Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
22 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

 

Our leadership is made up of literally the stupidest people in the entire country.  Seriously, they are all so fucking goddamn dumb.  Imagine that instead of dealing with the DOD, DOJ, and other incredibly important executive branch functions, you were instead dealing with these people as CEOs of major businesses you had to deal with.  You have to work with Kegbreath as CEO of Defense Co., or Bondi as CEO of Legal Co.  You would hang up the phone from a call with those people, turn to your colleagues, and be all

wtf-david.gif

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
Our leadership is made up of literally the stupidest people in the entire country.  Seriously, they are all so fucking goddamn dumb.  Imagine that instead of dealing with the DOD, DOJ, and other incredibly important executive branch functions, you were instead dealing with these people as CEOs of major businesses you had to deal with.  You have to work with Kegbreath as CEO of Defense Co., or Bondi as CEO of Legal Co.  You would hang up the phone from a call with those people, turn to your colleagues, and be all
wtf-david.gif

I feel like we’re all in a car being driven by a Rottweiler. The road is straight and so far we’re all still alive, somehow. But at some point soon there will be a 90 degree turn, and the car is going to flip over and explode.
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Haha 1
Posted
17 minutes ago, Red Five said:


I feel like we’re all in a car being driven by a Rottweiler. The road is straight and so far we’re all still alive, somehow. But at some point soon there will be a 90 degree turn, and the car is going to flip over and explode.

John nailed this years ago

image.jpeg.c2f84a841162007a23fe59a572081b40.jpeg

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Haha 1
Posted
59 minutes ago, Captain Ron said:

I also thought this one was pretty "good":

 

I always love a defense of "have you seen us?  NOBODY would be stupid enough to listen to us."

  • Haha 1
Posted
25 minutes ago, Zonahorn said:


Just Bacon so far, we’ll see if more start joining the chorus 

Bacon has kind of been a lone voice of dissent.  I doubt any more jump on this.  Especially since this is just the "disaster of that day" and something else will be the top disaster tomorrow.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
6 hours ago, Macanudo said:

Bacon has kind of been a lone voice of dissent.  I doubt any more jump on this.  Especially since this is just the "disaster of that day" and something else will be the top disaster tomorrow.  

The Witkoff recording leak is drawing a large amount of attention, especially given that Rubio and others would probably like to see him fall.  A lot of attention, and none of it good. Trump is trying to distract/delay/whatever by sending him off to Moscow, but that was the wrong thing to do.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
14 hours ago, Zonahorn said:


Just Bacon so far, we’ll see if more start joining the chorus 

“Just bacon so far” is also the answer to “what did you eat for breakfast”

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, gernblansten said:

“Just bacon so far” is also the answer to “what did you eat for breakfast”

image.gif.1133512de43dda71435bc9fab300efa1.gif

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted

Wow Don Bacon, so brave to stand up for Ukraine when it's Witkoff, some interchangeable lackey, unknown to most Americans. Where were you when the doofuses in charge were dressing down Zelenskyy in the White House on live television?

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

This is kind of a lawdog thing, but justsecurity has compiled a listing of bullshit stunts the DOJ has pulled in federal courts, lies, dissembling, changing stories.

https://www.justsecurity.org/120547/presumption-regularity-trump-administration-litigation/#_Toc214438844

Let's put it this way.  Imagine that the DOJ is one of the nation's largest law firms (spoiler: it actually is that thing).

For my entire life, it's been a very well-regarded and respected law firm.  DOJ lawyers by and large knew their shit, and did good, skillful work.  In the case of several divisions (e.g., antitrust), if one of your law school peers got a job there, you were as impressed as if they'd gotten hired on at one of the most prestigious private firms.  And the DOJ's credibility wasn't in question.  Yes, of course there were always individual lawyers here and there who weren't super great, and some that even may have played fast and loose with the truth, but they were outliers.

Now?  That same law firm?  It's name is mud.  If you're a judge or opposing party, you need to assume that the DOJ team is potentially incompetent (depends on whether this is a low-level garden variety case, staffed by holdover career DOJ people -- in that case, you may be ok) and potentially dishonest.  That is, when the DOJ is on the pleadings, you cannot assume they they will follow the obligation of candor to the tribunal.

It's actually fucking amazing to see an institution so completely wrecked so quickly.  If I was in a hotly contested matter with the DOJ on the other side, and there was any issue on which the court should otherwise treat their representations as truthful, I would have a duty to remind the court that this entity has demonstrated that it does not respect the duty of candor, and has demonstrated so consistently.  No representation they make should be trusted unless verified.

To a similar extent (although I have yet to see the lack of candor issue in any dramatic way), the same thing has happened with the Office of the Attorney General in Texas.  At least the drumming out of competent people and replacing them with loyalists and true-believers in several divisions.  Again, used to be one of the better, respected "law firms" around.  And that reputation has taken a beating.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Posted

Brisket is right about the DOJ/US Attorney - he arguably underplays the fall from grace for those organizations. 

In my lifetime it's not going to get back to that level. 

"Main Justice" use to be a term of art that was infused with awe and respect.  Now when I hear that term I think "goat rodeo".

(Emily Bazelon did a recent piece in the NYT about this - I'm blocked but heard a couple of podcasts that have mentioned it.)

Chaos at the Justice Department - The New York Times

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted

The irony of the firings at the DOJ is that an experienced prosecutors who doesn't even like the cases he is asked to investigate/try would likely be more effective than a less skilled attorney who is passionate about his cases.

Those guys could have been put to work during this administration filing civil rights cases against Ivy League schools for not protecting Jewish students and discriminating against white students.

 

Posted
10 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

"Main Justice" use to be a term of art that was infused with awe and respect.  Now when I hear that term I think "goat rodeo".

Yep.  Worked a case with DOJ as co-plaintiff 25 years ago (was one of the largest environmental cases in US history, till the BP blowout came along).  Some of the most important work I've ever done, we did a damned good job.  And my peers at DOJ had resumes that involved things like having clerked at the DC Circuit court of appeals.  Now, some of them were super-heady and academic, and didn't get the real nitty-gritty of trial work (had a judge give us some evidentiary rulings and he made it clear how he was going to go, I came back to the office and said "okay, he wants both parties to stipulate to all of these objections being overruled, because this is a bench trial."  Colleague whined "but they don't follow the rules of evidence!"  As I explained "those rules are what the judge says they are, and he says he doesn't give a damn here."  Fortunately, the phone rang a couple minutes later, and it was opposing counsel saying "okay...so the judge wants us to waive everything - what do you say?").  But still, super smart and very competent.

Nowadays?  Those people have been run off, and no new competent folks are being hired.

Posted
41 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

If I was in a hotly contested matter with the DOJ on the other side, and there was any issue on which the court should otherwise treat their representations as truthful, I would have a duty to remind the court that this entity has demonstrated that it does not respect the duty of candor, and has demonstrated so consistently.  No representation they make should be trusted unless verified.

Brisket, esq. v. DOJ:

My Cousin Vinny GIFs | Tenor

Posted
1 minute ago, Redneck Mutha said:

Brisket, esq. v. DOJ:

My Cousin Vinny GIFs | Tenor

I have slightly better suits.

But I have used the term "whiskey tango foxtrot" in federal court.  I knew the judge, so I wasn't getting too far over my skis.  It got a chuckle.



×
×
  • Create New...