Matt Gaetz tapped for AG

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:You will never go broke counting on Congressional Republicans to bend over for Trump:

haha reassure them what, exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I would not pick MG. But that isn’t the issue. Is there anything unconstitutional about the MG nomination? No, of course not. So they need to STFU and carry on their duties or resign.

But anonymously sniping in the press like scared, insecure little teenagers is precisely the kind of thing that makes people lose trust in our institutions. It is also the same exact mistake that the left keeps making with Trump. It has been happening for almost ten years now starting most prominently with the NYT declaring that institutional norms did not apply to Donald Trump because of the threat he posed. By ignoring institutional norms, the resistance exposes that it didn’t believe in them in the first place. It also makes them look small and petty. The net effect is to take some of the spotlight away from Trump’s bad acts thereby vindicating Trump and generating sympathy for Trump among his supporters.

Trump really is some kind of kryptonite to the left that leads them to make unforced, dumb errors that the left will later regret. “Gee, how come the right won’t vote to protect the institutional norms we ignore?”

Of course civil servants should refuse unlawful orders. But that isn’t the issue here. The issue is the nomination of MG.

The ethical issues are for the senate to consider at the nomination process or subsequently as part of an impeachment process. Each DOJ member is always free to resign.

The substance of the criticism is correct, but a group that wants to be insulated from politics shouldn’t be out there engaging in politics. Simple as that.

Clearly the people at DOJ believe Gaetz is a threat to the Constitution. Having themselves sworn to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, they should speak up. But, they should also put their names to their concerns.

The bolded is precisely the problem! The standard is not “is he a threat to the constitution?” That is contained nowhere in our laws because that is such an impossible standard. Everybody is a theoretical threat to the constitution and thus it is an impossible standard. The standard is whether it is constitutional or not. If by some miracle he is confirmed then absolutely, when he orders something they is illegal they should refuse and/or resign. But “he might threaten the constitution” is a very, very silly reason to torch institutional norms.

Putting their names to the criticism would be more honorable and defensible.

DP. It really isn't. Trump, for example, is a threat to the constitution because he has demonstrated that (J6). Gaetz is just a common criminal, so maybe not so much a threat to the constitution as just a loser AG. As for torching institutional norms, isn't that Trump was elected to do? So everyone else is just helping him along. It's a good thing. Amirite?

If your side torches institutional norms in order to protect institutional norms, then don’t be surprised when the other side doesn’t care for institutional norms. If you want to prep text institutional liens the best thing to do is abide by them even if the other side is attacking them. Same concept as peaceful resistance.

I would recommend dropping the J6 thing which is also a perfect proxy for this whole conversation. The left invested four years and a ton of political capital into J6 and the country held a national referendum about it a little over a week ago … and the issue flopped.

A whole lot of Americans saw J6 (or a large subpart of it) as a riot, not as an insurrection or “the darkest day in the history of our democracy” or whatever horrible thing you called it. In the process of the shrill overreaction to J6, you put people in a frame where they were defending/sympathetic to the J6 rioters and and you looked like overreaching tyrants. Just a horrible persuasion technique all around. But the problem with the DC bubble is that since everybody agrees inside the bubble you lose sight of how things look out in the territories. Also see the fable of the Emperor’s new clothes. [/quore]

Oh don’t worry, they will write books history books about the dart days of our republic. There will be many things raised. They will all be underscored by a common theme, failure to know history and engage in civic responsibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I would not pick MG. But that isn’t the issue. Is there anything unconstitutional about the MG nomination? No, of course not. So they need to STFU and carry on their duties or resign.

But anonymously sniping in the press like scared, insecure little teenagers is precisely the kind of thing that makes people lose trust in our institutions. It is also the same exact mistake that the left keeps making with Trump. It has been happening for almost ten years now starting most prominently with the NYT declaring that institutional norms did not apply to Donald Trump because of the threat he posed. By ignoring institutional norms, the resistance exposes that it didn’t believe in them in the first place. It also makes them look small and petty. The net effect is to take some of the spotlight away from Trump’s bad acts thereby vindicating Trump and generating sympathy for Trump among his supporters.

Trump really is some kind of kryptonite to the left that leads them to make unforced, dumb errors that the left will later regret. “Gee, how come the right won’t vote to protect the institutional norms we ignore?”

Of course civil servants should refuse unlawful orders. But that isn’t the issue here. The issue is the nomination of MG.

The ethical issues are for the senate to consider at the nomination process or subsequently as part of an impeachment process. Each DOJ member is always free to resign.

The substance of the criticism is correct, but a group that wants to be insulated from politics shouldn’t be out there engaging in politics. Simple as that.

