
In a landscape marked by political turbulence and uncertainty, the recent revelations about the firings of U.S. attorneys during the Trump administration serve as a stark reminder of how deeply politics can infiltrate our justice system.
The New York Times’ recent article sheds light on the systemic issues that arose during that period, illustrating how the independence of the judiciary can be compromised in the pursuit of political agendas.
This piece seeks to underscore the implications of these firings, the importance of maintaining the integrity of our legal institutions, and the need for a vigilant citizenry to safeguard democracy.
The firings of U.S. attorneys are not merely administrative decisions; they have profound ramifications for the rule of law. These prosecutors are tasked with upholding justice, and their independence is essential for the fair application of laws. When political pressures dictate who stays and who goes in such pivotal roles, it sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to the erosion of trust in our legal system.
The Times highlights how these dismissals were often tied to investigations that might have posed a threat to the administration’s interests. This is not just a historical footnote; it is a call to action for Americans to reflect on the sanctity of our judicial processes.
One of the most troubling aspects of the reported firings is the chilling effect they have on the rule of law itself. Prosecutors may think twice before pursuing cases that could be politically sensitive, fearing they could become targets for dismissal if they step out of line. This creates a culture of fear and compliance, undermining the very principles that our justice system is built upon. The independence of prosecutors is a cornerstone of democracy, ensuring that laws are applied without favoritism or bias. When that independence is compromised, the very fabric of our democracy is threatened.
Furthermore, the firings highlight a broader trend of political interference in the justice system that has grown over the past few decades. The notion of the “unitary executive,” which posits that the president has complete control over the executive branch, has been increasingly invoked to justify actions that would typically raise alarms regarding separation of powers. This ideology poses a direct threat to the checks and balances that are essential for a functioning democracy. The consequences are far-reaching; when political motivations overshadow judicial responsibilities, the American public is left vulnerable to injustices that can arise from partisan agendas.
The implications of these actions extend beyond the immediate impact on the fired attorneys. The article emphasizes the need for systemic reforms to safeguard the independence of the judiciary and U.S. attorneys. This includes establishing clearer guidelines and protections to ensure that political motivations do not dictate personnel decisions within the Department of Justice. Additionally, Congress must take an active role in reinforcing the principles of accountability and transparency, ensuring that such firings cannot occur without rigorous oversight.
In an era where misinformation and political polarization reign, it is crucial for citizens to remain engaged and informed about the health of our democracy. The actions taken by the Trump administration serve as a cautionary tale of what can happen when power is unchecked. It is incumbent upon all of us to advocate for reforms that will protect the integrity of our judicial system, ensuring that it remains a bastion of justice rather than a tool for political gain.
Moreover, public awareness and advocacy for judicial independence must become a priority. Organizations that promote civic education and engagement can play a crucial role in empowering citizens to demand accountability from their elected officials. When the electorate is informed and active, it becomes much harder for politicians to manipulate systems for their own ends.
The firings of U.S. attorneys during the Trump administration highlight a critical juncture in American democracy. As we reflect on these events, it is essential to recognize the importance of protecting our judicial institutions from political interference.
The health of our democracy relies on the integrity of our justice system, and it is the responsibility of both citizens and lawmakers to ensure that it remains free from the corrosive effects of partisan politics. We must engage, advocate, and act to preserve the principles of justice and democracy that define our nation.
I find it hilarious to how we should now be concerned about the politicization of the justice department after that’s exactly what the Biden Administration did for the last four years. Where were you then?
Evidently there are people who believe that what happened on January 6 warranted inquiry and prosecution.
One can’t cry about the politicization of the justice department now when one turned a blind eye to the weaponization of it for the last four years. It comes off as so hypocritical.
You can only come to that conclusion if you see the January 6 prosecutions as somehow being illegitimate.
Not so, you are conveniently overlooking so much.
Such as?
“US Attorneys are being fired for doing their jobs lawfully.”
I remember when Clinton and Reno fired all of the U.S. Attorneys.
Say KO: “I remember when Clinton and Reno fired all of the U.S. Attorneys.”
“whataboutism” means nothing to me; it’s just pointing out reality. You are brilliant at it KO. Keep it up. And funny isn’t it that when people spout, the ‘whatabout’, it only applies to the ‘other side’.
But WHAT ABOUT the OTHER SIDE ?
It does seem as though Trump was *ahem* “making some plans” before taking office this time. Less time on social media, more time on “actions”.
Didn’t this guy make a living out of “firing people” on his TV show? And then got fired himself, after 4 years in office?
