WHY???

Posted on by under Election 2020, Law and justice, Political commentary, Racism & Bigotry

If you thought I let off all the steam in this morning’s rants, you’d be wrong.  Two things are puzzling me at the moment … puzzling and annoying me … leading me to keep asking over and over — WHY???  The former guy needs to fade into oblivioun … he is, or at least ought to be, irrelevant now, yet he keeps popping back onto the radar.  Somebody please, put him somewhere, like a mental institution or better yet, a prison.

I don’t believe a word of it …

You remember June 1st 2020, right?  That was the day that the former guy, having seen his approval rating drop even lower than usual, decided a photo op was just the thing to boost his ratings.  So, he and his band of merry men (and women) walked from the White House to a church in Lafayette Park so he could hold up a bible and let the press take pictures of him doing so … pictures that would be splashed all over every major news outlet by that evening.  However, his walk was only accomplished after the Secret Service and other federal law enforcement agencies cleared the path of peaceful protestors protesting the brutal police killing of an unarmed Black man, George Floyd, a month prior.

The protests were peaceful, no violence until federal law enforcement officers showed up.  According to The Washington Post the following day …

“In a massive show of force, federal law enforcement officers fired rubber bullets and chemical gas at peaceful protesters outside the White House on Monday evening … Hundreds of protesters were pushed away from Lafayette Square, where they were protesting the police killing of George Floyd, by the National Guard, U.S. Park Police and Secret Service. The ambush began half an hour before the city’s newly imposed curfew of 7 p.m. went into effect.”

There were photos, videos … it cannot be denied.  And yet, yesterday a report by the Interior Department’s inspector general did just that … denied that law enforcement cleared area for the former guy’s ludicrous walk to church.  According to the report, the area was cleared of protestors in order to allow contractors to safely install some fencing.  BULLSHIT!  I believe that just about as much as I believe elephants can fly!

What I don’t understand is why this particular lie?  What is the purpose, one year later, of telling a lie covering up actions that occurred as a result of egomania by the former guy?  Does the inspector general who issued the report honestly think that We the People are so stupid that we don’t remember the scene from one year ago?  And what’s the point?  The former guy is gone, he surely isn’t still pulling strings in the Department of the Interior, is he?  Police do not use violent means to clear peaceful protestors from an area so that they can build a fence.  Period.  Give us credit for a little bit of intelligence!

Defending the indefensible

This week the Department of Justice led by Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that it would continue defending the former guy in the lawsuit brought by E. Jean Carroll.  A bit of a refresher for those who may not remember this situation …

Ms. Carroll has claimed, and for the record I believe her, that the former guy raped her in the 1990s.  More than a dozen others have made the same claim, most quite credible, and I remind you of that old saying, where there’s so much smoke, there’s a fire somewhere.  When Ms. Carroll made her claim, the former guy rudely denigrated her in public, calling her rude names, saying he had never met her (this despite the fact there are photos of Ms. Carroll and her husband with the former guy at a party) and that he couldn’t have raped her because she isn’t his ‘type’.  Ms. Carroll filed a lawsuit against Trump for defaming her character and calling her a liar among other things.  At that point, then-Attorney General William Barr stepped in and said that the former guy was acting in his official capacity as president when he denied ever knowing Ms. Carroll and made statements assaulting her character, and thus could be defended by government lawyers — in effect underwritten by taxpayer money.

Long story short, he lied and called her names, Bill Barr said he had a right to do that because he was the then-occupant of the Oval Office, and that We the Taxpayers should pay to defend him and prove that in his position at the time, he was above the law.

Today, William Barr has left the Justice Department, replaced by a man for whom I have a great deal of respect, Merrick Garland.  However, I am extremely disappointed in the decision by the DoJ to continue defending the former guy at our expense!  WHY???  Is this a democratic republic as stated in the U.S. Constitution, or is this a banana republic that supports egomaniacal dictators???

In 2020, Barr argued that the former guy was a federal employee whose statements were part of his employment duties and who was thus entitled to protection under the Westfall Act, which grants civil immunity to federal employees for actions that are part of their jobs.  Since when is calling a woman a ‘slut’ part of the president’s job?  So, by this standard, if a sitting president kills one of his staff with a knife or a gun, would that be defensible under the Westfall Act?  Where is the line … and when do We the People finally stand up and say, ENOUGH!

Again, I want to know why the current DoJ is still upholding the former guy’s actions.  I just need an explanation … We the People deserve an explanation.

28 thoughts on “WHY???”

  1. Garland has no choice in the matter. since the doj began as defense for the cheeto, the doj MUST finish the job. there’s no rule they have to do a “good” job, just that it must be completed without a change of defense.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Jill, here are a few deeper questions:

    – why would a person who self-professes to not like to read, waste people’s time and our money to do a photo shoot holding a bible? This is akin to him hugging the flag – look at me – I am such a patriot.
    – why would he say his call to pressure Ukraine to do him personal favors was “so perfect” when his staff tried to bury the recording of the call?
    – why would seventeen Republican legislators vote to impeach or convict him knowing in advance that they would be vilified and threatened, yet did it anyway?