Clearly the people at DOJ believe Gaetz is a threat to the Constitution. Having themselves sworn to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, they should speak up. But, they should also put their names to their concerns.

The bolded is precisely the problem! The standard is not “is he a threat to the constitution?” That is contained nowhere in our laws because that is such an impossible standard. Everybody is a theoretical threat to the constitution and thus it is an impossible standard. The standard is whether it is constitutional or not. If by some miracle he is confirmed then absolutely, when he orders something they is illegal they should refuse and/or resign. But “he might threaten the constitution” is a very, very silly reason to torch institutional norms.

Putting their names to the criticism would be more honorable and defensible.

DP. It really isn't. Trump, for example, is a threat to the constitution because he has demonstrated that (J6). Gaetz is just a common criminal, so maybe not so much a threat to the constitution as just a loser AG. As for torching institutional norms, isn't that Trump was elected to do? So everyone else is just helping him along. It's a good thing. Amirite?

If your side torches institutional norms in order to protect institutional norms, then don’t be surprised when the other side doesn’t care for institutional norms. If you want to prep text institutional liens the best thing to do is abide by them even if the other side is attacking them. Same concept as peaceful resistance.

I would recommend dropping the J6 thing which is also a perfect proxy for this whole conversation. The left invested four years and a ton of political capital into J6 and the country held a national referendum about it a little over a week ago … and the issue flopped.

A whole lot of Americans saw J6 (or a large subpart of it) as a riot, not as an insurrection or “the darkest day in the history of our democracy” or whatever horrible thing you called it. In the process of the shrill overreaction to J6, you put people in a frame where they were defending/sympathetic to the J6 rioters and and you looked like overreaching tyrants. Just a horrible persuasion technique all around. But the problem with the DC bubble is that since everybody agrees inside the bubble you lose sight of how things look out in the territories. Also see the fable of the Emperor’s new clothes. [/quore]

Oh don’t worry, they will write books history books about the dart days of our republic. There will be many things raised. They will all be underscored by a common theme, failure to know history and engage in civic responsibility.

Facts don't care what you think

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really did believe that Obama was amazing at triggering Republicans into stupid, unforced errors.

Our only job is to make sure there is no second Obama term” was just to mind Numbingly stupid. Same thing with the birther thing. Obama put on a masterclass holding onto his birth certificate allowing the right to make themselves look like idiots.

But Obama was an amateur compared to Trump’s ability to trigger and troll the left. Really smart people are going to study that part of Trump and incorporate it into the future.

haha it's not the left who's triggered over matt gaetz, mah friend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People are idiots if they do not realize that AG Gaetz will start enforcing the Comstock Act nationwide.

Legal abortion in all 50 states will be gone by next summer.

Yep. This goes on the F around and FO thread 🧵

[Anonymous]

Breaking into the capitol building and attempting to take politicians hostage to change the will of the people who voted against your candidate and calling it what it an insurrection, is not an over reaction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I would not pick MG. But that isn’t the issue. Is there anything unconstitutional about the MG nomination? No, of course not. So they need to STFU and carry on their duties or resign.

But anonymously sniping in the press like scared, insecure little teenagers is precisely the kind of thing that makes people lose trust in our institutions. It is also the same exact mistake that the left keeps making with Trump. It has been happening for almost ten years now starting most prominently with the NYT declaring that institutional norms did not apply to Donald Trump because of the threat he posed. By ignoring institutional norms, the resistance exposes that it didn’t believe in them in the first place. It also makes them look small and petty. The net effect is to take some of the spotlight away from Trump’s bad acts thereby vindicating Trump and generating sympathy for Trump among his supporters.

Trump really is some kind of kryptonite to the left that leads them to make unforced, dumb errors that the left will later regret. “Gee, how come the right won’t vote to protect the institutional norms we ignore?”

Of course civil servants should refuse unlawful orders. But that isn’t the issue here. The issue is the nomination of MG.

The ethical issues are for the senate to consider at the nomination process or subsequently as part of an impeachment process. Each DOJ member is always free to resign.

The substance of the criticism is correct, but a group that wants to be insulated from politics shouldn’t be out there engaging in politics. Simple as that.

Clearly the people at DOJ believe Gaetz is a threat to the Constitution. Having themselves sworn to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, they should speak up. But, they should also put their names to their concerns.

The bolded is precisely the problem! The standard is not “is he a threat to the constitution?” That is contained nowhere in our laws because that is such an impossible standard. Everybody is a theoretical threat to the constitution and thus it is an impossible standard. The standard is whether it is constitutional or not. If by some miracle he is confirmed then absolutely, when he orders something they is illegal they should refuse and/or resign. But “he might threaten the constitution” is a very, very silly reason to torch institutional norms.

