Fire every federal bureaucrat/employee caught undermining the administration.

[martybegan]

It depends why they're going after carbon, and why they're regulating pesticides.

If going after carbon is based on a ratified international treaty, and regulating pesticides has a lesser foundation, then the person at the EPA is bound by the constitution.

Was said treaty ever voted on and approved by the US Senate?

If not, it's not in effect in the US.

 

[postman]

They banned people by country, not religion.

Not Trump's fault that the countries with terrorist issues are mostly Muslim countries.

Was India on the list? India has a large Muslim population.

No, they banned people by predominant religion of their country of origin.

Which is why they were ruled unconstitutional.

 

[Marener]

It's a question that's pointless. People decide on their own about it.

Who should really decide is the judicial system, but that's been co-opted by the left as shown by the sham Trump Prosecutions.

All that work to get no sentences, and get him re-elected.

But you get to call him President Convicted Felon, so enjoy that meaningless "victory"

It’s not at all pointless. If a prosecutor is instructed to engage in political activity, we should all want them to refuse to do so. You say the judicial system should decide, but you immediately have to walk that back too because you don’t like the outcome of the judicial system.

 

[martybegan]

No, they banned people by predominant religion of their country of origin.

Which is why they were ruled unconstitutional.

No, they placed restrictions on certain countries with terrorist issues.

Was the word Muslim in any part of the order?

 

[Foxfyre]

It’s quite hard to define political. I don’t doubt it.

If Trump said that the DoJ should prosecute Hillary Clinton, is that political? Should they obey?

If Trump said the DOJ should prosecute Hillary Clinton, that is expressing a personal opinion and nothing more.

If Trump ordered the DOJ to investigate Hillary Clinton to find something to use against her for any reason, that would be political. And it would be political malfeasance,

Political in this context is anything that affects the policy, actions, theory, strategy, perceptions of government.

 

[martybegan]

It’s not at all pointless. If a prosecutor is instructed to engage in political activity, we should all want them to refuse to do so. You say the judicial system should decide, but you immediately have to walk that back too because you don’t like the outcome of the judicial system.

This is all because the left is corrupting and abusing the legal system.

You can't complain that the issue is complicated when the abusers are the ones complicating it.

 

[postman]

Depends on what they prosecute her for, and if they stretched the law to do so like they did to Trump in NY.

Get back to me when she's indicted.

Didn't Trump in 2016 say that he would appoint a special prosecutor to put Hillary Clinton in jail?

Isn't that political?

 

[Marener]

If Trump said the DOJ should prosecute Hillary Clinton, that is expressing a personal opinion and nothing more.

If Trump ordered the DOJ to investigate Hillary Clinton to find something to use against her for any reason that would be political. And it would be political malfeasance,

Political in this context is anything that affects the policy, actions, theory, strategy, perceptions of government.

There’s a lot of middle ground here.

Say Trump ordered the DoJ to prosecute Clinton for mishandling classified documents. Should they, even if they think it’s not a good case?

 

[postman]

There is zero reason to think people who happen to be born with black skin are automatically incapable of doing anything a white person can do.

What about 400 years of American history?

 

[martybegan]

Didn't Trump in 2016 say that he would appoint a special prosecutor to put Hillary Clinton in jail?

Isn't that political?

Did he actually go through with it?

Yes or no.

Again, get back to me when she is indicted.

 

[postman]

But you get to call him President Convicted Felon, so enjoy that meaningless "victory"

It also means the people in the middle of 5th avenue are now safe.

 

[MisterBeale]

Should a civil servant refuse a directive that is clearly political in nature?

ALL directives are political.

This is why the nation votes for who it would like to be calling the shots.


Technocrats? Honestly do not believe all decisions are.
They would do away with the constitution in a heart beat.




But I can tell you for sure, I would rather have American bureaucrats calling the shots than members of the CCP.


Who controls the directives of the bureaucracy, controls the national policy.

 

[martybegan]

It also means the people in the middle of 5th avenue are now safe.

What dumb lefty trope are you referencing here?

 

[postman]

If going after carbon is based on a ratified international treaty, and regulating pesticides has a lesser foundation, then the person at the EPA is bound by the constitution.

Was said treaty ever voted on and approved by the US Senate?

That's the definition of a ratified treaty.

 

[Foxfyre]

As the Constitutional Head of the Executive Branch President Trump will be able direct K$H Patel and Ms Pam Bondi to prosecute to the max

To a certain extent. But constitutionally he cannot order them to violate the constitutional, legal, unalienable rights of anybody as the current administration does. The President certainly has the right to call for an investigation of anybody within his jurisdiction when there is obvious evidence of a serious crime.

Certainly federal employees/appointees undermining the legal authority and orders of the President or his agents would classify as a serious crime.

 

[martybegan]

That's the definition of a ratified treaty.

Was the Kyoto treaty ever ratified by the Senate?

What about the Paris Accords?

Those are the carbon treaties you were probably talking about.

Let me make it easier for you, they never were ratified.

 

[westwall]

Didn't Trump in 2016 say that he would appoint a special prosecutor to put Hillary Clinton in jail?

Isn't that political?

No, I don’t think he did. Regardless, he DIDN'T do anything to her.

 

[postman]

No, they placed restrictions on certain countries with terrorist issues.

That was Trump "muslim ban" take THREE.

 

[martybegan]

That was Trump "muslim ban" take THREE.

In his order did he ever use the word "Muslim"

You calling it that doesn't make it that.

The ban was about COUNTRIES, not religion.

 

[MisterBeale]

There’s a lot of middle ground here.

Say Trump ordered the DoJ to prosecute Clinton for mishandling classified documents. Should they, even if they think it’s not a good case?

Of course. This is why the system is breaking down.



Why? Because the folks that actually RUN the bureaucracy are as political or more so, than the populists and their politicians.



So stunning that legal cases against politicians friendly to the intel community and the bureaucracy, those cases are not, "good cases."

And yet? When the shoe is on the other foot, the bureaucracy has no trouble trying to make, "good cases," against the folks that the people voted for.