(I wonder if any of those he fired on his TV show claimed they didn’t get fired.)
Well, the voters got what they asked for – let’s see if they end up regretting it. (Not sure they care about some of this, at this point.)
But I do think that voters (correctly) surmised that at least some of the prosecutions against Trump and his allies were politically-motivated. Biden himself should have pardoned some of those involved on January 6th. (Had he done so, and also governed from a more-centrist position, he might still be in office today – despite his mental decline.)
“But I do think that voters (correctly) surmised that at least some of the prosecutions against Trump and his allies were politically-motivated. ”
Yes sir, what some would call witch hunts or Kangaroo Court proceedings. But it ended up as a big reason why Trump got re-elected, along with several other issues.
“Well, the voters got what they asked for – let’s see if they end up regretting it.”
I don’t think most of them will regret it because the alternative of Kamala Harris and four more years of democrat policies were much worse.
That could be.
I see that Mexico is backing down, in regard to the tariffs. And Venezuela agreed to take back its (criminal?) immigrants.
I suspect that Trump actually is good at the “Art of the Deal”, and that this is probably what he has the most pride in. He negotiates from a position of perceived strength.
And truth be told, there probably is no one better-qualified to challenge China’s dominance -which may ultimately prove to be an existential threat to the U.S.
Personally, I like the fact that Donald Trump isn’t “apologizing” on behalf of America, like so many other seem to do (from a leftist point of view). (I’ve heard that type of thing my entire life, and have never found much evidence to support it.)
I also like how he noted (perhaps accurately) that Canada isn’t “viable” without the U.S. But perhaps more importantly, Canada and Greenland might actually be better-off if they were part of the U.S. – whether or not they realize it.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the entirety of Europe would be threatened, if not for the U.S.
The U.S. still has power – I say use it for the good of the world. It also might have the most-viable system of governance, overall.
Also, I don’t know of many (billionaires? – not sure how much money Trump has) who are essentially willing to be convicted, shot at, hated, etc., for the sole purpose of being a president. That alone tells you that he’s willing to make a personal sacrifice for what he believes in, at least.
And I do believe that he cares about America “first”.
Canada is coming around too. TRUMP=WINNING
Trudeau: ” just had a good call with President Trump. Canada is implementing our $1.3 billion border plan — reinforcing the border with new choppers, technology and personnel, enhanced coordination with our American partners, and increased resources to stop the flow of fentanyl. “
I guess we shouldn’t be surprised, despite what the media tells us.
Maybe at some point, they’ll understand that this is how Trump “negotiates” (probably rather effectively). The key to it is a belief/understanding that he will follow through with those threats/plans, unless some kind of “deal” is reached.
The probable moral is (and I’ve seen this stated elsewhere), “don’t play chicken with Trump”. This guy has been through just about everything that can be thrown at him, already.
Nixon always had this thing where he wanted the Russians to believe he was a “madman” – “a dramatically disjointed personality … capable of barbaric cruelty … predictably unpredictable, a man full of complex contradictions, a strategic visionary but, when necessary, a coldhearted butcher.”
It never really worked with respect to Vietnam.
One his staff wrote three decades later: “everything I said about Richard Nixon turned out to be more or less true.”
I guess you can bully people into doing your bidding, not sure that’s the way you really want to do business however.
I don’t recall Nixon being viewed that way (as a “madman”).
The funny thing is that Trump would strongly agree with the growth advocates on here and elsewhere. And yet, they reject the best friend they ever had (with the exception of the Yuckenberg/YIMBY types, who are now sucking up to him).
I’m not yet sure if Trump is actually anti-war, or if the circumstances just worked out that way the last time.
Nixon was trying to portray himself as a madman in order to scare the Russians into reigning in Vietnam (it didn’t work). But there’s no reason any one would have viewed him as a madman, it’s only after all the White House tapes have become available we realized with a loathsome creature he actually was.
“I guess you can bully people into doing your bidding, not sure that’s the way you really want to do business however.”
Bully? More like making trade more fair where our companies can trade on a more even playing field. Of course you would see it this way though. You just can’t find it in you to give Trump some credit. David, do you want Trump to fail?
Despite your protestations, you seem a bit too enamored with him these days. I think he’s playing a dangerous game (at best).
I see you pulled your other comment. A lot of that happening on here.
Did you see where Trump got Panama to decouple from China over the canal? Another win…
As I said… too enamored with Trump… and the short-game.
What, do you not like Trump’s recent wins?
It feels like we’re back in the 19th century.
