'Trump DOJ Crosses The Rubicon With Investigation Of The Investigators'

[sop]

"On her first day as attorney general, Pam Bondi launched an investigation of the Biden-era investigators of President Donald Trump that will report its progress directly to the White House. It’s a crossing the Rubicon moment for DOJ independence that is compounded by the fact that Trump has made Stephen Miller the point person on the administration-wide effort to exact retribution for the criminal investigations of the president."

"Bondi created what she has dubbed the 'Weaponization Working Group' as part of her sweeping implementation of President Trump’s executive order, with its own Orwellian title: 'Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government.' She cites the executive order in her memo announcing the working group."

"Bondi charged the working group with reviewing 'the activities of all departments and agencies exercising civil or criminal enforcement authority of the United States over the last four years' – language that mirrors Trump’s executive order – for evidence that it improperly targeted Trump, the Jan. 6 rioters, and other MAGA hobbyhorses."

"At the top of Bondi’s list is Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecutions of Trump, but it also targets Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg for his prosecution of Trump, and New York Attorney General Letitia James for her civil actions against Trump, his family, and his businesses."

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-doj-crosses-the-rubicon-with-investigation-of-the-investigators

[lastlib]

1. Bondi LIED in her confirmation hearing??

-*-GASP!!-*- I'm astonished!

- - - - - - - - - -

[Beastly Boy]

2. A DOJ that doesn't give two shits about appearing non-partisan. Don't you miss Garland already?

[Wuddles440]

3. Miss Garland?

Absolutely not! It's that Federalist quisling who played a rather significant role in our ongoing nightmare.

[Beastly Boy]

4. If I recall, appearance of non-partisanship was one of the biggies in attributing

our ongoing nightmare to Garland. We now get to experience the DOJ sans this obligatory condition for required og any AG. So far, it's going great, isn't it? Just as Garland's detractors envisioned, isn't it?

As for Garland's other significant roles, be patient, things change. It's only been a couple of weeks. In due time we will get to experience the consequences of every single nonsensical move his detractors ever called for, and more.

Stay tuned. Wait till we get to "speedy" show trials.

[sop]

5. You're trying really hard to find a connection between two totally unconnected situations.

[Beastly Boy]

6. And what might those be?

What were the biggest expressed concerns of Garland's detractors?

I admit, I am drawing them from memory, but I would appreciate if you were to expand on them. I will keep them for the future and refer to them as shit hits the fan.

[sop]

7. "What were the biggest expressed concerns of Garland's detractors?"

That Garland failed to do his job as AG. The only similarity between Garland and Bondi is that she will also fail to do her job as AG. For completely different reasons. And you're trying to find some connection between two totally dissimilar situations to somehow justify your ongoing defense of Merrick Garland.

[Beastly Boy]

8. Oh, you will have to do a lot better than that.

You are right, there is little to no similarity between Garland and Bondi, with the notable exception of their job titles. A rather obvious connection between the two which requires no effort on my part to note as well as considerable effort on the part of others to dismiss. The already glaring contrast between them is in how they approach their job, and that was my entire point.

Maintaining the appearance of non-partisanship which I referred to and which had been a major talking point among Garland's detractors for years, is but one example of the glaring contrast between the two. As I suggested, this is only the beginning.

It is not in Garland's job description. It is in the DOJ code of conduct. And this fact makes your reference to Garland's failure to do his job even more perplexing. It is certainly not what I was talking about: I only brought up one of the more common grievances against Garland as if it were a bad thing.

But not having replied to what I posted and bringing up Garland's perceived failure to do his job instead, you suggested that there is something you know of that Garland failed at in doing his job. By all means, list those job-related failures.

Hell, I will even give you a hand with it. Here is the entire job description of an AG as outlined by US Code compiled by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel which outlines every single function that the AG is expected to perform:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/part-II/chapter-31

Additionally, since some of the AG's functions have to do with supervising the US Department of Justice, here is the US Code that guides its functions: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/part-II

Find anything in this exhaustive collection that Garland failed to perform, and then we can talk.