Garland hater ping

[Beastly Boy]

89. This is the persistent shortcoming that I see in critics of DOJ:

Conjecture replacing facts and reason.

"they should actually perform their function and prosecute the criminals and actual crime"
-They actually do. Apparently, not to the extent you would like, but that is, by definition, a subjective judgement, which is not founded in fact.

"I maintain there is space well within the scope of the law for more determination with a more firm approach and if there isn't I am left more than a hair befuddled at prosecutorial fervor and/or lack of accountability"
- The scope may be more limited than you perceive. I only glanced at the volumes of rules and regulations governing DOJ, and they areway more extensive than I could imagine. There is a purpose to it: the powers DOJ possesses are immense and easy to abuse.This is why there are strict limits to what DOJ may or may not do, and the circumstances in whichaction is required or forbidden. Determination and firm approach are, again, subjective measures, while the rules and regulations are not.

"if these perpetrators were leftist or for sure black the whole enforcement and prosecution situation would be hair on fire and harder than diamond "
- Substitute "leftist" for "patriot" (an euphemism for "trumpist&quot and ""black" for "true American" (an euphemism for "bigot&quot , and this is the criticism of DOJ I hear from the right, nearly word for word. Without denying the institutional racism present in all strata of US government, this too is conjecture and, intentionally, hyperbole. I can easily argue, as subjectively as you do, that what you describe is, due to the extensive scope of the rules that govern it, less likely to occur at DOJ and FBI than it is, for instance, in Congress.

"Sorry man, way too passive, political, and deferential to the right."
-See above. As the old adage goes, if you offend everyone equally, you must be diong something right. Note that, like your statement, this is not an argument. The argument is in the OP.

He was stifling anything above the rube/"enlisted officer" levels until Chump was so brazen and ridiculously defiant with the records that he ran out of options or there would be nothing out of the DOJ."
- This is downright factually false, and again, doesn't pretend to be anything but speculation on your part.

"A black mob trying to sack the Capital would be too dead for court. Period."
-Probably the truest statement in your post. The National Guard would have been called in immediately. But DOJ is not in charge of National Guard, or the Capitol Police, for that matter. As a matter of fact, Garland wasn't even AG at the time. For the record and as a matter of fact rather than conjecture, of the Jan 6 crowd estimated to be around 2500, more than half had been arrested on Garland's tenure.