Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Department of Justice is no longer a functional government department nor an agency ensuring justice.

Rather, under the leadership of the Trump regime’s Princess of Lawless Retribution, the DOJ (now known as Donald’s Obstruction of Justice) is not only dismantling one of our nation’s most important safeguards of justice…but also proactively attacking the Rule of Law with the goal of dismantling the only mechanism with a chance of holding the line against Trump’s obvious evil plan to destroy our democracy.

To be clear: he is attacking courts, judges, law firms, law schools, and bar associations the way the military would use drones to destabilize and remove opponents.

ICYMI: once the rule of law is gone, you can’t use lawyers, courts, and the peaceful rule of law to get it back. Once it is destroyed, there’s no mechanism to challenge the illegal acts of this Administration. The mechanism will no longer exist.

If you think this doesn’t affect you, you are wrong.

It affects all of us…you just don’t realize it yet.

You are describing DoJ under Biden administration.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Department of Justice is no longer a functional government department nor an agency ensuring justice.

Rather, under the leadership of the Trump regime’s Princess of Lawless Retribution, the DOJ (now known as Donald’s Obstruction of Justice) is not only dismantling one of our nation’s most important safeguards of justice…but also proactively attacking the Rule of Law with the goal of dismantling the only mechanism with a chance of holding the line against Trump’s obvious evil plan to destroy our democracy.

To be clear: he is attacking courts, judges, law firms, law schools, and bar associations the way the military would use drones to destabilize and remove opponents.

ICYMI: once the rule of law is gone, you can’t use lawyers, courts, and the peaceful rule of law to get it back. Once it is destroyed, there’s no mechanism to challenge the illegal acts of this Administration. The mechanism will no longer exist.

If you think this doesn’t affect you, you are wrong.

It affects all of us…you just don’t realize it yet.

You are describing DoJ under Biden administration.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Department of Justice is no longer a functional government department nor an agency ensuring justice.

Rather, under the leadership of the Trump regime’s Princess of Lawless Retribution, the DOJ (now known as Donald’s Obstruction of Justice) is not only dismantling one of our nation’s most important safeguards of justice…but also proactively attacking the Rule of Law with the goal of dismantling the only mechanism with a chance of holding the line against Trump’s obvious evil plan to destroy our democracy.

To be clear: he is attacking courts, judges, law firms, law schools, and bar associations the way the military would use drones to destabilize and remove opponents.

ICYMI: once the rule of law is gone, you can’t use lawyers, courts, and the peaceful rule of law to get it back. Once it is destroyed, there’s no mechanism to challenge the illegal acts of this Administration. The mechanism will no longer exist.

If you think this doesn’t affect you, you are wrong.

It affects all of us…you just don’t realize it yet.

You are describing DoJ under Biden administration.

Anonymous wrote:The Department of Justice is no longer a functional government department nor an agency ensuring justice.

Rather, under the leadership of the Trump regime’s Princess of Lawless Retribution, the DOJ (now known as Donald’s Obstruction of Justice) is not only dismantling one of our nation’s most important safeguards of justice…but also proactively attacking the Rule of Law with the goal of dismantling the only mechanism with a chance of holding the line against Trump’s obvious evil plan to destroy our democracy.

To be clear: he is attacking courts, judges, law firms, law schools, and bar associations the way the military would use drones to destabilize and remove opponents.

ICYMI: once the rule of law is gone, you can’t use lawyers, courts, and the peaceful rule of law to get it back. Once it is destroyed, there’s no mechanism to challenge the illegal acts of this Administration. The mechanism will no longer exist.

If you think this doesn’t affect you, you are wrong.

It affects all of us…you just don’t realize it yet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is Ms Oyer’s resume: Georgetown, Harvard, partner at Mayer Brown, 10 years as a federal defender. Whoever the jack*ss here trying to impugn here is, you are a complete joke.


https://www.justice.gov/archives/pardon/staff-profile/former-pardon-attorney-oyer

Are you suggesting that her credentials mean she is above politics?

