Now you are substituting “signature represents responsibility fore the system” for “signatrure represents personal review of the contents.”
They are the same thing, although I did not say “signature represents responsibility fore the system”
You are implying that *no one* has responsibility for what is in the warrants.
You wrote:
“Responsibility for accuracy is pushed down the ladder. The claim is that the review is thorough and meaningful and 100% accurate, totally forthright, nothing hidden from the judge, no question the justification is sound.”
That is very close to what I wrote:
People in charge of agencies are supposed to put in place safeguards and procedures so that when they sign things, they have a reasonable expectation that what they are signing is correct. If they have doubts, they are supposed to ask questions.
cboldt: Sort of like the buyer or purchasing agent for a company. That person enters into contracts, but it isn't a personal bond, it's institutional, representing the company's entering into a contract.marktwain: B.S. If he signed it, he is personally certifying it. There is no other reason for him to sign it.
Now you say that "signature represents responsibility for the system" is the same thing as "signature represents personal review of the contents."
I think that's simply nuts. Those two things are not the same. The two things reflect a difference I aim to assert actually exists, and the same difference in my OP that you call BS.
-- You are implying that *no one* has responsibility for what is in the warrants. --
No. I am implying that Rosenstien's signature does not repreent a personal vouching or a personal responsibility - it represents an INSTITUIONAL one. Now, we might move to discuss what is the point of institutional resposnibility if the person signing isn't personally held responsible, or *which living breathing human being* is responsible if the signer is not.
We could also discuss the remedy when the responsibility is not met.
-- If they have doubts, they are supposed to ask questions. --
And if they don't have doubts?
I don't think Rosenstein escapes without being hammered further, maybe even removed for failure to correct the institution. So he isn't escaping responsibility. My point was on what responsibility did he fail to execute, what EXACTLY does his signature represent? And I see it as "DOJ swears this stuff is true," not "Rosenstein has personally reviewed and on hs own PERSONAL belief, swears this stuff is true." There aren't enough hours in a day for him to do that. It's impossible.
Analogy to the purchasing agent, if the company welches on the contract, the comany pays, and if it has to pay enough, it might fire the purchasing agent. But the money doesn't come out of the purhasing agent's pocket.
I have about the same point of view, but would conclude with "it is not because no one has responsibility on paper."
The law puts all sorts fo high-sounding principles and systems on paper. Very convincing rhetoric. Mostly BS in practice.