Kansas Crimson

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 10:36 pm So you’re dismissing the concerns of thousands of justice officials cuz it gives credence to a con man’s conspiracy theories?

...so close...

Is DC Lindsey Graham?? The twisting, (twisted?) unwavering fealty is very suspicious

Ha! I dunno.

I think maybe he’s trying to make a sincere point about how many Mericans won’t and don’t care about justice officials speaking up, cuz in their minds it just validates the conspiracies Trump has sewn all along. At least I hope that’s what he meant.

But he does it in a way that seems to imply justice officials shouldn’t speak up cuz it only validates Trump’s conspiracies?

I dunno.

For whom do the Justice officials work, in the specific sense and the general sense?

ummm for their DC decoder rings?

I dunno.

This is an easy one.

You know the answers, and it's OK to say it out loud.

They certainly don't work for a President with corrupt intentions/motives

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:07 pm This is an easy one.

You know the answers, and it's OK to say it out loud.

Like I said, I dunno.

But if it really is OK to say it out loud, I’ll posit a guess:

cuz DC’s getting conned too?

zsn wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:12 pm They certainly don't work for a President with corrupt intentions/motives

They don't?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:17 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:07 pm This is an easy one.

You know the answers, and it's OK to say it out loud.

Like I said, I dunno.

But if it really is OK to say it out loud, I’ll posit a guess:

cuz DC’s getting conned too?

Oooh. Do tell.

Has it occurred to you that Trump has been fomenting conspiracy theories precisely to cover his own ass if and when thousands of officials blew whistles?

Or was your point to compliment his political brilliance? The dude does know how to consolidate support among republicans.

Just wanna make sure I understand what yer sayin':

Trump ran an entire campaign -- starting in 2015, when he was a joke candidate -- on the idea that he would foment enough frustration and disillusionment among Republicans so that if he got elected and if he did something unethical while in office, he would then have cover for his actions.

Is that your final answer?

Like I said, Regis, I dunno.

Can I phone a friend?

also, if he did something unethical while in office, lulz

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:17 pm

zsn wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:12 pm They certainly don't work for a President with corrupt intentions/motives

They don't?

I don't understand what you get out of (knowingly) being technically right, but (also knowingly) substantively on the wrong side of this.

Yes, the DOJ is in the Executive Branch. Yes, the AG is an appointed (and, accordingly, inherently political) official. Yes, there's a legislative remedy. We get it.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:07 pm This is an easy one.

You know the answers, and it's OK to say it out loud.

would you just fucking say what you wanna say?

jfc

your game is tiresome

Settle down, Beavis.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 6:17 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:17 pm

zsn wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:12 pm They certainly don't work for a President with corrupt intentions/motives

They don't?

I don't understand what you get out of (knowingly) being technically right, but (also knowingly) substantively on the wrong side of this.

Yes, the DOJ is in the Executive Branch. Yes, the AG is an appointed (and, accordingly, inherently political) official. Yes, there's a legislative remedy. We get it.

Substantively: Every DoJ official works for me. And you. And even Trad (weird, right?). If I decide that "career officials" at DoJ -- which is to say lawyers who have spent their entire professional lives earning a paycheck that, ultimately, I sign -- are behaving in a manner with which I disagree, what is my remedy? If I decide, for example, that James Wolfe got a sweetheart deal (2 months for leaking classified documents and lying to the FBI) and that, by extension, Roger Stone's sentencing recommendation was politically motivated, how do I deal with that? How do I address my concern?

The answer from this board is "you don't address your concern. Tough shit. Deal with it." This answer is, substantively, both constitutionally incorrect and patently authoritarian.

The remedy for my concerns is convoluted and political, but in a government at least nominally of, by, and for the people, it is a necessary remedy nonetheless. If I object to the behavior of the permanent bureaucracy, I have no choice but to elect a chief executive who will appoint someone to deal with the biases of the permanent bureaucracy. (And please spare me the pretense that the permanent bureaucracy is unbiased.)

If the career bureaucrats object to being subjected to the will of the people, they too have a remedy. Their remedy is TO RESIGN. Period. To complain publicly that they are the victims of "politics" is both tawdry and self-defeating. OF COURSE they're the victim of politics. That's precisely how the system is supposed to work, precisely how the system MUST work to ensure any semblance of accountability.

Now, what is your remedy, if you believe that the career bureaucracy acted appropriately and were thus treated unfairly? Same as mine. Elect a different chief executive. Short of that, you can demand that a co-equal branch investigate the executive's behavior, to judge its propriety. And they should investigate, if they believe that something untoward was done. Heaven knows I'd want an investigation were the roles reversed. But ultimately, the executive branch works for the executive, who, in turn, works directly for us.

And all of that is both (1) perfectly correct, and (2) not within threatening distance of the point (at least as respecting the AG and other senior officials).

No. It's precisely the point.