This is an admission from NY Times on February 6: Democratic Party operatives and democratic attorney generals and governors do not know the differences between their roles. Per admission, democratic attorney generals and governors are Democratic Party operatives appointed to the positions where they benefit other Democratic Party operatives and Democratic Party donors:

“In interviews, more than a dozen Democratic attorneys general, governors and party operatives detailed a week of frenzied litigation, late-night and early-morning phone calls and text messages, and strategies devised on airplanes and at sporting events. All told, Democrats say, the legal onslaught against Mr. Trump was a crystallizing moment for the party’s attorneys general — and a model for how to stall or unwind the administration policies they find most offensive.”

“Mr. Schneiderman, a former state senator from Manhattan who is in his second term as attorney general, called the travel ban a ‘first test’ of the Democratic legal apparatus under Mr. Trump.”

NY Times sees nothing unnatural about the fact that democratic attorney generals are a part of the democratic legal apparatus!

“It was [WA Attorney General] Mr. Ferguson’s suit that won the biggest victory: a federal judge’s ruling on Friday that froze, at least temporarily, the carrying out of a travel ban.”

“Even before Mr. Trump’s directive, Democratic attorneys general were gearing up to play a larger role in national politics.”

“While Mr. Trump was being sworn in last month, three up-and-coming Democratic attorneys general — Mr. Balderas, Mr. Schneiderman and Maura Healey of Massachusetts — joined a conference of wealthy political donors in South Florida to deliberate over the party’s future.”

“On the last Friday in January, many of those officials had gathered in Fort Lauderdale for a conference of the Democratic Attorneys General Association, a group that helps raise money for their campaigns.”

“He [Hector Balderas, the New Mexico attorney general] described the attack on Mr. Trump’s immigration order as a blueprint for state attorneys general who aim to rein in the White House.”

“‘It does seem that we are becoming, potentially, the fourth branch of government,’ Mr. Balderas said in an interview.”

It seems to me like it could be a seditious conspiracy.

How did attorney generals gain so much apparent power? According to NYT:

“They [state attorneys general] were once primarily local law enforcement figures who rarely pursued issues beyond state borders. But with the growth of their clout and ambition over the last three decades, they have become magnets for lobbyists, campaign donors and other corporate representatives looking to intervene in regulatory policy and tip investigations, a New York Times investigation found in 2014.”

“Under President Bill Clinton, attorneys general pioneered the major multistate lawsuit that has served as a model for interstate collaboration since, with nearly all the states joining together to win a groundbreaking settlement with the tobacco industry. Liberal states later collaborated to force the E.P.A. under President George W. Bush to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, winning a Supreme Court decision that made it easier for the states to sue the federal government.”