Weaponization of the DOJ.

[forkup]

'Broadview Six' charges dropped as Chicago's top federal prosecutor admits case was tainted by misconduct

U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros made the highly unusual announcement Thursday, hours after a closed-door meeting was held about redactions made by prosecutors to a set of grand jury transcripts. The Operation Midway Blitz case has now become the most controversial prosecution of Boutros' 14-month…

chicago.suntimes.com

So, this is interesting to me for a few reasons.

For all our friends on the right who have been crying, "They're prosecuting Trump, that's DOJ weaponization," this is what actual weaponization looks like.

You have a U.S. Attorney speaking to jurors outside the grand jury room. You have prosecutors assuring jurors that they personally wouldn't bring charges without probable cause, which is textbook vouching. And apparently these same prosecutors felt they could dismiss jurors who were skeptical of the case because those jurors had previously heard the same case and returned a no bill.

It doesn't stop there. When ordered by the judge to provide the transcripts, the DOJ reportedly redacted some of the most damning portions.

One would think, and frankly expect, that misconduct this blatant would result not only in termination, but also a review of the attorneys' law licenses by the bar. Not here. Instead, the lead prosecutor was promoted to counsel for the Judiciary Committee.

A lawyer who misstated and misapplied the law will now be responsible for explaining the law to lawmakers.

That's quite something.

 

[Mac1958]

'Broadview Six' charges dropped as Chicago's top federal prosecutor admits case was tainted by misconduct

U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros made the highly unusual announcement Thursday, hours after a closed-door meeting was held about redactions made by prosecutors to a set of grand jury transcripts. The Operation Midway Blitz case has now become the most controversial prosecution of Boutros' 14-month…

chicago.suntimes.com

So, this is interesting to me for a few reasons.

For all our friends on the right who have been crying, "They're prosecuting Trump, that's DOJ weaponization," this is what actual weaponization looks like.

You have a U.S. Attorney speaking to jurors outside the grand jury room. You have prosecutors assuring jurors that they personally wouldn't bring charges without probable cause, which is textbook vouching. And apparently these same prosecutors felt they could dismiss jurors who were skeptical of the case because those jurors had previously heard the same case and returned a no bill.

It doesn't stop there. When ordered by the judge to provide the transcripts, the DOJ reportedly redacted some of the most damning portions.

One would think, and frankly expect, that misconduct this blatant would result not only in termination, but also a review of the attorneys' law licenses by the bar. Not here. Instead, the lead prosecutor was promoted to counsel for the Judiciary Committee.

A lawyer who misstated and misapplied the law will now be responsible for explaining the law to lawmakers.

That's quite something.

They'll spend this thread justifying everything that is happening by saying "Biden did it first".

That's how they're justifying everything that is happening right now. They imagine that "Biden did it first" (because cult), which is their excuse for Trump doing it times 1,000. But, as always, they don't have the original proof of the original claim.

And we no longer have to ask the historical question, "how could they have let this happen?"

 

[forkup]

They'll spend this thread justifying everything that is happening by saying "Biden did it first".

That's how they're justifying everything that is happening right now. They imagine that "Biden did it first" (because cult), which is their excuse for Trump doing it times 1,000. But, as always, they don't have the original proof of the original claim.

And we no longer have to ask the historical question, "how could they have let this happen?"

Oh, I agree.

The appeal to hypocrisy mixed with a false analogy defense.

I just figured another one of my establishing a record posts was in order.

I don't start many posts but I've found that these kinds of things are what drives me the most crazy.

They feel like boring nerdy issues, but I suspect they are the ones that are most damaging to Democracy in the first place.

Presidents change (maybe), parties change both geographically and ideoligically, even laws can change.

But once you cross the treshhold that the laws that govern a country can be ignored by those charged with upholding those laws, the damage and loss of trust can only be recovered after alot of time and effort, if at all.

 

[Mac1958]

Oh, I agree.

The appeal to hypocrisy mixed with a false analogy defense.

I just figured another one of my establishing a record posts was in order.

I don't start many posts but I've found that these kinds of things are what drives me the most crazy.

