DOJ, RIP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We've got another letter addressed to Emil Bove - the resignation of Hagen Scotten, HLS '10, US Army veteran, Trump supporter (it seems)

That's going to leave a mark.

I really wish feds like this attorney could understand how bad they look to “the other side”. It is constitutionally permissible for the Executive to make a “mistake”.

I get that this prosecutor disagrees with the policy choice being made. I might even disagrees, too. But the self-importance and messiah complex of this so-called civil servant oozes out of his letter. Sorry, you don’t get to make this decision, bubba. It belongs to the elected officials and their delegates. Resign if you must, but making this a public spectacle and using words akin to “ALMOST a quid pro quo” is just unbecoming.

I’m starting to get the feeling that feds see themselves as guardians of not just the constitution but of fundamental policy choices. The narcissism of late Gen Xers and millennials made them wholly unfit for civil service.

The only mistake lawyers are making is using paragraphs to explain this to you. Lawyers have state bar licenses that are required for their livelihoods. If they engage in criminal or unethical behavior they can lose that license forever. Trying to abolish the rule of law in any serious way is going to get you disbarred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We've got another letter addressed to Emil Bove - the resignation of Hagen Scotten, HLS '10, US Army veteran, Trump supporter (it seems)

That's going to leave a mark.

I really wish feds like this attorney could understand how bad they look to “the other side”. It is constitutionally permissible for the Executive to make a “mistake”.

I get that this prosecutor disagrees with the policy choice being made. I might even disagrees, too. But the self-importance and messiah complex of this so-called civil servant oozes out of his letter. Sorry, you don’t get to make this decision, bubba. It belongs to the elected officials and their delegates. Resign if you must, but making this a public spectacle and using words akin to “ALMOST a quid pro quo” is just unbecoming.

I’m starting to get the feeling that feds see themselves as guardians of not just the constitution but of fundamental policy choices. The narcissism of late Gen Xers and millennials made them wholly unfit for civil service.

It may be a surprise to you, but all lawyers swear an oath when they are admitted to the bar. Some take it more seriously than others.

The one who files this motion may keep their job for the time being, but when the pendulum swings they will never work as a lawyer again. That’s quite a lot to ask of someone with 30+ years to go.

Enough lawyers have been burned by Trump that all but the total fools know better.

Was it a constitutionally permissible order to dismiss the charges? Everything else flows from the answer to that question. Start there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We've got another letter addressed to Emil Bove - the resignation of Hagen Scotten, HLS '10, US Army veteran, Trump supporter (it seems)

That's going to leave a mark.

I really wish feds like this attorney could understand how bad they look to “the other side”. It is constitutionally permissible for the Executive to make a “mistake”.

I get that this prosecutor disagrees with the policy choice being made. I might even disagrees, too. But the self-importance and messiah complex of this so-called civil servant oozes out of his letter. Sorry, you don’t get to make this decision, bubba. It belongs to the elected officials and their delegates. Resign if you must, but making this a public spectacle and using words akin to “ALMOST a quid pro quo” is just unbecoming.

I’m starting to get the feeling that feds see themselves as guardians of not just the constitution but of fundamental policy choices. The narcissism of late Gen Xers and millennials made them wholly unfit for civil service.

It may be a surprise to you, but all lawyers swear an oath when they are admitted to the bar. Some take it more seriously than others.

The one who files this motion may keep their job for the time being, but when the pendulum swings they will never work as a lawyer again. That’s quite a lot to ask of someone with 30+ years to go.

Enough lawyers have been burned by Trump that all but the total fools know better.

Was it a constitutionally permissible order to dismiss the charges? Everything else flows from the answer to that question. Start there.

Lawyer are members of a state bar. Start there.

[Anonymous]

So it’s been an hour…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We've got another letter addressed to Emil Bove - the resignation of Hagen Scotten, HLS '10, US Army veteran, Trump supporter (it seems)

That's going to leave a mark.

I really wish feds like this attorney could understand how bad they look to “the other side”. It is constitutionally permissible for the Executive to make a “mistake”.

I get that this prosecutor disagrees with the policy choice being made. I might even disagrees, too. But the self-importance and messiah complex of this so-called civil servant oozes out of his letter. Sorry, you don’t get to make this decision, bubba. It belongs to the elected officials and their delegates. Resign if you must, but making this a public spectacle and using words akin to “ALMOST a quid pro quo” is just unbecoming.

I’m starting to get the feeling that feds see themselves as guardians of not just the constitution but of fundamental policy choices. The narcissism of late Gen Xers and millennials made them wholly unfit for civil service.

So you're good with the "policy choice" of the President using the threat of criminal prosecution to make elected officials do his bidding?

