DAG Rosenstein Law Day speech praises separation of powers, equality of justice - Polidicks

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/deputy-attorney-general-rod-j-rosenstein-delivers-remarks-bar-association-montgomery EXCERPTS On Monday, President Trump issued a Law Day Proclamation. The President said, “Law Day recognizes that we govern ourselves in accordance with the rule of law rather [than] … the whims of an elite few or the dictates of collective will. Through law, we have ensured liberty.” The point is that we do not achieve justice by polling the opinion of any person or group. We achieve justice through a process that seeks objective truth based upon credible and admissible evidence. Each year, the American Bar Association suggests a theme for Law Day events. This year’s theme is one I particularly value — the separation of powers. In the executive branch, we take an oath. We pledge to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We promise to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. We attest that we take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. And we commit to well and faithfully execute the duties of the office, so help me God. Faithfully enforcing the law is not about following a simple set of instructions. As the great champion of the law Robert H. Jackson put it, “law enforcement is not automatic.” Enforcing the law requires discretion and judgment. Justice is not measured in the number of convictions secured. Our prosecutors and investigators learn from day one that their duty is to gather the facts, seek the truth, apply the law, and respect the policies and principles of the Department of Justice. It is a bedrock principle, with very few exceptions, that we don't discuss investigations. The Department’s longstanding practice of keeping information about our investigations confidential has often been the source of disagreement with Congress. In 1941, Congressman Carl Vinson wrote a letter to Attorney General Robert Jackson. He requested FBI and DOJ reports made in connection with an investigation of labor disputes involving Navy contracts. Vinson’s committee had oversight for such issues, which is why he wanted the documents. Attorney General Jackson flatly refused the request. He did not compromise at all. Jackson explained that disclosing investigative reports would harm the national interest in a number of different ways. First, it would “seriously prejudice law enforcement” by providing defense counsel with the government’s confidential impressions of the case. Second, disclosing certain investigative reports would give aid to our enemies and jeopardize our national security. Third, investigative reports often contain information about witnesses and informants. Releasing the information could stifle the FBI’s ability to obtain sources and could even put lives at risk. The fourth reason is often overlooked. Jackson explained that handing over the documents could harm the reputations of innocent people. Being a subject of an investigation – or even a target – is not the same as being guilty of a crime. The Department of Justice conducts many investigations that never see the light of day because there is insufficient evidence to support the allegations. Separation of powers can be frustrating. Prosecutors are sometimes disappointed when the judicial branch acquits someone it thought was guilty of a crime. But that is part of the genius of our system. Prosecutors collect evidence and decide whether it establishes a crime that warrants prosecution. We do not determine guilt. I know that judges and legislators are sometimes frustrated by executive branch decisions, such as prosecutorial charging decisions. The push and pull among and between the branches is bipartisan. It exists regardless of which party is in power. Justice Scalia explained that Americans should “learn to love the separation of powers,” even though it frequently leads to controversy. That tension – the power of each branch to say no – is one of the things that protects liberty. Each of us has a role to play in protecting this unique and indispensable feature of our constitutional order. Ultimately, in our system, sovereignty rests in the people. When “We the People” established the Constitution, it was a relatively novel concept. And “We the People” remain responsible for protecting it. Our system of government is not self-executing. It relies on wisdom and self-restraint. In a democratic republic, liberty is protected by cultural norms as well as by constitutional text. “Let reverence for the laws,” he implored, “be breathed by every American mother … let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs — let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice.” And, Lincoln concluded, “let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions” keep the rule of law.

Rosenstein is a motherfuckin G

And here we see a lawyer telling someone to fuck off in their own native tongue!

Impressive, Rosenstein. Basically daring Trump and to Congressional GOP to interfere. It's a solid "Fuck You."

I think it'll go over Trump's head. Rosenstein used too many big words and there weren't any pictures or coloring pages .

Lawyers are spat upon, but if we all spoke a bit more like them when talking about these things, I feel like it'd help clarify a lot of misunderstandings. It would be a good change from our current culture of pretty much never speaking about real issues person to person, outside the web. It seems almost like rule 1 of Fight Club. If we could all just be a bit more calm and clear, and express ourselves with more specificity, instead of just completely avoiding the subject, we could enjoy a more productive public discourse.

Imagine what would happen if Trump had true limitless power

It's not even that hard to imagine. It would be like that little blonde twat from game of thrones, only old and fat.

Probably like what happened with Hitler. Now, there's a genuine reason for this comparison: Hitler was often vague, to the point that he might as well have not given an order at all, when he told people what to do, and the way the government was organized was shambolic at best. You'd have powerful men in his close circle, and in competing offices, going about things in entirely different ways trying to please the vague (or, in this case, demented) sod. I think in this hypothetical example, you'd have people with supreme authority handed down to them, trying to interpret and carry out his will, or bending it to their own desires, and competing with each other about it.

It's like I keep telling people: The most dangerous thing about Hitler wasn't his ideas or his methods, but that he was surrounded by people who agreed with him and weren't bothered by his methods.