Matt Gaetz tapped for AG

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump knows Gaetz will never be confirmed. Something else is going on here.

Interesting. You think he’s initially nominating Gaetz so that Gaetz gets blocked and then his real pick looks better by comparison and gets confirmed, even though they’re also a terrible choice, though more conventional?

Stay tuned for AG Jeff Clark

Or AG Aileen Cannon??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump knows Gaetz will never be confirmed. Something else is going on here.

Interesting. You think he’s initially nominating Gaetz so that Gaetz gets blocked and then his real pick looks better by comparison and gets confirmed, even though they’re also a terrible choice, though more conventional?

Stay tuned for AG Jeff Clark

Or AG Aileen Cannon??

She’s probably hoping for a SC seat after all
the gifts she gave him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Truly disgusting pick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bunch of DOJ officials being quoted anonymously and being very critical of the MG nomination.

Ignoring the substance of their critiques this is simply highly unprofessional behavior. I don’t like the nomination either, but DOJ employees must be extremely apolitical and this kinda of thing pisses people off.

It is not and should not be political to say that a man who has barely practiced law and is currently under investigation for serious ethics violations by the House of Representatives and who until recently eas the subject of an investigation into sex trafficking and other crimes, and who has shown himself generally to be thoughtless, antagonistic, and straight up gross, should not be Attorney General of the United States.

Like if he were an actual lawyer without all of these ethics issues and the criminal investigation and the truly obnoxious public behavior, I would agree with you -- regardless of your opinion on his politics, rack and file at the DOJ should keep it to themselves. It's a political appointment and the President is entitled to his pick.

But this is an offensive, grossly unqualified, deeply compromised candidate. I have zero issues with people within DOJ expressing their dismay. This is a ridiculous pick.

[Anonymous]

How many Scaramuccis are all these picks going to last?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I voted for Harris and I believe she would have made better choices. But Trump won and he is free to select who he wants as clownish as they look.

However I really hope the Democrats hoping to run in the future are not thinking and acting live the Democratic voters here. I mean some of you guys are just sitting around glued to your computers itching for "gotcha" "I told you so". We should let them govern with the mandate that they have earned and use their failures to hopefully convince voters to pick out side the next time around. But it looks like and don't plan to do so. And guess what the results next time will be the same.

Yeah, no, those are kind of falling out of the sky all around us at this point.



"'we' have not learned 'our' lessons"

Clean your own damn house. This is embarrassing.

+1 sanctimonious ignorance

[Anonymous]

DEI pick

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bunch of DOJ officials being quoted anonymously and being very critical of the MG nomination.

Ignoring the substance of their critiques this is simply highly unprofessional behavior. I don’t like the nomination either, but DOJ employees must be extremely apolitical and this kinda of thing pisses people off.

Exactly. It hurts their case to claim Gaetz is unfit and will politicize DOJ if senior employees are anonymously acting politically. I thought attorneys were supposed to be smart about this stuff. Because the appropriate course of action here is to shut up and then be a whistleblower if he actually does anything illegal or unethical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The goal is a mass exodus of current AUSAs who can be replaced by lackeys.

Huh? All AUSAs are requested to resign at the start of every administration. It’s common practice. They are appointed and serve at the pleasure of the President.

[Anonymous]

I have a cabinet full of nails and tools that has more talent than Trump's cabinet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bunch of DOJ officials being quoted anonymously and being very critical of the MG nomination.

Ignoring the substance of their critiques this is simply highly unprofessional behavior. I don’t like the nomination either, but DOJ employees must be extremely apolitical and this kinda of thing pisses people off.

It is not and should not be political to say that a man who has barely practiced law and is currently under investigation for serious ethics violations by the House of Representatives and who until recently eas the subject of an investigation into sex trafficking and other crimes, and who has shown himself generally to be thoughtless, antagonistic, and straight up gross, should not be Attorney General of the United States.

Like if he were an actual lawyer without all of these ethics issues and the criminal investigation and the truly obnoxious public behavior, I would agree with you -- regardless of your opinion on his politics, rack and file at the DOJ should keep it to themselves. It's a political appointment and the President is entitled to his pick.

But this is an offensive, grossly unqualified, deeply compromised candidate. I have zero issues with people within DOJ expressing their dismay. This is a ridiculous pick.

The president nominates and the senate confirms or rejects. The civil service is supposed to be apolitical and in exchange the civil service is supposed to be in a privileged position insulated from politics.

There is simply no constitutional requirement that a nominee be “good”. So, yes, commenting on POTUS-elect’s picks is a political move, no matter how common sense the substance of the criticism may seem.

