Jump to content

Vince

Republicans
  • Content Count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Vince last won the day on October 5 2018

Vince had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About Vince

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. @EmilyNewHampshire: My mom is an outstanding public servant and will make a great Attorney General. Confirm quickly!
  2. Real talk in 240 characters or so
  3. Mr. Chairman, Sec. 9 is overly broad. Thus, I motion to strike Section 9 in it's entirity. I yield.
  4. Mr. Chairman, This is a great bill. What would make it even better is not punishing members of impoverished communities who are trying to sell a few pills to get by with even stricter penalties than they already face. Aye to amend.
  5. You know, that's a really broad and really tough issue. The NSA has court-mandated guidelines that are supposed to prevent inadvertent collection of data of US citizens, and it is my understanding that our government has, to our knowledge, followed the law. Does it worry me, to contrast the protections of the 4th Amendment with the overarching signals analysis of the NSA and our partners? Of course. But, as long as the law is followed, which, by all indications, it has been, there is not much that can be done. I'll add further that this is not DoJ's bailiwick. I gave you my personal opinion out of courtesy, but it has no bearing on the duties of the Attorney General or the Justice Department as a whole.
  6. Senator, This question is rather broad, but I will try to keep my answer brief. First, civil liberties. I intend to uphold the tradition of my predecessors in maintaining a robust and aggressive Civil Rights Division. Where injustice exists, the DoJ will be there to fight it. Second, hate crimes. Where they are identifiable, they shall be punished, either under additional statutory provisions under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or under the enhanced sentencing guidelines enacted in 1994. I would, further, support those sentence enhancements being statutorily re-enacted as mandatory, although the legal theory might be a bit tricky. Third, marijuana. This is a legislative issue and a state issue. Am I going to use all of DoJ resources trying to crack down on the states that legalized it? No. Am I going to ignore it when tied to other criminal activity in states that haven't legalized it? No. But, in general marijuana falls squarely in the "Not my circus, not my monkeys" category. Finally, recusing myself from the Special Counsel investigation. That's a pretty hard no - I don't believe there's a conflict, the DOJ ethics people haven't told me there's a conflict - and trust me, I've asked - so I can't see why I would recuse myself. Now, if a conflict comes into being later, we might have to reevaluate this, but for now, there's no real chance of recusal.
  7. That depends. I will conduct a review of the information used to support the appointment of the special prosecutor, definitely. If there was insufficient grounds for appointment, then I likely would not. But that's a very fact-driven inquiry and I don't have the facts in front of me.
  8. Senator, Again, you know about as much regarding the report as I do, but that does sound about right.
  9. Senator, I think we're operating under a couple of different sets of assumptions here. First off, classified information means that it's to protect our national security interests. So, no, if there was a need to classify part of the report - which I do not particularly anticipate - then that particular information would not be released except as appropriate. Now, there's a different issue - that where the information in the report relates to an ongoing investigation. In that situation, we would need to follow the procedures and practices established by previous Special Counsel investigations. Essentially, this means that the information related to an investigation is revealed as necessary to prosecute the case. So, for example - Paul Manafort's misconduct warranted release of information gained in the investigation to Federal prosecutors, from whence it became part of the public record. If it isn't necessary to release it for purposes of prosecution, then it is my understanding that the findings would be released to the public. Of course, there's a middle ground where the information is being used as part of an investigation but there isn't enough information to prosecute. In that instance, the information would be withheld until prosecution is definitely decided for or against.
  10. Also, I'm not sure I really addressed the issue of my neutrality. My job is to make sure the law is being followed, and that goes both up as well as down Although I am extraordinarily hesitant to suspect the administration of untoward conduct, were I to see credible evidence I would have no choice but to perform my statutory duties.
  11. *cough* per se, not per session. It's like my mouth has autocorrect.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.