Putting their names to the criticism would be more honorable and defensible.

DP. It really isn't. Trump, for example, is a threat to the constitution because he has demonstrated that (J6). Gaetz is just a common criminal, so maybe not so much a threat to the constitution as just a loser AG. As for torching institutional norms, isn't that Trump was elected to do? So everyone else is just helping him along. It's a good thing. Amirite?

If your side torches institutional norms in order to protect institutional norms, then don’t be surprised when the other side doesn’t care for institutional norms. If you want to prep text institutional liens the best thing to do is abide by them even if the other side is attacking them. Same concept as peaceful resistance.

I would recommend dropping the J6 thing which is also a perfect proxy for this whole conversation. The left invested four years and a ton of political capital into J6 and the country held a national referendum about it a little over a week ago … and the issue flopped.

A whole lot of Americans saw J6 (or a large subpart of it) as a riot, not as an insurrection or “the darkest day in the history of our democracy” or whatever horrible thing you called it. In the process of the shrill overreaction to J6, you put people in a frame where they were defending/sympathetic to the J6 rioters and and you looked like overreaching tyrants. Just a horrible persuasion technique all around. But the problem with the DC bubble is that since everybody agrees inside the bubble you lose sight of how things look out in the territories. Also see the fable of the Emperor’s new clothes.

Get all excited about your in-depth analysis whine. Nobody cares.

You bought it, it's broken, now you fix it. Or let it stay broken. It's yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I would not pick MG. But that isn’t the issue. Is there anything unconstitutional about the MG nomination? No, of course not. So they need to STFU and carry on their duties or resign.

But anonymously sniping in the press like scared, insecure little teenagers is precisely the kind of thing that makes people lose trust in our institutions. It is also the same exact mistake that the left keeps making with Trump. It has been happening for almost ten years now starting most prominently with the NYT declaring that institutional norms did not apply to Donald Trump because of the threat he posed. By ignoring institutional norms, the resistance exposes that it didn’t believe in them in the first place. It also makes them look small and petty. The net effect is to take some of the spotlight away from Trump’s bad acts thereby vindicating Trump and generating sympathy for Trump among his supporters.

Trump really is some kind of kryptonite to the left that leads them to make unforced, dumb errors that the left will later regret. “Gee, how come the right won’t vote to protect the institutional norms we ignore?”

Of course civil servants should refuse unlawful orders. But that isn’t the issue here. The issue is the nomination of MG.

The ethical issues are for the senate to consider at the nomination process or subsequently as part of an impeachment process. Each DOJ member is always free to resign.

The substance of the criticism is correct, but a group that wants to be insulated from politics shouldn’t be out there engaging in politics. Simple as that.

Clearly the people at DOJ believe Gaetz is a threat to the Constitution. Having themselves sworn to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, they should speak up. But, they should also put their names to their concerns.

The bolded is precisely the problem! The standard is not “is he a threat to the constitution?” That is contained nowhere in our laws because that is such an impossible standard. Everybody is a theoretical threat to the constitution and thus it is an impossible standard. The standard is whether it is constitutional or not. If by some miracle he is confirmed then absolutely, when he orders something they is illegal they should refuse and/or resign. But “he might threaten the constitution” is a very, very silly reason to torch institutional norms.

Putting their names to the criticism would be more honorable and defensible.

DP. It really isn't. Trump, for example, is a threat to the constitution because he has demonstrated that (J6). Gaetz is just a common criminal, so maybe not so much a threat to the constitution as just a loser AG. As for torching institutional norms, isn't that Trump was elected to do? So everyone else is just helping him along. It's a good thing. Amirite?

If your side torches institutional norms in order to protect institutional norms, then don’t be surprised when the other side doesn’t care for institutional norms. If you want to prep text institutional liens the best thing to do is abide by them even if the other side is attacking them. Same concept as peaceful resistance.

I would recommend dropping the J6 thing which is also a perfect proxy for this whole conversation. The left invested four years and a ton of political capital into J6 and the country held a national referendum about it a little over a week ago … and the issue flopped.

A whole lot of Americans saw J6 (or a large subpart of it) as a riot, not as an insurrection or “the darkest day in the history of our democracy” or whatever horrible thing you called it. In the process of the shrill overreaction to J6, you put people in a frame where they were defending/sympathetic to the J6 rioters and and you looked like overreaching tyrants. Just a horrible persuasion technique all around. But the problem with the DC bubble is that since everybody agrees inside the bubble you lose sight of how things look out in the territories. Also see the fable of the Emperor’s new clothes.

