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.
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.
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.