Trump’s DOJ ready to hit the war path (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

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

 

[Bayouboy]

Mark it down - the FBI and DoJ will go after Adam Schiff. He will be jailed somehow, some way.

 

[Bayouboy]

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.


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


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.

The American people. The voters. Our neighbors and friends. Relatives.

THEY allowed this to happen.

 

[Dragon]

Mark it down - the FBI and DoJ will go after Adam Schiff. He will be jailed somehow, some way.

This - and not a single republican member of the house or senate will dare to speak up against it.

 

[wardorican]

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.

No one likes a quitter.

 

[superchuck500]

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.

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


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.

I think you have some reading to do my friend.

US history is rife with political abuses and leaders compromised by financial or deluded interests - we have a history of various crises, and in modern times, I think history is well in favor of the period of 1968 through 1974 as being more challenging to both the American political system and American society. In fact, much of the modern system that you and I take so for granted that we don't even know what it was like before, was developed in the mid to late 1970s as a response. The War Powers Act, the Impoundment Control Act, and the Special Counsel act all flowed from what was seen to be a concentration of executive power shown to be abused by Johnson and Nixon but with a long history that was deemed no longer tolerable.

Lyndon Johnson - who became president after the sitting president had his head blown off by a rifle and with nothing more than congressional resolution based on White House and DOD deception about a minor event - plunged the United States into a foreign war where he unilaterally raised and raised and raised monthly draft calls, sending Americans to die in a jungle. And when the public protested this unprecedented use (abuse) of executive power, they were beaten by police and even shot and killed by national guardsmen.

The Impoundment Control Act resulted from a standoff with Nixon where was essentially refusing to spend appropriated funds on projects and issues he didn't like, but the history of presidential refusal to spend money directed by Congress is long and features many examples of abuses where the mere whim and personal interest of the president resulted in federal funds being withheld. No president ignored congressional intent in appropriation than FDR - citing the emergencies of the Great Depression and then World War II but it's easy in hindsight to see these activities as necessary but they were highly controversial. Numerous FDR programs were struck down by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional, prompting FDR to push for a slate of new justices so that he could change the results.

Ever heard of the "spoils system"? Until reforms in the late 1800s and another round in the 1950s, the federal government was essentially for sale - patronage and bribes were routine. Look up the Credit Mobilier Scandal where certain railroad builders bribed the Grant administration. Look up the Tea Pot Dome scandal where the Secretary of the Interior and others went to prison for selling oil reserves for their own personal enrichment. And Nixon - good lord - people know about Watergate but Nixon's corruption was rampant from his first day in office where he literally sold his support to programs for millions of dollars. In fact, the system was an organized shakedown - Nixon's staff would use promises of support for programs or threats of investigation to receive large, off-the-record (usually cash) donations from companies doing business all over the United States (see Associated Milk, Ruth Farkas, etc.).

We could go on and on.
- Kash Patel? Do you really know what J. Edgar Hoover did to designated targets and "enemies of the state" - often unlawful and unconstitutional?
- Pete Hegseth? Did you know that Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger was indicted for Iran-Contra where the Reagan administration literally acted in direct disregard of clear federal law. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara concluded in 1967 that Vietnam was futile and unwinnable yet he continued to support an ever increasing draft and ever-increasing American deaths.

Trump was never actually convicted on impeachment, you know that, and while yes, I think that January 6 was unprecedented from a certain perspective and that it is truly a stain and an error that Americans failed to take action to repair and prevent January 6 scenarios - the fact remains that all it really did was delay the electoral count by about seven hours. In all, 944 people were convicted of crimes relating to January 6 and a great many of them served time. Numerous lawyers were disbarred or sanctioned. And criminal cases are ongoing in several states relating to the fraudulent electors cases.

Kennedy and McKinley were assassinated. Lincoln literally had to come to DC in disguise in 1860 because they knew that if he was seen in Maryland, he would likely have been killed. Kennedy had to send national guardsmen to force southern states to adhere to the Supreme Court's desegregation ruling that had come down years before. People were so angry with Johnson and Nixon that they set fire to neighborhoods and bombed buildings.

