Senate Confirmation Hearing: Harry S Truman for Attorney General (Confirmed)

[Esteemed Jimmy]

Harry S Truman is nominated for Attorney General.

The nominee has 24 hours to make an opening statement.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Insert disclaimer regarding not being a Senator

The previous attorney general, 1184AZ, was effectively forced into resignation following a series of key missteps. He left office with a dismal 31% approval rating. What is the biggest substantive difference between you and 1184AZ and how specifically will your methods differ from his?

Do you see any conflicts of interest between this job and your role in the Fremont Parliament and if so how will you resolve those conflicts? Furthermore, are you confident that you can devote yourself to both positions without neglecting either?

[Devout Centrist]

What is your stance on criminal justice reform? Are there any areas where you think Atlasia could improve in criminal justice?

[Former President tack50]

If confirmed, what will be your priorities and things you wish to do most as Attorney General?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Alright!

My thanks to the president for his confidence, and to the Senate for their consideration. I look forward to the brisk firing of questions that will surely follow in the coming days.

I suppose you all know who I am already, so I'll dispense with the usual pleasantries and begin directly to answer those questions already fielded. Before I do, a brief note as to my qualifications: I returned to active politics in April, having previously served as president, Game Moderator, and a host of other offices, my tenure as the longest-serving Attorney General in our history being the most relevant to our business here. Additionally, I was the principle author or major contributor to three of the four regional and national constitutions currently in force, a legal advisor to every post-reset president except the most recent, and have continued to practice law privately since leaving the Cabinet in 2017.

The previous attorney general, 1184AZ, was effectively forced into resignation following a series of key missteps. He left office with a dismal 31% approval rating. What is the biggest substantive difference between you and 1184AZ and how specifically will your methods differ from his?

I won't claim to have personal knowledge of the circumstances in which my predecessor vacated his post. I'll only repeat what he himself has elsewhere said, that he was not well-fitted for the office. While AZ and I have worked together in the past, our styles are vastly different, as I think any of our colleagues over the years can attest.

I intend to restore a regimen of thoroughness and rigor to the Justice Department. I define "rigor" both with respect to style, as seeing that all briefs, petitions, and orders of this department are clear, properly sourced, and grammatically consistent, and substance, as being well-reasoned and comprehensive in their treatment of the law. The decision to bring criminal charges should not be taken lightly, nor based on frivolous evidence; but when a crime has been committed, I take the view that the offender should be punished to the full extent of the law. I will add that to merit the attention of this office, I believe an offense must be clearly defined by law, and disruptive to the game as a whole. I don't intend to prosecute every washed-up troll who declares independence from their parent's basement, for instance; but in cases such as Bloody July, when rebellion poses a clear and present threat to the ability of law-abiding citizens to carry out their business unmolested, a strong and unequivocal response by the Justice Department is warranted.

Do you see any conflicts of interest between this job and your role in the Fremont Parliament and if so how will you resolve those conflicts? Furthermore, are you confident that you can devote yourself to both positions without neglecting either?

I do not. I served jointly as prime minister of Frémont and Attorney General for eight months when last I held this office; never once did I hear anyone complain about my engagement, or suggest one set of duties posed a conflict of interest with respect to the other (except for politically-motivated sniping by "reformed" terrorists, but who cares what they think?). In the event of a hypothetical conflict of interest between my executive and parliamentary roles, I would immediately recuse myself and transfer authority for the relevant matter to an appointed deputy. As for activity, I think my record speaks for itself on this front. If I thought I would be unable to serve in parliament and the Cabinet jointly, I would not be here.

What is your stance on criminal justice reform? Are there any areas where you think Atlasia could improve in criminal justice?

Excellent question! I take the apparently controversial position that the punishment should fit the crime —meaning that if you're busted for carrying a ziplock bag filled with marijuana down the street, you shouldn't be thrown in prison and stripped of your right to vote. While Atlasia is much better on this count, especially with regard to non-violent drug offenses, than the former United States, there's still a great deal we can do to reform sentencing and pretrial detention practices: see, for example, my bill recently passed by parliament to abolish money bail. This is an issue on which there is a great potential for collaboration between the federal government and the regions (so I'd argue my position in parliament is a convergence of interest in this case).