Do you not like cutting the fat from the budget where so much taxpayer money is going to wasteful things?
Zelensky has recently reported that he doesn’t know where $100 billion of the $175 billion that we gave Ukraine went.
I suppose if you don’t have to deal with the fallout from everything, you can appreciate a very narrow view of things.
What, you don’t like criminal migrants getting deported?
Not particularly
“While signing Laken Riley Act, Trump says he’ll send ‘worst criminal aliens’ to Guantanamo”
Yeah, I mean what could go wrong with that.
Also seems like most of the view is not viewing this as a victory for Trump: “Trump’s tariff reversal feeds reputation as paper tiger on trade”
There is some question as to whether he really got anything in the deal. In 2019, Mexico deployed 15,000 troops to its southern border, followed by an additional 10,000 troops in 2021. In essence, Sheinbaum’s agreement reflects a continuation of actions that her country has already undertaken in recent years.
David just can’t stand it that Trump is successful. Sad…
Keith thinks I should want Trump to be successful doing things I think are bad for the country/ the world? Weird.
So Trump getting extra security out of Mexico and Canada for our borders in order to stem the flow of fentanyl and migrants is bad for our country? Who knew?
Keith Olsen says: “What, you don’t like criminal migrants getting deported?”
David M. Greenwald says: “Not particularly”
Wait . . . WHAT? I am certainly concerned about future phases, and logistics, and think the point is to stem future immigration and have a controlled program (that neither party seems to want to embrace). But Phase I, like I heard a poll cited recently that 90% of people are in favor of deporting *criminal* illegal immigrants. A line needs to be drawn as to what level of ‘criminal’ this refers to, but certainly if you add the word *violent*, what possible reason do you have not to deport that category?
Alan – thanks for asking the obvious question that I was hoping to engage Keith on. As a blanket statement, his statement was way too broad for my taste and experience. There are clearly cases that warrant that approach. But guess, every administration has deported a lot of people. Even so-called progressives like Obama and Biden have track records that frankly aren’t great. But it can’t be one-size-fits all because there are all shades of gray in terms of both crime committed but also people who are theoretically non-citizens – people who have basically lived here all their lives versus people who just came here, as just one example. And then the notion of sending them or even some of them to Guantanamo after what took place there with detainees and the lack of due process following 9/11 is another red flag to me. So in totality, my answer remains, “not particularly.” But there is a lot more nuance to my view than expressed in that exchange.
Ok, thanks for the response. I’m probably somewhere between the two of y’all. Good point on those that have been here a long time. My main thing is both parties have made it an issue to fight the other party, both have incentives not to solve the problem, and in the meantime without a program, possibly with an increase in overall immigration, then the US, under either party, just invites people to enter illegally through hazardous means/routes, supported by cartels on the south side that mistreat them, and people die. I don’t blame either party, I blame the two parties.
I will just add that I don’t agree with either party either but for different reasons clearly than you
“David” “But it can’t be one-size-fits all because there are all shades of gray in terms of both crime committed but also people who are theoretically non-citizens – people who have basically lived here all their lives versus people who just came here, as just one example.”
So, you’re referring to people who were “accidentally” born here, after their parents purposefully ignored immigration laws.
Truth be told, it takes a lot of “nerve” to 1) come here illegally, which I can sort of understand), and 2) choose to have children to take advantage of a loophole.
There’s also people who “purposefully” come to the U.S. while pregnant.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jing-dong-sentenced-chinese-birth-tourism-scheme/
I personally know someone (who wasn’t born in this country, but also couldn’t simply “walk across the border” due to an ocean) who is disgusted by all of this, and hasn’t even been able to arrange for visits from family (after becoming a citizen – legally/legimately). And that person’s “home country” applies a lot of restrictions to U.S. (and other foreign) citizens, even though (or perhaps because) they’re not a particularly-wealthy country.
By the way, that person is much-more of a “Trump-supporter” than I am. (I would never vote for that guy.)
It is interesting to note the increase of support for Trump among Hispanics – who are here legally.
Turns out that most people don’t actually care what skin color you have – even if it’s the same as “yours”. (Which I always knew.)
First of all, no I’m not referring to people “accidentally” born here. I’m talking about people who have come here and lived here for a long time and comparing their situation to those who have just come over. BTW, a lot of people who end up getting deported due to criminal activity aren’t even undocumented, but rather people who were here legally, committed a crime, convicted, and then subject to deportation based on the conviction nullifying their legal status.
