So let me see if I have DOJ procedures correct.....

[Master Jah-Remi]

If I'm a candidate for President Of The United States; to be precise; if I am officially my party's candidate and won my primary; then I could commit as many elections related crimes as I want and will not be indicted until after the election? The reasoning for this is that so the DOJ doesn't interfere in an election.

However, If I were to win, become President of The United States, then I couldn't be indicted for the crimes that helped me get elected because the DOJ has a memo somewhere; not a law, not a statute, not a regulation; a memo, that states sitting presidents can't be indicted. So, for four more years I can (using the most powerful position in all of human history) reap the fruit of my crimes, damage untold lives, and work on ways to hide, or evade my crimes that allowed me to be elected in the first place?

And all of this so that the DOJ can say "Ha!, after only 5 years of you poisoning democracy, and destroying untold lives we have you!"

Here's my problem. All of this only benefits the DOJ.

It doesn't benefit, justice, democracy, the voters, or anybody but whoever just so happens to helm the department at the time.

This is how bureaucracy fails us. When we let it set its own rules, then you can guess the rules it sets will be focused firstly on protecting the bureaucracy.

See: James Comey 2016......

[SheilaAnn]

1. I'm wondering where his lawyers attended law school...sigh. n/t

[SoCalDavidS]

2. It's Even Worse Than That

Even if you are not the nominee, or running for office, if there is an election coming up, all investigation of your crimes must be put on hold, and you can't be indicted, until the election has concluded.

EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT RUNNING FOR OFFICE IN THAT ELECTION.

[intrepidity]

3. A good start (your narrative), but not complete

You left out how, after leaving office, any investigation must be done extreeeemely slooooowly and overly cautiously, to avoid looking even the slightest bit partisan or "political." And that, if done during an election year, even a mid-term (so, pretty much every other year), nothing can be done publically within some months of an election.

Oh, and that if that person has a substantial following that is prone to violence, the whole thing may not even be worth the effort, at all.

[Fiendish Thingy]

4. Nope, you don't got it right. Nt

[H2O Man]

12. +1

[uponit7771]

5. K&R, I'm getting sick of the functionaries in the US government !!!

[marble falls]

8. Which specific functionaries? Functionaries are what got us through the 45 debacle. Fauchi ...

... was a functionary.

[uponit7771]

10. He was the opposite of a functionary;. Someone who DOES JUST thier job and that's it

[marble falls]

14. That's what funtionaries do: they function. Deep Government saved our asses. Generalities ...

... about the uselessness of civil service ALWAYS veers into Reaganism.

It's always helpful to have people who know where the toner is kept, where the fuse boxes are, what form is the correct one to get something done per the law.

[uponit7771]

15. I've heard the term used differently not as a complement. A person who does nothing more or less

... than their job is someone who never goes out of the way even when the situation calls for it and they have the power to make a positive change.

I don't think Fauchi fits that discription

[Master Jah-Remi]

6. Put more simply.

If you delay prosecution of someone, whom you firmly believe you have evidence against, that shows they committed serious crimes, simply because you are concerned about your departments reputation with people who think you should be executed anyways...

How is that Justice?
How is that ethical?

Crimes are damage. Damage to people. Damage to property. Damage to society. Its not about what I want. Its about damage. That is what is meant by "Justice too long delayed, is justice denied." I suppose whatever, impatient reactionary said that probably was just unfamiliar with DOJ "policy" I'm sure......

A final point. So the DOJ thinks that if they have evidence a candidate has commited crimes; and is likely trying their best to cover them up, its best that the American electorate finds out only AFTER they elect him president?

[marble falls]

9. Here's the thing you don't get: 45 is using the same legal rights you and I have to delay justice.

It takes time to get a conviction on big crimes. Years. But in the end, each delay actually only gets him closer to the inevitable.

Took almost three years to bag Aubrey's killers, and they videoed the whole thing.

[Master Jah-Remi]

11. I didnt actually ion Trump. I talking about the possible ramifications of these ridiculous policies.

Read my scenario above and then plug in DeSantis. Or some other much smarter autocratic.