Note that intellectual MAGA gets to be preachy and nobody is threatening them with losing elections, even though they lost plenty

[Anonymous]

^^soooo much whining

I keep hearing about liberals getting triggered, but damn, boy. Hit dog hollers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:You will never go broke counting on Congressional Republicans to bend over for Trump:

Anyone who wouldn't at least publicly question this appointment is a spineless coward. Anyone who'd just instantly accept and believe Matt Gaetz's "reassurances" is a moron.

It’s still two months until Trump takes office. All the Senate needs to do now is authorize a thorough FBI background investigation of Gates.

[Anonymous]

My family voted red. Checks out til the next election.. they don't care or know anything about his incompetence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My family voted red. Checks out til the next election.. they don't care or know anything about his incompetence.

+1 this is exactly what happens in both parties. Look at how few voters come out for local elections. People bank on the public not paying attention. My coworker didn’t know who Matt Gaetz is until yesterday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My family voted red. Checks out til the next election.. they don't care or know anything about his incompetence.

+1 this is exactly what happens in both parties. Look at how few voters come out for local elections. People bank on the public not paying attention. My coworker didn’t know who Matt Gaetz is until yesterday.

GFC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My family voted red. Checks out til the next election.. they don't care or know anything about his incompetence.

+1 this is exactly what happens in both parties. Look at how few voters come out for local elections. People bank on the public not paying attention. My coworker didn’t know who Matt Gaetz is until yesterday.

Same. Mom is who who is he?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I would not pick MG. But that isn’t the issue. Is there anything unconstitutional about the MG nomination? No, of course not. So they need to STFU and carry on their duties or resign.

But anonymously sniping in the press like scared, insecure little teenagers is precisely the kind of thing that makes people lose trust in our institutions. It is also the same exact mistake that the left keeps making with Trump. It has been happening for almost ten years now starting most prominently with the NYT declaring that institutional norms did not apply to Donald Trump because of the threat he posed. By ignoring institutional norms, the resistance exposes that it didn’t believe in them in the first place. It also makes them look small and petty. The net effect is to take some of the spotlight away from Trump’s bad acts thereby vindicating Trump and generating sympathy for Trump among his supporters.

Trump really is some kind of kryptonite to the left that leads them to make unforced, dumb errors that the left will later regret. “Gee, how come the right won’t vote to protect the institutional norms we ignore?”

Of course civil servants should refuse unlawful orders. But that isn’t the issue here. The issue is the nomination of MG.

The ethical issues are for the senate to consider at the nomination process or subsequently as part of an impeachment process. Each DOJ member is always free to resign.

The substance of the criticism is correct, but a group that wants to be insulated from politics shouldn’t be out there engaging in politics. Simple as that.

Clearly the people at DOJ believe Gaetz is a threat to the Constitution. Having themselves sworn to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, they should speak up. But, they should also put their names to their concerns.

The bolded is precisely the problem! The standard is not “is he a threat to the constitution?” That is contained nowhere in our laws because that is such an impossible standard. Everybody is a theoretical threat to the constitution and thus it is an impossible standard. The standard is whether it is constitutional or not. If by some miracle he is confirmed then absolutely, when he orders something they is illegal they should refuse and/or resign. But “he might threaten the constitution” is a very, very silly reason to torch institutional norms.

Putting their names to the criticism would be more honorable and defensible.

DP. It really isn't. Trump, for example, is a threat to the constitution because he has demonstrated that (J6). Gaetz is just a common criminal, so maybe not so much a threat to the constitution as just a loser AG. As for torching institutional norms, isn't that Trump was elected to do? So everyone else is just helping him along. It's a good thing. Amirite?

If your side torches institutional norms in order to protect institutional norms, then don’t be surprised when the other side doesn’t care for institutional norms. If you want to prep text institutional liens the best thing to do is abide by them even if the other side is attacking them. Same concept as peaceful resistance.

I would recommend dropping the J6 thing which is also a perfect proxy for this whole conversation. The left invested four years and a ton of political capital into J6 and the country held a national referendum about it a little over a week ago … and the issue flopped.

A whole lot of Americans saw J6 (or a large subpart of it) as a riot, not as an insurrection or “the darkest day in the history of our democracy” or whatever horrible thing you called it. In the process of the shrill overreaction to J6, you put people in a frame where they were defending/sympathetic to the J6 rioters and and you looked like overreaching tyrants. Just a horrible persuasion technique all around. But the problem with the DC bubble is that since everybody agrees inside the bubble you lose sight of how things look out in the territories. Also see the fable of the Emperor’s new clothes.

Fortunately, the J6 video and photographs will be part of the American historical record forever. It genuinely doesn't matter how you try to downplay it. In any event, go govern. Time is short, and 2026/28 is right around the corner.