But second and related to the rest of your point…
There are two main ways people become undocumented immigrants:
1. Unlawful Entry (Border Crossing Without Inspection) – People who cross the U.S. border without authorization.
2. Visa Overstays – People who enter legally on a visa but stay beyond its expiration date, violating immigration law.
According to estimates from the Department of Homeland Security and other research groups, visa overstays account for 40-50% of the undocumented population, meaning they originally entered legally. The remainder—50-60%—are those who crossed the border without inspection, which would be considered intentional unlawful entry.
However, intent is more complicated. Many people cross illegally due to desperate circumstances, lack of legal options, or misinformation about the process, rather than deliberate law-breaking for its own sake. So while around 50-60% entered unlawfully, the percentage who did so with full intent to break U.S. law rather than out of necessity is harder to determine.
David says: “According to estimates from the Department of Homeland Security and other research groups, visa overstays account for 40-50% of the undocumented population, meaning they originally entered legally. The remainder—50-60%—are those who crossed the border without inspection, which would be considered intentional unlawful entry.”
My response: BOTH of those situations sound illegal.
David says: “However, intent is more complicated.”
My response: Not when you think about my response above (e.g., “plan to overstay”).
David says: “Many people cross illegally due to desperate circumstances, lack of legal options, or misinformation about the process, rather than deliberate law-breaking for its own sake.”
My response: Speculation. I suspect that most of those who enter the U.S. by walking into the country are “looking for a better life”.
David says: “So while around 50-60% entered unlawfully, the percentage who did so with full intent to break U.S. law rather than out of necessity is harder to determine.”
My response: I doubt that anyone is doing so out of “necessity”.
A significant number of immigrants, particularly asylum seekers and refugees, flee their home countries due to threats of violence, persecution, and death.
Millions of immigrants worldwide flee death, persecution, or severe violence each year. In the U.S., a large percentage of asylum seekers and undocumented migrants cite life-threatening conditions as their main reason for coming.
Uh, huh – what about those “left behind”? If their countries are that dangerous, shouldn’t their entire country be evacuated (other than the criminals, of course)?
Are you aware that there are at least six spots in the world that are experiencing active genocide right now?
There are a number of additional locations that are experiencing significant armed conflict
It does seem that you’re advocating for the evacuation of entire countries. Do any of those six locales consist of countries “south of the border”? And if so, how are the populations which aren’t walking across the border surviving?
I suspect that I’ve met some illegal immigrants during my lifetime, but none of them cited life-threatening conditions in their home country.
But again, I do know someone who immigrated legally (took many years), who can’t even get their family here to visit. That’s your Trump supporter, not me.
All right, let’s take an extreme but known example. How many people’s lives could’ve been saved had the US and Britain and taking more Jews during the 1930s via immigration or Britain allowed more Jews to immigrate to Palestine? Clearly not six million, but a lot more than were ultimately saved. You are generally not talking about accepting wholesale evacuations. Not everyone is at risk of death or violence. Or we can look at El Salvador which at one point peaked at a homicide rate of 106, Not everyone living there fled the country, but that was a big part of one wave of refugees a few years ago.
I met someone from El Salvador when I first started working, who (in my view) was more-successful that I was. I don’t recall how/why he ended up here.
But again, I’m going to claim that most of those who enter the country illegally are simply seeking a better life. (And that probably goes for all immigrants, legal or illegal.)
I don’t know how my own ancestors ended up here (legally), but I do know that some “native populations” continue to cite that type of immigration as some kind of justification for exclusive benefits.
I could not find data that would pinpoint the exact percentage, but it does seem like it’s a significant number
Bear in mind that not getting your +++ shot probably falls under your category of seeking of a better life. There’s another five or six countries, that are also experiencing famines/ starvation. I guess the question is legitimately, how bad is bad enough in your view?
David says: Bear in mind that not getting your +++ shot probably falls under your category of seeking of a better life.”
(I don’t know what that’s referring to.)
David says: “There’s another five or six countries, that are also experiencing famines/ starvation. I guess the question is legitimately, how bad is bad enough in your view?”
My understanding is that places like Somalia are experiencing famines/starvation/corruption, but that (most of them) can’t get to the border.
I think your broader question is, to what degree should the United States (or any other country) intervene (one way or another) regarding worldwide tragedies? And how they should do so.
But again, I don’t think most of the (11 million?) illegal immigrants in this country are doing so out of imminent danger in their own country. And again, what about those left behind? Does allowing illegal immigration make those countries even worse, for those left behind? Or are you advocating for a wholesale evacuation of those countries?
“But again, I don’t think most of the (11 million?) illegal immigrants in this country are doing so out of imminent danger in their own country.”