They feel like boring nerdy issues, but I suspect they are the ones that are most damaging to Democracy in the first place.

Presidents change (maybe), parties change both geographically and ideoligically, even laws can change.

But once you cross the treshhold that the laws that govern a country can be ignored by those charged with upholding those laws, the damage and loss of trust can only be recovered after alot of time and effort, if at all.

It's a perilous moment, to be sure.

 

[Votto]

'Broadview Six' charges dropped as Chicago's top federal prosecutor admits case was tainted by misconduct

U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros made the highly unusual announcement Thursday, hours after a closed-door meeting was held about redactions made by prosecutors to a set of grand jury transcripts. The Operation Midway Blitz case has now become the most controversial prosecution of Boutros' 14-month…

chicago.suntimes.com

So, this is interesting to me for a few reasons.

For all our friends on the right who have been crying, "They're prosecuting Trump, that's DOJ weaponization," this is what actual weaponization looks like.

You have a U.S. Attorney speaking to jurors outside the grand jury room. You have prosecutors assuring jurors that they personally wouldn't bring charges without probable cause, which is textbook vouching. And apparently these same prosecutors felt they could dismiss jurors who were skeptical of the case because those jurors had previously heard the same case and returned a no bill.

It doesn't stop there. When ordered by the judge to provide the transcripts, the DOJ reportedly redacted some of the most damning portions.

One would think, and frankly expect, that misconduct this blatant would result not only in termination, but also a review of the attorneys' law licenses by the bar. Not here. Instead, the lead prosecutor was promoted to counsel for the Judiciary Committee.

A lawyer who misstated and misapplied the law will now be responsible for explaining the law to lawmakers.

That's quite something.

And how are democrats offering to fix the system?

Let me guess, nothing whatsoever.



Won't it be nice to get back in power so you can abuse a system without any accountability?

Wet dreams boys until then so that you can get even and then some!!!

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

How did Trump cause this?

 

[Votto]

How did Trump cause this?

Cuz he is Hitler silly.

 

[forkup]

And how are democrats offering to fix the system?

Let me guess, nothing whatsoever.

Not nothing. Simply following the law.

A law that nobody is above. A law that provides both the accused and the government with a process that must be followed and, in the government's case, should be followed.

Here's the thing.

Take the Mueller Report. I've actually read it, and more importantly, I understand the reasoning behind it. For all the cries of "no collusion," the report documents numerous contacts and interactions that many people would reasonably describe as collusive. What Mueller ultimately concluded was that those actions did not amount to a criminal conspiracy under the law.

"Collusion" has no defined legal meaning. "Conspiracy" does.

Mueller declined to bring conspiracy charges, and in my view, he was right to do so. Not because Trump necessarily did nothing wrong, but because a prosecutor shouldn't bring charges they are unlikely to prove in court.

That's the standard I'm talking about.

And that's what Democrats, or better yet, anyone who genuinely believes in the rule of law rather than using the phrase as a political slogan, should be defending.

 

[forkup]

How did Trump cause this?

Maybe you aren't aware of the about a million posts openly calling for retrobution to political enemies. Or the firings of those that don't go along?

It's actually funny how Trump at the same time is argued to be the head of the executive branch, and as such within his right to demand total loyalty of those in it.
Even if he's asking them to act in unethical or even illegal ways.

And at the same time not responsible when the people act the way he says they should.

 

[Mac1958]

Not nothing. Simply following the law.

A law that nobody is above. A law that provides both the accused and the government with a process that must be followed and, in the government's case, should be followed.

Here's the thing.

Take the Mueller Report. I've actually read it, and more importantly, I understand the reasoning behind it. For all the cries of "no collusion," the report documents numerous contacts and interactions that many people would reasonably describe as collusive. What Mueller ultimately concluded was that those actions did not amount to a criminal conspiracy under the law.

"Collusion" has no defined legal meaning. "Conspiracy" does.

Mueller declined to bring conspiracy charges, and in my view, he was right to do so. Not because Trump necessarily did nothing wrong, but because a prosecutor shouldn't bring charges they are unlikely to prove in court.

