Sickophants

[O Really]

A President would not be expected to appoint an AG who actively opposed him or who was actively opposed to his overall agenda. But in theory, the President's agenda will be in the interest of the country and will be constrained by legal boundaries. Within that context, the AG can work "for" the President but fulfill his responsibilities as the top law enforcement officer. In situations however where the President's agenda needs some strong guardrails and where the AG has represented him personally in questionable matters, the part about "top law enforcement officer" and "represents the people" goes away and appointment of such person should be opposed even if it may appear on the surface that his appointment is similar to others in the past. Further, it should be opposed even if there had been similar instances in the past because it would be wrong no matter which President was doing it. In fact, if there had been other exact instances in the past, that should be even greater reason to oppose this one rather than making such a situation become "normal" and accepted because "he did it first."

[neoplacebo]

Meh, cultists don't do logic or common sense. Meanwhile, the whole thing kind of reminds me of how John Mitchell was Nixon's campaign manager for part of 72, then became AG, got fouled up in Nixon's "I am not a crook" criminal enterprise and ended up in prison. That was back when Republicans that did not work in the White House had principles and morals and respect for the law.