Dan Goldman

Es könnte sein, aber es gibt auch, das ist, besonders in den affirmative civil cases, in den civil areas, das ist, wo die politischen Voraussetzungen eines Präsidenten wahrscheinlich noch mehr zählen als auf der kriminellen Seite. Und so musst du die Tatsache balancieren, dass es eine Politik gibt, die die Departement der Gerechtigkeit implementiert.

Es sind nicht nur individuelle kriminelle Verhandlungen.

Es sind nicht nur individuelle kriminelle Verhandlungen.

Es sind nicht nur individuelle kriminelle Verhandlungen.

Ja, aber was sich auch ändert, und das ist typisch, ist, dass die republikanischen Regierungen viel weniger Fraud-Aufgaben machen, viel weniger Weihrauch-Fraude. Ich meine, Donald Trump hat die Vor- und Korrupt-Praktiken-Akt effektiv nullifiziert. overtly and openly. And Republican administrations focus much more on drugs and gangs and crime.

Ja, aber was sich auch ändert, und das ist typisch, ist, dass die republikanischen Regierungen viel weniger Fraud-Aufgaben machen, viel weniger Weihrauch-Fraude. Ich meine, Donald Trump hat die Vor- und Korrupt-Praktiken-Akt effektiv nullifiziert. overtly and openly. And Republican administrations focus much more on drugs and gangs and crime.

Ja, aber was sich auch ändert, und das ist typisch, ist, dass die republikanischen Regierungen viel weniger Fraud-Aufgaben machen, viel weniger Weihrauch-Fraude. Ich meine, Donald Trump hat die Vor- und Korrupt-Praktiken-Akt effektiv nullifiziert. overtly and openly. And Republican administrations focus much more on drugs and gangs and crime.

That's where the traditional only because there's a limited amount of resources. So what are you going to prioritize? Right. I think most people would agree all of that is is important to do so. But that's a policy product. Right. So how do you balance the fact that a president gets to implement policy priorities for the enforcement of our laws.

That's where the traditional only because there's a limited amount of resources. So what are you going to prioritize? Right. I think most people would agree all of that is is important to do so. But that's a policy product. Right. So how do you balance the fact that a president gets to implement policy priorities for the enforcement of our laws.

That's where the traditional only because there's a limited amount of resources. So what are you going to prioritize? Right. I think most people would agree all of that is is important to do so. But that's a policy product. Right. So how do you balance the fact that a president gets to implement policy priorities for the enforcement of our laws.

And that's even more so, I think, in the civil division, where any affirmative case is really much more a focus of policy, because people's lives and liberty are not at stake. And rarely, in a lot of cases, You're not even suing individuals.

And that's even more so, I think, in the civil division, where any affirmative case is really much more a focus of policy, because people's lives and liberty are not at stake. And rarely, in a lot of cases, You're not even suing individuals.

And that's even more so, I think, in the civil division, where any affirmative case is really much more a focus of policy, because people's lives and liberty are not at stake. And rarely, in a lot of cases, You're not even suing individuals.

It's much more larger issues related to whether it be civil rights, as you say, police departments or environmental justice, environmental issues against companies. There's a lot more sort of business-oriented litigation. That is much more driven by policy than any individual prosecution. And what you really have to avoid is using the threat or the actuality of imprisonment as a political tool.

It's much more larger issues related to whether it be civil rights, as you say, police departments or environmental justice, environmental issues against companies. There's a lot more sort of business-oriented litigation. That is much more driven by policy than any individual prosecution. And what you really have to avoid is using the threat or the actuality of imprisonment as a political tool.

It's much more larger issues related to whether it be civil rights, as you say, police departments or environmental justice, environmental issues against companies. There's a lot more sort of business-oriented litigation. That is much more driven by policy than any individual prosecution. And what you really have to avoid is using the threat or the actuality of imprisonment as a political tool.

That's the stuff of Banana Republics. That's what our State Department goes around the world telling countries that we will not support them if they continue to prosecute their political opponents. I mean, Ukraine is a great example of that, that when Joe Biden said, you better fire the prosecutor general or we're not going to support a billion dollar loan.

That's the stuff of Banana Republics. That's what our State Department goes around the world telling countries that we will not support them if they continue to prosecute their political opponents. I mean, Ukraine is a great example of that, that when Joe Biden said, you better fire the prosecutor general or we're not going to support a billion dollar loan.

That's the stuff of Banana Republics. That's what our State Department goes around the world telling countries that we will not support them if they continue to prosecute their political opponents. I mean, Ukraine is a great example of that, that when Joe Biden said, you better fire the prosecutor general or we're not going to support a billion dollar loan.

Es war, weil dieser Prosecutor General korrupt war und politische Gegner und seine politischen Begleiter verurteilt hatte. Wir haben also die Ukraine verletzt und gesagt, dass wir diesen IMF-Lohn nicht unterstützen werden, wenn dieser korrupte Prosecutor in seinem Job nur politische Gegner verurteilt hat. I mean, imagine that was 10 years ago and here we are.