Gah! Drivel when it is "good" - and worse for the most part.
Most glaringly the questions (those quoted and the rest in the article) show a complete lack of understanding of the Constitutional interplay between the Executive and the Judicial branches, and how the adversarial judicial process works. I was overwhelmed by the number of leading questions and stopped counting so cannot say they constituted a majority (or even a "large" majority or "vast" majority) of the questions posed.
Many of the questions asked how the government could intervene even more into the lives of the citizens. Others were along the lines of "I wish things were like X _ don't you, too?" But perhaps the best was "If you could add one amendment to the Constitution, what would it be?"
Then there is: "Last December, Ed Krayewski at Reason magazine proposed creating a “police offenders registry.” This would be a master list of police officers who have been caught lying in police reports or on the witness stand, using excessive force, or abusing or intimidating citizens. The idea here is to prevent corrupt and abusive cops from simply picking up and moving to another police department. There of course would be some details to work out about what would qualify an officer for listing on the registry, but generally speaking, do you support this idea? Is it something you would consider asking your Justice Department to create and oversee?" Apparently Mr. Kraewwski and/or Reason Magazine never heard of a Brady List ( http://steeringlaw.com/brady-list-pitchess-motion/ ). The ability to trace a cop's career is not difficult but creating another centralized government bureaucracy is apparently just too tempting.