best i could find for now
bumped into the above looking for a transcript of his recent testimony before the senate.
from page 37 of 159:
"RESPONSE: Because I am a sitting federal judge, Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges bars me from commenting on any pending or impending case that is in any court. As I testified during my confirmation hearing, however, if I am confirmed as Attorney General, the Department will make prosecutorial decisions based on the facts and the law only, without regard to politics or partisanship."
much better than the several times he prattles on about the rule of law.
to be fair, questions bring it up seven times compared to garland referencing it six times.
for the senators, for garland the judge and then for garland the attorney general the rule of law very much does not apply. acceptance of public office incurs additional liabilities that serve to protect from violation the public's trust in their government officials.
wouldn't call failing to understand that disgraceful. would and will continue to find it disrespectful and embarrassing.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201
b 2 B, hell of a question isn't it.
b 4. "- not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States."
something to that
found via:
"In addition, President Biden’s Executive Order No. 13989 requires political appointees to sign a pledge imposing additional recusal obligations and other requirements aimed at “revolving door” concerns."
and from boredom while waiting.
i do understand though. accuracy takes time.
anyway, fraud against the united states government by government official(s) qualifies as disgraceful. calling precedent or sentencing as necessarily equal because of the rule of law rather than in adherence to our rights under our country's constitution? not quite a disgrace, definitely embarrassed by and for you and your pretension to basic literacy.
disappointingly cruel? better than considering my representation in our government during emergencies. that's disappointment enough. calling someone a conflicted hypocrite with no intention of providing for the public's well being by being considerate of their rights, including their rights to legal recourse, would be slightly cruel.
to be fair, i won't be talking about this. i prefer pen and paper or a word processor. no, i would not say: "easily call either precedent or sentencing necessary to apply equally". precedent applies to evidence considered for being considered in court. sentencing for similar offenses would be unfair if wildly disparate. however, our constitution provides for fairness with equal rights. the rule of law provides rights through prior action of courts. that's not the same, not at all.
thought about it some more, changed your mind upon reflection?
then maybe try law abiding in practice of the law instead of "independent".
not as effective to treat the symptom rather than the cause. some medicines do have the potential to cause their own medical concerns, especially over a period of indeterminate use.
https://vodkaonthelawn.blogspot.com/2022/08/youtube-video-player_31.html