Of course not! That’s precisely the issue here: Democrats didn’t like that Adams was breaking ranks on immigration issues (both on politics and on enforcement) and so they prosecuted him on other charges!!!!

But whether I’m good with it or not is a wholly separate question from whether government prosecutors are permitted to use their prosecutorial discretion and leverage it to achieve other objectives. And for better or worse, that is an accepted legal practice in American jurisprudence.

I mean, if you’re worked up over this, wait until you learn about overcharging and plea bargains and exchanges of leniency for cooperation. Hold on tight to those pearls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We've got another letter addressed to Emil Bove - the resignation of Hagen Scotten, HLS '10, US Army veteran, Trump supporter (it seems)

That's going to leave a mark.

I really wish feds like this attorney could understand how bad they look to “the other side”. It is constitutionally permissible for the Executive to make a “mistake”.

I get that this prosecutor disagrees with the policy choice being made. I might even disagrees, too. But the self-importance and messiah complex of this so-called civil servant oozes out of his letter. Sorry, you don’t get to make this decision, bubba. It belongs to the elected officials and their delegates. Resign if you must, but making this a public spectacle and using words akin to “ALMOST a quid pro quo” is just unbecoming.

I’m starting to get the feeling that feds see themselves as guardians of not just the constitution but of fundamental policy choices. The narcissism of late Gen Xers and millennials made them wholly unfit for civil service.

The only mistake lawyers are making is using paragraphs to explain this to you. Lawyers have state bar licenses that are required for their livelihoods. If they engage in criminal or unethical behavior they can lose that license forever. Trying to abolish the rule of law in any serious way is going to get you disbarred.

+1000. "The only mistake lawyers are making is using paragraphs to explain this to you." Well said, PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of these who resigned are serious conservatives. It would have to have been really bad for them to resign. Like we are turning into Saudi Arabia or Russia or Venezuela bad.

It’s almost like they knew they were all going to leave.

And who wants to be Interim anything. You know a new appointee is going to get it. It’s like being in a PIP.

Go make $1m a year elsewhere for awhile

Sassoon was the new appointee from the Trump administration.

Deputy holdover from Biden Administration who was promoted to interim.

This. Very common. DOJ always clears house from R to D to R to D admin changes. Wake up.

“Sassoon and Scotten, both registered Republicans, came to the U.S. attorney’s office after serving as law clerks for prominent conservative Supreme Court judges.  
Scotten was a clerk for Chief Justice John Roberts, while Sassoon served under the late Justice Antonin Scalia.”
- WSJ today

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We've got another letter addressed to Emil Bove - the resignation of Hagen Scotten, HLS '10, US Army veteran, Trump supporter (it seems)

That's going to leave a mark.

I really wish feds like this attorney could understand how bad they look to “the other side”. It is constitutionally permissible for the Executive to make a “mistake”.

I get that this prosecutor disagrees with the policy choice being made. I might even disagrees, too. But the self-importance and messiah complex of this so-called civil servant oozes out of his letter. Sorry, you don’t get to make this decision, bubba. It belongs to the elected officials and their delegates. Resign if you must, but making this a public spectacle and using words akin to “ALMOST a quid pro quo” is just unbecoming.

I’m starting to get the feeling that feds see themselves as guardians of not just the constitution but of fundamental policy choices. The narcissism of late Gen Xers and millennials made them wholly unfit for civil service.

So you're good with the "policy choice" of the President using the threat of criminal prosecution to make elected officials do his bidding?

Of course not! That’s precisely the issue here: Democrats didn’t like that Adams was breaking ranks on immigration issues (both on politics and on enforcement) and so they prosecuted him on other charges!!!!

But whether I’m good with it or not is a wholly separate question from whether government prosecutors are permitted to use their prosecutorial discretion and leverage it to achieve other objectives. And for better or worse, that is an accepted legal practice in American jurisprudence.

I mean, if you’re worked up over this, wait until you learn about overcharging and plea bargains and exchanges of leniency for cooperation. Hold on tight to those pearls.

You people won’t want to hear this but Adams’s policy positions had nothing to do with the charges against him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We've got another letter addressed to Emil Bove - the resignation of Hagen Scotten, HLS '10, US Army veteran, Trump supporter (it seems)

That's going to leave a mark.

I really wish feds like this attorney could understand how bad they look to “the other side”. It is constitutionally permissible for the Executive to make a “mistake”.

I get that this prosecutor disagrees with the policy choice being made. I might even disagrees, too. But the self-importance and messiah complex of this so-called civil servant oozes out of his letter. Sorry, you don’t get to make this decision, bubba. It belongs to the elected officials and their delegates. Resign if you must, but making this a public spectacle and using words akin to “ALMOST a quid pro quo” is just unbecoming.