You suggest that Trump is a truly unprecedented challenge because we have always been able to presume that presidents "respect norms" and, I gather from your sentiment, that presidents have always acted with the nation's interest in mind - but this is simply not true and suffers massively from a sort of recency bias and a tendency of Americans to see their past as generally just and well-intended even where events in their time were far more tainted by self-interest, corruption, and lawlessness than we understand through the lens of modern hindsight.

Yes, I fully agree that there's a lot to be concerned about - even outright lawlessness - and I think I have made that abundantly clear. I think there is and will be damage inflicted and crisis to be endured. But this whole "Trump has ended America" is just drama at this point, it hasn't actually happened. It's certainly possible that it gets to that point, but there are clearly apt analogies to these kinds of challenges in American history - many of which were even more intense. We had a freakin' Civil War for Pete's sake. But in the meantime, I think it's important to try to keep a fair score of what is actually happening.

 

[bird]

I think you have some reading to do my friend.

US history is rife with political abuses and leaders compromised by financial or deluded interests - we have a history of various crises, and in modern times, I think history is well in favor of the period of 1968 through 1974 as being more challenging to both the American political system and American society. In fact, much of the modern system that you and I take so for granted that we don't even know what it was like before, was developed in the mid to late 1970s as a response. The War Powers Act, the Impoundment Control Act, and the Special Counsel act all flowed from what was seen to be a concentration of executive power shown to be abused by Johnson and Nixon but with a long history that was deemed no longer tolerable.

Lyndon Johnson - who became president after the sitting president had his head blown off by a rifle and with nothing more than congressional resolution based on White House and DOD deception about a minor event - plunged the United States into a foreign war where he unilaterally raised and raised and raised monthly draft calls, sending Americans to die in a jungle. And when the public protested this unprecedented use (abuse) of executive power, they were beaten by police and even shot and killed by national guardsmen.

The Impoundment Control Act resulted from a standoff with Nixon where was essentially refusing to spend appropriated funds on projects and issues he didn't like, but the history of presidential refusal to spend money directed by Congress is long and features many examples of abuses where the mere whim and personal interest of the president resulted in federal funds being withheld. No president ignored congressional intent in appropriation than FDR - citing the emergencies of the Great Depression and then World War II but it's easy in hindsight to see these activities as necessary but they were highly controversial. Numerous FDR programs were struck down by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional, prompting FDR to push for a slate of new justices so that he could change the results.

Ever heard of the "spoils system"? Until reforms in the late 1800s and another round in the 1950s, the federal government was essentially for sale - patronage and bribes were routine. Look up the Credit Mobilier Scandal where certain railroad builders bribed the Grant administration. Look up the Tea Pot Dome scandal where the Secretary of the Interior and others went to prison for selling oil reserves for their own personal enrichment. And Nixon - good lord - people know about Watergate but Nixon's corruption was rampant from his first day in office where he literally sold his support to programs for millions of dollars. In fact, the system was an organized shakedown - Nixon's staff would use promises of support for programs or threats of investigation to receive large, off-the-record (usually cash) donations from companies doing business all over the United States (see Associated Milk, Ruth Farkas, etc.).

We could go on and on.
- Kash Patel? Do you really know what J. Edgar Hoover did to designated targets and "enemies of the state" - often unlawful and unconstitutional?
- Pete Hegseth? Did you know that Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger was indicted for Iran-Contra where the Reagan administration literally acted in direct disregard of clear federal law. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara concluded in 1967 that Vietnam was futile and unwinnable yet he continued to support an ever increasing draft and ever-increasing American deaths.

Trump was never actually convicted on impeachment, you know that, and while yes, I think that January 6 was unprecedented from a certain perspective and that it is truly a stain and an error that Americans failed to take action to repair and prevent January 6 scenarios - the fact remains that all it really did was delay the electoral count by about seven hours. In all, 944 people were convicted of crimes relating to January 6 and a great many of them served time. Numerous lawyers were disbarred or sanctioned. And criminal cases are ongoing in several states relating to the fraudulent electors cases.

