DOJ, RIP

[Anonymous]

They're already counting on Adams keeping up his end of the bargain. It's not even subtle.

Thinly veiled Homan warning to Adams: “If he doesn’t come through … I’ll be in his office, up his butt, saying, Where the hell is the agreement we came to”

[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.

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.

You can’t possibly be serious. Have you ever heard of overcharging? Have you ever heard of plea agreements? Have you ever heard of federal cooperation agreements?

Federal cooperation agreements are submitted for the record and literally require “substantial assistance” from the accused in favor of the state in exchange for a lesser sentence for the accused. That is literally “something for something.”

And that is just the stuff that is in the public domain. Quid pro quo is absolutely permitted judicial practice in this country so long as the benefit of the exchange accrues to the state and not the personal benefit of the actor on behalf of the state.

[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.

Um, I’m a Republican and retired federal agent. I would have resigned too.

[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.

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.

The ethical duty to the court controls if the order to dismiss was illegal. Thus, you have to go back to the fundamental question: was the order to dismiss the charges legal (constitutionally permissible) or it?

If the order was illegal, then duty to the court controls. If the order was legal, duty to the court. If you really believe differently, then we have a much, much bigger constitutional crisis on our hands where you are suggesting that the lawful, legal orders of the executive branch (elected officials) are also subject to the review and standards of state bar ethics committees. If you don’t see the mess there, I can’t help you.

Was the order to dismiss the charges legally permissible? Everyone wants to run away from this basic question and end run what is the crux of the matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Um, I’m a Republican and retired federal agent. I would have resigned too.

Why? Seems like a political solution was agreed to by elected officials. I do think that the state of New York should remove Adams via impeachment.

[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.

I mean, I hate to go there, but if you think people should do something they think is wrong just to follow the orders of an elected official, you have no problem with what Germans did under Hitler's orders. They were just following orders!

[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.

Tell me you know nothing about Adams’ charges without telling me you know nothing. This shit didn’t go down in the last 24 hours….

[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.

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.

The ethical duty to the court controls if the order to dismiss was illegal. Thus, you have to go back to the fundamental question: was the order to dismiss the charges legal (constitutionally permissible) or it?

If the order was illegal, then duty to the court controls. If the order was legal, duty to the court. If you really believe differently, then we have a much, much bigger constitutional crisis on our hands where you are suggesting that the lawful, legal orders of the executive branch (elected officials) are also subject to the review and standards of state bar ethics committees. If you don’t see the mess there, I can’t help you.

Was the order to dismiss the charges legally permissible? Everyone wants to run away from this basic question and end run what is the crux of the matter.

I would love to see the result of you presenting this law professorish navel gazing at a contempt hearing or state bar investigation. How would you end up in a contempt hearing? Depends on what you say when the judge asks you to explain why an investigation into a scheme going back multiple years is politically motivated. Federal judges are big fans of lawyers saying "oh, that's what I was told and I'm under lawful executive orders to just dismiss this case"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:]

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.

A few higherups at DOJ resigned rather than fire the special prosecutor. Robert Bork did not agree but he took the job because he felt it was within the President's authority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Justices hire clerks of diverse ideology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Justices hire clerks of diverse ideology.

Oh come on now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Justices hire clerks of diverse ideology.

No, they don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:]

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.

A few higherups at DOJ resigned rather than fire the special prosecutor. Robert Bork did not agree but he took the job because he felt it was within the President's authority.

Ed Sullivan agreed to file the motion, rather than the entire PI unit resigning. We will all be waiting to see exactly what he says and how the judge takes it, after this very public display.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

The ethical duty to the court controls if the order to dismiss was illegal. Thus, you have to go back to the fundamental question: was the order to dismiss the charges legal (constitutionally permissible) or it?

