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

[Younigue]

What he said isn't hard to comprehend. What you are trying to twist it into beggars belief.

What beggars belief is the depth of your stupidity and the extent to which you cock-of-the-walk that shit rather than the shame you should feel. Stupidity may be your gift but it's a curse to all who engage you. Way to go Tajjy!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is the correct answer. He can do whatever Congress lets him do. That's why I keep saying America deserves every inch of reaming it gets. Voters gave the GOP complete control.

Congress isn't the correct body. It is the Judicial branch which rules on whether an act is Constitutional. There is no Constitutional basis for the DOJ being Trump's personal law enforcement and attornies. If he tries then the SCOTUS says "no" and at that point the DOJ will do as the SCOTUS says. Sessions and others WILL NOT disobey the SCOTUS regardless of Trump. If they do otherwise the US Marshals can haul Trump before the Court. No one will stop them either. The Secret Service does not work for the President either, but provides protection. They will accompany him but not oppose. It would be a nice embarrassing situation I would see as completely entertaining. Of course this alone is more than sufficient for removal from office on its own.

 

[fskimospy]

.... and if the justice department cannot do their job, they have major issues that need to be addressed.

They are doing their job by not investigating things the president told them not to investigate. Isn't that the argument?

 

[Cozarkian]

Pretty easy answer to that, kill anyone who enters the Capitol building. You can kill an unlimited number of Congressmen, really. Or hell, don't kill them at all, just arrest them all so they can't meet and impeach you. Regardless, it's the idea that's important. If the DOJ has to do whatever the president says, even if the president is committing a crime while doing it, we no longer have a nation of laws. The president is required to make sure the laws are faithfully executed and obstructing justice does exactly the opposite of that.



Congress can only subpoena information that exists. If the DOJ never investigates a crime there's nothing for Congress to subpoena. There's literally no way for them to ever find out what crimes, if any, were committed.

DOJ employees are still people with free will. They could, for example, resign in protest and notify Congress that the President asked them to cover up evidence of a crime rather than investigate it.

It is precisely part of the President's job to determine how to allocate limited resources. He might, for example, direct ICE to focus on border control and not to investigate undocumented workers already here. Or maybe he directs them to focus on weapon and drug smuggling and to simply release border crosses they catch that aren't doing those.

Just because there are outlandish examples of how the President could abuse the power doesn't mean he doesn't have the power, and it doesn't mean he can get away with abusing it. There are steps in place to prevent/mitigate such abuses and ultimately the key check is the impeachment power.

 

[Younigue]

They are doing their job by not investigating things the president told them not to investigate. Isn't that the argument?

And a damn fine one if they do say so themselves!

 

[dyna]

They are doing their job by not investigating things the president told them not to investigate. Isn't that the argument?

I think were seeing the problem differently. From my understanding, Trump wants the justice department to investigate certain things and they won't. If he is asking them to stop investigating that would also be a problem but I don't see that as the primary issue here.

 

[fskimospy]

I think were seeing the problem differently. From my understanding, Trump wants the justice department to investigate certain things and they won't. If he is asking them to stop investigating that would also be a problem but I don't see that as the primary issue here.

I mean he asked them to stop investigating his national security adviser who turns out to have likely committed a number of felonies.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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."

The AG is a Congressionally created entity, under the Executive Branch but created to be America's attorney, not the Presidents. The Justice Department was added afterward to aid the AG, however, they still are under the same mandate. Sessions is NOT Trump's lawyer in any way. Trump can say anything he likes but trying to carry his nonsense out it will work for us. Anyone he attacks this way has standing and my my my that will be interesting indeed

 

[fskimospy]

DOJ employees are still people with free will. They could, for example, resign in protest and notify Congress that the President asked them to cover up evidence of a crime rather than investigate it.

That seems like they would be potentially opening themselves up to prosecution as a lot of these investigations are classified. In addition, if everything the president is doing in that capacity is legal and within his powers, on what grounds would anyone have to be a whistleblower?

It is precisely part of the President's job to determine how to allocate limited resources. He might, for example, direct ICE to focus on border control and not to investigate undocumented workers already here. Or maybe he directs them to focus on weapon and drug smuggling and to simply release border crosses they catch that aren't doing those.

Just because there are outlandish examples of how the President could abuse the power doesn't mean he doesn't have the power, and it doesn't mean he can get away with abusing it. There are steps in place to prevent/mitigate such abuses and ultimately the key check is the impeachment power.

That doesn't relate to this discussion though. The president does in fact have the ability to do all of those things, but that doesn't mean that he has the ability to commit crimes. For example it's perfectly legal for the CEO of a company to shred whatever documents he wants. It is NOT legal for that CEO to shred those documents to stymie an investigation. When the president tells the DOJ to not investigate his associates he is engaging in criminal activity and the DOJ should not comply because again if the DOJ doesn't investigate, there's nothing Congress can do to get that information. They are reduced to either blindly impeaching someone or doing nothing, both of which are catastrophic results.