Kennedy and McKinley were assassinated. Lincoln literally had to come to DC in disguise in 1860 because they knew that if he was seen in Maryland, he would likely have been killed. Kennedy had to send national guardsmen to force southern states to adhere to the Supreme Court's desegregation ruling that had come down years before. People were so angry with Johnson and Nixon that they set fire to neighborhoods and bombed buildings.

You suggest that Trump is a truly unprecedented challenge because we have always been able to presume that presidents "respect norms" and, I gather from your sentiment, that presidents have always acted with the nation's interest in mind - but this is simply not true and suffers massively from a sort of recency bias and a tendency of Americans to see their past as generally just and well-intended even where events in their time were far more tainted by self-interest, corruption, and lawlessness than we understand through the lens of modern hindsight.

Yes, I fully agree that there's a lot to be concerned about - even outright lawlessness - and I think I have made that abundantly clear. But this whole "Trump has ended America" is just drama at this point, it hasn't actually happened. It's certainly possible that it gets to that point, but there are clearly apt analogies to these kinds of challenges in American history - many of which were even more intense. We had a freakin' Civil War for Pete's sake.

And we may be headed to another Civil War or worse.

There is no such thing as America First. The unwinding of globalization and the potential rise of a tripolar world requires intelligent, thoughtful people working together.

We are fresh out of those.

 

[Incumbent]

Chuck - I think those are all important reminders - (and on a personal level, your views on this are part of the very small amount of hope I can currently still draw from) - but you're having to cite from a lot of different points in history to compare to everything happening in this current administration. That is what amplifies the concern and outrage for so many of us.

I try to imagine the ways we get through this and back to a democracy on the other side, and man, I don't really find any comfort in doing that.

I did hear a pundit last night casually offer that if Trump goes too far, ignores courts, etc., the prospect of something happening like California withholding the money it sends to the federal government. I have no idea if that can realistically be done (I don't mean the legality of it but if it's even possible in structure) but whether it can happen or not, it sure seems like our minuscule hopes rest in desperation maneuvers that will make things a lot worse before any chance they can get better.

As bad as all of this has been, it still feels like we're in a honeymoon phase and that Trump hasn't really cranked up the divisiveness to 11. And he's surrounded himself with sycophants precisely so he won't be obstructed or held accountable.

 

[MT15]

I too am drawing some faint hope from Chuck’s writings. But I heard one more thing the other day, from Sarah Longwell. She has long-standing focus groups of Trump voters drawn from both the GOP and independents.

She said the groups are pretty much split down the middle on approval of what Trump is doing. There are the hard-core MAGA, who basically want everyone to suffer and are very happy.

But fully half of his voters are NOT happy at all. They are upset he is deporting non-criminals (I have zero idea where they got the idea that only criminals would be deported but it was evidently fairly widespread). But most importantly, they don’t see inflation easing - it has actually ticked up a bit. And they say Trump isn’t doing anything about it, correctly. They are not happy with the pro-Russia statements, the threats to Panama and Greenland and even Canada. They don’t want any of that.

With the types of budgets the GOP is proposing I’m guessing they will not be any happier. They HATE Musk and what he is doing - wielding chainsaws, celebrating people losing their jobs, etc.

The general consensus was that Trump had a historically short honeymoon and people are already reaching their limit with him and definitely Musk.

 

[superchuck500]

Chuck - I think those are all important reminders - (and on a personal level, your views on this are part of the very small amount of hope I can currently still draw from) - but you're having to cite from a lot of different points in history to compare to everything happening in this current administration. That is what amplifies the concern and outrage for so many of us.

I try to imagine the ways we get through this and back to a democracy on the other side, and man, I don't really find any comfort in doing that.

I did hear a pundit last night casually offer that if Trump goes too far, ignores courts, etc., the prospect of something happening like California withholding the money it sends to the federal government. I have no idea if that can realistically be done (I don't mean the legality of it but if it's even possible in structure) but whether it can happen or not, it sure seems like our minuscule hopes rest in desperation maneuvers that will probably make things a lot worse before they can get better.

As bad as all of this has been, it still feels like we're in a honeymoon phase and that Trump hasn't really cranked up the divisiveness to 11. And he's surrounded himself with sycophants precisely so he won't be obstructed or held accountable.