If the order was illegal, then duty to the court controls. If the order was legal, duty to the court. If you really believe differently, then we have a much, much bigger constitutional crisis on our hands where you are suggesting that the lawful, legal orders of the executive branch (elected officials) are also subject to the review and standards of state bar ethics committees. If you don’t see the mess there, I can’t help you.

Was the order to dismiss the charges legally permissible? Everyone wants to run away from this basic question and end run what is the crux of the matter.

I would love to see the result of you presenting this law professorish navel gazing at a contempt hearing or state bar investigation. How would you end up in a contempt hearing? Depends on what you say when the judge asks you to explain why an investigation into a scheme going back multiple years is politically motivated. Federal judges are big fans of lawyers saying "oh, that's what I was told and I'm under lawful executive orders to just dismiss this case"

I think you’re suggesting that judges and state ethics committees have their own biases and agenda. If your suggestion is correct, then I humbly submit we have much bigger problems to deal with. But your point is a fair one.

For the issue at hand, resign if you disagree with the policy decision. If you think something illegal is going on, put it on the legal record with your name (start with her honor if you’re feeling really convicted). But Bove’s public response is clearly about laying a foundation to defend this as a policy decision.

And using weasel lawyer words like “amounts to” and “mistake” implying impropriety without actually alleging it is the same BS as “hallmarks” of Russian disinformation. Lots of normal Americans interpret this as political grandstanding meant to harm a political opponent.

I genuinely don’t know if so many of you live in a DC bubble where it is simply impossible for you to understand how some normal Americans see this. But the DC machine has struggled for eight years to understand and explain the Trump electoral phenomenon. There is clearly a blind spot somewhere in the DC machine and some humility might be in order.

And if you can’t see how destabilizing and destructive BS word games like this are to the republic, or if you think these word games are okay because it damages the bad orange man, then you and I are too far apart to ever have a meeting of the minds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

The ethical duty to the court controls if the order to dismiss was illegal. Thus, you have to go back to the fundamental question: was the order to dismiss the charges legal (constitutionally permissible) or it?

If the order was illegal, then duty to the court controls. If the order was legal, duty to the court. If you really believe differently, then we have a much, much bigger constitutional crisis on our hands where you are suggesting that the lawful, legal orders of the executive branch (elected officials) are also subject to the review and standards of state bar ethics committees. If you don’t see the mess there, I can’t help you.

Was the order to dismiss the charges legally permissible? Everyone wants to run away from this basic question and end run what is the crux of the matter.

I would love to see the result of you presenting this law professorish navel gazing at a contempt hearing or state bar investigation. How would you end up in a contempt hearing? Depends on what you say when the judge asks you to explain why an investigation into a scheme going back multiple years is politically motivated. Federal judges are big fans of lawyers saying "oh, that's what I was told and I'm under lawful executive orders to just dismiss this case"

I think you’re suggesting that judges and state ethics committees have their own biases and agenda. If your suggestion is correct, then I humbly submit we have much bigger problems to deal with. But your point is a fair one.

For the issue at hand, resign if you disagree with the policy decision. If you think something illegal is going on, put it on the legal record with your name (start with her honor if you’re feeling really convicted). But Bove’s public response is clearly about laying a foundation to defend this as a policy decision.

And using weasel lawyer words like “amounts to” and “mistake” implying impropriety without actually alleging it is the same BS as “hallmarks” of Russian disinformation. Lots of normal Americans interpret this as political grandstanding meant to harm a political opponent.

I genuinely don’t know if so many of you live in a DC bubble where it is simply impossible for you to understand how some normal Americans see this. But the DC machine has struggled for eight years to understand and explain the Trump electoral phenomenon. There is clearly a blind spot somewhere in the DC machine and some humility might be in order.

And if you can’t see how destabilizing and destructive BS word games like this are to the republic, or if you think these word games are okay because it damages the bad orange man, then you and I are too far apart to ever have a meeting of the minds.

Federal prosecutors don’t break the law, even for an “electoral phenomenon.”