• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Poll: Can Trump do whatever he wants with the Justice Department?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Does POTUS have the authority to "Do whatever he wants with the Justice Department"

  • Yes. Trump is correct and fully understands the Constitution

    Votes: 3 6.0%

  • No. Trump is incorrect and doesn't understand basic principles of the Constitution

    Votes: 47 94.0%
  • Total voters
    50
imported_tajmahal said:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-i-can-do-whatever-i-want-with-justice-department/

Just putting a little context in the thread.


"When asked whether he would order the Justice Department to reopen the probe of Hillary Clinton's emails, Mr. Trump seemed to refer to the Russia investigation, telling the Times, "I have absolute right to do what I want to do with the Justice Department. But for purposes of hopefully thinking I'm going to be treated fairly, I've stayed uninvolved with this particular matter."
Click to expand...

because when Trump said on public television that he fired Comey because he didn't like the Russia investigation, that is not involving himself in the Russia investigation.

You're a sad, gaslighted little fool.
 
zinfamous said:
because when Trump said on public television that he fired Comey because he didn't like the Russia investigation, that is not involving himself in the Russia investigation.

You're a sad, gaslighted little fool.
Click to expand...
Is that the Comey that illegally leaked his FBI notes and gave them to a friend to give to a news outlet? That Comey?
 
imported_tajmahal said:
Is that the Comey that illegally leaked his FBI notes and gave them to a friend to give to a news outlet? That Comey?
Click to expand...
Hey numbnuts, as long as National Security isn't involved it isn't illegal to leak your own personal notes.

Now go ahead and take another hit off the pipe.
 
Moonbeam said:
Once you have convinced yourself that you are on the side of moral righteousness you can justify anything. The ends not justifying the means is for other people who are wrong. When you are right you get a pass. The only abuse of power that was happening in Obama's time was the Republicans blocking anything Obama tried to get past. It was their moral duty to abuse power for the good of their insane beliefs.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately people tend to be more outraged over the hypocritical flaws in someone's morality rather than the righteousness itself.
 
interchange said:
Unfortunately people tend to be more outraged over the hypocritical flaws in someone's morality rather than the righteousness itself.
Click to expand...
My guess on the reason for this is that a focus on the validity of moral conclusions would inevitably lead to introspection and self questioning. The whole intention of certainty, I would think, is that it is motivated by that very need. If I am correct that moral beliefs are acquired as a result of programming to conform to some group standard as a place of safety from being put down or punished, it makes logical sense that many would not want to wonder out of such a moral pen. Oddly enough, it seems to me too, that it was a need for certainty that could be shared and proven by logic and reason that created for me a state of existential freefall and the collapse of belief in all that I held sacred. Once I had died to the notion of hope that I could provide certainty to any who would listen, especially myself, the death of that need, it seems to me, freed me from such a motivation. I think that condition, one I would call surrender, allowed me to unify concepts that had previously seemed contradictory especially a reliance of rational dualistic thinking. A silencing of the mind, the abandonment of thought as a means of seeing, allowed me to awaken the memories of a more childlike and theretofore dormant state of being. There are no questions where there is no emotional drive to ask. Everything is perfect when there is no need for it has disappeared. Our nightmare, I think, is to dream that life isn't perfect. Imperfection is comparison, thought, fear, the identification with a false self.
 
Moonbeam said:
My guess on the reason for this is that a focus on the validity of moral conclusions would inevitably lead to introspection and self questioning. The whole intention of certainty, I would think, is that it is motivated by that very need. If I am correct that moral beliefs are acquired as a result of programming to conform to some group standard as a place of safety from being put down or punished, it makes logical sense that many would not want to wonder out of such a moral pen. Oddly enough, it seems to me too, that it was a need for certainty that could be shared and proven by logic and reason that created for me a state of existential freefall and the collapse of belief in all that I held sacred. Once I had died to the notion of hope that I could provide certainty to any who would listen, especially myself, the death of that need, it seems to me, freed me from such a motivation. I think that condition, one I would call surrender, allowed me to unify concepts that had previously seemed contradictory especially a reliance of rational dualistic thinking. A silencing of the mind, the abandonment of thought as a means of seeing, allowed me to awaken the memories of a more childlike and theretofore dormant state of being. There are no questions where there is no emotional drive to ask. Everything is perfect when there is no need for it has disappeared. Our nightmare, I think, is to dream that life isn't perfect. Imperfection is comparison, thought, fear, the identification with a false self.
Click to expand...

Well my experience is that the degree to which this is a nightmare and inescapable is modifiable, and in the first place largely determined by someone's upbringing. Perhaps it is not even inherently human.
 
Younigue said:
Trumpublicans lack the ability to put themselves in other people's shoes. They have no empathy or sense of common decency. Those things are considered weaknesses to them unless of course they're demanding them from the left but then they're still not feeling them just requiring them from others. They are victims to their cores fueled with bile and ugliness.
Click to expand...
Like the common decency showed by the socialists at the post election rallies as they chanted their insults and screamed their slanderous remarks about the winners side. lol cute.
 