That's fair - and I get where Brandon is coming from too. All I am really saying is that our nation has a proven history of resiliency through some very challenging times and, in fact, some very shameful episodes. I think it can be easy to get caught up in rhetoric and visions of potential destruction. But we have tools to fight against abuses of power and I think we have to believe in them . . . that is believing in America.

I promise that I will join the call of this as a truly lost cause if that happens, but wow, that's quite an idea to me at this point. And I'm not trying to say that anyone has to agree with me - but I will defend this point of view. I continue to point out the bullshirt that is going on, on a daily basis, because we have stay vigilant and know what is happening. And it it gets time to take to the streets, I'll do it.

 

[Bayouboy]

I think you have some reading to do my friend.

US history is rife with political abuses and leaders compromised by financial or deluded interests - we have a history of various crises, and in modern times, I think history is well in favor of the period of 1968 through 1974 as being more challenging to both the American political system and American society. In fact, much of the modern system that you and I take so for granted that we don't even know what it was like before, was developed in the mid to late 1970s as a response. The War Powers Act, the Impoundment Control Act, and the Special Counsel act all flowed from what was seen to be a concentration of executive power shown to be abused by Johnson and Nixon but with a long history that was deemed no longer tolerable.

Lyndon Johnson - who became president after the sitting president had his head blown off by a rifle and with nothing more than congressional resolution based on White House and DOD deception about a minor event - plunged the United States into a foreign war where he unilaterally raised and raised and raised monthly draft calls, sending Americans to die in a jungle. And when the public protested this unprecedented use (abuse) of executive power, they were beaten by police and even shot and killed by national guardsmen.

The Impoundment Control Act resulted from a standoff with Nixon where was essentially refusing to spend appropriated funds on projects and issues he didn't like, but the history of presidential refusal to spend money directed by Congress is long and features many examples of abuses where the mere whim and personal interest of the president resulted in federal funds being withheld. No president ignored congressional intent in appropriation than FDR - citing the emergencies of the Great Depression and then World War II but it's easy in hindsight to see these activities as necessary but they were highly controversial. Numerous FDR programs were struck down by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional, prompting FDR to push for a slate of new justices so that he could change the results.

Ever heard of the "spoils system"? Until reforms in the late 1800s and another round in the 1950s, the federal government was essentially for sale - patronage and bribes were routine. Look up the Credit Mobilier Scandal where certain railroad builders bribed the Grant administration. Look up the Tea Pot Dome scandal where the Secretary of the Interior and others went to prison for selling oil reserves for their own personal enrichment. And Nixon - good lord - people know about Watergate but Nixon's corruption was rampant from his first day in office where he literally sold his support to programs for millions of dollars. In fact, the system was an organized shakedown - Nixon's staff would use promises of support for programs or threats of investigation to receive large, off-the-record (usually cash) donations from companies doing business all over the United States (see Associated Milk, Ruth Farkas, etc.).

We could go on and on.
- Kash Patel? Do you really know what J. Edgar Hoover did to designated targets and "enemies of the state" - often unlawful and unconstitutional?
- Pete Hegseth? Did you know that Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger was indicted for Iran-Contra where the Reagan administration literally acted in direct disregard of clear federal law. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara concluded in 1967 that Vietnam was futile and unwinnable yet he continued to support an ever increasing draft and ever-increasing American deaths.

Trump was never actually convicted on impeachment, you know that, and while yes, I think that January 6 was unprecedented from a certain perspective and that it is truly a stain and an error that Americans failed to take action to repair and prevent January 6 scenarios - the fact remains that all it really did was delay the electoral count by about seven hours. In all, 944 people were convicted of crimes relating to January 6 and a great many of them served time. Numerous lawyers were disbarred or sanctioned. And criminal cases are ongoing in several states relating to the fraudulent electors cases.

Kennedy and McKinley were assassinated. Lincoln literally had to come to DC in disguise in 1860 because they knew that if he was seen in Maryland, he would likely have been killed. Kennedy had to send national guardsmen to force southern states to adhere to the Supreme Court's desegregation ruling that had come down years before. People were so angry with Johnson and Nixon that they set fire to neighborhoods and bombed buildings.

