Trump declares himself the "chief law enforcement officer of the United States"

[Howard Is]

Checks and balances are so....archaic.


These are the days of lasers in the jungle
Lasers in the jungle somewhere
Staccato signals of constant information
A loose affiliation of millionaires
And billionaires and baby
These are the days of miracle and wonder

- Paul Simon

 

[Stanyon]

Out-of-Control Trump Declares Himself 'Chief Law ...
https://crooksandliars.com/2020/02/trump-declares-himself-chief-law
2 hours ago · Out-of-Control Trump Declares Himself 'Chief Law Enforcement' Officer Donald Trump is now completely out of control, declaring himself not just above the law, but the law itself. Feb 18, 2020

There's the hysterics

 

[Father Heathen]

But.. but... republicans!
We are talking the here and now, let's deal with that instead of speaking deflections and hysterics.

Trumps claim is technically correct.

I wasn't even talking about Trump's claim. @dianaiad brought up partisan reactions, and that was what I was addressing.
And when it comes to whataboutism, you are the last person who should be finger-wagging.

 

[Stanyon]

when it comes to whataboutism, you are the last person who should be finger-wagging.

What an ironic sentence

 

[Father Heathen]

What an ironic sentence

 

[sun rise]

TRUMP's OWN WEB SITE says

The Attorney General is the head of the DOJ and chief law enforcement officer of the federal government.

The Executive Branch | The White House

But of course his minions don't care.

 

[sun rise]

The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government.

About the Office

 

[Stanyon]

TRUMP's OWN WEB SITE says

The Attorney General is the head of the DOJ and chief law enforcement officer of the federal government.

The Executive Branch | The White House

But of course his minions don't care.

And who does the AG report to?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Trump declares himself the 'chief law enforcement officer of the United States' and admits he makes AG Barr's job harder

Well, is he? Can he be? Are last norms that make you a democratic republic being torn down so that you can become something the Constitution and its framers never, ever contemplated?

When is America going to actually LOOK AT THIS MAN? When it's too late? Well, maybe -- it's happened before, and history does tell us a lot about who we are, doesn't it?

Well he is the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces. Technically he's correct.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Trump declares himself the 'chief law enforcement officer of the United States' and admits he makes AG Barr's job harder

Well, is he? Can he be? Are last norms that make you a democratic republic being torn down so that you can become something the Constitution and its framers never, ever contemplated?

When is America going to actually LOOK AT THIS MAN? When it's too late? Well, maybe -- it's happened before, and history does tell us a lot about who we are, doesn't it?

I'll worry about that if he starts wearing a cowboy hat, six shooters, and a badge.

 

[sun rise]

And who does the AG report to?

That has nothing to do with his role which is defined by statute and tradition.

Someone can be CFO for example and report to a CEO but the CEO is not the CFO (usually).

At one point during my working career I was a manager of a group. My boss was not the manager of the group even though I reported to her.

Or is Trump somehow so special that the rules that apply to everyone else don't apply to him?

 

[Stevicus]

Trumps claim is technically correct.

Yes, this is true. As Chief Executive, the President is ultimately in charge of all functions within the Executive Branch. Of course, it doesn't mean he goes on out stakeouts or makes arrests, but then, neither does the Attorney General.

 

[Revoltingest]

Dang.....I should never have opened this thread.
A whole lotta strained argue'n about a nuthin technicality.

 

[Stevicus]

Regarding the notion of the president being a law enforcement officer, I was just recalling this famous speech by President Bush when he held up a bag of crack cocaine on national TV (about 1:40 into the video).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/tours/scandal/bushdrug.htm

Now, if the President can order the DEA to set up a drug buy across the street from the White House, as well as order them to give him the bag of crack so he can hold it up on live TV, then I guess the President must hold some authority over the Federal law enforcement apparatus.

Technically, the President would also be the Chief Forest Ranger for the country, so any bears going after any pick-a-nick baskets are in serious trouble when Ranger Trump catches up with them.