If there's one thing the history of government should have taught us by this point it's that the executive should NEVER have unfettered power over the direction of law enforcement. Nixon was impeached for this. (well, was about to be when he resigned)

 

[ivwshane]

What this thread illustrates is just how dangerous a person like trump is to our democracy. In a normal presidency a president would abide by norms established via his predecessors. The argument set forth by eski highlights just how precarious our system is setup and how easy it would be to destroy our democracy. People who support trumps behavior and that of the Republican controlled Congress are supporting the destruction of our democracy and imo are traitors.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

He admitted it.

Tajjy? Will you Please do me a favor and self-punish? Use my rolled up newspaper idea.

I'm married, isn't that enough?

 

[Younigue]

I'm married, isn't that enough?

I want you to punish yourself not some poor woman!

 

[Younigue]

I'm married, isn't that enough?

And if that's the way you feel about her... Set her free? Let her know joy?

 

[Jhhnn]

I think were seeing the problem differently. From my understanding, Trump wants the justice department to investigate certain things and they won't. If he is asking them to stop investigating that would also be a problem but I don't see that as the primary issue here.

He wants a do-over of matters they investigated a year ago.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

The President can fire the AG. The AG's job is not to obey the President's commands.

Here is the authority under which the AG and later the DOJ operate

And there shall also be appointed a meet person, learned in the law, to act as attorney-general for the United States, who shall be sworn or affirmed to a faithful execution of his office; whose duty it shall be to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments, touching any matters that may concern their departments, and shall receive such compensation for his services as shall by law be provided.

That is from the Judiciary Act of 1789 and no where does it state or imply that the President commands anyone. The President's proper role is to facilitate the proper role of the AG as defined above and hence why the President has the authority to remove. Trump can appoint and he can terminate, he cannot use the DOJ as his personal police force.

You probably should brush up on that "Constitution thingy" that Trump clearly doesn't understand, nor apparently, his fans.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

He has the power to do so, and the DOJ would be obligated to comply. As others have said, the check on his power to do this is Congress' ability to impeach and convict him for such an abuse of power.

After removal from office, the new President could then reverse the order. Which is why Trump would probably just pardon her, which would prevent any future prosecution even after he was removed from office for abuse of power.

Pardons don't have to be post-convicton. See, e.g., Nixon.

As I just posted the proper role of the DOJ is not to be a President's private prosecutor. The AG has the legal duty to refuse such actions. Whether a fawning foolish sycophant like Sessions will faithfully carry out his obligations is another matter. I have found the authorizing law and mandate for the AG, and it was legally applied to DOJ as it formed later.

If anyone finds a law superseding the Judiciary Act, which also created the Supreme Court as we know it, then they ought to post the law explicitly granting the President to order the DOJ in its legally defined role.

 

[interchange]

I seem to not understand what you are saying then. As others may well understand your point I will let it rest as I am also, I think, unclear what you are saying here. My problem is that I can't translate or extrapolate out what you call the basic human conflict you say I speak of into exactly what the conflict is. Thus I don't know how to extend it to culture etc or what to disentangle as possibly fixable without regard to it. Sorry, but I consistently seem to have this kind of trouble and I am not even sure how to describe it clearly.

I often use complicated sentences and talk about ideas that are not commonplace. Mostly, it's just me, and I hate how much work I have to do to translate my thinking for the sake of others. But if you're genuinely curious, I'm happy to go through the effort.

What I'm saying is that I agree that the self-hate problem is universal. And that problem is part of all societies, cultures, laws, religions, etc. to at least some degree. I see the same problem that you do. But I don't think the self-hate really has anything to do with society itself. That's because generations of choices have woven it into our society by choice. And it makes sense to do so. As you say, if it's a society problem, especially if we can talk about other people who are bad instead of ourselves, we can avoid the pain of looking inside.

But what I am also saying is that, in looking to do better as a society, I don't think we really have to individually heal our own self-hate. I think we can make choices in our society to keep the idea of absolute morality away. If we do, we will tear down there most convenient and socially acceptable apparatuses to project our self hate. People will, at that point, be required to look inside and reconcile their shame and guilt if they want escape. That would be a good thing, and I'll be there to help anyone who comes to my door.

 

[Jhhnn]

As I just posted the proper role of the DOJ is not to be a President's private prosecutor. The AG has the legal duty to refuse such actions. Whether a fawning foolish sycophant like Sessions will faithfully carry out his obligations is another matter. I have found the authorizing law and mandate for the AG, and it was legally applied to DOJ as it formed later.

If anyone finds a law superseding the Judiciary Act, which also created the Supreme Court as we know it, then they ought to post the law explicitly granting the President to order the DOJ in its legally defined role.

