The Department of Justice (DOJ) is willing to take responsibility for actions taken by former President Trump against protesters in 2020.
The DOJ submitted a court filing on Monday certifying that Trump was acting within the scope of his office when he ordered the National Guard to disperse rioters gathered near the White House following the death of George Floyd.
“On the basis of the information now available with respect to the claims set forth therein, I find that Donald J. Trump was acting within the scope of federal office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the plaintiffs’ claims arise,” wrote James Touhey Jr., head of the Torts Branch in the DOJ’s Civil Division.
DOJ’s Defense of Trump: A Conservative Victory?
Well, well, well… Isn’t this a plot twist that would make even filmmaker M. Night Shyamalan jealous? The Biden DOJ, typically known for its, shall we say, “less than enthusiastic” support of Trump-era policies, is now defending the former president’s actions during the 2020 protests. It’s almost as if they’ve realized that maintaining law and order isn’t such a bad idea after all!
Let’s take a moment to appreciate the irony here. The same DOJ that has been relentlessly pursuing Trump on various fronts is now essentially saying, “Hey, he was just doing his job!” It’s like watching a cat suddenly decide to defend a dog’s right to chase squirrels. Who would’ve thought?
Protesters or Rioters: A Matter of Perspective
Three individuals who were “protesting” (and we use that term loosely) on Lafayette Square in 2020 following Floyd’s death are seeking damages from Trump over the National Guard’s use of crowd control measures to disperse what they claim was a peaceful gathering. Because nothing says “peaceful” quite like setting things on fire and throwing objects at law enforcement, right?
These plaintiffs argue that their constitutional rights were violated when military personnel cleared and secured the square on the order of then-President Trump. Officers used pepper balls and smoke bombs to force the unruly crowd away. Oh, the horror! How dare they use non-lethal methods to protect the White House and maintain public safety?
Liberal Hypocrisy: A Comedy in Three Acts
Act 1: Liberals decry Trump as a fascist for maintaining order.
Act 2: Liberals riot and cause millions in damage across the country.
Act 3: Biden’s DOJ defends Trump’s actions as necessary and within his rights as president.
If this were a Broadway show, it’d be a smash hit! The mental gymnastics required to go from “Trump is literally Hitler” to “Well, actually, he was just doing his job” would win gold at the Olympics.
A Little Historical Context, Shall We?
Let’s rewind the clock and look at how previous administrations handled civil unrest. Remember the 1992 Los Angeles riots? President George H.W. Bush sent in the military to restore order. Was he labeled a fascist? Nope. How about the 1968 riots following Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination? President Johnson deployed over 13,000 troops to quell the unrest. Was he called a tyrant? Not even close.
But when Trump takes action to protect federal property and maintain order, suddenly it’s a constitutional crisis? Please. The double standard is so thick you could use to build the wall.
DOJ’s Vindication: Better Late Than Never
The DOJ has already requested the plaintiffs’ cases to be thrown out for lack of evidence that any constitutional rights were violated. A federal judge tossed the majority of cases surrounding the incident in 2021. It seems that even the justice system, often accused of liberal bias, can see through the smokescreen of faux outrage.
The DOJ’s certification that Trump was acting within the boundaries of his federal office means that the department will be responsible for any liabilities found against the former president. It’s almost as if… dare we say it… Trump was right all along?
Supreme Court’s Ruling: A Victory for Executive Authority
The case presents the latest opportunity for judges to implement and clarify the Supreme Court’s July ruling that recognized the president enjoys broad immunities while conducting official business. This ruling is a crucial safeguard against frivolous lawsuits designed to hamper a president’s ability to govern effectively.
Imagine if every decision a president made could be subject to personal liability. We’d have presidents too afraid to act in times of crisis, paralyzed by the fear of endless litigation. Is that really what we want? A commander-in-chief who’s more worried about legal fees than national security?
Liberal Tears: A Renewable Energy Source?
As conservatives, we can’t help but chuckle at the collective meltdown of the left over this development. Their narrative of “Trump the Tyrant” is crumbling faster than a sandcastle in a hurricane. If we could harness the energy from their teeth-gnashing and garment-rending, we could probably power half the Eastern Seaboard!
But jokes aside, this case highlights a serious issue: the weaponization of the legal system against political opponents. It’s a dangerous game, and it’s refreshing to see the DOJ, even under a Democrat administration, recognize the importance of presidential authority and immunity.
Conclusion: A Win for Common Sense
In the end, this case is about more than just Trump. It’s about preserving the ability of the executive branch to function effectively in times of crisis. It’s about recognizing that sometimes, tough decisions need to be made for the greater good.
So, to our liberal friends who are undoubtedly apoplectic over this turn of events, we say: Welcome to reality. Sometimes, law and order trumps (pun intended) hurt feelings. And sometimes, just sometimes, even a broken clock like the Biden DOJ can be right twice a day.
Table of Contents
- DOJ’s Defense of Trump: A Conservative Victory?
- Protesters or Rioters: A Matter of Perspective
- Liberal Hypocrisy: A Comedy in Three Acts
- A Little Historical Context, Shall We?
- DOJ’s Vindication: Better Late Than Never
- Supreme Court’s Ruling: A Victory for Executive Authority
- Liberal Tears: A Renewable Energy Source?
- Conclusion: A Win for Common Sense