I recently watched a video of illegal immigrants at the border being coached on what to say to get asylum in the U.S.
Did it work?
I believe you can be coached to frame points that properly frame claims – just as an attorney will guide one as to how to testify and answer questions. However, in order to gain asylum, verbal claims need to be backed by “substantial evidence” – you can’t just talk your way through it. And only one in three or four actually are granted it.
DG say: “Are you aware that there are at least six spots in the world that are experiencing active genocide right now?”
Is one of them Gaza? Asking for a friend 😐
Yes
Some would disagree 😐
True. If you’re interested I can walk you through why I think it qualifies
I’m sure by some definitions it does. What has happened recently, some may notice, is that certain words commonly understood to have a certain meeting, have been hijacked for political purposes and their meanings changed. This has been especially executed by the far left, and it’s amazing to me that many on the right and center go along with the changes instead of calling them out and not using the words in their new meanings.
I would argue (1) The war and the death in Gaza is due to Israel realizing it can no longer live adjacent to and in an uncomfortable state of being with a territory that is run by a group with a charter that is to destroy Israel and to kill all the Jews. Israel put up with 20,000 rockets being fired at Israel and that wasn’t enough for an invasion, but when Hamas streamed into the Nagev and killed 1,200 people and kidnapped 250-ish, then Israel was done with the uneasy state of being and decided it had to completely destroy Hamas and it’s military structure, and 10,000’s of civilians were killed in the process as it was urban warfare.
If Israel’s goal was to systematically obliterate the Palestinian people, why did it do such a sh*tty job of doing so, when it could have fire-bombed Gaza in a few days and killed everyone? Also, if Israel wanted to greatly reduce the number of Palestinians (I would argue outside of Hamas, who’s numbers should be greatly reduced), the population trend belies that: Before 1948: 8,000; After 1948 Arab-Israeli war: 200,000; 2023: 2.2 million; 2025: 2.1 million. Some genocide 😐 If Israel was as successful at ‘genocide’ as Germany had been against Jews in Europe, it would have reduced the population of Gaza to 700,000 since 2023 and killed 1.4 million. Does Israel seem on track to you to kill anywhere near 1.4 million, especially at this point with the war winding down?
And why does the American media just report the number of Gazans killed, and usually nothing about if any, or many, or most, where Hamas? It’s as if those killed are all just innocent civilian’s, purposefully being slaughtered by Israel as an act of revenge and sadism. And where did this idea of ‘proportional response’ even come from ? What country has ever had 1,000 people killed by an enemy and their response is ‘we’ll go kill 1,000 of their people in exactly the same way, and then stop until they attack again’. That’s actually more sick in the motivation than a war that kills many more. The purpose of war isn’t ‘proportional response’ — whatever the f*ck that concept even is — it is to kill your enemy’s fighters and destroy your enemy’s military infrastructure. And in a dense urban setting with many of the fighters in tunnels, a lot of civilian’s are going to be killed.
I am no blanket apologist for Israel — I am very against many of the country’s policies, and find many of the fundamentalists and nationalists to be abhorrent in their beliefs, but I am not falling for this ‘genocide’ narrative for the Gaza war.
I’m kind of a moderate on the issue – as I think both sides are clearly in the wrong and both sides fail to own up to their responsibility.
So why do I believe that a case can be made for Genocide?
I start by looking at the UN definition of Genocide, which avoids the problem that you have described because it predates the current conflict.
Here intent is critical: “There must be a demonstrable intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a particular group based on nationality, ethnicity, race, or religion.”
Clearly Israel does not show intent to completely destroy the Palestinians or those living in Gaza.
But drilling down a bit: in the context of the UN definition of genocide, “destroy” refers to actions taken with the intent to eliminate, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.
In this case, we have a direct killing to members of a specific group – I think the latest figures show about 61,000 Palestinians killed.
You have the significant infliction of psychological trauma, “that undermines the group’s survival or identity.”
And most critically in view: “Deliberate Infliction of Living Conditions” “Creating environments that lead to the group’s physical destruction, such as through starvation or denial of access to essential resources.”
Here is where I think the crux of the case against Israel goes. You have mass starvation, cutting of resources, interference of relief efforts, you have children literally starving and dying from disease and all of that has been caused by Israeli.
So yeah, this isn’t Nazi Germany for sure, but certainly think Israel has gone too far in their legitimate response to what happened on October 7 and their genuine need for security.
“but I am not falling for this ‘genocide’ narrative for the Gaza war.”
You’re not alone Alan.