Posted on 03/04/2017 4:34:29 PM PST by Brad from Tennessee
An inherent problem, you generally don’t see what an AG does unless they talk about it. But the job is “graceless”, unless he shows results, and soon.
Jeff Sessions is a righteous good man ... and that has the degenerates in both ‘parties’ running scare fro what he will not tolerate when the rocks are turned over and their degeneracies exposed. Just look in the eyes of Schumer, Graham, and others ... they fear being exposed.
Correction: you don’t specifically see what an AG does unless they talk about it.
On the other hand, you see on a general level what an AG does as he reestablishes law and order. This takes more than 48 hours.
The US AG does not reestablish law and order.
The principal duties of the Attorney General are to (info from the Justice Dept):
Represent the United States in legal matters.
Supervise and direct the administration and operation of the offices, boards, divisions, and bureaus that comprise the Department.
Furnish advice and opinions, formal and informal, on legal matters to the President and the Cabinet and to the heads of the executive departments and agencies of the government, as provided by law.
Make recommendations to the President concerning appointments to federal judicial positions and to positions within the Department, including U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.
Represent or supervise the representation of the United States Government in the Supreme Court of the United States and all other courts, foreign and domestic, in which the United States is a party or has an interest as may be deemed appropriate.
Perform or supervise the performance of other duties required by statute or Executive Order.
As you can see, most of what the AG does is pretty invisible to the public, so we are very reliant on what he *has* said in past, and the public statements he releases about what he is doing. If he does not, all we will know of his activities are what his critics have to say against him; so it is essential that he be forthcoming and transparent about his objectives and goals.
Does it seem more reasonable to bombard him with criticism the instant he gets into office, or to wait something like ten to twelve months so that the criticism will be informed?
Progressives are not willing to give Sessions the benefit of the doubt, because they have an unrelated agenda. This agenda is not pretty, so they keep it hidden from view.
The term “benefit of the doubt” is very useful to contemplate.
Twelve months grace is too much. Sessions has had close to a month in office. Other cabinet officers have already been making waves and getting to work. By this time next month Sessions needs to be getting tangible results in public, or the month after that he should be considering a new line of work.
In past, RINOs hid their inaction with promises of future action, but they were always empty promises, since they were more interested in keeping their job than putting it to good use.
Grand sum total of time for Sessions: three months. Get to it or get out of the way.
As far as I can tell, Alinsky never understood the extreme limitations of human language with regard to capacity to create reality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.