Guests are not allowed to view images in posts, please
Register or
LoginShe said under oath she wouldn't politicize the Justice Department. She lied.
Trump is using the DOJ to purge people who disagree with him. I guess the idea that Americans are free to believe how they want to doesn't exist under Trump's regime.
the other day she was trying to get the whole Epstein file, Patel says not happening, wonder why.
She said under oath she wouldn't politicize the Justice Department. She lied.
She isn't being political! You can't be working for the president and bad mouth him at the same time. It just won't work. If federal employees hate Trump they probably won't do their jobs or they will breach security and talk to the press. If you own a company had employees who hated you you would fire them. So why should it be any different for the president. The president has a right to be surrounded by people he can trust...doesn't he? After how I saw Democrats behave last night if a federal worker behaved like that on the job I would fire them on the spot and so would you...
Quote from: Hobby on Mar 05, 2025, 12:17 PMShe isn't being political! You can't be working for the president and bad mouth him at the same time. It just won't work. If federal employees hate Trump they probably won't do their jobs...The president has a right to be surrounded by people he can trust...doesn't he?
No sir, that is not an enumerated right of the Presidency. Federal EMPLOYEES in the Civil Service system serve in the Executive, Legislative, Judicial branches of the government, not just the President. Federal employees are expected to uphold the law and serve the public interest, regardless of their personal opinions about the president.
Their loyalty is to the Constitution NOT to the President.
Quote from: HighStepper on Mar 05, 2025, 01:46 PMNo sir, that is not an enumerated right of the Presidency. Federal EMPLOYEES in the Civil Service system serve in the Executive, Legislative, Judicial branches of the government, not just the President. Federal employees are expected to uphold the law and serve the public interest, regardless of their personal opinions about the president. Their loyalty is to the Constitution NOT to the President.
Not saying loyalty. Saying respect for the office. When did Trump order a subordinate to violate the law?
Quote from: Hobby on Mar 05, 2025, 02:28 PMNot saying loyalty. Saying respect for the office. When did Trump order a subordinate to violate the law?
In my response to you I did not say Trump ordered a subordinate to violate the law. Since you bring it up there have been several instances where Donald Trump in his first term has ordered subordinates to take actions that were violations of the law. However, this is not the debate here.
To get back the topic you set forth. Having respect for the office is not the same as having respect for the person in the office. How federal employees "feel" their "opinion" about the President is not the issue. It is how they do their job upholding the law and serving the public.
Firing federal employees based on their personal opinions about the president would undermine the principles of a non-partisan civil service. The goal is to ensure that government functions smoothly and fairly, regardless of who is in office.
The "spoils system," where government jobs are given as political rewards to supporters of the winning party, can lead to corruption and inefficiency. This was largely the case in the 19th century in the United States until reforms like the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883 were enacted. These reforms aimed to create a merit-based civil service where employees are hired and retained based on their qualifications and performance rather than political loyalty.
By ensuring that federal workers are dedicated to their roles and responsibilities regardless of political changes, we promote stability, fairness, and professionalism in government. This is a cornerstone of a healthy and functioning democracy.
DOGE getting your info is against law, so that's a good starting point
When is it against the law? Haa anyone been charged and convicted with a crime that Trump told them to carry out?
Quote from: Hobby on Mar 05, 2025, 10:04 PMWhen is it against the law? Haa anyone been charged and convicted with a crime that Trump told them to carry out?
There are laws prohibiting the misuse of your personally identifying information held by the feds. It has been reported that members of the DOGE team have downloaded such data to their personal devices. If true, that would undoubtedly run afoul of laws prohibiting misuse.
One problem is that Trump is purging the executive branch offices that would hold him accountable in any way. For example, he has fired the Inspector General of the Social Security Administration.
His director of the Offie of Management and Budget, which also has a role in enforcing agencies' use of PII, is Russell Vought, a far-right extremist and Christian nationalist who said he wants to be the person who "crushes the deep state."
and who would charge him? DEI hire Patel? Musk wears a bullet proof vest and has his kid on his shoulders everywhere he goes to shield himself. he knows that he fired veterans that are snipers.
DOJ leadership has reportedly (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-mel-gibson-gun-rights-b2712649.html) fired the department's pardon attorney after she refused to recommend that Mel Gibson, convicted of domestic violence in 2011, have his gun rights restored.
