Trump’s DOJ ready to hit the war path (3 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

Now that the AG is in, she appears to be ready to do Trump’s bidding.

 

[superchuck500]

So they can open investigations anyway, correct? Costing the subjects a whole lot of time and money?

There isn’t any way to stop a crusade by the DOJ is there?

How does this not have the effect of stifling oppositional speech?

I don't think that practically there's any way to stop it - there are standards for abuse of process but they require pretty egregious behavior. Prosecutors generally have a pretty broad latitude, in part because for the most part prosecutors are generally presumed to be acting in the interest of the law and the state (although that's not always been true throughout history, this wouldn't be the first time it would be abused).

But I don't think the investigations typically cost the subjects a lot of time and money.

 

[MT15]

I don't think there's any way to stop it - there are standards for abuse of process but they require pretty egregious behavior. Prosecutors generally have a pretty broad latitude, in part because for the most part prosecutors are generally presumed to be acting in the interest of the law and the state (although that's not always been true throughout history, this wouldn't be the first time it would be abused).

But I don't think the investigations typically cost the subjects a lot of time and money.

But it will certainly stifle oppositional speech, correct? Which is probably the goal. Can anyone sue the DOJ over being investigated spuriously?

 

[superchuck500]

But it will certainly stifle oppositional speech, correct? Which is probably the goal. Can anyone sue the DOJ over being investigated spuriously?

We really don't know to what lengths they will actually go - certainly Rep. Garcia isn't stifled.

But I don't know if it will stifle oppositional speech - at least not in Congress, unless the people involved are up to shady things and then the feds get leverage. That's basically what J. Edgar Hoover did against "enemies of the state" for decades . . . use the FBI to find dirt on them and then use that as political leverage.

Some of that history did lead to the development of standards for lawsuits, and yes, DOJ can be sued for malicious prosecution or abuse or process but the elements are pretty stringent. For example, for a malicious prosecution claim, DOJ must actually file charges or some kind of action against the subject. Abuse of process appears to be broader in nature - but has required elements including that the process allegedly abused actually harmed the subject in a demonstrable way.

There's also just the possibility of sanctions in a more ordinary sense. I certainly don't put it past them to engage in some questionable or even illegal activity but resistance seems fairly well mobilized at this point and at least in DC where Martin is, the federal bench isn't going to be very lenient with that kind of thing. I don't think this DOJ has the benefit of the doubt in that court.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

A federal judge has vacated the upcoming trial date for New York City Mayor Eric Adams, but declined to immediately dismiss the charges all together in a case that has roiled the Justice Department.

Judge Dale Ho, instead, is appointing conservative attorney Paul Clement to present arguments challenging the Justice Department’s decision to drop charges against Adams and as he explores what his options are and if a dismissal is in the public interest.

The Justice Department was represented earlier this week by acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, one of Trump’s former personal attorneys, after protests from DOJ prosecutors. Bove defended the motion to drop charges against Adams, stressing that the DOJ headquarters has prosecutorial discretion and a prosecution of Adams interferes with the Trump administration’s immigration initiatives in New York City. He also pushed back against claims of a quid pro quo between Adams and the Trump administration.

Bove added at one point, unprompted, “I want to be clear I think the only question is whether there’s any basis to believe that I made these representations to the court in bad faith, and the answer to that is absolutely not.”

Judge vacates Eric Adams corruption trial but doesn’t immediately dismiss charges | CNN Politics

A federal judge has vacated the upcoming trial date for New York City Mayor Eric Adams, but declined to immediately dismiss the charges all together.

www.cnn.com

Bove sounds like a man that knows he's on very thin ice!

 

[superchuck500]

The DC United States Attorney literally doesn't understand the assignment

 

[Incumbent]

The DC United States Attorney literally doesn't understand the assignment

The only thing more astonishing is that there are so many of our fellow citizens who repeatedly make it clear they are okay with these clear violations of professional obligations and affronts to our core national tenets.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

The DC United States Attorney literally doesn't understand the assignment

As a lawyer, can you even imagine being so embolden to publicly say that???

"Hey, remember that Oath of Office I took to become a United States Attorney??? That was all BS, I serve the President above all"!

