How Can DOJ not be Partisan?

[gab13by13]

One of our major political parties is actively working to end our Constitutional democratic Republic. One of our major political parties is rigging the next election.

I repeat, how can DOJ not be partisan?

[Walleye]

1. Exactly. Was is the prosecution of Timothy McVeigh partisan?

[gab13by13]

3. Timothy McVeigh had zero allies,

he blew up a building that had a day care center full of children. Everyone wanted to see McVeigh brought to justice.

Not everyone wants to preserve our democracy.

[Walleye]

9. Yes, but he attacked the federal building, it was political terrorism. He had militia allies

I know it was nothing like the same thing. But the objective of the attack wasn’t all that different. It was a right wing attack on the United States government. Those people who condemned it, are they now the ones supporting the January 6 insurrection?

[gab13by13]

14. I see the point, thank you.

[Walleye]

19. Thank you

[Eyeball_Kid]

2. Well, the DOJ can be "partisan" when it comes to the Rule of Law.

It's their job to prosecute according to the Rule of Law. So, ideally, they don't need any other "partisan" orientation.

Being in civil service means that you abandon political biases and focus on your job description. I did this for over 50 years. I kept my political views to myself and stuck to my job description and performed my responsibilities in a professional manner. It's what millions of people do and did as a matter of a routine course of action. We got paid to serve the public, no matter how the public voted.

[gab13by13]

6. Good to have your expertise,

Isn't a big problem the question of executive privilege? DOJ seems to me to be going out of its way to consider executive privilege.

The old Republican party used to say, one president at a time. Why can't DOJ use the argument that executive privilege does not apply to cover up a crime and be done with it?

It took 22 days to resolve Bannon's executive privilege, and today is day 53 since DOJ got the Mark Meadows criminal referral, I'm sure the hold up is over executive privilege, all of the traitors are using the same argument and it's working.

[Beastly Boy]

21. An excellent example of how the rule of law applies to DOJ.

Of course DOJ can use the argument that executive privilege does not apply to cover up a crime and be done with it. But this argument was never tested in court, and has no established precedent in the application of rule of law. Since DOJ will only have one opportunity to present their case, an experienced lawyer will regard arguing an unprecedented case before the courts as a matter of last resort. If they lose, that's the end of it. The courts determine how the laws ought to be applied, not DOJ.

Did you ever try to grow tomatoes? Some tomatoes take 22 days to ripen, others take 60 days or more. When you time your tomatoes regardless of their shape, color and smell, you end up with shitty tomatoes. Sometimes they are not edible at all, and you can't put them back on the vine.

[SharonClark]

4. The DOJ is suppose to be partisan for the CAUSE of upholding the Constitution and rule of law

but decisions should not be made to benefit a partisan political party. Is that what you mean to say?

[gab13by13]

7. See my post above.

[BlueIdaho]

5. It's not the DOJs fault the GQP

Decided to turn itself into an armed anti-American militia. Justice is blind but she’s not stupid.

[Irish_Dem]

8. One of our major political parties has aligned with Putin to bring down democracy.

Their goal is total permanent power and acquisition of all US financial assets.

They will make sure we are blamed for all of it. And accuse us of partisanship if we try to stop it.

[Walleye]

10. 👆👆👆

[gab13by13]

12. My big argument is over executive privilege,

The traitors are getting out of testifying because of that claim. I believe that DOJ has to start claiming executive privilege does not apply when it is used to conceal crimes and criminal behavior.

Day 53 of the Mark Meadows criminal referral and I guarantee the hold up is over executive privilege.

[Irish_Dem]

15. The Putin led GOP will use every legal/illegal maneuver at their disposal.

They can taste permanent power and acquisition of all US assets.

We are going to have to decide if and how we are going to save our country and our democracy.

[Beastly Boy]

11. When partisanship undermines the rule of law , DOJ follows the rule of law.

Doesn't make them partisan, even though their actions may affect one offending party or another. Rule of law is non-partisan. That's the whole idea behind DOJ.

[gab13by13]

13. My complaint is the way DOJ is handling executive privilege.

DOJ is giving too much deference to allowing executive privilege when it is being used to hide crimes.

[MineralMan]

17. Actually, you know nothing about what it is doing with regard to

executive privilege. You are just guessing and implying that something bad is going on. Please stop doing that.

[Beastly Boy]

22. Please see my reply here:

https://democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1002&pid=16325862

[MineralMan]

16. It's not supposed to be partisan. However,

AGs are appointed by Presidents, and Presidents belong to a political party.

During the previous administration, the DOJ acted in partisan ways. During this one, it is trying very hard not to be partisan.

It is actively prosecuting participants of the 1/6 insurrection. It is investigating the Republicans who organized it and aided and abetted Trump in attempting a partisan coup. Such investigations can be complicated, to say the least. And yes, executive privilege is an issue, as it always is when a President is a potential or real target of such an investigation.

I'm not sure what you're implying here, really. We have no idea what the AG is thinking about with regard to Meadows. Meadows has information that may well be crucial in the investigation of Trump. Some of that information was turned over to the House committee that is also investigating the insurrection. Meadows probably also has additional information that he might well share with the DOJ and that might well help it in its investigations of Trump.

You continue to assume and hint that the DOJ is not pursuing its investigations properly. I wonder why you are so persistent in doing. I'm quite certain that you have no actual information about what is going on at the DOJ. Neither do I. The difference is that you are implying that there are shenanigans going on there, and I am not. I am, instead, waiting to see what comes from the ongoing investigations.

We also don't know all of the information the House committee has. It is wisely keeping that under wraps as it continues to hear from witnesses. It has heard from hundreds of witnesses, with more to come. Investigations are best done without public release of what is going on. That's true whether it is a House committee or the DOJ.

You know nothing, so please stop implying that something nefarious is going on.

[stopdiggin]

23. full agreement.

we're throwing out some variation in terms - 'executive privileged', 'partisanship'

But the ground being covered - 'too cautious', 'not doing enough', 'too much time', is just being pushed out under another heading - and remains essentially the same. And, as you point to - at this time, remains unsupported by real knowledge or fact.

[Sympthsical]

18. Being partisan usually means keeping double standards

Which you don't want an organ of justice to be doing.

Maintain objective standards. If there is wrongdoing, you should still achieve the same result.

If rule of law depends on what party is in charge, then we don't really have it, do we?

[Walleye]

20. Yes, you got that right

[stopdiggin]

24. thank you. -(nt)-

[Bernardo de La Paz]

26. +1. . . nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

25. Pro-democracy is NOT partisan. Don't make it so when it is not. . . . nt