That's the standard I'm talking about.

And that's what Democrats, or better yet, anyone who genuinely believes in the rule of law rather than using the phrase as a political slogan, should be defending.

And ON TOP of crazy notions like the rule of law, the Constitution and Separation of Powers, Trump TOLD US he was going to do this.

"I am your retribution" he said. "This is a witchhunt". "The system is rigged against me". We all KNEW what was coming (even if we didn't expect it to be quite this blatant).

Then the useful idiots pretend this is all just normal stuff. Incredible. Not surprising, but incredible.

 

[Care4all]

The biblical Man of Lawlessness, is in charge now! Beware!!!

 

[WorldWatcher]

How did Trump cause this?

Cutting 4,000 positions on DOJ.

Loss of over 10,000 lawyers and career professionals at DOJ who were fired, quite, resigned, or took retirement becasue of bad leadership and the destruction of the once proud DOJ.

Inability to fill remaining openings with qualified candidates because those that are qualified don't want anything to do with the current DOJ.

Lowering standards for hiring just to get some warm body into the positions they can fill.

Nominating incompetent leadership at the DOJ where loyalty was more important than the Constitution, the Law, and the application of justice.

Just a few "How did..." off the top of my head.

WW

 

[Mac1958]

holy crap

Trump’s campaign of retribution: At least 470 targets and counting

From the piece:

The retribution took three distinct forms.

Most common were punitive acts, such as firings, suspensions, investigations and the revocation of security clearances.

The second form was threats. Trump and his administration targeted at least 46 individuals, businesses and other entities with threats of investigations or penalties, including freezing federal funds for Democratic-led cities such as New York and Chicago.

Trump openly discussed firing Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell for resisting interest rate cuts, for instance. Last week, he threatened to have six Democratic members of Congress tried for sedition – a crime he said is “punishable by DEATH” – after the lawmakers reminded military personnel they can refuse “illegal orders.” This week, the Defense Department threatened to court-martial one of them, U.S. Senator Mark Kelly, a former Naval officer.

The third form was coercion. In at least a dozen cases, organizations such as law firms and universities signed agreements with the government to roll back diversity initiatives or other policies after facing administration threats of punishment, such as security clearance revocations and loss of federal funding and contracts.

It’s a campaign led from the top: Trump’s White House has issued at least 36 orders, decrees and directives, targeting at least 100 individuals and entities with punitive actions, according to the Reuters analysis.

Trump openly campaigned on a platform of revenge in his latest run for the presidency, promising to punish enemies of his Make America Great Again movement. "For those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution," he said in a March 2023 speech. Weeks later, while campaigning in Texas, he repeated the theme. “I am your justice,” he said.

 

[DonGlock26]

'Broadview Six' charges dropped as Chicago's top federal prosecutor admits case was tainted by misconduct

U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros made the highly unusual announcement Thursday, hours after a closed-door meeting was held about redactions made by prosecutors to a set of grand jury transcripts. The Operation Midway Blitz case has now become the most controversial prosecution of Boutros' 14-month…

chicago.suntimes.com

So, this is interesting to me for a few reasons.

For all our friends on the right who have been crying, "They're prosecuting Trump, that's DOJ weaponization," this is what actual weaponization looks like.

You have a U.S. Attorney speaking to jurors outside the grand jury room. You have prosecutors assuring jurors that they personally wouldn't bring charges without probable cause, which is textbook vouching. And apparently these same prosecutors felt they could dismiss jurors who were skeptical of the case because those jurors had previously heard the same case and returned a no bill.

It doesn't stop there. When ordered by the judge to provide the transcripts, the DOJ reportedly redacted some of the most damning portions.

One would think, and frankly expect, that misconduct this blatant would result not only in termination, but also a review of the attorneys' law licenses by the bar. Not here. Instead, the lead prosecutor was promoted to counsel for the Judiciary Committee.

A lawyer who misstated and misapplied the law will now be responsible for explaining the law to lawmakers.

That's quite something.

Live by the lawfare, die by the lawfare. It's the Democrats' turn now.