politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
LOL OMG broad day light THEFT of US treasury.
You mean to suggest Scott Bessent and Pam Bondi won't treat this lawsuit fairly and impartially? How dare you!
It's not a criminal complaint, it's civil. The doj has fuck all to do with civil matters.
The DOJ defends civil litigation against the federal government as well.
The oig hires outside for politically involved cases. The doj has to stay at a distance and that doesn't negate the obligation to provide proof of actual damages.
That sounds like a very reasonable custom and norm for an independent, non-conflicted DOJ. (Sorry, deadpan is hard online.)
It's not custom it's legal precedent, if they ignore it that just means eventually he's up for clawback with interest and any profit.
Thanks, this is not a sealion question: do you have something to further read about this or support this? I'd like to understand how the DOJ is actually bound. The DOJ has been run by Bondi as Trump's private law firm, regardless of their mandate, and I expect that to continue.
My initial suspicion is that anything short of a Supreme Court ruling (and possibly not even that) will force compliance by the DOJ, but after-the-fact compliance may be meaningless as well. It'd be quite typical for Trump/Bondi to fully "defend" and settle the case with taxpayer money already in Trump's account before any challenges complete, followed by appeals, etc.
28 cfr 50.15
(10) If conflicts exist between the legal and factual positions of various employees in the same case which make it inappropriate for a single attorney to represent them all, the employees may be separated into as many compatible groups as is necessary to resolve the conflict problem and each group may be provided with separate representation. Circumstances may make it advisable that private representation be provided to all conflicting groups and that direct Justice Department representation be withheld so as not to prejudice particular defendants. In such situations, the procedures of § 50.16 will apply.
The oig not the commissioner would act on behalf of the IRS because the commissioner is a conflicted party.
Thanks for this. I don't think it applies here.
50.15 says this is when employees are sued in their individual capacity for official duties. Inter-defendant conflicts of the type in 50.15(a)(10) are typically for when multiple defendants have competing interests and that presents a conflict to joint representation. At best, I see provisions regarding whether the DOJ is not obligated to pay money damages for an employee's wrongdoing ((a)(8)(iii))
The situation here may just be too corrupt. Trump is suing with private counsel a third party government agency that is technically not him, but the issue is that the captured DOJ itself also is now de facto personal counsel to Trump. The IRS and Treasury are defendants that should be represented by the DOJ, except that the DOJ is irreparably conflicted. So it is Trump, by DOJ proxy, deciding whether to give himself money out of the public's pocket, and the fact that he filed the suit itself suggests his answer is "yes, I deserve it."
And, despite this, no private litigation counsel could even address this, because the DOJ would still retain authority to settle.
Trump says IRS but it would have to be against the leaker and the IRS can and likely would refuse to indemnify them given it's not a legal act nor part of any work duty.
What is that supposed to mean, use your words.
We'll see what happens...