Think of it this way, if through some miracle MG is confined, he now has all the cover he needs to fire everyone at DOJ and/or every single official who commented should resign. There is a reason while all this criticism has been done anonymously.

This is the fundamental paradox of the Trump presidency: everyone in the “resistance” breaks political norms in their criticism of him and then they can’t understand why Republican voters elected a guy who shreds every norm that we’ve ever applied to the Presidency.

The standard for the civil service must be: “is it legal” not “do I agree with it.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bunch of DOJ officials being quoted anonymously and being very critical of the MG nomination.

Ignoring the substance of their critiques this is simply highly unprofessional behavior. I don’t like the nomination either, but DOJ employees must be extremely apolitical and this kinda of thing pisses people off.

It is not and should not be political to say that a man who has barely practiced law and is currently under investigation for serious ethics violations by the House of Representatives and who until recently eas the subject of an investigation into sex trafficking and other crimes, and who has shown himself generally to be thoughtless, antagonistic, and straight up gross, should not be Attorney General of the United States.

Like if he were an actual lawyer without all of these ethics issues and the criminal investigation and the truly obnoxious public behavior, I would agree with you -- regardless of your opinion on his politics, rack and file at the DOJ should keep it to themselves. It's a political appointment and the President is entitled to his pick.

But this is an offensive, grossly unqualified, deeply compromised candidate. I have zero issues with people within DOJ expressing their dismay. This is a ridiculous pick.

The president nominates and the senate confirms or rejects. The civil service is supposed to be apolitical and in exchange the civil service is supposed to be in a privileged position insulated from politics.

There is simply no constitutional requirement that a nominee be “good”. So, yes, commenting on POTUS-elect’s picks is a political move, no matter how common sense the substance of the criticism may seem.

Think of it this way, if through some miracle MG is confined, he now has all the cover he needs to fire everyone at DOJ and/or every single official who commented should resign. There is a reason while all this criticism has been done anonymously.

This is the fundamental paradox of the Trump presidency: everyone in the “resistance” breaks political norms in their criticism of him and then they can’t understand why Republican voters elected a guy who shreds every norm that we’ve ever applied to the Presidency.

The standard for the civil service must be: “is it legal” not “do I agree with it.”

No. The standard for civil service is competence, ethics and, above all, LOYALTY TO THE CONSTITUTION.

That’s the problem with Trump selecting people who are loyal to him. You may not be aware, but civil servants swear an oath to the Constitution.

If you are American you should at the very least defend that standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The goal is a mass exodus of current AUSAs who can be replaced by lackeys.

Huh? All AUSAs are requested to resign at the start of every administration. It’s common practice. They are appointed and serve at the pleasure of the President.

No, this is not correct. The thousands of line AUSAs throughout the country - the workhorses who run the cases - are not normally asked to resign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bunch of DOJ officials being quoted anonymously and being very critical of the MG nomination.

Ignoring the substance of their critiques this is simply highly unprofessional behavior. I don’t like the nomination either, but DOJ employees must be extremely apolitical and this kinda of thing pisses people off.

It is not and should not be political to say that a man who has barely practiced law and is currently under investigation for serious ethics violations by the House of Representatives and who until recently eas the subject of an investigation into sex trafficking and other crimes, and who has shown himself generally to be thoughtless, antagonistic, and straight up gross, should not be Attorney General of the United States.

Like if he were an actual lawyer without all of these ethics issues and the criminal investigation and the truly obnoxious public behavior, I would agree with you -- regardless of your opinion on his politics, rack and file at the DOJ should keep it to themselves. It's a political appointment and the President is entitled to his pick.

But this is an offensive, grossly unqualified, deeply compromised candidate. I have zero issues with people within DOJ expressing their dismay. This is a ridiculous pick.

The president nominates and the senate confirms or rejects. The civil service is supposed to be apolitical and in exchange the civil service is supposed to be in a privileged position insulated from politics.

There is simply no constitutional requirement that a nominee be “good”. So, yes, commenting on POTUS-elect’s picks is a political move, no matter how common sense the substance of the criticism may seem.

Think of it this way, if through some miracle MG is confined, he now has all the cover he needs to fire everyone at DOJ and/or every single official who commented should resign. There is a reason while all this criticism has been done anonymously.

This is the fundamental paradox of the Trump presidency: everyone in the “resistance” breaks political norms in their criticism of him and then they can’t understand why Republican voters elected a guy who shreds every norm that we’ve ever applied to the Presidency.

The standard for the civil service must be: “is it legal” not “do I agree with it.”

I’m sure the new AG will be thrilled to prosecute them if what they are doing is illegal, by your definition. When some standards go, they all go. You can’t cherry pick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DEI pick.

Ha ha ha - true - he has a diverse range of rakes and Trump sycophants.