If confirmed, what will be your priorities and things you wish to do most as Attorney General?

See above with regard to restoring rigorous standards to the Justice Department and collaborating with the regions on criminal justice reform. While Justice is not and should not be an agenda-driven department in the way that State or Internal Affairs are, there is a great need for competent, legally-sound lawyering in Atlasia today, and I intend to meet that need.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

Truman will make a great AG and I have full confidence in him.

[Devout Centrist]

I will vote to confirm Truman for Attorney General. He's perfectly suited for the position!

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Do you see the various discord servers as a generally positive or negative thing and should the federal government attempt to regulate their use in any way?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Do you see the various discord servers as a generally positive or negative thing and should the federal government attempt to regulate their use in any way?

I don't think Discord is inherently either positive or negative; as a matter of personal preference, I general lean towards conducting most official business on the forum versus on Discord, in the interests of transparency. I don't anticipate my personal feelings on the matter being of relevance to my performance as Attorney General.

From a legal standpoint, I don't believe the federal government (or the regions for that matter) has any constitutional authority to regulate off-site activity, any more than Congress could ordinarily regulate speech on Atlas. The one exception I could allow, would be for channels specifically created by a part of the government for their official use. Were Congress to conduct part of its business on another platform, by way of example, it would stand to reason they would be within their power to apply the relevant provisions of the House and Senate rules there. To be perfectly clear, I am not advocating for this course of action, merely considering a hypothetical scenario insofar as the law is concerned.

[Former President tack50]

Speaking of Discord, AZ proposed a law to regulate it, which ended being killed because of (among other things) concerns regarding the use of discord as proof in criminal trials, which could easily be falsified.

What is your position on the matter, regarding the use of Discord as proof of crimes?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Speaking of Discord, AZ proposed a law to regulate it, which ended being killed because of (among other things) concerns regarding the use of discord as proof in criminal trials, which could easily be falsified.

What is your position on the matter, regarding the use of Discord as proof of crimes?

As I said at the time, the Discord Regulations bill was highly problematic from a constitutional standpoint; I would strongly oppose any similar effort to curtail free speech on off-site platforms as Attorney General. There is, however, strong precedent for the admission of off-site testimony as evidence in court. Ultimately, all testimony is subject to falsification; it is up to the prosecutor, the court, and the jurors to determine the validity of a piece of evidence submitted as proof of criminal guilt.

This gets to the point I made earlier about frivolous charges: as the government's chief prosecutor, I will not pursue criminal charges unless I am certain a crime was committed. The quest for certitude necessarily involves verifying the validity of any evidence discovered, including Discord screenshots. Ultimately, it is the Attorney General's responsibility to determine that the evidence they present in court is genuine. I will add that in general, I would not consider a single screenshot as sufficient proof that a crime was committed.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Based on the answers given, I have been persuaded to support this nominee. I urge the Senate to confirm.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In the past there were concerns raised about the Attorney General's mandate from the President being limited in a way that restricted it from doing even some normal and expected things for the Department of Justice. I think one such example was bring suits against a region. These concerns were expressed by AG Dereich last year, but no resolution was every obtained during my administration unfortunately.

What are your thoughts on the DoJ's mandate in game compared to rl and what authorizations/authority would seek to add or remove if any?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

In the past there were concerns raised about the Attorney General's mandate from the President being limited in a way that restricted it from doing even some normal and expected things for the Department of Justice. I think one such example was bring suits against a region. These concerns were expressed by AG Dereich last year, but no resolution was every obtained during my administration unfortunately.

What are your thoughts on the DoJ's mandate in game compared to rl and what authorizations/authority would seek to add or remove if any?

I don't remember the instance the Senator refers to, and in lieu of a more detailed accounting, I'm not sure I understand what concerns were being raised. I served five president as Attorney General or the equivalent, and I don't recall ever feeling my mandate had been significantly limited by the White House: to the contrary, I can recollect at least once instance when my department went ahead with a prosecution despite the president being personally convinced of the defendant's innocence. My Justice Department functioned almost as an independent agency in this regard. I don't believe there's anything in the DoJ's current mandate that would prevent it from bringing suit against a region if the said were in violation of federal law, to address the specific example raised. I'm going to need more details if the Senator wants a better answer than that.