 

[coldseat]

As a lawyer, can you even imagine being so embolden to publicly say that???

"Hey, remember that Oath of Office I took to become a United States Attorney??? That was all BS, I serve the President above all"!

There is this really bazar thing going on with the American public where if the person is brazen enough and says outload the illegal acts that they are committing or planning on committing, then it's no longer viewed as illegal. We've also seen the bleed into the legal system. It empowers the most brazen, immoral and corrupt among us. And that's how we ended up with Trump as president.

 

[brandon]

We really don't know to what lengths they will actually go - certainly Rep. Garcia isn't stifled.

But I don't know if it will stifle oppositional speech - at least not in Congress, unless the people involved are up to shady things and then the feds get leverage. That's basically what J. Edgar Hoover did against "enemies of the state" for decades . . . use the FBI to find dirt on them and then use that as political leverage.

Some of that history did lead to the development of standards for lawsuits, and yes, DOJ can be sued for malicious prosecution or abuse or process but the elements are pretty stringent. For example, for a malicious prosecution claim, DOJ must actually file charges or some kind of action against the subject. Abuse of process appears to be broader in nature - but has required elements including that the process allegedly abused actually harmed the subject in a demonstrable way.

There's also just the possibility of sanctions in a more ordinary sense. I certainly don't put it past them to engage in some questionable or even illegal activity but resistance seems fairly well mobilized at this point and at least in DC where Martin is, the federal bench isn't going to be very lenient with that kind of thing. I don't think this DOJ has the benefit of the doubt in that court.

All of this analysis just seems naive when juxtaposed against the post below.

The DC United States Attorney literally doesn't understand the assignment

 

[Optimus Prime]

The only thing more astonishing is that there are so many of our fellow citizens who repeatedly make it clear they are okay with these clear violations of professional obligations and affronts to our core national tenets.

Because it’s their side saying/doing it and these things fulfill the brief of “own the libs” and “liberal tears”

And by the time they realize that the things the libs are “crying” about affects them too it’ll be too late

 

[superchuck500]

All of this analysis just seems naive when juxtaposed against the post below.

Ed Martin is a jackass and he’s way out of his depth. I don’t think some tweet by a jackass is enough to consider a realistic analysis naive. Let’s wait and see what he actually does and how it goes for him.

I know you’re waiting for that moment when I throw in the towel and admit I’m foolish to believe in these institutions - but I don’t think this is that moment. Maybe it will be but not this idiot tweet.

 

[brandon]

Ed Martin is a jackass and he’s way out of his depth. I don’t think some tweet by a jackass is enough to consider a realistic analysis naive. Let’s wait and see what he actually does and how it goes for him.

I know you’re waiting for that moment when I throw in the towel and admit I’m foolish to believe in these institutions - but I don’t think this is that moment. Maybe it will be but not this idiot tweet.

I admit I do believe you’re allowing your faith in the nobility of your profession to blind you to what has been a by-the-book overthrow of our institutions.

The time to stop it was months ago. I’m afraid we’ve already lost and there’s no stopping the train.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Here's an example of how "both sides" handled the DoJ:

 

[bird]

Here's an example of how "both sides" handled the DoJ:

Speaking of enemies within…

That is Trump and he and his minions are the deep state.

Storm the headquarters.

 

[superchuck500]

I admit I do believe you’re allowing your faith in the nobility of your profession to blind you to what has been a by-the-book overthrow of our institutions.

The time to stop it was months ago. I’m afraid we’ve already lost and there’s no stopping the train.

That's fair enough - and I'm aware of your skepticism of my belief and understand your view. But I do want to note explicitly that it is not my faith in the nobility of my profession that drives my belief and faith in the legal institutions of our nation . . . I have seen plenty of reason not to have faith in the profession itself. Rather, it is my belief and faith in the design of our institutions and in the rule of law itself that drives it, and one does not have to be in a legal profession to understand and appreciate those things and why they matter as they do - and to believe in them.

It's a subtle but heavily meaningful distinction IMO.

