what was the original reasoning for them giving him immunity in the first place.
The reasoning was that he denied everything as a service to protect the country. From what doesn’t really have to be defined. He denied it all to protect the country from a scandal. Boom. Lies told as President in service the the country are apparently protected.
Once he repeated the denials after the trial he blew his cover. He wasn’t lying to protect the country now so he just not have been doing it for the country before either, so immunity was revoked.
They claimed that his statements made while President served an interest to the government. It’s wildly stupid, and really just a flimsy excuse to protect him, but that’s what they said.
I think this may just be another excuse, but part of why they’re reversing course is that he’s now made statements long after losing office, so how could you argue that his actions were driven by his service to the office?
Justice Department lawyers said they took into consideration Trump’s deposition that was played in the battery and defamation trial, as well as statements Trump made last October repeating the denials long after he left office, as an indication that he was not motivated to protect and serve the US when he first made the comments.
They started defending him for this when Bill Barr was still AG. So when Garland came in he had to either backtrack on what DOJ already decided (bad for long term justice department credibility) or let the Bill Barr line of reasoning play out. They continued to apply the Barr excuses just with minimal effort.
Now that legal action is back on the table, Garland can say this is a different situation and step away from the actions set in place by Bill Barr. They can drop Trump and DOJ doesn’t have to damage its credibility by backtracking what Bill Barr started.
