I'm still upset they even remotely considered denying rape allegations and mocking the victim acting within the scope of his office and employment as POTUS...
this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
40 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
19 readers
1 users here now
@politics on kbin.social is a magazine to share and discuss current events news, opinion/analysis, videos, or other informative content related to politicians, politics, or policy-making at all levels of governance (federal, state, local), both domestic and international. Members of all political perspectives are welcome here, though we run a tight ship. Community guidelines and submission rules were co-created between the Mod Team and early members of @politics. Please read all community guidelines and submission rules carefully before engaging our magazine.
founded 2 years ago
Take solace in the fact that bureaucracy is a hindrance to morality. An individual employee of the US DOJ could be completely mortified by the idea of supporting Trump, but the bureaucratic handcuffs on that employee force him/her to run it past legal before making a decision. And legal's concerns are wider than just whether they will protect this one man. That one man happened to be president, through some unfortunate and wildly incomprehensible series of events. So their question is whether they will defend a president from some allegations of misconduct that had a tenuous connection with his presidency.
And while every normal person within that select group would be morally outraged by the idea of supporting a president in this instance, they would have to defer to their colleagues because the question is broader than one president. It's a matter of whether their organization will support any president given these circumstances. And because the question is necessarily broadened, it would require consensus, which requires time.
So once again, bureaucracy hinders common sense. But, ultimately, they made the right decision. Unfortunately, because of the red tape, it was sufficiently delayed that they defended the scumbag for a period of time. But now they're not, and that's good news.
Hermes Conrad would be proud.
More like weaponized bureaucracy imho... but I hope/wish it went down the way you suggested...
Yeah, I'm not going to say that there are no Trumpers in the DoJ. Republicunts are drawn to law enforcement, after all. But Trump went out of his way to go after several branches and employees of the DoJ both during, and after his presidency. So I'd imagine his support there would be thinner than otherwise suspected.
Yes and he attacked the CIA many times, the FBI directly, the military - what - a hundred times? And they all still have large vocal supporters or at least pitifully few examples of anyone working against him.
They either can't tie their shoes for being useless or there's some serious bullshit afoot.
This was immediately paywalled for me with a request for free registration.
Here you go. Pro tip: you can bypass any article paywall by archiving the page. Just copy the article's url, and paste it into a site like archive.li.
I appreciate that, but that should be the OP link, y'know?
I've considered suggesting that paywalled links shouldn't be permitted (I'm one of the new mods). I wonder whether others would generally agree.
Preaching to the choir.
Thank you so much!
I see. Thanks for pointing it out. The Daily Beast has never asked me for a sign up or anything so I posted. I'll copy all the article text into the post body from now on.