I’m starting to get the feeling that feds see themselves as guardians of not just the constitution but of fundamental policy choices. The narcissism of late Gen Xers and millennials made them wholly unfit for civil service.

Trump posts diarrhea all over Twitter everyday, but this is what you find unbecoming. Civil servants have every right to not carry out the corrupt directions from their executive and call them out on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We've got another letter addressed to Emil Bove - the resignation of Hagen Scotten, HLS '10, US Army veteran, Trump supporter (it seems)

That's going to leave a mark.

I really wish feds like this attorney could understand how bad they look to “the other side”. It is constitutionally permissible for the Executive to make a “mistake”.

I get that this prosecutor disagrees with the policy choice being made. I might even disagrees, too. But the self-importance and messiah complex of this so-called civil servant oozes out of his letter. Sorry, you don’t get to make this decision, bubba. It belongs to the elected officials and their delegates. Resign if you must, but making this a public spectacle and using words akin to “ALMOST a quid pro quo” is just unbecoming.

I’m starting to get the feeling that feds see themselves as guardians of not just the constitution but of fundamental policy choices. The narcissism of late Gen Xers and millennials made them wholly unfit for civil service.

The only mistake lawyers are making is using paragraphs to explain this to you. Lawyers have state bar licenses that are required for their livelihoods. If they engage in criminal or unethical behavior they can lose that license forever. Trying to abolish the rule of law in any serious way is going to get you disbarred.

Yup. This right here! Beyond standing up for your convictions, any attorney who goes through with this is risking their career. Serious chance they will eventually be disbarred and (learning from Frump’s first term) zero chance the Orange Potato helps with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We've got another letter addressed to Emil Bove - the resignation of Hagen Scotten, HLS '10, US Army veteran, Trump supporter (it seems)

That's going to leave a mark.

I really wish feds like this attorney could understand how bad they look to “the other side”. It is constitutionally permissible for the Executive to make a “mistake”.

I get that this prosecutor disagrees with the policy choice being made. I might even disagrees, too. But the self-importance and messiah complex of this so-called civil servant oozes out of his letter. Sorry, you don’t get to make this decision, bubba. It belongs to the elected officials and their delegates. Resign if you must, but making this a public spectacle and using words akin to “ALMOST a quid pro quo” is just unbecoming.

I’m starting to get the feeling that feds see themselves as guardians of not just the constitution but of fundamental policy choices. The narcissism of late Gen Xers and millennials made them wholly unfit for civil service.

It may be a surprise to you, but all lawyers swear an oath when they are admitted to the bar. Some take it more seriously than others.

The one who files this motion may keep their job for the time being, but when the pendulum swings they will never work as a lawyer again. That’s quite a lot to ask of someone with 30+ years to go.

Enough lawyers have been burned by Trump that all but the total fools know better.

Was it a constitutionally permissible order to dismiss the charges? Everything else flows from the answer to that question. Start there.

Lawyer are members of a state bar. Start there.

Wow! I am utterly stunned that there are people who believe that legal ethics can be cited as superseding the United States Constitution (a/k/a the supreme law of the land).

To keep this simple, the Constitution vests certain powers in the Executive branch of the federal government. Those powers are constrained by the Constitution and by law. Any legal ethics code or state bar association that even hints that a lawyer’s ethical duties prevent such lawyer from executing on the due and proper exercise of Executive branch power by definition creates a constitutional crisis and we have much bigger problems. The bar is not some super constitutional entity that sits above the constitution. It sits in service of the constitution.

Second, note that the two prosecutors in question here invoked weasel lawyer language.

Sassoon in her resignation letter critically alleges that what Adams lawyers were suggesting “AMOUNTED to a quid pro quo.” Importantly she does not allege it was a quid pro quo, but that it AMOUNTS to quid pro quo. Here’s a hint: when prosecutors want to allege a crime they allege it. When they know they are on shaky ground they qualify the allegation.

Sassoon doesn’t actually accuse Adams or anybody from the DOJ side of engaging in quid pro quo. She just strongly implies it with her qualified statement.

The second guy stays away from alleging or implying crimes or improper behavior but only uses the world “mistake” in his resignation letter. Hint: making mistakes is not illegal or unethical. Both Sassoon and her junior smurf deputy hope that by implying impropriety it will dog whistle the foot soldiers into ideological war with the president and his delegates.

