[rayiner]

The first point requires an additional layer. The modern administrative state has its origins in Woodrow Wilson ideology of scientific governance. Wilson didn’t like democracy and wasn’t much of a fan of the constitution: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/the-study-of-ad....

A consequence of centralizing governance in a giant federal bureaucracy is that it’s become dominated by one party: https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2016/10/federal-employe.... That was a predictable result of federalization. If the government is run by unelected bureaucrats insulated from the elected officials, then it’s completely unsurprising it will become dominated by the party that prefers bigger government.

In classic Trump fashion, he doesn’t care about federalism per se, hence his inconsistent actions on law enforcement and crime. But he has a brain stem level reaction that it’s crazy he got elected President and is expected to cajole a federal workforce of 1.8 million democrats into executing his policies. And he’s not wrong about that.

Regarding the DOJ, Thomas Jefferson personally directed the prosecution of Aaron Burr: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-great-trial-that-tes.... So that part isn’t anything new. As to the merits of the case, 18 USC 1001 is astonishingly (and I’d argue unconstitutionally) broad. I think prosecuting people for “obstruction” without an underlying crime is bullshit, but the government does it all the time. And Comey vociferously defended the practice.

[txru]

> then it’s completely unsurprising it will become dominated by the party that prefers bigger government.

I think you've assumed the conclusion here. One could equally say that if one party becomes overrepresented by people with higher education, that party will become overrepresented in any administrative position.

> Aaron Burr

I find myself more and more often in the position of having to look back many decades for precedent of things that are currently happening. Again, that's not necessarily a bad thing. But the variance of what to expect is wider, and I think it's fair to cast out one's net of expectations wider, and possibly darker.

Burr was a complicated man, doing complicated things, in a newly defined nation that was still defining norms. His trial was no stellar example of how to find truth and remonstrate wrongdoing. And I agree, "Lying to a federal officer" is absolutely ripe for misuse. A critical component of any subjective human system is integrity and adherence to justice. I don't think many people will look at Comey's prosecution and see it as the clear-headed and honest pursuit of justice.

[rayiner]

> I think you've assumed the conclusion here. One could equally say that if one party becomes overrepresented by people with higher education, that party will become overrepresented in any administrative position

I think that’s true! It’s another reason why the federal workforce has come to be dominated by one party. But both point to the same result.

> I don't think many people will look at Comey's prosecution and see it as the clear-headed and honest pursuit of justice

It’s not. It’s tit-for-tat: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-was-convicted-..., https://www.npr.org/2025/08/21/g-s1-84246/civil-fraud-penalt....

I think it’s terrible to go fishing for a technical crimes with the goal of prosecuting a particular person. The criminal laws are written broadly and cannot withstand prosecutors who fit legal pieces together like a puzzle to come up with a legal theory for a prosecution (https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/charting-the-legal-theo...).

[benmmurphy]

Comey was also involved in the Flynn setup. If Comey is convicted of procedural crimes it will be difficult to feel sorry for him when he used those or similar statutes to pursue other people.

[hypeatei]

> It’s not. It’s tit-for-tat:

So you're admitting that Trump is weaponizing the DOJ to get revenge on his opponents? How does a NY court and jury of his peers finding Trump guilty of a felony justify that?

  The facts of the case have been covered at length (including by us in a detailed chronology), and the grand jury’s indictment and accompanying Statement of Facts speak for themselves. The prosecution has said that this case is not just about an affair and hush money payments, neither of which are illegal. Rather, the DA has explained the case concerns an attempt by Trump to interfere in the outcome of the 2016 presidential election outcome.[0]


  The hush money arrangement with Daniels occurred just after the Access Hollywood scandal, where Trump boasted about committing sexual assaults, and was finalized on October 27, 2016, twelve days before the election. As described in the Statement of Facts, Trump initially directed Cohen to delay the payments to Daniels until after the election, “because at that point it would not matter if the story became public.” However, “with pressure mounting and the election approaching,” Trump ultimately agreed to the payoff.[0]

0: https://www.justsecurity.org/93916/guide-manhattan-trump-tri...

[rayiner]

Identify the law Trump was charged under that made it illegal to “interfere in the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.”

[hypeatei]

He doesn't have to be charged with them, the intention is what matters, but regardless the three points brought up were (as shown in your own lawfaremedia link):

- Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA)

- New York Election Law § 17-152

- violations of federal, local, and state tax law

[rayiner]

Your quote above from the article you linked says:

> [T]he DA has explained the case concerns an attempt by Trump to interfere in the outcome of the 2016 presidential election outcome.

If the DA himself says that Trump’s crime is interfering with the 2016 election, why doesn’t the DA have to charge the law that covers that, and prove every required element of the crime under that law?

[SR2Z]

It will be run by the party that prefers bigger government... unless you remember how much the current administration has expanded the deficit and DHS.

Also, if you're saying that the past 100 years of American history, with all its various technocrats, was the result of a single ideology operating the government... maybe that ideology actually works pretty well?

[tzs]

Other Republican Presidents didn't have trouble getting their policies carried out despite similar civil service party membership and donation distributions.

[ethbr1]

It's also important to highlight the origins of modern US civil service (read: the Wilson+ era you're referencing) in the anti-Conkling/spoils Congressional factions and presidents of the late 19th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-Breeds_(politics)#Setback...

As recently as 1880s the US was still assigning important civil service roles to whomever donated the most money to election campaigns.

The 1880s - 1970s generally featured a more protected civil service, with both advantages (insulation from changing presidents / legislators, maintaining institutional knowledge and competence) and disadvantages (insulation from performance-based hiring / firing, optimizing for bureaucratic rules became more effective than doing a great job).

The latter of which and anti-government sentiment post-Nixon drove deregulation and more direct executive control of the bureaucracy (e.g. the OPM).

As with all pendulums, we're now again seeing the excesses of affording too much power to the presidency (firing institutional knowledge because their role/expertise isn't currently politically en vogue).

Hopefully post-Trump this will spur reinforcing and insulation of civil service expertise.

[rayiner]

There is expertise, but there is also ideology. To use the plane analogy everyone likes: the pilot should use his expertise to fly the plane, but he doesn’t get to choose where the plane is going! When you “insulate” the civil service from politics, what you end up doing is privileging the ideology and political goals of civil servants over those of voters.

[Steltek]

But to continue your analogy, the pilot is also totally correct in refusing to crash the plane into the ground or jettison passengers out the door because they're brown.

The current state of affairs is not some mere disagreement of ideology.

[rayiner]

No, this is a choice between flying to Boise or flying to San Francisco.

[mdhb]

Never a bad decision that you don’t seem to rush to the comments section to defend.

[rayiner]

I think extending Trump’s tax cuts is a terrible policy, do you want to talk about that?

[ethbr1]

> When you “insulate” the civil service from politics, what you end up doing is privileging the ideology and political goals of civil servants over those of voters.

No.

You end up balancing the current political desires of voters with institutional expertise.

Or to put it another way, would you say that "competency" is a political ideology or an objective fact?