Here are her publicly stated complaints:

1. She was escorted off premises after she was involuntarily terminated after a policy disagreement with administration officials. Please tell me what is wrong with this fairly standard practice of escorting people off premises after involuntary termination? What is wrong with firing a civil servant who disagrees with an administration on policy issues?

2. She was given a letter reminding her of her duty to keep confidential information to herself under the privilege doctrine. Tell me what is illegal or even out of the ordinary about this? Lawyers get these kinds of letters all the time with regards to privilege or conflicts.

3. Marshals were dispatched to her home to hand deliver notice after she had failed to acknowledge receipt of notice delivered to her email address. After she acknowledged receipt the marshals were recalled. The marshals never reached her house. They did not have contact with her or her family. Exactly what is wrong here? Even if you think this was heavy handed it hardly rises to tampering or intimidation.

I think everyone except you understands that when an attorney with that resume is fired and testifies before Congress, we tend to take it seriously. And no matter what you claim, the US Marshals being used to send a letter to a former employee is highly irregular and not backed by the law or DOJ policy. You are just transparently embarrassed that Trump’s antics go so far as to (check notes) try to get a gun back for a weirdo washed up Hollywood wife beater.

LOL. You take her testimony so seriously you refuse to engage the substance of her claims? Instead, you hope that waiving around credentials and the word “testimony” is enough of an implication of impropriety that people won’t actually examine what happened.

I’m trying to engage in good faith on the substance of the issue, but you don’t want to go there because you know that, aside from the morality of what is happening, this a big fat nothingburger.

You can’t explain what was illegal about any of this because none of it was illegal and a middling first year law student knows that. I hate to say it, but the executive can grant clemency to whomever he wants for practically whatever reason he wants. You know that. I know that. And a person with Ms. Oyer’s credentials absolutely knows that.

If you or Ms. Oyer have a problem with it, take it up with the states via amendment to the constitution.

Once again, as was discussed in this very thread pages ago, the grandstanding and overplaying of one’s hand by these so-called civil servants does nothing but undermine trust in them and the system.

I think the substance of her claims are quite clear: she is an experienced professional and was fired for doing the job she was hired to do (give her honest evaluation of a pardon application). And then DOJ attempted to intimidate her by the improper use of armed officers.

It’s not actually insubordination to do your job. A government attorney concluding that they cannot recommend a particular action is completely within the bounds of professional conduct. The normal course of action would be that her superior would take the case from her. But in Trump’s fascist DOJ, the reaction is retaliation and intimidation.

All because Trump world can’t do any better in terms of Hollywood influence then Mel Gibson 🤡

+1. (And my editorial comment: the person you are engaging with is insane.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is Ms Oyer’s resume: Georgetown, Harvard, partner at Mayer Brown, 10 years as a federal defender. Whoever the jack*ss here trying to impugn here is, you are a complete joke.


https://www.justice.gov/archives/pardon/staff-profile/former-pardon-attorney-oyer

Are you suggesting that her credentials mean she is above politics?

Here are her publicly stated complaints:

1. She was escorted off premises after she was involuntarily terminated after a policy disagreement with administration officials. Please tell me what is wrong with this fairly standard practice of escorting people off premises after involuntary termination? What is wrong with firing a civil servant who disagrees with an administration on policy issues?

2. She was given a letter reminding her of her duty to keep confidential information to herself under the privilege doctrine. Tell me what is illegal or even out of the ordinary about this? Lawyers get these kinds of letters all the time with regards to privilege or conflicts.

3. Marshals were dispatched to her home to hand deliver notice after she had failed to acknowledge receipt of notice delivered to her email address. After she acknowledged receipt the marshals were recalled. The marshals never reached her house. They did not have contact with her or her family. Exactly what is wrong here? Even if you think this was heavy handed it hardly rises to tampering or intimidation.

