Every time William Barr shows up on a news interview program on an “enemy” network (i.e not Fox News), he always behaves like he is the smartest guy in the room, confidently smug and indifferent to each and every evidences of Donald Trump’s unethical, unconstitutional and criminal activities. His one and only purpose in life now is protect not just Trump personally, but keep the damage Trump is doing to the Republican “brand” to a minimum. He is too “old” to care about what his “legacy” will be; he certainly must know it will not be viewed in a “positive” light by future historians. But so what? When he dies he won’t have to be bothered with knowing what his legacy will be.
The problem, of course, is that the destruction that Barr has wrought on the credibility of the Justice Department will live on long after him he is gone, unless, of course, he is forced to face justice himself. The preferred route is that Joe Biden must be elected to force Barr out, and begin a Justice Department investigation into his activities and bring charges if crimes were committed. I suspect that if Trump is reelected, Barr will consider it “mission accomplished” and resign as Attorney General. It would be the “smart” move, but then again, Barr doesn’t care what people think of him anyways.
That is what has made Barr so dangerous: he just doesn’t care if what he is doing on behalf of Trump is unethical or illegal, and apparently no one can stop him at the moment--this despite calls for the disbarment and impeachment of Barr, which are “trending” after the Justice Department was directed by Barr to intervene in a defamation lawsuit against Trump by E. Jean Carroll, a writer for Elle magazine. Carroll claims Trump raped her in 1995 or 1996; Carroll’s Ask E. Jean advice column wasn’t full of anti-male diatribes, so if she says it happened, I’m not going to question why she can’t remember the year it happened. Trump claimed that he has no idea who Carroll is, and certainly didn’t rape “whoever” she is. Carroll’s lawsuit charges that he is calling her a liar, thus the claim of defamation.
This case is apparently so important to Barr that he decided to he would take over the case from Trump’s own personal lawyers. The Justice Department is claiming immunity for Trump, citing the 1988 Westfall Act. First a little history lesson. In 1946 the Federal Tortes Claims Act was passed, which allowed “money damages for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.”
There were exemptions, such as the “discretionary function exception,” which granted immunity to the “higher-ups” if damages were caused by lower-level employees, even if they were following “orders.” The U.S. Supreme Court broadened its scope, however, ruling in 1953 that if actions that caused harm were due to “negligence” or “lack of judgement” and not necessarily the activity or policy itself, then the federal government was immune from lawsuits. But in 1988 the Supreme Court turned the tables; In Westfall v. Erwin, the Court ruled that federal employees do not have absolute immunity "unless the challenged conduct is within the outer perimeter of an official's duties and is discretionary in nature." Fearing that there would be a “flood” of lawsuits against federal employees, Congress passed the Federal Employees Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988, or more commonly known as the Westfall Act. This act gave blanket immunity to all federal employees from any wrongful or negligent act while acting within the “scope” of their duties. The government would assume all responsibility for actions causing harm to persons and property. The intention was that all federal employees would be free to conduct their work without fear of liability.
This is the statute that Barr and the Justice Department are trying to employ to shield Trump from the defamation lawsuit. There is a slight problem for Barr, however. This alleged rape occurred at least 14 years before Trump became president, so the Westfall Act technically does not apply. But the Justice Department is counter-claiming that the “crime” is the alleged defamation, which occurred while Trump was president, thus he is immune from liability. A counter to that argument could be that Trump can only claim immunity from liability for policy decisions made while in office, and this case has nothing to do with policy decisions--which is why Trump is having such a hard time shaking-off demands for his tax and financial records. Still, it seems that the only “prayer” that Carroll has is if Trump is defeated in November and loses his immunity, or if U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York continues to be “unfriendly” to Trump and his crimes.
Michael Gordon in Business Insider rightly accuses Barr of being “Trump's Fixer General, and he's not even trying to hide it…As frightening as Trump is for our democracy, Barr's abuse of the Justice Department adds a new layer of danger. We cannot be a nation whose top attorney is the fixer for a president who openly flouts the law. We cannot allow distractions to obstruct justice. And we cannot have our top law-enforcement officer violate the rights he is sworn to protect.” Barr’s desperate attempt to pervert the law to protect Trump from crimes he is alleged to committed before he was president, as in this case, is just another point on the graph; but voters must not allow themselves to become “immune” from the consequences of this perversion.
No comments:
Post a Comment