    I have a lot more why questions. Keith

    Liked by 1 person

    • Well, the first question we both know the answer to: to appeal to the evangelicals. As for the other two … they are thought-provoking questions. #2 I am assuming was simply his ego, because he seems not to be able to accept that he has ever made a mistake or committed a crime. #3 … I like to think that those 17 Republicans actually have a conscience and some values, that they remembered their Oaths of Office.

      Yes, we both have a ton of ‘why’ questions … I can only tackle a couple at a time, though, for if I try to do more then my brain gets scrambled and my eyes start going around in funny circles!

      Liked by 1 person

  3. I, too, am very disappointed that Merrick Garland seems to have decided that the best strategies to deal with anything related to Trump is to let bygones be bygones, to forgive and forget, and to look the other way. If such blatant corruption and illegal, unethical acts are ignored and there are no consequences, why wouldn’t any autocrat wannabe who somehow gets elected president in the future just pickup where Trump left off? Does the Biden Justice Department really see Trump’s four years in office as “no harm, no foul”?

    Liked by 2 people

    • I, too, am very disappointed that Merrick Garland seems to have decided that the best strategies to deal with anything related to Trump is to let bygones be bygones, to forgive and forget, and to look the other way.

      I don’t think Garland is saying anything like that. He probably wants Trump to lose this case. But he wants it to be a clear loss where the Democrats cannot be accused of sabotaging the case.

      Liked by 3 people

    • I began to understand a bit better after reading Eugene Robinson’s OpEd (which I posted this morning). I’m still not happy that our tax dollars are being spent to defend the indefensible, but I somewhat understand that the DoJ must not be seen to be partisan or in any way biased. Sigh.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. The only reason I can see for Garland’s decision is because Trumpelstiltskin is a former President, and the government seems to want to protect the nation by covering up illegal actions taken by said idiot while he was President, even if the lawsuit is based on actions that took place in 1990. I believe it is called “saving face,” even if the face belongs to a pig with an orange toupee.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I felt much the same until I read Eugene Robinson’s OpEd and then I began to understand a bit better why the DoJ did this. I still don’t like the idea that taxpayers are paying to defend the madman, but I just hope the DoJ loses the suit, and then perhaps We the People can file a class action suit against the madman to recoup our losses!

      Like

  6. The first claim is surreal given the number of witnesses to the incident. The police did not even try asking the protestors to move away or to clear a path much less remove themselves so builders could get in. Obviously the best story that some miserable beggar could concoct at this stage.
    On the second thing, all I can come up with is that they started as his defence lawyers and don’t want to leave in the middle of a case and for the court to waste time looking for a public defender to represent him. It does leave a bad taste that they ever represented him at all in a case which so obviously in unconnected to his Presidency. The investigators there would serve the country better if they were finding he proof of his implication in Jan 6th and not allowing anyone to say he has no charges to answer as he was still President and abov the law.
    Cwtch

    Liked by 1 person

    • and there’s this analysis.

      Why is it so hard for you guys to believe that the media would deliberately lie to you? You seem to have no problem with it if it’s from sources you don’t agree with. The protesters injured police and burned a church down the day before and yet the media will call that peaceful. You can even hear someone on meet the press say that the narrative didn’t match reality, how much more proof do you need?

      Liked by 1 person

    • On the first … I agree. It was right there, recorded by both the press and the protestors. Nobody in their right mind can believe this wasn’t to clear the path for Trump’s photo op! But, there are those who claim to be … more knowledgeable … more intelligent … than the rest of us. Sigh. Oh well.

      As re #2 … stay tuned for my a.m. post by Eugene Robinson that made me stop and think about it in a different light. I’m still torn, still resent the taxpayers footing the bill for the former guy’s hideous behaviour, but now perhaps I understand a bit better. Sigh.

      Cwtch

      Liked by 1 person

  7. show me a damn video of rubber bullets. this is bullshit and I am sick of the damn media in this stupid country lying to us every single day.

    Like

  8. Pingback: Ramblings of an Occupy Liberal

  9. Don’t fret too much, Jill! Sometimes you are forced to make the state look a little better. This is also because abroad, such as per example here in Germany, too much is being blasphemed about the USA. Here one had hoped for more economic prosperity only for their own country, from POTUS Biden. So you have to stick together! 😉 Michael xx

    Liked by 2 people

    • But … if the criticism is well-deserved, then I don’t have a problem with it. And the U.S. has earned every bit of criticism over the past 4 years, so why should we back up the former guy when HE was the problem to begin with? Sigh. How I wish that everyone of every race, colour, religion … could just respect one another, care about each other, and learn to live in peace. Is that too much to ask? Sigh. xx

      Liked by 1 person

      • Its not too much, to ask for, Jill! Most times at a very low level, in so many neighborhoods its good practise. I think its a nationalism some of our leaders behind the scene are wishing to give citizens more Self-confidence, they could not get anymore by daily work. ;-( xx Michael

        Liked by 1 person

        • What you say makes good sense! And you’re right … in my own neighborhood, which is predominantly Black and Middle Eastern immigrants, we all get along for the most part … if there is bigotry here, it’s on a very small scale. xx

          Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.