To help clarify it for you, The Attorney General is appointed by the President of the United States and takes office after confirmation by the United States Senate. He works at the pleasure of the President and is able to be given orders and even removed by the President if he chooses to, and the Attorney General is at the head of the Department of Justice.
US_Department_of_Justice_Organizational_Chart.png
 
Moonbeam said:
My guess on the reason for this is that a focus on the validity of moral conclusions would inevitably lead to introspection and self questioning. The whole intention of certainty, I would think, is that it is motivated by that very need. If I am correct that moral beliefs are acquired as a result of programming to conform to some group standard as a place of safety from being put down or punished, it makes logical sense that many would not want to wonder out of such a moral pen. Oddly enough, it seems to me too, that it was a need for certainty that could be shared and proven by logic and reason that created for me a state of existential freefall and the collapse of belief in all that I held sacred. Once I had died to the notion of hope that I could provide certainty to any who would listen, especially myself, the death of that need, it seems to me, freed me from such a motivation. I think that condition, one I would call surrender, allowed me to unify concepts that had previously seemed contradictory especially a reliance of rational dualistic thinking. A silencing of the mind, the abandonment of thought as a means of seeing, allowed me to awaken the memories of a more childlike and theretofore dormant state of being. There are no questions where there is no emotional drive to ask. Everything is perfect when there is no need for it has disappeared. Our nightmare, I think, is to dream that life isn't perfect. Imperfection is comparison, thought, fear, the identification with a false self.
Click to expand...
Introspection and self questioning are the same thing and are redundant redundancies.
 
Alpha One Seven said:
Like the common decency showed by the socialists at the post election rallies as they chanted their insults and screamed their slanderous remarks about the winners side. lol cute.
Click to expand...

You poor thing. So oppressed. Such delicate sensibilities. Clutch your pearls. Your fainting couch is thataway & the smelling salts are on the table next to it.
 
interchange said:
Well my experience is that the degree to which this is a nightmare and inescapable is modifiable, and in the first place largely determined by someone's upbringing. Perhaps it is not even inherently human.
Click to expand...
I agree it is modifiable. It is logical to assume that one childhood experience can be better or worse for a child's mental health than another. But all of that happens at a level of the mechanical. If ne set of parents or one of them has a healthier state of consciousness and raised a child accordingly, that child will fair better generally speaking than one raised by emotionally disturbed parents. But nobody choses their parents, at least as far as I know. It's the luck of the draw. A sustained effort by more conscious people to elevate the conscious experience of others will cause a culture to advance, something to be sought, but the facts are that China destroyed Tibet. In short, sick people want to maintain the level of their sickness as a societal standard. People who hate themselves want to drag others down. This is why I focus on what I see as the fulcrum point, the central issue around which the world of human cultural evolution spins, the degree of self hate a culture creates. Competition is hate and all hate is rooted in self hate. America is in love with the notion of competition and personal winning as a form of self validation. Our culture is a disease, a toilet that will self flush as we can see all around us. The loss of hope for me was the beginning of real hope. Hope is the love of being. Love is a perfect state. In it the self disappears. You are simply saying you believe love can win. I am saying that for the lover it already has.
 
Alpha One Seven said:
Like the common decency showed by the socialists at the post election rallies as they chanted their insults and screamed their slanderous remarks about the winners side. lol cute.
Click to expand...
Oh darling. Your inferiority complex is showing. You know why? Because Dems/progressives are far superior to Trumpublicans/Conservatives/Regressives. That's nature little buddy. There's no fighting it but as your side has proven with verve and misplaced pride you can try to deny it through imagination and out right lies like champions of your cause.

The change I've experienced since all this Trump shit... My openness to Conservatives no longer exists. Conservatism is just an excuse to avoid positive change, fear of the unknown, and a venue for the truly uptight pricks of the world to puff out their chests for no good reason (those kind of people deserve to be made fun of). Conservatives are assholes with a platform with which to spew their idiocy and control issues all over people who won't be controlled by fear and insecurity.

Did I mention this "cute" progressive thinks you're a moron. Too bad the truth hurts you so much rather than motivate you to be a decent person amirite? Awe *pat pat the top of your head* little buddy, you're a failure... Even in your successes. That's the Trumpublican way.
 
Moonbeam said:
I agree it is modifiable. It is logical to assume that one childhood experience can be better or worse for a child's mental health than another. But all of that happens at a level of the mechanical. If ne set of parents or one of them has a healthier state of consciousness and raised a child accordingly, that child will fair better generally speaking than one raised by emotionally disturbed parents. But nobody choses their parents, at least as far as I know. It's the luck of the draw. A sustained effort by more conscious people to elevate the conscious experience of others will cause a culture to advance, something to be sought, but the facts are that China destroyed Tibet. In short, sick people want to maintain the level of their sickness as a societal standard. People who hate themselves want to drag others down. This is why I focus on what I see as the fulcrum point, the central issue around which the world of human cultural evolution spins, the degree of self hate a culture creates. Competition is hate and all hate is rooted in self hate. America is in love with the notion of competition and personal winning as a form of self validation. Our culture is a disease, a toilet that will self flush as we can see all around us. The loss of hope for me was the beginning of real hope. Hope is the love of being. Love is a perfect state. In it the self disappears. You are simply saying you believe love can win. I am saying that for the lover it already has.
Click to expand...

Not really. I'm not trying to render an opinion necessarily on the basic human conflict you speak of. I'm saying that its extension to culture, laws, religion, values, etc. is a product of someone's upbringing. It may be possible to disentangle society from this inner conflict without progress on the conflict itself.
 
fskimospy said:
If his daughter murdered someone in cold blood on the White House lawn and Trump told the DOJ not to prosecute her would that be within his authority?
Click to expand...
If Fox State Run Media told 'em so then yes, Yes a million times YES!!! <--- my impression of a Trumpublicans orgasm.?.
 
Alpha One Seven said:
To help clarify it for you, The Attorney General is appointed by the President of the United States and takes office after confirmation by the United States Senate. He works at the pleasure of the President and is able to be given orders and even removed by the President if he chooses to, and the Attorney General is at the head of the Department of Justice.
US_Department_of_Justice_Organizational_Chart.png
Click to expand...
POTUS does not tell the Justice Department who to prosecute. AG's job is not to protect the President. Trump thinks otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top