You suggest that Trump is a truly unprecedented challenge because we have always been able to presume that presidents "respect norms" and, I gather from your sentiment, that presidents have always acted with the nation's interest in mind - but this is simply not true and suffers massively from a sort of recency bias and a tendency of Americans to see their past as generally just and well-intended even where events in their time were far more tainted by self-interest, corruption, and lawlessness than we understand through the lens of modern hindsight.

Yes, I fully agree that there's a lot to be concerned about - even outright lawlessness - and I think I have made that abundantly clear. I think there is and will be damage inflicted and crisis to be endured. But this whole "Trump has ended America" is just drama at this point, it hasn't actually happened. It's certainly possible that it gets to that point, but there are clearly apt analogies to these kinds of challenges in American history - many of which were even more intense. We had a freakin' Civil War for Pete's sake. But in the meantime, I think it's important to try to keep a fair score of what is actually happening.

Thank you for taking the time to write this. I need to know more history!

 

[Incumbent]

That's fair - and I get where Brandon is coming from too. All I am really saying is that our nation has a proven history of resiliency through some very challenging times and, in fact, some very shameful episodes. I think it can be easy to get caught up in rhetoric and visions of potential destruction. But we have tools to fight against abuses of power and I think we have to believe in them . . . that is believing in America.

I promise that I will join the call of this as a truly lost cause if that happens, but wow, that's quite an idea to me at this point. And I'm not trying to say that anyone has to agree with me - but I will defend this point of view. I continue to point out the bullshirt that is going on, on a daily basis, because we have stay vigilant and know what is happening. And it it gets time to take to the streets, I'll do it.

Understood and in no way am I questioning your intentions or concerns. Seriously, I crave reading anything hopeful. I even found a moment of solace during the press conference with Macron, that Trump managed to come across as affable in the few minutes I could watch. Of course it's meaningless and doesn't undo everything we know about him. Just a temporary relief like when the abuser isn't drunk and in a rage.

The dread is that we know what's coming with a clarity that is almost completely absent in knowing what can be done to stop him. I don't really see how tensions and desperation don't continue to intensify and finally overheat by summer. It's going to take either a resistance that grows within the GOP or some big wins for the opposition to head that off, I think. Neither of which seem likely at all.

 

[Incumbent]

I too am drawing some faint hope from Chuck’s writings. But I heard one more thing the other day, from Sarah Longwell. She has long-standing focus groups of Trump voters drawn from both the GOP and independents.

She said the groups are pretty much split down the middle on approval of what Trump is doing. There are the hard-core MAGA, who basically want everyone to suffer and are very happy.

But fully half of his voters are NOT happy at all. They are upset he is deporting non-criminals (I have zero idea where they got the idea that only criminals would be deported but it was evidently fairly widespread). But most importantly, they don’t see inflation easing - it has actually ticked up a bit. And they say Trump isn’t doing anything about it, correctly. They are not happy with the pro-Russia statements, the threats to Panama and Greenland and even Canada. They don’t want any of that.

With the types of budgets the GOP is proposing I’m guessing they will not be any happier. They HATE Musk and what he is doing - wielding chainsaws, celebrating people losing their jobs, etc.

The general consensus was that Trump had a historically short honeymoon and people are already reaching their limit with him and definitely Musk.

Which just fuels anger for those of us who have been opposed to him and warning of exactly what was going to happen - is now happening - if he was re-elected. They refused to believe it until now, when it might be too late.

 

[efil4]

There are the hard-core MAGA, who basically want everyone to suffer and are very happy.

those hard-core MAGA are the unsuccessful ones that wake up every single day, bitter and angry, because they amounted to much less than they felt they deserved for a myriad of reasons. Most of which are their own doing.

The rest are psychopaths.

 

[Bayouboy]

those hard-core MAGA are the unsuccessful ones that wake up every single day, bitter and angry, because they amounted to much less than they felt they deserved for a myriad of reasons. Most of which are their own doing.

The rest are psychopaths.

