DOJ, RIP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a simple question--can't this get the guy who said he'd drop the charges disbarred? It's clear that it's an illegal move. Others from DOJ are publicly saying it's illegal. So ... how does this not injure him?

Another question - DP here - why doesn’t Bove file the dismissal and argue for it himself?

This is a way to get attorneys to resign without any severance or lawsuits. Eventually they will find a lawyer to sign their name and then will fire the lawyer when they have issues with their bar license.

Why not call the bluff? Let her fire them. Then they can all file a lawsuit. Especially since the woman in NY already made it so public as to what is happening. I would that would be the smarter chess move in this scenario instead of retreating the King.

This happens in US Attorney's offices. DOJ steps in and says don't prosecute. I've posted this before. I know for a fact this is true. It's not frequent, but it happens.

[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.

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

Exactly, Adam’s policy positions had to do with them deciding to go after him and ignore other worse offenders and themselves.

[Anonymous]

Maybe paying their bills won’t be a problem, but they’ll have a target on their backs. Lots of armed MAGA zealots would love to prove their loyalty to Dear Leader, and they don’t have to sweat the consequences. They’ll get pardoned for any action taken to promote his regime.

[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.

Agree.

They know it’s a political case and now it’s being called out

[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.

This is the arrogance of someone who can mouth off because he knows his money and career are guaranteed. A Kavanaugh clerk from a wealthy background who has been groomed to become a senator or governor. Naive people in this thread see a brave hero speaking truth to power. In reality, he's seizing a plum opportunity to make a long-planned transition to politics. It's not every day a chance to become a household name while convincingly coming off as a selfless hero falls in one's lap. His white male brain trust of powerbrokers jointly ghostwrote this letter last night.

I'm sorry, but it's hilarious to see the credulous responses in this thread. These are two groups of cold-blooded opportunists facing off in a choreographed spectacle that will advance all of their careers.

[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.

Ok. So a retired person would stay retired .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe paying their bills won’t be a problem, but they’ll have a target on their backs. Lots of armed MAGA zealots would love to prove their loyalty to Dear Leader, and they don’t have to sweat the consequences. They’ll get pardoned for any action taken to promote his regime.

MAGA will really FO if they start targeting conservative/Republican aristocracy and their children.

[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.

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.

Exactly, Adam’s policy positions had to do with them deciding to go after him and ignore other worse offenders and themselves.

You have no idea how long it takes to investigate and put together a case like this and how far back the observed and indicted behavior goes. Were you one of the people in the Eric Adams thread saying they slapped charges on him because he was going to meet with Biden that day? Ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is extremely corrupt. Letting go a case against Eric Adams because of a quid pro quo to enforce immigration in NYC. Glad that Sassoon has principles: she’ll have no trouble getting a job. Adams should be indicted again just for that alone.

The case against Adams is weak and he has a political and personal target on his back from Democrat New Yorkers. They are inconsistently applying the law, finally now, to him only, because the Dems didn't like him.

Well now the Dems aren't in charge so their witch hunts will cease. All the leftist podcasts in the world won't change that.

Silence signals agreement

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe paying their bills won’t be a problem, but they’ll have a target on their backs. Lots of armed MAGA zealots would love to prove their loyalty to Dear Leader, and they don’t have to sweat the consequences. They’ll get pardoned for any action taken to promote his regime.

Lol. Put down the Grisham novel, honey. These people aren't you and your friends. At the first death threat, they'll have the best security money can buy -- and they won't be footing the bill. Again, this is a zero risk, all-upside career move.

[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.

Guess who picks who they try or not? Politicians.

Democrat politicans pushed the lame Adam's case when he wouldn't do all of their favors, and now vice versa (though cleaning out illegal alien criminals shouldn't be a political favor, it should just be done).

Pretty obvious what's going on here outside of the leftist echo chambers.

That’s been clear for awhile. Esp their politically motivated chosen timing.

[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.

Agree.

They know it’s a political case and now it’s being called out

You’ve got it entirely backwards. This case wasn’t political, anyone familiar with Adams knew he was slimy going way back, and the Trump administration is what’s making it political.

[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.

This is the arrogance of someone who can mouth off because he knows his money and career are guaranteed. A Kavanaugh clerk from a wealthy background who has been groomed to become a senator or governor. Naive people in this thread see a brave hero speaking truth to power. In reality, he's seizing a plum opportunity to make a long-planned transition to politics. It's not every day a chance to become a household name while convincingly coming off as a selfless hero falls in one's lap. His white male brain trust of powerbrokers jointly ghostwrote this letter last night.

I'm sorry, but it's hilarious to see the credulous responses in this thread. These are two groups of cold-blooded opportunists facing off in a choreographed spectacle that will advance all of their careers.

Who’s going to want to elect a FedSoc Roberts clerk who wouldn’t follow the Trump party line? He’ll be an outcast like all of the never Trump Republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe paying their bills won’t be a problem, but they’ll have a target on their backs. Lots of armed MAGA zealots would love to prove their loyalty to Dear Leader, and they don’t have to sweat the consequences. They’ll get pardoned for any action taken to promote his regime.

MAGA will really FO if they start targeting conservative/Republican aristocracy and their children.

Exactly. It's always interesting how little most people know of the unspoken rules applicable to members of actually elite circles. Real power -- the sort that isn't elected, isn't earned in one lifetime, and doesn't answer to anyone who's not inside the circle -- comes with protection far beyond just never worrying about the bills.

[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.

This is the arrogance of someone who can mouth off because he knows his money and career are guaranteed. A Kavanaugh clerk from a wealthy background who has been groomed to become a senator or governor. Naive people in this thread see a brave hero speaking truth to power. In reality, he's seizing a plum opportunity to make a long-planned transition to politics. It's not every day a chance to become a household name while convincingly coming off as a selfless hero falls in one's lap. His white male brain trust of powerbrokers jointly ghostwrote this letter last night.

I'm sorry, but it's hilarious to see the credulous responses in this thread. These are two groups of cold-blooded opportunists facing off in a choreographed spectacle that will advance all of their careers.

Who’s going to want to elect a FedSoc Roberts clerk who wouldn’t follow the Trump party line? He’ll be an outcast like all of the never Trump Republicans.

Oh, is that so? An outcast among whom exactly? Lol.