The fired pardon attorney had been asked to draft a memo recommending that nine specific people have their gun rights restored. After she submitted her draft, someone in the department called her and told her they wanted her to add Gibson to the list.
Ultimately, she was told that Gibson's personal relationship with Trump should be enough for her to add him to the list. She refused, and was fired the next day.
Just think the opposite of anything he says.
One of his idiots said that know body would care if we crashing the dow down to 35000 to prevent a recession. A recession that they are causing.
Quote from: bats on Mar 10, 2025, 10:53 PMDOJ leadership has reportedly (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-mel-gibson-gun-rights-b2712649.html) fired the department's pardon attorney after she refused to recommend that Mel Gibson, convicted of domestic violence in 2011, have his gun rights restored.
The fired pardon attorney had been asked to draft a memo recommending that nine specific people have their gun rights restored. After she submitted her draft, someone in the department called her and told her they wanted her to add Gibson to the list.
Ultimately, she was told that Gibson's personal relationship with Trump should be enough for her to add him to the list. She refused, and was fired the next day.
Mel Gibson entered a no-contest plea in a domestic violence case, he committed against his ex-girlfriend and the mother of his baby daughter. This caused his gun rights to be taken away. Congress's recognition that "anyone who attempts or threatens violence against a loved one has demonstrated that he or she poses an unacceptable risk, and should be prohibited from possessing firearms."
Domestic violence victims are five times more likely to be killed if their abuser has access to a gun. Link (https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/domestic-violence-gun-facts/)
One of the most dangerous situations for police officers are domestic violence calls.
So, all the people that were talking about a weaponized DOJ................crickets.
I like Mel Gibson he should be given his gun rights back. He didn't go to court and cooperated with what he was sentenced to. I don't know why the attorney refused she wasn't making the determination to restore his gun rights but her refusal cost her job...
Quote from: Hobby on Yesterday at 04:51 PMI like Mel Gibson he should be given his gun rights back. He didn't go to court and cooperated with what he was sentenced to. I don't know why the attorney refused she wasn't making the determination to restore his gun rights but her refusal cost her job...
As a licensed attorney she's not supposed to just do everything she's told when it comes to legal advice. She has an ethical obligation render independent judgments.
The bosses could have recommended restoration of Gibson's gun rights despite the fired lawyer's refusal. I suspect she was fired for not agreeing with the president's agenda, and that should never happen.
Quote from: bats on Yesterday at 06:36 PMAs a licensed attorney she's not supposed to just do everything she's told when it comes to legal advice. She has an ethical obligation render independent judgments.
The bosses could have recommended restoration of Gibson's gun rights despite the fired lawyer's refusal. I suspect she was fired for not agreeing with the president's agenda, and that should never happen.
An attorney working for a client must do what is requested by the client provided the request is not criminal conduct. Sometimes attorneys will refuse to do something because they see the judge everyday and know if they proceed with what the client wants will pissoff the judge so they refuse to comply. Under the law unless the attorney has legal cause they must comply and do what the client wants to the best of their ability. Attorney can be sued for refusing. In this situation the attorney was fired from their job for not complying.
Quote from: Hobby on Today at 08:38 AMAn attorney working for a client must do what is requested by the client provided the request is not criminal conduct. Sometimes attorneys will refuse to do something because they see the judge everyday and know if they proceed with what the client wants will pissoff the judge so they refuse to comply. Under the law unless the attorney has legal cause they must comply and do what the client wants to the best of their ability. Attorney can be sued for refusing. In this situation the attorney was fired from their job for not complying.
No, that's not how it works. Attorneys are bound by rules of professional conduct. They're not just hired guns for their clients.
Professional conduct attorneys? Now that's a joke.
Quote from: Hobby on Today at 12:20 PMProfessional conduct attorneys? Now that's a joke.
It's not a joke. Trump got hammered in court over his phony stolen-election claims because there was
no evidence. MAGA idiots will say, "Oh they never looked at the evidence!"
The reality is that no evidence was presented because the stolen election claims were never based in fact. And since attorneys can be sanctioned or even disbarred for lying to the court, even Trump's own lawyers didn't dare present that bullshit "evidence" in court.