[Former President tack50]

In the past there were concerns raised about the Attorney General's mandate from the President being limited in a way that restricted it from doing even some normal and expected things for the Department of Justice. I think one such example was bring suits against a region. These concerns were expressed by AG Dereich last year, but no resolution was every obtained during my administration unfortunately.

What are your thoughts on the DoJ's mandate in game compared to rl and what authorizations/authority would seek to add or remove if any?

I don't remember the instance the Senator refers to, and in lieu of a more detailed accounting, I'm not sure I understand what concerns were being raised. I served five president as Attorney General or the equivalent, and I don't recall ever feeling my mandate had been significantly limited by the White House: to the contrary, I can recollect at least once instance when my department went ahead with a prosecution despite the president being personally convinced of the defendant's innocence. My Justice Department functioned almost as an independent agency in this regard. I don't believe there's anything in the DoJ's current mandate that would prevent it from bringing suit against a region if the said were in violation of federal law, to address the specific example raised. I'm going to need more details if the Senator wants a better answer than that.

I believe he means an instance where Atlasia would need to sue Fremont or the Fremont Parliament for some reason? (or viceversa)

I imagine there would be a conflict of interest in that case. Of course the president could just appoint a special prosecutor/attorney, sue himself or worst case scenario dismiss the AG and appoint someone else I guess.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In the past there were concerns raised about the Attorney General's mandate from the President being limited in a way that restricted it from doing even some normal and expected things for the Department of Justice. I think one such example was bring suits against a region. These concerns were expressed by AG Dereich last year, but no resolution was every obtained during my administration unfortunately.

What are your thoughts on the DoJ's mandate in game compared to rl and what authorizations/authority would seek to add or remove if any?

I don't remember the instance the Senator refers to, and in lieu of a more detailed accounting, I'm not sure I understand what concerns were being raised. I served five president as Attorney General or the equivalent, and I don't recall ever feeling my mandate had been significantly limited by the White House: to the contrary, I can recollect at least once instance when my department went ahead with a prosecution despite the president being personally convinced of the defendant's innocence. My Justice Department functioned almost as an independent agency in this regard. I don't believe there's anything in the DoJ's current mandate that would prevent it from bringing suit against a region if the said were in violation of federal law, to address the specific example raised. I'm going to need more details if the Senator wants a better answer than that.

I believe he means an instance where Atlasia would need to sue Fremont or the Fremont Parliament for some reason? (or viceversa)

I imagine there would be a conflict of interest in that case. Of course the president could just appoint a special prosecutor/attorney, sue himself or worst case scenario dismiss the AG and appoint someone else I guess.

Actually I was not, but that is an interesting point nonetheless, it has been a concern of mine that the AG should were practical not hold other office.


Dereich said something to me, and I would have to dig to find it that according to the executive order issued by President DFW, the Department of Justice lacked several important authorities and I recall one of them was the ability to sue a region that was in violation of federal law.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Dereich said something to me, and I would have to dig to find it that according to the executive order issued by President DFW, the Department of Justice lacked several important authorities and I recall one of them was the ability to sue a region that was in violation of federal law.

Ah, thank-you. In that case, I would ask the president to amend the relevant order, in the event it is still on the books. The ability to enforce federal law in the regions (including important civil rights protections found in the Constitution) is certainly an essential function of the Justice Department.

As for a hypothetical suit against Frémont: it would depend on the context, but in general I would be inclined to recuse myself in such an event, in favor of an appointed deputy.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

Do any senators have other questions for the nominee?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have no other questions myself.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

A final vote has begun on this nomination for Attorney General. Please vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN.

[Former President tack50]

Aye

Truman has been a great legal expert in Atlasia and he will keep being one.

[ON Progressive]

Aye

Truman is more than qualified to be our next Attorney General.

[Devout Centrist]

Aye

Give em hell, Harry!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

There is no one more qualified for this legalist post than Atlasia's second worst Senator. As the absolute worst I give you my seal of approval.

[Comrade Funk]

Aye