Not that I’m somehow above schadenfreude - I’m definitely not - but conservatives really morphed into caricatures of themselves by prioritizing “own the libs” above all. It does seem less than ideal to meet them there.

Always one guy who has to bring the reasonable and ruin my happy thoughts.

This is just fantasizing. No one is seriously suggesting that HRC should be AG.

Hilary in any position on Biden's team is a mistake. Hilary as AG is worse than Trump selecting Barr

Again, no one is seriously suggesting that HRC should be in Biden's cabinet.

I’m kinda surprised there are so many Biden supporters on two plus two ... I glanced over some posts I’m seeing a lot of “ prosecution of trump” posts . What exactly are they going to prosecute against . I also like how these post always glaze over all the proven and sworn affidavits of voter fraud ( like it’s not his duty as an American president to go after this) as if joe Biden is even president elect yet ( he is factually not) . Trump should do everything in his power to over turn an election called by the media and only won in swing states with absolute constitutional violations state and federal.

dance troll... dance for Trump

OK, I'll bite.

Please prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the proven and sworn affidavits that show wide spread fraud...are enough (remotely close will work in this instance!) to overturn the election result that Biden won by the same landslide that Trump won by in 2016. Specifically.... fraud proven in a court of law.

Cite or ban.

cool, cool

But Steve Scalise!!!

Lol

To be fair, when Barr was selected, were most people aware that Trump had nominated someone that would become one of the defining archvillains of the administration?

Because I assumed he would be bad, but I didn't realize that he would make Jeff ****ing Sessions look like an honorable AG by comparison.

No. I think a lot of people were relieved when Trump nominated Barr. He was perceived as a competent GOP insider.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...civil-war.html

This is so ****ed up.

I cannot believe one orange tin-foil hat wearing lunatic is successfully selling his conspiracy theory (and make no mistake, there is only one source for all this - him and him alone, no evidence otherwise) to so many people.

The Texas AG, who recently had most of his right wing executive staff resign and file a criminal complaint against him for allegedly leaking grand jury info to a real estate developer all while being under indictment for like 4 years, has filed a lawsuit asking SCOTUS to rule that a bunch of blue states conducted their elections illegally and invalidate the election. So that’s normal and all.

The fun part, for us legal nerds, is that Donald J’s personal lawyer has filed an amicus in support. Except, the doc info for the amicus shows it was written by the same guy who wrote the Texas AG suit in the first place. So the guy who wrote the original suit, then wrote a brief saying how awesome and great his original suit is, then gave it to Team Trump to file under their name. Just amazing stuff and such winning.

Also Sidney the Kraken got called out for making up a quote out of whole cloth in one of her filings.

Over 250 million raised for these people to confirm the worst stereotypes about lawyers and get curbstomped across the country.

Re: politicization at a state level of AGs.

I never got why the fed AG was supposed to be this impartial arbiter of justice type, and then most state offices are elected and nakedly partisan. Paxton is the worst example, but I’m sure R-types are just as furious over Leticia James and her press conferences declaring she’s going to take down Trump. The whole concept of elected state lawyers is highly flawed.

The Texas SG office is probably one of FedSocs greatest achievements. It’s only existed for 20 years. Cornyn basically created it to have taxpayers fund high profile litigation to build the resumes of FedSoc chosen ones by suing the Feds. I think at least a dozen federal judges have come out of that since then, not to mention Ted Cruz. And it’s a huge old boys club, all these guys came up together, hang out with each other, rub each other’s backs as they rise up the ranks. Extremely effective tactics, imo.

It was known Barr was a party loyalist who would stretch credulity to defend 'his side' but I do not think many thought he would outright lie (as he was caught doing to Congress) and break laws as it served him to do.

What Barr has proven to be is a guy who thinks no law applies to him (those) when there is no mechanism to enforce them, versus them. He truly believes in an office being above the law and in fact his writings have spoken to that in the past.

His expansionist view of the office of the POTUS boils down to basically 'If the POTUS does it or directs it, it is thereby lawfully because the POTUS is the law!'

And this is where Democrats always prove so weak.

Flip this and the GOP would be going after the law licenses of each of these AG's via filings to the various Bars. If Clinton can have his license suspended over a BJ, then this too should cost some licenses.

But Dem's rarely pursue punishment. Lots of hand wringing over 'how dare they' but so rare to see them pursue actual consequences. And the perfect example of proof of that is the one I mentioned in my prior post. Bill Barr, called into the Congress to testify about Mueller and he trips up and exposes he flat out lied to Congress in prior testimony. BOOM, you got him.

What could be a more serious breach of the law 'you cannot lie to Congress' then the Chief Law Enforcement Officer blatantly lying to Congress. If anything needs to be punished to protect the sanctity of the law it is that and yet crickets. Hardly even any hand wringing. Just move on, not much to see here.

But that is how Dems typically fight, sadly.

There are so many reasons this case will not be heard by the SC.

Chief among them is that this suit does not seek to get thrown any of the congressional results in those same States where Republican's won.

Thus the absurdity of the claim is that the processes accepted by these States to administer their elections were so bad and damaging that the POTUS results must be wiped up and undone but they were fine for determination of Congress, as long as we won.

These type of discrepancy are ones the SC focuses right in on and undermine any case.

I, for one, was pretty sure that he was installed to do Trump's bidding, not to be some independent agent of justice. His work to squash the Iran-Contra investigation was a foreshadowing of his role in the Trump admin: squashing the Mueller investigation.

Yeah, this was my view as well. I believed (and continue to believe) that he is a competent GOP insider, but my heuristic was that the more bites at the apple Trump got the worse his appointments became.

Not that I don't agree but would you say there has ever been an AG nominated by a POTUS where they are not seen at the time of nomination 'as someone who will do the POTUS bidding', when times of need arise?

I fully expected him to do everything within the bounds of the law (and even stretching those bounds where he could equivocate) but not to out right become complicit in law breaking and break the law directly to those ends.

The best example I would offer is that I think Georgia Governor, Brian Kemp would have stretched and distorted any law or Norm if he saw a path to give Trump his States electoral votes, but he drew the line when no such rationalization existed to 'just do it anyway' in defiance of the law and Constitution. It was bridge too far for him and one he would not cross.

Barr showed no such restraint. And when Brian Kemp sets moral thresholds he will not cross to win an election and they are higher than ones Barr would, that is a huge issue.