You mean... the Deep State is 228 years old, quite by design?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You mean... the Deep State is 228 years old, quite by design?

So some seem to believe. All of this is easily verifiable of course if someone wants independent conformation, but if someone refuses to believe the truth of the matter they will deny any source by distorting their mental perspectives of reality. It's astounding that it can be done and equally so that some need to. My perspective is "It is what it is". That is harder for some reason.

 

[interchange]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Navalny

This guy is (one example of) why the president should not be able to direct specific investigations of the justice department and should have Congressional checks on appointees e.g. to the FBI. Prosecution of political opponents is a common strategy for faux democracies to maintain power and public appearance. It is abuse of power.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Navalny

This guy is (one example of) why the president should not be able to direct specific investigations of the justice department and should have Congressional checks on appointees e.g. to the FBI. Prosecution of political opponents is a common strategy for faux democracies to maintain power and public appearance. It is abuse of power.

As the direction of prosecution against individuals for personal or political gain is not authorized in any way, any target thereof should be supported in legal action against Trump by the ACLU and the public. The party being attacked would have standing, and this nonsense should be use as more support for impeachment.

 

[interchange]

As the direction of prosecution against individuals for personal or political gain is not authorized in any way, any target thereof should be supported in legal action against Trump by the ACLU and the public. The party being attacked would have standing, and this nonsense should be use as more support for impeachment.

Sure. Although I think:
1. No political opponents of Trump would have difficulty finding excellent legal counsel
2. He has already done plenty to be impeached. Sadly Congress is the one with the choice to consider his actions worthy of removal from office or not

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Sure. Although I think:
1. No political opponents of Trump would have difficulty finding excellent legal counsel
2. He has already done plenty to be impeached. Sadly Congress is the one with the choice to consider his actions worthy of removal from office or not

I consider 2. to be a very real concern, but Trump can have the best lawyers he personally can afford, however as the DOJ would be party to this suit as well, I doubt they can argue for Trump directly. There are many great lawyers just waiting for an opportunity and it's virtually impossible that the wronged party could be more arrogant and foolish as Trump's.

In my estimation this is a concern which will not materialize, but if it does I don't believe it will be allowed to stand.

 

[Moonbeam]

I often use complicated sentences and talk about ideas that are not commonplace. Mostly, it's just me, and I hate how much work I have to do to translate my thinking for the sake of others. But if you're genuinely curious, I'm happy to go through the effort.

What I'm saying is that I agree that the self-hate problem is universal. And that problem is part of all societies, cultures, laws, religions, etc. to at least some degree. I see the same problem that you do. But I don't think the self-hate really has anything to do with society itself. That's because generations of choices have woven it into our society by choice. And it makes sense to do so. As you say, if it's a society problem, especially if we can talk about other people who are bad instead of ourselves, we can avoid the pain of looking inside.

But what I am also saying is that, in looking to do better as a society, I don't think we really have to individually heal our own self-hate. I think we can make choices in our society to keep the idea of absolute morality away. If we do, we will tear down there most convenient and socially acceptable apparatuses to project our self hate. People will, at that point, be required to look inside and reconcile their shame and guilt if they want escape. That would be a good thing, and I'll be there to help anyone who comes to my door.

OK, so going back to your original post you said: 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.

I think now that by "not really" you meant my post was to a point other than the one you were trying to make rather that not really, those ideas are all wrong. I think I now understand what you were saying and your points are well taken. I still don't like the word choice for selections we make our of unconscious motivations which I think applies here We make choices without knowing why. For me choice must be something done awake.

If people can reach a stage of culture where the knowledge that real truth can't ever defended immorally, that two wrongs do not make a right and the end never justifies all means, we will indeed be unable to commit acts of evil on the misguided notion they are good. One does indeed not need to be totally free of self hate to do this, but I think it is the denial that we hate ourselves that makes us cling to certainty and ignore obvious moral truths.

 

[interchange]

OK, so going back to your original post you said: 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.

I think now that by "not really" you meant my post was to a point other than the one you were trying to make rather that not really, those ideas are all wrong. I think I now understand what you were saying and your points are well taken. I still don't like the word choice for selections we make our of unconscious motivations which I think applies here We make choices without knowing why. For me choice must be something done awake.

If people can reach a stage of culture where the knowledge that real truth can't ever defended immorally, that two wrongs do not make a right and the end never justifies all means, we will indeed be unable to commit acts of evil on the misguided notion they are good. One does indeed not need to be totally free of self hate to do this, but I think it is the denial that we hate ourselves that makes us cling to certainty and ignore obvious moral truths.

Do we need to wake up in order to improve the condition of things? Or do we improve the condition of things in order for us to wake up? I suppose the answer is we do as much of both as possible.