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

[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?