The policy of not charging someone u til after they possibly win an election is unfathomable. It's dumb. And dangerous. And only protects "the reputation of the doj".

[Master Jah-Remi]

13. Sorry for the typos. My phone refuses to let me correct them st the moment.

[BumRushDaShow]

16. So who is "running for President" right now?

No one has announced it yet.

[BumRushDaShow]

18. This is what you wrote

So let me see if I have DOJ procedures correct.....

and then you go on and on about "procedures" related to Presidential candidates and then make a giant leap of nonsense with this -

Here's my problem. All of this only benefits the DOJ.

It doesn't benefit, justice, democracy, the voters, or anybody but whoever just so happens to helm the department at the time.

Which promotes the RW ideology that the nation's federal law enforcement Department only does things to "benefit" itself.

But if one follows your convoluted assertion, one would see that it not only has no relevance on the function of that Department, but is essentially moot as there is no one who has declared they are running for President yet.

And yes, I saw your edits.

[BumRushDaShow]

21. Let's unpack this shall we?

Garlands memo on the subject (actually its Bill Barrs memo) doesn't just extend to POTUS elections.

This "memo" idea that you keep harping on, goes back to 1973 under the Nixon administration, and you can read the "original" yourself here -

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3896903-Legal-Memos-About-Whether-a-Sitting-President#document/p1

Since that time, variations of that have cropped up, including during the Clinton impeachment and just ahead of the 2000 election with yet another opinion.

I only used a theoretical POTUS election as an example of how this policy could be dangerous. Dangerous, in that it allows candidates to hide possible criminality until AFTER they are already elected to positions, that they can then use to further hide their criminality. Could be POTUS, could be Senator. All of this just so the head of the DOJ doesn't seem biased. In my opinion, that trade off simply isn't worth the damage that could be (or has been) done.

But this is not what you wrote. You essentially tarred and feathered the entire 115,000 member Department of Justice of only doing "policies" that "benefit themselves", which is EXACTLY the perspective of the RW loon MAGat GOP.

Somehow this has confused you. It has confused you so much, that you keep asking me who's running for POTUS currently. I suspect the other readers of this thread may not have been as confused, because their primary instinct isnt to immediately look for an attack vector, so as to attempt to discredit any criticism of the DOJ.

I think the confused one is you. I am a retired 30+ year federal employee who over that time, has worked with DOJ a number of times as someone who provided "evidence" (literally lab results for prosecutions) because being in a regulatory agency with no "prosecution authority" (which is how most federal agencies are set up), DOJ IS the "law enforcement arm" of the rest of the federal government. "We" (federal regulatory agencies) went about our processes and procedures per the requisite CFR titles/chapters that applied, and would then go to DOJ once our attempts, LIKE NARA's, were not bearing the fruit needed for getting the industries that we regulated to comply with the law.

I've only been on here a week or so and that's twice now you've swooped in and attacked with semantics. Followed by another pseudo-intellectual word salad and an emoji

You have been spouting RW talking points on a board that has a TOS and focus on supporting Democrats and the Democxratic party, NOT magnifying right wing lunacy.

Last time your rebuttal was....."Your opinion is wrong."......Do you think that comes off as wise, or intelligent I wonder? It doesnt.

When presented with "facts", "opinions" are meaningless.

PS My edits are for typos, detective. But by all means, tell us all what you think they REALLY are....smh

So the below "original" reply and subsequent edits, were "typos"?

Edit History

This post has been edited 3 times. Hide all

0. Thu Sep 1, 2022, 09:19 PM - Original version with no edits. (Hide)

Original version with no edits.

17. I didn't say anyone was. Did I?

1. Thu Sep 1, 2022, 09:19 PM - Unexplained edit. (Hide)

Unexplained edit.

17. I didn't say anyone was. Are you responding to the right post?

2. Thu Sep 1, 2022, 09:20 PM - Unexplained edit. (Hide)

Unexplained edit.

17. I didn't say anyone was. Are you responding to the right thread?

[niyad]

7. Welcome to our DU family.