ activist wing. 

You already know about the Biden DOJ defending Trump against a defamation lawsuit filed by Jean Carroll, who alleged she was raped by the now ex-president. Trump denounced her. She’s trying to bring him into court but the Biden DOJ is saying that while Trump’s words weren’t the best, it was an official act of the presidency and therefore he cannot be sued (via NYT):

Mueller’s findings and the ‘Barr memo’

Prominent Democrats had also urged Mr. Garland not to fight a federal judge’s ruling demanding that a classified report that Mr. Barr had requested be made public. Known as the “Barr memo,” the document argues that he should tell the public that Mr. Trump’s efforts to impede the Russia investigation — as lain out in the report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III — cannot be charged as obstruction of justice, and offers legal analysis in support of that claim.

Mr. Trump’s foes scored a major victory last month, when, in a blistering decision, Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court in Washington ordered the memo to be made public, accusing the Trump administration of “disingenuous” reasoning. In a public letter last month, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee asked Mr. Garland not to appeal Judge Jackson’s decision, “in order to help rebuild the nation’s trust” in the Justice Department.

But Mr. Garland soon announced that he would indeed appeal it, seeking to keep secret most of the memo — the portion laying out the legal analysis for why none of potential obstruction episodes in the Mueller report rose to a chargeable crime — and citing “the irreparable harm that would be caused by the release of the redacted portions of the document.”


Gun prosecutions in D.C.

Many proponents of racial justice were dismayed this spring when Mr. Garland’s Justice Department announced it would continue Mr. Trump’s policy of using the federal courts to prosecute gun crimes in the District of Columbia, not the city’s own justice system.


Immigration policies 

One policy, which was enacted at the end of Mr. Trump’s presidency by the department’s immigration review office, concentrates decision-making power underneath a political appointee and can prevent immigrants seeking to remain in the U.S. from presenting certain evidence that could help them from being deported.

Lawyers for Mr. Garland’s Justice Department have repeatedly argued to uphold the rule, resisting lawsuits from proponents of immigration rights in two separate district courts.


Lee Gelernt, the deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, pointed to the fact that Mr. Garland’s Justice Department had agreed to defend former members of the Trump administration, including Jeff Sessions and Stephen Miller, in lawsuits seeking damages for harm caused by the family-separation policy.

It is customary for former federal officials to have access to Justice Department representation, but Mr. Gelernt said that the family-separation policy went beyond the pale, and suggested a need to re-examine old precedent where some of the Trump administration’s policies are concerned.

Yeah, I could see how this could cause heartburn with the progressive Left. The gun prosecutions are a bit low-key, but defending Trump in a defamation lawsuit, fighting to keep the Barr memo mostly redacted, and blocking lawsuits against ex-Trump immigration officials might infuriate some folks. 

This is in no way excuses Biden or his agenda. It’s not a pass, but the fact that they’re defending past administration’s legal positions, which is something that isn’t new, could cause an uproar with those who are pro-Squad members.