Reply to DOJ, RIP

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "DOJ, RIP"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.

[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GjwpTkZXIAE2mcT?format=jpg&name=medium[/img][/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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

Lawyer are members of a state bar.  Start there.[/quote]

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. 
[/quote]

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

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics