Weaponization of the DOJ.

[Votto]

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

Any man that can get 10,000 lawyers fired deserves a damn raise.

But that's just me.

Lawyers have destroyed the Republic.

 

[forkup]

Its interesting to you because you are a blue chip member of the losing political party at the moment. Any dirt on Republicans is like gold for you at the moment.

The problem is Congress....
Currently they care more about anything and everything else but literally their jobs.

Federal judges, prosecutors, and etc all come under congressional oversight committees who are supposed to put people in jail for criminal behavior.
What's amazing to me is how badly they dropped the ball on this case....and nobody noticed until now.

And its not like there has not been an epidemic of prosecutorial abuse bordering on misconduct for a minute now.....from judge shopping to prosecutions more about politics than crime.

Who the President appointed and who they subsequently appointed is the least of my worries....when the safety guard rails have been removed because Congress literally refuses to do their job....its over. Really over.
Might as well host the next Tiananmen Square Tank vx Man event in Chicago.

I don't care whether the prosecutor serves under Republicans, Democrats, or Smurfs.

And no, this isn't primarily a Congress problem.

Federal judges have lifetime appointments. U.S. Attorneys are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Assistant U.S. Attorneys, the career prosecutors who actually handle most federal cases, are hired directly by the DOJ and typically remain in place across administrations.

In this case, the prosecutors acted in a way that federal prosecutors are not supposed to act. And im a way that can't be explaimed as bad lawyering. That's the issue.

What's particularly striking is the number of federal grand jury no-bills we've seen recently. Historically, no-bills in federal court are extraordinarily rare. For decades, federal prosecutors were so successful at securing indictments that "a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich" became a famous saying.

Yet under Jeanine Pirro's tenure in D.C., her office has reportedly accumulated multiple no-bills in just a matter of months, including one case that was reportedly presented to a grand jury three separate times and rejected each time.

Think about that for a moment.

A federal grand jury hears only the government's side of the case. The standard isn't guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it's merely probable cause. Despite that, we're seeing grand juries refuse to indict in cases brought by federal prosecutors.

That should raise an obvious question: why are prosecutors bringing cases that even grand juries, applying the lowest charging standard in the system and hearing only the government's evidence, are unwilling to approve?

That's not a congressional oversight problem. That's a prosecutorial judgment problem.

And if the allegations in this case are true, it's even worse than poor judgment. It suggests prosecutors became so invested in obtaining an indictment that they started treating the grand jury as an obstacle to overcome rather than an independent check on their power.

 

[forkup]

That is the long version of saying, the witch hunt went nowhere.

That the short version of saying. 'I can't argue the point, so I'll just deflect.'

 

[forkup]

At least Trump's DOJ is going after real crimes while Biden made up crimes, and so did the AG of NY.

Yup, so real they fail to convince a GJ. So they try again, only this time to remove a juror that's skeptical because they heard it before and called it bs.

 

[Votto]

I don't care whether the prosecutor serves under Republicans, Democrats, or Smurfs.

And no, this isn't primarily a Congress problem.

Federal judges have lifetime appointments. U.S. Attorneys are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Assistant U.S. Attorneys, the career prosecutors who actually handle most federal cases, are hired directly by the DOJ and typically remain in place across administrations.

In this case, the prosecutors acted in a way that federal prosecutors are not supposed to act. And im a way that can't be explaimed as bad lawyering. That's the issue.

What's particularly striking is the number of federal grand jury no-bills we've seen recently. Historically, no-bills in federal court are extraordinarily rare. For decades, federal prosecutors were so successful at securing indictments that "a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich" became a famous saying.

Yet under Jeanine Pirro's tenure in D.C., her office has reportedly accumulated multiple no-bills in just a matter of months, including one case that was reportedly presented to a grand jury three separate times and rejected each time.

Think about that for a moment.

A federal grand jury hears only the government's side of the case. The standard isn't guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it's merely probable cause. Despite that, we're seeing grand juries refuse to indict in cases brought by federal prosecutors.

That should raise an obvious question: why are prosecutors bringing cases that even grand juries, applying the lowest charging standard in the system and hearing only the government's evidence, are unwilling to approve?

That's not a congressional oversight problem. That's a prosecutorial judgment problem.

And if the allegations in this case are true, it's even worse than poor judgment. It suggests prosecutors became so invested in obtaining an indictment that they started treating the grand jury as an obstacle to overcome rather than an independent check on their power.

To think that the positions within government are not weaponized by politicians is just insane or mentally retarded.

It's like children who still believe in Santa Clause thinking Trump was the first and last so long as they keep electing democrats.

Hilarious.

Yea, neither party wants to address preventing the weaponization of government, they just want to win elections is all.

It's the same with spending. Both parties have a problem with it but neither wants to fix it because their only goal is winning that next election for their next payday.

This thread is only meant to target Trump and has no solutions to offer on how to fix the system.

 

[forkup]

To think that the positions within government are not weaponized by politicians is just insane or mentally retarded.

It's like children who still believe in Santa Clause thinking Trump was the first and last so long as they keep electing democrats.

Hilarious.

Yea, neither party wants to address preventing the weaponization of government, they just want to win elections is all.

It's the same with spending. Both parties have a problem with it but neither wants to fix it because their only goal is winning that next election for their next payday.

This thread is only meant to target Trump and has no solutions to offer on how to fix the system.

Again. Go through the records. Find me any time were there were more than a handfull no bills in the entire country?

Last year alone Pirro managed to get 3 no bills FOR THE SAME CHARGE.

This whole "everybody does it" thing only works if you don't know, or in cases like you... don't want to know better.

It's lazy and stupid.

 

[DonGlock26]

Again. So a prosecutor having a meeting in the White House means any prosecution that prosecutor does is lawfare?




It's funny. How having meetings apparently breaks laws or norms for Democrats. You don't need any specifics simple meetimgs is enough. Got it.

Yep. That’s Democrat lawfare.

 

[JohnDB]

I don't care whether the prosecutor serves under Republicans, Democrats, or Smurfs.

And no, this isn't primarily a Congress problem.

Federal judges have lifetime appointments. U.S. Attorneys are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Assistant U.S. Attorneys, the career prosecutors who actually handle most federal cases, are hired directly by the DOJ and typically remain in place across administrations.

In this case, the prosecutors acted in a way that federal prosecutors are not supposed to act. And im a way that can't be explaimed as bad lawyering. That's the issue.

What's particularly striking is the number of federal grand jury no-bills we've seen recently. Historically, no-bills in federal court are extraordinarily rare. For decades, federal prosecutors were so successful at securing indictments that "a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich" became a famous saying.

Yet under Jeanine Pirro's tenure in D.C., her office has reportedly accumulated multiple no-bills in just a matter of months, including one case that was reportedly presented to a grand jury three separate times and rejected each time.

Think about that for a moment.

A federal grand jury hears only the government's side of the case. The standard isn't guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it's merely probable cause. Despite that, we're seeing grand juries refuse to indict in cases brought by federal prosecutors.

That should raise an obvious question: why are prosecutors bringing cases that even grand juries, applying the lowest charging standard in the system and hearing only the government's evidence, are unwilling to approve?

That's not a congressional oversight problem. That's a prosecutorial judgment problem.

And if the allegations in this case are true, it's even worse than poor judgment. It suggests prosecutors became so invested in obtaining an indictment that they started treating the grand jury as an obstacle to overcome rather than an independent check on their power.

I thought that prosecutor abuse was a given.....its the remedy that I'm discussing.

The remedy is in Congress actually doing their job of oversight....hearings to listen and determine who did what wrong.
Because Congress is supposed to freaking care about the citizens....and a prosecutor gone rogue....very very bad.

Many these days are overworked and under staffed with pathetic resources available...I get that.
But...its being used as a stepping stone to better paying jobs too much lately.

 

[BlindBoo]

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

Lawfare is like shooting first and asking questions later. Law and order investigates allegations and once the facts are known, if warranted, criminal charges are filed. Which is how the DOJ under Biden worked. Under Benedict Donnie, it has been a demand by tweet, then spurious charge are filed by a lackey.

How many times did Biden publicly call for the prosecution of any specific person?

Once. To which he later said was "inappropriate".

How many times has Benedict publicly called for the prosecution of any specific person?

Over a hundred.

 

[forkup]

I thought that prosecutor abuse was a given

That's the point, it is not.

Prosecutoral abuse does exists. But it's rare... until now.

There's a quantitive diffrence between prosecutors not securing indictments 10 times or not doing so 500 times for instance.

Pretending they are the same is not a valid argument.

As for your remedy. How do you propose Congress to exercise control over assistent US attorneys. The only way we knoe this happened is because the GJ transcripts were released following real amd credible accusations of miscomduct prompting the judge to read those transcripts and findimg what he found so.troubling the transcripts were released to the defense.

Those transcripts are usually sealed, to judges, let alone Congress. You can't perform oversight over things you don't.know.

 

[Ramjet38]

Yup, so real they fail to convince a GJ. So they try again, only this time to remove a juror that's skeptical because they heard it before and called it bs.

A D.C., or NY GJ... Ha! funny.

 

[Seymour Flops]

'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.

Were these your thoughts when the DOJ was weaponized against the Trump campaign in 2016?

 

[berg80]

Any man that can get 10,000 lawyers fired deserves a damn raise.

But that's just me.

Lawyers have destroyed the Republic.

Do you see the difference between your generic, low opinion of lawyers and trump's purge of DoJ employees because they have been deemed insufficiently loyal to him? Not to the law, to him.

 

[berg80]

That's the point, it is not.

Prosecutoral abuse does exists. But it's rare... until now.

There's a quantitive diffrence between prosecutors not securing indictments 10 times or not doing so 500 times for instance.

Pretending they are the same is not a valid argument.

As for your remedy. How do you propose Congress to exercise control over assistent US attorneys. The only way we knoe this happened is because the GJ transcripts were released following real amd credible accusations of miscomduct prompting the judge to read those transcripts and findimg what he found so.troubling the transcripts were released to the defense.

Those transcripts are usually sealed, to judges, let alone Congress. You can't perform oversight over things you don't.know.

Among other things, this is what trump's DoJ has destroyed by way of its misconduct.

The "presumption of regularity" is a legal doctrine that assumes government officials and public officers have properly discharged their official duties and followed the correct procedures. Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume administrative acts are valid and lawful.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

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.

Lame

 

[Lockback]

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.

I lost all faith in the Department of "Justice" under Obama and particularly Biden, who did weaponize it in a way never before seen.
So pardon me if I don't get all worked up in a dither about Trump chasing corruption and even settling a few scores.
The payback is a beyotch.

 

[Zincwarrior]

I lost all faith in the Department of "Justice" under Obama and particularly Biden, who did weaponize it in a way never before seen.
So pardon me if I don't get all worked up in a dither about Trump chasing corruption and even settling a few scores.
The payback is a beyotch.

If you believe Biden and Obama weaponized the DOJ, wouldn't it be equally horrendous for Trump to do so? Wouldn't you want a neutral DOJ?

 

[Votto]

That the short version of saying. 'I can't argue the point, so I'll just deflect.'

I don't know what you want here. Trump went through the legal system and was not put in jail.

He then was elected by the people after being vindicated.

He cannot even run for office anymore.

What do you hope to accomplish by this tirade about how terrible Trump is?

More importantly, what do you suggest to fix weaponizing government if anything?

 

[dblack]

If you believe Biden and Obama weaponized the DOJ, wouldn't it be equally horrendous for Trump to do so? Wouldn't you want a neutral DOJ?

HAHA...

Welcome to: "It's different when we do it!"

 

[Votto]

Do you see the difference between your generic, low opinion of lawyers and trump's purge of DoJ employees because they have been deemed insufficiently loyal to him? Not to the law, to him.

Everyone has a low opinion of lawyers idiot.

That is why lawyer jokes are so damn funny.

Try again.