I think everyone except you understands that when an attorney with that resume is fired and testifies before Congress, we tend to take it seriously. And no matter what you claim, the US Marshals being used to send a letter to a former employee is highly irregular and not backed by the law or DOJ policy. You are just transparently embarrassed that Trump’s antics go so far as to (check notes) try to get a gun back for a weirdo washed up Hollywood wife beater.

LOL. You take her testimony so seriously you refuse to engage the substance of her claims? Instead, you hope that waiving around credentials and the word “testimony” is enough of an implication of impropriety that people won’t actually examine what happened.

I’m trying to engage in good faith on the substance of the issue, but you don’t want to go there because you know that, aside from the morality of what is happening, this a big fat nothingburger.

You can’t explain what was illegal about any of this because none of it was illegal and a middling first year law student knows that. I hate to say it, but the executive can grant clemency to whomever he wants for practically whatever reason he wants. You know that. I know that. And a person with Ms. Oyer’s credentials absolutely knows that.

If you or Ms. Oyer have a problem with it, take it up with the states via amendment to the constitution.

Once again, as was discussed in this very thread pages ago, the grandstanding and overplaying of one’s hand by these so-called civil servants does nothing but undermine trust in them and the system.

I think the substance of her claims are quite clear: she is an experienced professional and was fired for doing the job she was hired to do (give her honest evaluation of a pardon application). And then DOJ attempted to intimidate her by the improper use of armed officers.

It’s not actually insubordination to do your job. A government attorney concluding that they cannot recommend a particular action is completely within the bounds of professional conduct. The normal course of action would be that her superior would take the case from her. But in Trump’s fascist DOJ, the reaction is retaliation and intimidation.

All because Trump world can’t do any better in terms of Hollywood influence then Mel Gibson 🤡

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is Ms Oyer’s resume: Georgetown, Harvard, partner at Mayer Brown, 10 years as a federal defender. Whoever the jack*ss here trying to impugn here is, you are a complete joke.


https://www.justice.gov/archives/pardon/staff-profile/former-pardon-attorney-oyer

Are you suggesting that her credentials mean she is above politics?

Here are her publicly stated complaints:

1. She was escorted off premises after she was involuntarily terminated after a policy disagreement with administration officials. Please tell me what is wrong with this fairly standard practice of escorting people off premises after involuntary termination? What is wrong with firing a civil servant who disagrees with an administration on policy issues?

2. She was given a letter reminding her of her duty to keep confidential information to herself under the privilege doctrine. Tell me what is illegal or even out of the ordinary about this? Lawyers get these kinds of letters all the time with regards to privilege or conflicts.

3. Marshals were dispatched to her home to hand deliver notice after she had failed to acknowledge receipt of notice delivered to her email address. After she acknowledged receipt the marshals were recalled. The marshals never reached her house. They did not have contact with her or her family. Exactly what is wrong here? Even if you think this was heavy handed it hardly rises to tampering or intimidation.

I think everyone except you understands that when an attorney with that resume is fired and testifies before Congress, we tend to take it seriously. And no matter what you claim, the US Marshals being used to send a letter to a former employee is highly irregular and not backed by the law or DOJ policy. You are just transparently embarrassed that Trump’s antics go so far as to (check notes) try to get a gun back for a weirdo washed up Hollywood wife beater.

LOL. You take her testimony so seriously you refuse to engage the substance of her claims? Instead, you hope that waiving around credentials and the word “testimony” is enough of an implication of impropriety that people won’t actually examine what happened.

I’m trying to engage in good faith on the substance of the issue, but you don’t want to go there because you know that, aside from the morality of what is happening, this a big fat nothingburger.

You can’t explain what was illegal about any of this because none of it was illegal and a middling first year law student knows that. I hate to say it, but the executive can grant clemency to whomever he wants for practically whatever reason he wants. You know that. I know that. And a person with Ms. Oyer’s credentials absolutely knows that.

If you or Ms. Oyer have a problem with it, take it up with the states via amendment to the constitution.

Once again, as was discussed in this very thread pages ago, the grandstanding and overplaying of one’s hand by these so-called civil servants does nothing but undermine trust in them and the system.