I call this the Hunter Biden laptop disinformation special. When the former intelligence community officials came out with their infamous public statement about the laptop they said that the Hunter laptop story had “all the HALLMARKS of Russian disinformation”. Ignore that some of them knew or probably knew the laptop story was real. It was technically correct that the story had all the HALLMARKS of Russian disinformation. How crazy would it be for an important political figure’s son to have all that shocking and criminal material on a laptop? That sounds like some cheap outlandish KGB plot from a James Bond movie.

But, as it turns out, even though the story had all the HALLMARKS of Russian disinformation, the story was NOT Russian disinformation, but rather it was true. And when officials were later challenged, they shrugged their shoulders because the signed statement was technically correct: they only said it had the HALLMARKS of Russian disinformation.

Unfortunately, the officials who issued the statement were able to get away with their intended damage. Media organizations used that statement with its weasel words as cover to go into action burying or ignoring the story.

I’m saddened to see these two prosecutors who were probably once honorable civil servants engage in weasel words and misleading statements in order to play politics. I’m equally sad to see so many democrats falling for the dog whistle technique again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We've got another letter addressed to Emil Bove - the resignation of Hagen Scotten, HLS '10, US Army veteran, Trump supporter (it seems)

That's going to leave a mark.

I really wish feds like this attorney could understand how bad they look to “the other side”. It is constitutionally permissible for the Executive to make a “mistake”.

I get that this prosecutor disagrees with the policy choice being made. I might even disagrees, too. But the self-importance and messiah complex of this so-called civil servant oozes out of his letter. Sorry, you don’t get to make this decision, bubba. It belongs to the elected officials and their delegates. Resign if you must, but making this a public spectacle and using words akin to “ALMOST a quid pro quo” is just unbecoming.

I’m starting to get the feeling that feds see themselves as guardians of not just the constitution but of fundamental policy choices. The narcissism of late Gen Xers and millennials made them wholly unfit for civil service.

So you're good with the "policy choice" of the President using the threat of criminal prosecution to make elected officials do his bidding?

Of course not! That’s precisely the issue here: Democrats didn’t like that Adams was breaking ranks on immigration issues (both on politics and on enforcement) and so they prosecuted him on other charges!!!!

But whether I’m good with it or not is a wholly separate question from whether government prosecutors are permitted to use their prosecutorial discretion and leverage it to achieve other objectives. And for better or worse, that is an accepted legal practice in American jurisprudence.

I mean, if you’re worked up over this, wait until you learn about overcharging and plea bargains and exchanges of leniency for cooperation. Hold on tight to those pearls.

It is not accepted or permitted. A prosecutorial quid pro quo is impermissible and unethical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We've got another letter addressed to Emil Bove - the resignation of Hagen Scotten, HLS '10, US Army veteran, Trump supporter (it seems)

That's going to leave a mark.

I really wish feds like this attorney could understand how bad they look to “the other side”. It is constitutionally permissible for the Executive to make a “mistake”.

I get that this prosecutor disagrees with the policy choice being made. I might even disagrees, too. But the self-importance and messiah complex of this so-called civil servant oozes out of his letter. Sorry, you don’t get to make this decision, bubba. It belongs to the elected officials and their delegates. Resign if you must, but making this a public spectacle and using words akin to “ALMOST a quid pro quo” is just unbecoming.

I’m starting to get the feeling that feds see themselves as guardians of not just the constitution but of fundamental policy choices. The narcissism of late Gen Xers and millennials made them wholly unfit for civil service.

It may be a surprise to you, but all lawyers swear an oath when they are admitted to the bar. Some take it more seriously than others.

The one who files this motion may keep their job for the time being, but when the pendulum swings they will never work as a lawyer again. That’s quite a lot to ask of someone with 30+ years to go.

Enough lawyers have been burned by Trump that all but the total fools know better.

Was it a constitutionally permissible order to dismiss the charges? Everything else flows from the answer to that question. Start there.

Lawyer are members of a state bar. Start there.

Wow! I am utterly stunned that there are people who believe that legal ethics can be cited as superseding the United States Constitution (a/k/a the supreme law of the land).

To keep this simple, the Constitution vests certain powers in the Executive branch of the federal government. Those powers are constrained by the Constitution and by law. Any legal ethics code or state bar association that even hints that a lawyer’s ethical duties prevent such lawyer from executing on the due and proper exercise of Executive branch power by definition creates a constitutional crisis and we have much bigger problems. The bar is not some super constitutional entity that sits above the constitution. It sits in service of the constitution.

Second, note that the two prosecutors in question here invoked weasel lawyer language.

Sassoon in her resignation letter critically alleges that what Adams lawyers were suggesting “AMOUNTED to a quid pro quo.” Importantly she does not allege it was a quid pro quo, but that it AMOUNTS to quid pro quo. Here’s a hint: when prosecutors want to allege a crime they allege it. When they know they are on shaky ground they qualify the allegation.

Sassoon doesn’t actually accuse Adams or anybody from the DOJ side of engaging in quid pro quo. She just strongly implies it with her qualified statement.

The second guy stays away from alleging or implying crimes or improper behavior but only uses the world “mistake” in his resignation letter. Hint: making mistakes is not illegal or unethical. Both Sassoon and her junior smurf deputy hope that by implying impropriety it will dog whistle the foot soldiers into ideological war with the president and his delegates.

I call this the Hunter Biden laptop disinformation special. When the former intelligence community officials came out with their infamous public statement about the laptop they said that the Hunter laptop story had “all the HALLMARKS of Russian disinformation”. Ignore that some of them knew or probably knew the laptop story was real. It was technically correct that the story had all the HALLMARKS of Russian disinformation. How crazy would it be for an important political figure’s son to have all that shocking and criminal material on a laptop? That sounds like some cheap outlandish KGB plot from a James Bond movie.

But, as it turns out, even though the story had all the HALLMARKS of Russian disinformation, the story was NOT Russian disinformation, but rather it was true. And when officials were later challenged, they shrugged their shoulders because the signed statement was technically correct: they only said it had the HALLMARKS of Russian disinformation.

Unfortunately, the officials who issued the statement were able to get away with their intended damage. Media organizations used that statement with its weasel words as cover to go into action burying or ignoring the story.

I’m saddened to see these two prosecutors who were probably once honorable civil servants engage in weasel words and misleading statements in order to play politics. I’m equally sad to see so many democrats falling for the dog whistle technique again.

It wasn't a quid pro quo because it hasn't happened yet.

Will it, now that an attorney has agreed to drop the indictment (so I have heard but cannot confirm), happen? We will see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We've got another letter addressed to Emil Bove - the resignation of Hagen Scotten, HLS '10, US Army veteran, Trump supporter (it seems)

That's going to leave a mark.

I really wish feds like this attorney could understand how bad they look to “the other side”. It is constitutionally permissible for the Executive to make a “mistake”.

I get that this prosecutor disagrees with the policy choice being made. I might even disagrees, too. But the self-importance and messiah complex of this so-called civil servant oozes out of his letter. Sorry, you don’t get to make this decision, bubba. It belongs to the elected officials and their delegates. Resign if you must, but making this a public spectacle and using words akin to “ALMOST a quid pro quo” is just unbecoming.

I’m starting to get the feeling that feds see themselves as guardians of not just the constitution but of fundamental policy choices. The narcissism of late Gen Xers and millennials made them wholly unfit for civil service.

Trump posts diarrhea all over Twitter everyday, but this is what you find unbecoming. Civil servants have every right to not carry out the corrupt directions from their executive and call them out on it.

Of course civil servants have every right to not become involved in corruption (as legally defined). We both agree. But if you are using corruption as a May term as opposed to a legal term, well, that’s where things get murky.

So, we are back to the fundamental question: was the order to dismiss the charges a constitutionally permissible order? I’m trying to engage here in good faith but nobody wants to take a crack at what is the fundamental question here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We've got another letter addressed to Emil Bove - the resignation of Hagen Scotten, HLS '10, US Army veteran, Trump supporter (it seems)

That's going to leave a mark.

I really wish feds like this attorney could understand how bad they look to “the other side”. It is constitutionally permissible for the Executive to make a “mistake”.

I get that this prosecutor disagrees with the policy choice being made. I might even disagrees, too. But the self-importance and messiah complex of this so-called civil servant oozes out of his letter. Sorry, you don’t get to make this decision, bubba. It belongs to the elected officials and their delegates. Resign if you must, but making this a public spectacle and using words akin to “ALMOST a quid pro quo” is just unbecoming.

I’m starting to get the feeling that feds see themselves as guardians of not just the constitution but of fundamental policy choices. The narcissism of late Gen Xers and millennials made them wholly unfit for civil service.

Trump posts diarrhea all over Twitter everyday, but this is what you find unbecoming. Civil servants have every right to not carry out the corrupt directions from their executive and call them out on it.

Of course civil servants have every right to not become involved in corruption (as legally defined). We both agree. But if you are using corruption as a May term as opposed to a legal term, well, that’s where things get murky.

So, we are back to the fundamental question: was the order to dismiss the charges a constitutionally permissible order? I’m trying to engage here in good faith but nobody wants to take a crack at what is the fundamental question here.

We are engaging in good faith by saying that a lawyer's duty as an officer of the court is not in conflict with the constitution but is, in this situation, controlling.