I disagree. I know a large number of well paid, well educated people that are all in MAGA. I just made a huge deal about the US voting with it's enemies (Russia and North Korea) at the UN and all but one still supported Trump on that decision. Trump will end the war was the excuse to piss on your friends (allies). I don't know how to make a deal, etc. Most normal, critical thinking individuals would say something like - "I voted for Trump and support him, but he made a mistake siding with the enemy at the UN". Nope. All in.

I was a 25 year Republican. I still hold Republican views. I despise Trump and all he stands for, but I'm not so blinded that I won't give him credit if he has a good idea or policy. Conversely, these MAGA members refuse to say a bad word about Trump no matter what. They are 100% behind him. No independent thinking. It's something that continues to defy my sensibilities and logic. I started the thread "How does Trump have so much support" a year or more ago. I'm still perplexed. It's like a trance. I still don't understand it.

 

[efil4]

I disagree. I know a large number of well paid, well educated people that are all in MAGA. I just made a huge deal about the US voting with it's enemies (Russia and North Korea) at the UN and all but one still supported Trump on that decision. Trump will end the war was the excuse to piss on your friends (allies). I don't know how to make a deal, etc. Most normal, critical thinking individuals would say something like - "I voted for Trump and support him, but he made a mistake siding with the enemy at the UN". Nope. All in.

I was a 25 year Republican. I still hold Republican views. I despise Trump and all he stands for, but I'm not so blinded that I won't give him credit if he has a good idea or policy. Conversely, these MAGA members refuse to say a bad word about Trump no matter what. They are 100% behind him. No independent thinking. It's something that continues to defy my sensibilities and logic. I started the thread "How does Trump have so much support" a year or more ago. I'm still perplexed. It's like a trance. I still don't understand it.

There are plenty of MAGAs that are successful....but the loudest ones are the ones with very little to lose.

Its the critical thinking part that gets me....they have ALL simply switched it off. I dont even know how to do that. In the face of looking like a fool, they double down ( as you pointed out ) and dig heels in. With zero care to what it makes them look like.

So i wonder if the "winning" feel trumps the "foolish" feel. Years ago, if you made someone look like a fool, they would be embarrassed. Now? They treat it like a badge of honor.

I dont understand how they accomplish this.

What i do suspect is when the cycle flips again, and it will, these folks will find themselves on the outside/fringe and simply adjust their thinking accordingly to fall in line so as not to appear foolish any longer. When that happens? not sure. But it will.

 

[MT15]

Speaking of the cycle flipping: when Dick Nixon speaks, it’s good to pay attention.

 

[bird]

I find a few things interesting.

The left has been chastised over so-called identity politics. All politics is identity politics because it derives and depends upon what groups people place themselves into including how agitprop and belief structures/constructs impact those selections. MAGA is clearly identity politics but has never been called so-by pundits or the media in general.

Thus we have seen the avoidance or dismissal of sociological and psychological inputs in determine and judging responses on the party level. Not all MAGA are poorly educated. But what is needed is the “why” and active planning to counteract the “why”.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Attorney General Pam Bondi ordered the Department of Justice (DOJ) this week to throw out lawsuits the Biden administration filed accusing police and fire departments around the country of discrimination when hiring candidates.

Bondi directed the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division on Wednesday to dismiss the federal civil rights lawsuits, arguing the prior administration “unjustly” went after fire and police departments for utilizing standard aptitude exams to comb through and help select their new employees.

“American communities deserve firefighters and police officers to be chosen for their skill and dedication to public safety – not to meet DEI quotas,” Bondi said in a statement, referring to diversity, equity and inclusion.

When former President Biden was in office, his DOJ filed lawsuits against several police and fire stations nationwide, looking to alter the written tests it said discriminated against Black applicants.

“Discriminatory employment tests do more than cost applicants a fair chance to compete for public service jobs like firefighting; they also prevent communities from being served in these crucial positions by the most qualified candidates for the job,” then-Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke said in October last year.

Biden’s administration settled with the Maryland State Police in October to alter the way applicants were tested for jobs following the DOJ’s claims the department utilized a written exam that discriminated against Black applicants and a fitness test that discriminated against female applicants.…….

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5167127-doj-dei-police-fire-lawsuits/