Indeed! Thanks to you and all the dedicated people who have been serving our country and the Constitution through difficult times, which have unfortunately now turned to desperate times. I have been hoping against hope that many would try to stay on and do what they can to hold the line against this coup from the inside.
It’s always going to be tricky business trying to defend someone like Trump. I pray that those who stay can hold the line of sanity over this terrible man. Thank you for your service to our country.
Stalin had his loyalist attack dog prosecutor in Andrei Vyshinsky, Hitler had his in Roland Freisler, and Trump has his in Pam Bondi. None of them with a real motivation in rule of law. But Stalin and Hitler had no "virtuous deep state" to provide pushback. Let us hope that is our saving grace from descending into cynical show trials. We need righteous resistance from within what is left of our democracy. Thank you, honest people of the legal establishment!
And if these lawyers are in fact fired or otherwise leave DOJ. I hope many of them will continue working on behalf of the Constitution via organizations suing the Trump administration. The public will be lucky to have these highly skilled lawyers working for us outside of government!
Thank you for serving the constitution of the United States, and thank you for speaking out. I'd add that while Trump's actions are ironic in that they are creating a deep state, that it is also not ironic because that was always his intent. He and Republicans have baselessly harped about a purported deep state for decades in order to create a truthless fact to justify tearing apart agencies and departments. The agencies and departments were formed and funded for specific purposes that congress wanted to address to make the lives of ordinary citizens better. They are staffed with civil servants so that their missions are not political. If you get rid of them and staff only with political hacks you have lost all the expertise and of course you've created that deep state you've been saying you wanted to get rid of. That which is being defunded, destroyed and corrupted today is what Congress voted on and formed in response to the needs of their citizens..the electorate. Waving around this factoid of some evil cabal "deep state" made up of civil servents is the fact free rationale Republicans have used to destroy the federal government. Their real reason is lowering already ridiculously low corporatate and billionaire taxes while keep most citizens so poor, so uneducated and so poorly informed that they've became subject to whatever lies republicans could get them to swallow. When you gerrymander states so badly that their most needy citizens barely have a vote, you are effectively the deep state. So too when you put the least qualified, most corupt in charge of the shells of the agencies you've just gutted.
Thank you Ms Blain. I sure hope our Constitution can hold up to all this pulling and pushing. I do hope the Supreme Court justices will not cave when cases get to them and they up hold the law vs party.
This article did a lot to answer my concerns about lawyers not doing their job when supporting an administration's questionable policy's. I can think of one close analogy that I was involved in. I worked for a company as a Master Plumber in charge of a large commercial/residential project. The owner, finding the company was not going to make enough profit, called for us to take various shortcuts in materials and processes in violation of our contract. I refused and was threatened with losing my job if I didn't follow their instructions. A pretty common scenario for many. What I had to do (rather than simply quit or be fired) was help come up with an alternate solution. My position AND my education/background allowed me this opportunity.
In your example of Bondi at Justice, I feel it is critical that those under her actually say "no." She may be the boss, but nowhere do I read she can arbitrarily change policy OR the law no matter her appointment. I suppose she could fire everyone in the Justice department who disagrees with her, but seriously, that won't happen. If the Trump administration feels a policy or practice is illegal, don't the lawyer's involved have an obligation to determine exactly the "illegal" part and present a clear case that will effect change? Or is that not their job?
Thank you Ms. Blain for serving our country at DOJ and now through this editorial. May justice prevail.
Indeed! Thanks to you and all the dedicated people who have been serving our country and the Constitution through difficult times, which have unfortunately now turned to desperate times. I have been hoping against hope that many would try to stay on and do what they can to hold the line against this coup from the inside.
It’s always going to be tricky business trying to defend someone like Trump. I pray that those who stay can hold the line of sanity over this terrible man. Thank you for your service to our country.
Stalin had his loyalist attack dog prosecutor in Andrei Vyshinsky, Hitler had his in Roland Freisler, and Trump has his in Pam Bondi. None of them with a real motivation in rule of law. But Stalin and Hitler had no "virtuous deep state" to provide pushback. Let us hope that is our saving grace from descending into cynical show trials. We need righteous resistance from within what is left of our democracy. Thank you, honest people of the legal establishment!
One can only hope that Trump shares the fate of Freisler—and soon.
And if these lawyers are in fact fired or otherwise leave DOJ. I hope many of them will continue working on behalf of the Constitution via organizations suing the Trump administration. The public will be lucky to have these highly skilled lawyers working for us outside of government!
I hadn't thought of this...Trump is creating enemies exponentially. Thank you for this article.
The American Bar Association needs to step up and put Trump’s minion-lawyers on notice that they maybe disbarred if they violate the Constitution
Thank you for serving the constitution of the United States, and thank you for speaking out. I'd add that while Trump's actions are ironic in that they are creating a deep state, that it is also not ironic because that was always his intent. He and Republicans have baselessly harped about a purported deep state for decades in order to create a truthless fact to justify tearing apart agencies and departments. The agencies and departments were formed and funded for specific purposes that congress wanted to address to make the lives of ordinary citizens better. They are staffed with civil servants so that their missions are not political. If you get rid of them and staff only with political hacks you have lost all the expertise and of course you've created that deep state you've been saying you wanted to get rid of. That which is being defunded, destroyed and corrupted today is what Congress voted on and formed in response to the needs of their citizens..the electorate. Waving around this factoid of some evil cabal "deep state" made up of civil servents is the fact free rationale Republicans have used to destroy the federal government. Their real reason is lowering already ridiculously low corporatate and billionaire taxes while keep most citizens so poor, so uneducated and so poorly informed that they've became subject to whatever lies republicans could get them to swallow. When you gerrymander states so badly that their most needy citizens barely have a vote, you are effectively the deep state. So too when you put the least qualified, most corupt in charge of the shells of the agencies you've just gutted.
Thank you Ms Blain. I sure hope our Constitution can hold up to all this pulling and pushing. I do hope the Supreme Court justices will not cave when cases get to them and they up hold the law vs party.
This post should get wide distribution. Send to NYT, Post, everywhere
I am proud that you serve within our DOJ!
This article did a lot to answer my concerns about lawyers not doing their job when supporting an administration's questionable policy's. I can think of one close analogy that I was involved in. I worked for a company as a Master Plumber in charge of a large commercial/residential project. The owner, finding the company was not going to make enough profit, called for us to take various shortcuts in materials and processes in violation of our contract. I refused and was threatened with losing my job if I didn't follow their instructions. A pretty common scenario for many. What I had to do (rather than simply quit or be fired) was help come up with an alternate solution. My position AND my education/background allowed me this opportunity.
In your example of Bondi at Justice, I feel it is critical that those under her actually say "no." She may be the boss, but nowhere do I read she can arbitrarily change policy OR the law no matter her appointment. I suppose she could fire everyone in the Justice department who disagrees with her, but seriously, that won't happen. If the Trump administration feels a policy or practice is illegal, don't the lawyer's involved have an obligation to determine exactly the "illegal" part and present a clear case that will effect change? Or is that not their job?
Thanks for this. I feel better already.