 

[dianaiad]

Trump campaigned on "draining the swamp" and getting rid of corruption in Washington. The truth and the facts suggest otherwise. It appears the Trump administration is the most corrupt government this country has ever had:

"Recent administrations with the MOST criminal indictments:

Trump (Republican) — 215

Nixon (Republican) — 76

Reagan (Republican) — 26

"Recent administrations with the LEAST criminal indictments:

Obama (Democrat) — 0

Carter (Democrat) — 1

Clinton (Democrat) — 2"

Trump is the swamp! He is a lawless mafiosi!

Uhmn....don't look now, but, er...if one is going to go after corruption, one actually makes arrests and GOES AFTER IT.

(grin) corrupt government officials don't get indicted. You have things upside down, just a wee bit. In a corrupt society, with someone determined to clean up, you will get the corrupt indicted, and the corrupt striking back and attempting (and some times succeeding) in indicting the good guys. Its a battle, it's dirty, And it's pretty obvious, according to your list, that Obama, Carter and Clinton didn't even TRY to 'drain the swamp" THEY were perfectly content to sing on mucky logs along with the rest of the toads.

 

[SkepticThinker]

But.. but... republicans!
We are talking the here and now, let's deal with that instead of speaking deflections and hysterics.

Trumps claim is technically correct.

Maybe tell that to the poster that immediately deflected to Obama. Rather than the person responding to that whataboutism.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Uhmn....don't look now, but, er...if one is going to go after corruption, one actually makes arrests and GOES AFTER IT.

(grin) corrupt government officials don't get indicted. You have things upside down, just a wee bit. In a corrupt society, with someone determined to clean up, you will get the corrupt indicted, and the corrupt striking back and attempting (and some times succeeding) in indicting the good guys. Its a battle, it's dirty, And it's pretty obvious, according to your list, that Obama, Carter and Clinton didn't even TRY to 'drain the swamp" THEY were perfectly content to sing on mucky logs along with the rest of the toads.

You think all those people were indicted because Trump was draining the swamp?

Now that is hilarious.
I guess he had to fill the swamp with crooks before he could drain it, right?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Dang.....I should never have opened this thread.
A whole lotta strained argue'n about a nuthin technicality.

Well, up here in Canuckistan, we too have an Attorney General. Since confederation, the role has been held by the person who is also the Minister of Justice. We have a tradition (lately breached by a very bad scandal under PM Justin Trudeau) in which the politicians -- including the PM -- are hands off the Attorney General.

The Minister of Justice is concerned with questions of policy and their relationship to the justice system. In their role as attorney general, they are the chief law officer of the Crown. I had always understood that in the matter of prosecutions, this was how the US also traditionally operated -- that in the matter of prosecutions, it was political "hands-off." Sure the President can issue pardons and commute sentences, but if the President simply decided who would be prosecuted, and how much time would be sought, there'd be no need for those separate powers, would there?

Maybe it doesn't mean anything to Americans, this fooling about with accepted norms and understandings, but in my view, these are the kinds of things that make our western civilizations possible.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, up here in Canuckistan, we too have an Attorney General. Since confederation, the role has been held by the person who is also the Minister of Justice. We have a tradition (lately breached by a very bad scandal under PM Justin Trudeau) in which the politicians -- including the PM -- are hands off the Attorney General.

The Minister of Justice is concerned with questions of policy and their relationship to the justice system. In their role as attorney general, they are the chief law officer of the Crown. I had always understood that in the matter of prosecutions, this was how the US also traditionally operated -- that in the matter of prosecutions, it was political "hands-off." Sure the President can issue pardons and commute sentences, but if the President simply decided who would be prosecuted, and how much time would be sought, there'd be no need for those separate powers, would there?

Maybe it doesn't mean anything to Americans, this fooling about with accepted norms and understandings, but in my view, these are the kinds of things that make our western civilizations possible.

We must discern between insignificant rhetoric & reality.
People are frightening themselves by imagining how
terminology can portend worst case scenarios.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

We must discern between insignificant rhetoric & reality.
People are frightening themselves by imagining how
terminology can portend worst case scenarios.

It's a wise man who knows that the more power that you give anyone, the more necessary it is that you manage their use of it.