Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

cujobob t1_ivih7w4 wrote

Reply to comment by and_dont_blink in AP sources: Justice Dept. watchdog probing US Attorney Rachael Rollins by EgonEggnog

Taking financial rewards? The article says she attended a fundraiser related to Jill Biden and she claims she was given permission to do so.

It stands out this is being probed by people unfamiliar with the topic because we have a Supreme Court Justice whose wife literally tried to have an election overturned, a Court all tied to the Federalist Society, and so on, but this woman attended a fundraiser and it’s potentially improper.

I believe it should be looked into if it meets the threshold for impropriety, but it’s still sort of weird that more powerful people can do it all day and night and nothing happens. It’s kind of like saying there’s a speed limit for anyone making under $100,000 a year only. Sure there are different mechanisms in place to hold others accountable, but they’re obviously broken.

25

and_dont_blink t1_ivihzkb wrote

>Taking financial rewards? The article says she attended a fundraiser related to Jill Biden and she claims she was given permission to do so.

...permission by whom? You can't be given permission to violate the Hatch Act.

You also seem to be leaving out her being flown out to Hollywood by CAA for their party (the large talent agency), which yes is taking financial rewards. eg, a contractor doesn't have to physical hand a zoning commissioner money, he can just have a friend do some landscaping work for free or give them free stays in their hotel. That's why those rules exist.

You also seem to be ignoring her use of personal devices for official business, a huge issue for records and transparency and investigations.

−21

cujobob t1_iviiapu wrote

How can I ignore an issue that hasn’t been confirmed to be true? She’s being investigated… hence the title “probing US Attorney.”

You may like to assume that violations occur without evidence, but that’s not how the real world works.

If her meeting with Biden was signed off on, then it is possible her attending a function makes sense. That’s apparently what is being said in her defense. The article states this. Read the article.

17

and_dont_blink t1_ivikf4d wrote

>How can I ignore an issue that hasn’t been confirmed to be true?

I mean, you were willing to discuss one of the allegations, even though we don't know the specific circumstances yet? And we do know she was told to repay the Hollywood agency, per the article.

Yet you seemed to want to avoid the others by not mentioning them and making it only about that one, but not the having her trip paid for by a Hollywood agency or the usage of a personal phone for official business... Considering both the explanations were given by the same types of anonymous sources omitting the others seems a little sus?

> She’s being investigated… hence the title “probing US Attorney.”

We can agree there is nothing wrong with the Justice Department investigating the accusations of violating the Hatch Act?

−20

cujobob t1_ivjbz1t wrote

The weird part here is that you didn’t address the entire point I originally made regarding why people are confused by this. By today’s standards, even what’s accused, would be completely mild compared to what those on the highest court and in other areas of the government are doing. You’re pushing a narrative. I literally stated I believed it should be looked into. Your bias is showing and that’s why you’re being downvoted.

8

and_dont_blink t1_ivjd3db wrote

>The weird part here is that you didn’t address the entire point I originally made regarding why people are confused by this.

I did, and people aren't that confused by it. You said a lot of things, and keep changing what you say they meant. First it was that she hadn't taken anything, then it was ignoring allegations that had no evidence (when it was really you were ignoring allegations she hadn't refuted).

>By today’s standards, even what’s accused, would be completely mild

By whose standards? Corruption and selective prosecution are both real issues, but handwaving whataboutisms doesn't make politics cleaner even if it's one of our own. Again, is your argument that her taking financial favors or violating the Hatch Act is mild and doesn't matter in this day and age? Do you know why we have them? Do you know why government agents are not supposed to be conducting business on personal equipment?

I do actually have a real issue with selective prosecution and "rules for thee but not for me", but handwaving away these things because it's our side does no one any favors, least of all our democracy, and completely cedes any moral high ground.

>You’re pushing a narrative.

Are you projecting a bit there cujobob?

Edit: Ohhhh noooo I've been blocked. Anyways...

−3

cujobob t1_ivjguax wrote

Misrepresenting my stance, eh? Go troll somewhere else.

5