I disagree with your assessment that it is “water under the bridge.” Our country, democracy, and the rule of law have suffered immeasurably as a result of the DOj’s not wanting to look politically partisan. Which by itself, was a politically motivated decision. There is much value in examining and rehashing this negligence, as in all situations in which there must be accountability and consequences. If you are inept or negligent in your job, you usually get demoted or fired. These stakes are exponentially larger. This is not a “let bygones be bygones” situation and there needs to be accountability to the American people who have seen and heard the criminal evidence a full 15 months ago. Any one of us would be in jail by now.
Refusing to label the absurd slow-walking of the investigation as 'malfeasance' is willful blindness. The refusal to even follow the money behind 1/6 emboldened the GOP to take wildly autocratic steps in state after state.
The justice system isn't the remedy to all that ails our country, but ignoring blatant and ongoing criminality has undermined faith in both the FBI and the DOJ.
How the hell do you take the leap from a slow beginning to "malfeasance"? It's your opinion. If you think it's malfeasance, why don't you write to Merrick Garland and tell him to drop the cases against Trump? "Malfeasance" means the poor baby's constitutional rights were violated.
I don't think you understand the meaning of malfeasance, which includes gross negligence.
Garland spent his first month in office rewriting DIJ memos, closing all cases against Trump (including the Mueller obstruction cases), and taking Trump's side is fighting EJean Carroll's 1st defamation case.
Garland's job was not to protect an institution, it was to uphold the rule of law against the biggest stress test in modern history. Germany and Brazil faced similar challenges, and met them head on by arresting the organizers. Garland did the opposite.
I was a court clerk for over 10 years and understand the definitions of both negligence and malfeasance. Don't tell me what I "understand" because it's likely to be more than you do.
Show me reliable links where it shows what you claim. Sorry, no opinion columns.
Garland's original sin was not prosecuting Mueller and failing to prosecute a case where he literally had orangehead's signature on the check. If not for the J6 committee he likely would never have hired Jack Smith. This story proves he is more worthless than even the most critical of us Garland critics imagined.
Did you read the reporting? Time after time, prosecutors were told not to mention the “T” word or to pursue open source information. Why were they so far behind the J6 Committee? Only by being pushed by the J6 Commiittee and public pressure did they begin the work on the former Resident. What about the Congress people who are likely to have been involved? They still sit in seats of power working to destroy our government and democracy. We have lost precious time and it may do grave damage to our country.
I appreciate today’s summary; however I would appreciate your perspective on the Leonnig piece that Emptywheel, Bill Palmer and a few others call out gaps and blatant inaccuracies on dates and omissions of Proud Boys, and the notion that the Jan 6 Committee was ahead of DOJ. Why would WAPO risk putting that out? To whose benefit? Thanks!
Not Mueller, the crimes he investigated to produce his report. Mueller interviewed something like 500 witness and was able to identify at least ten crimes that he recommended DOJ file charges on. He would've filed the charge himself but he felt constrained by the DOJ claiming he couldn't prosecute a president because Nixon. IMHO Mueller also refused to act because he is a lifelong Republican.
"nearly everyone, including I’m afraid the highest levels of the Justice Department, have been slow to internalize" excepting 60 million internet smart alecs...
I disagree with your assessment that it is “water under the bridge.” Our country, democracy, and the rule of law have suffered immeasurably as a result of the DOj’s not wanting to look politically partisan. Which by itself, was a politically motivated decision. There is much value in examining and rehashing this negligence, as in all situations in which there must be accountability and consequences. If you are inept or negligent in your job, you usually get demoted or fired. These stakes are exponentially larger. This is not a “let bygones be bygones” situation and there needs to be accountability to the American people who have seen and heard the criminal evidence a full 15 months ago. Any one of us would be in jail by now.
Completely agree.
Refusing to label the absurd slow-walking of the investigation as 'malfeasance' is willful blindness. The refusal to even follow the money behind 1/6 emboldened the GOP to take wildly autocratic steps in state after state.
The justice system isn't the remedy to all that ails our country, but ignoring blatant and ongoing criminality has undermined faith in both the FBI and the DOJ.
How the hell do you take the leap from a slow beginning to "malfeasance"? It's your opinion. If you think it's malfeasance, why don't you write to Merrick Garland and tell him to drop the cases against Trump? "Malfeasance" means the poor baby's constitutional rights were violated.
I don't think you understand the meaning of malfeasance, which includes gross negligence.
Garland spent his first month in office rewriting DIJ memos, closing all cases against Trump (including the Mueller obstruction cases), and taking Trump's side is fighting EJean Carroll's 1st defamation case.
Garland's job was not to protect an institution, it was to uphold the rule of law against the biggest stress test in modern history. Germany and Brazil faced similar challenges, and met them head on by arresting the organizers. Garland did the opposite.
I was a court clerk for over 10 years and understand the definitions of both negligence and malfeasance. Don't tell me what I "understand" because it's likely to be more than you do.
Show me reliable links where it shows what you claim. Sorry, no opinion columns.
I'm an attorney.
Your level of fury is...interesting.
And your mocking my comment isn't.
Garland's original sin was not prosecuting Mueller and failing to prosecute a case where he literally had orangehead's signature on the check. If not for the J6 committee he likely would never have hired Jack Smith. This story proves he is more worthless than even the most critical of us Garland critics imagined.
Prosecuting Mueller for what?
Did you read the reporting? Time after time, prosecutors were told not to mention the “T” word or to pursue open source information. Why were they so far behind the J6 Committee? Only by being pushed by the J6 Commiittee and public pressure did they begin the work on the former Resident. What about the Congress people who are likely to have been involved? They still sit in seats of power working to destroy our government and democracy. We have lost precious time and it may do grave damage to our country.
I never thought I'd see the day that Mike Pence doesn't care that we've all noticed what a flaming hypocrite and liar he is. Jesus sees you, Mike LOL
I appreciate today’s summary; however I would appreciate your perspective on the Leonnig piece that Emptywheel, Bill Palmer and a few others call out gaps and blatant inaccuracies on dates and omissions of Proud Boys, and the notion that the Jan 6 Committee was ahead of DOJ. Why would WAPO risk putting that out? To whose benefit? Thanks!
Not Mueller, the crimes he investigated to produce his report. Mueller interviewed something like 500 witness and was able to identify at least ten crimes that he recommended DOJ file charges on. He would've filed the charge himself but he felt constrained by the DOJ claiming he couldn't prosecute a president because Nixon. IMHO Mueller also refused to act because he is a lifelong Republican.
"nearly everyone, including I’m afraid the highest levels of the Justice Department, have been slow to internalize" excepting 60 million internet smart alecs...