 

[brandon]

That's fair enough - and I'm aware of your skepticism of my belief and understand your view. But I do want to note explicitly that it is not my faith in the nobility of my profession that drives my belief and faith in the legal institutions of our nation . . . I have seen plenty of reason not to have faith in the profession itself. Rather, it is my belief and faith in the design of our institutions and in the rule of law itself that drives it, and one does not have to be in a legal profession to understand and appreciate those things and why they matter as they do.

It's a subtle but heavily meaningful distinction IMO.

I appreciate the distinction.

However, I cannot find solace in the rule of law when we have example after example of the rule of law being actively rejected. And while you can say that some things are technically within the rule of law (Pardon of J6ers, presidential immunity, running out the clock and dropping Trump’s charges because of the election, etc), the reality is that those examples of the “rule of law” are not examples of a healthy democracy.

We also have the flouting of the Hatch Act and many other laws that simply have no enforcement mechanism capable of reigning in a rogue president. We have a SCOTUS that refuses to hold themselves accountable with a code of ethics. We have a Congress that actively enables, rather than checks, the presidency. Sure, all of these are working within the bounds of our laws, but I would argue that these acts are demonstrating the flaws, not the features, of our institutions.

The fact is, our institutions are too dependent on the assumption that the president intends to respect norms. We have seen norm-breaking since 2016, and it has clearly hit a fever pitch since January, 2025.

The rule of law has failed to protect us from Trump over and over. The design of our institutions is flawed.

Unfortunately, the design of our institutions will be both the door that let the fox into the henhouse and the lock that keeps out anyone who would save us.

 

[superchuck500]

I appreciate the distinction.

However, I cannot find solace in the rule of law when we have example after example of the rule of law being actively rejected. And while you can say that some things are technically within the rule of law (Pardon of J6ers, presidential immunity, running out the clock and dropping Trump’s charges because of the election, etc), the reality is that those examples of the “rule of law” are not examples of a healthy democracy.

We also have the flouting of the Hatch Act and many other laws that simply have no enforcement mechanism capable of reigning in a rogue president. We have a SCOTUS that refuses to hold themselves accountable with a code of ethics. We have a Congress that actively enables, rather than checks, the presidency. Sure, all of these are working within the bounds of our laws, but I would argue that these acts are demonstrating the flaws, not the features, of our institutions.

The fact is, our institutions are too dependent on the assumption that the president intends to respect norms. We have seen norm-breaking since 2016, and it has clearly hit a fever pitch since January, 2025.

The rule of law has failed to protect us from Trump over and over. The design of our institutions is flawed.

Unfortunately, the design of our institutions will be both the door that let the fox into the henhouse and the lock that keeps out anyone who would save us.

I think all of those things are true - but these aren't unprecedented challenges. We have had all sorts of stuff like this in our history. Yes, there are flaws and I hope that we modulate back into some kind of repair mode . . . but I also see this rogue presidency being checked by district judges every day. Every single day there's a new injunction or some other impediment on various components of the administration's efforts.

The president has a lot of authority. The president can abuse that authority. As I have said many times, I loathe Trump - and I detest his lack of understanding of our system that serves to fuel his abuses. But I have to have faith that we will hold from disintegrating into something else. I don't know what the alternative is. Revolution? Despair?

I don't think we are at either point - so what else is there?

 

[brandon]

I think all of those things are true - but these aren't unprecedented challenges.

I challenge you to show precedent for January 6th. Precedent for DOGE. Precedent for Presidential immunity. Precedent for a twice-impeached, yet somehow reelected president. Precedent for actively rejecting democratic allies in favor of autocrats. Precedent for Kash Patel, Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, and RFK. Precedent for a very clear intent to run for terms beyond constitutional limits. Precedent for ending birthright citizenship.

To say these aren’t unprecedented challenges is unfathomable.

I also see this rogue presidency being checked by district judges every day. Every single day there's a new injunction or some other impediment on various components of the administration's efforts.

You see injunctions filed or other impediments. I see norms attempting to hold up, and falling one after another after another.

But I have to have faith that we will hold from disintegrating into something else. I don't know what the alternative is. Revolution? Despair?

Your choices are denial, anger, bargaining, depression, or acceptance. I’m pretty much at acceptance, but you’ve still got a long way to go on this journey, friend.