I gotta wonder if Garland is hoping tRump will pass away or be diagnosed with dementia.

[Beastly Boy]

94. There IS a common meaning of the idea of justice

But it is not the meaning you give it. It is accepted by most legal scholars, including Garland, and it is neither technical nor complicated. It is expressed in a single short sentence:

FOLLOWING THE RULE OF LAW WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOR.

That's it. The rest is commentary. How much simpler can it possibly get? The system is complicated to insure the proper use of the rule of law, no more, no less.

Yet, you summarily reject it.

You chide me for not interpreting your statements in the best light possible. This is not the principle of charity. The principle of charity is a philosophical concept, not a legal one, and it involves RATIONAL interpretation of your statements in the best light possible. Something you explicitly and repeatedly denied Garland. But I see precious little rationality in your narrative. What I see instead is active resistance to all things rational. You finally managed to articulate your idea of justice, and I am underwhelmed. Your definition, to put it charitably, is, like the principle of charity, a philosophical one, however flawed, and it is ill fitted for using it to decond-guess the legal implications of justice being done.

If you want to divert to the philosophical discourse on justice, you must first admit your failure to make your case from a legal perspective, and admit your failure to give legitimate grounds for pre-judging DOJ from a legal perspective, as you repeatedly did. After all, Garland is a damn prosecutor, not a philosopher.