The 60-day rule? Seriously?

[DeeDeeNY]

"As the midterm elections near, top Justice Department officials are weighing whether to temporarily scale back work in criminal investigations involving former President Donald J. Trump because of an unwritten rule forbidding overt actions that could improperly influence the vote, according to people briefed on the discussions.
Under what is known as the 60-day rule, the department has traditionally avoided taking any steps in the run-up to an election that could affect how people vote, out of caution that such moves could be interpreted as abusing its power to manipulate American democracy...."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/04/us/trump-investigations-midterm-elections.html

Last I checked, the Slobfather is not running for office in 60 days. Plus, the J6 and stolen documents investigations were started well before 60 days of this year’s elections.

[Aviation Pro]

1. There is no fucking "60-day" rule for Democrats

Only for the motherfuckers in the MAGA party.

Time for AG Garland to eviscerate this bullshit.

[Docreed2003]

2. Funny how the NYT didnt seem to have a problem with that rule being broken

When Comey announced a bogus investigation regarding Sec Clinton's email server.

[FBaggins]

6. You must not remember - they did

They ran stories about this very policy - including one pointing out that DOJ objected to the move


First hit - https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/us/politics/comey-clinton-email-justice.html

[stopdiggin]

20. Thank You!

I also remember Comey catching a sh*t-ton of flak - AG, DOJ, Bureau, media, election observers, pretty much the whole nine ... In fact - about the only friends poor old Jim had at the time, were the Russians and Mitch McConnell. (and maybe Faux)

good wholesome snark has its place ..
just making sh*t up because you feel like it ..

[riversedge]

3. In any case, Comey did NOT follow this so-called 60 day "rule"

[fescuerescue]

72. I'm glad that Biden fired Comey.

[Pathwalker]

73. tRump fired Comey. NOT Biden.

[fightforfreedom]

4. The 60 day rule is not just for individuals who are running for office.

The rule applies to the entire election process. The DOJ rule was put in place so it would never look like the DOJ was interfering with the election process in any way.

If Garland indicted Trump right before the election, that would look political, an attempt to make the Republicans look bad in the elections. The Republicans would be screaming election interference.

Personally, in the case of the secret documents. I say fuck the rule. Indict Trump as soon as you can. Easy for me to say.

[DeeDeeNY]

33. I hope the DOJ will not act based on how the Magas will react

since they will cry Foul regardless of what happens.

[allegorical oracle]

37. Yep -- Orange guy's already giving MAGAts their marching orders to yell "political lynching."

[inthewind21]

78. Is it just me

Or does anyone else think "gee, if there's a criminal running for office I'd like to know that BEFORE they get elected as opposed to after."

[doc03]

5. The 60 day rule didn't apply to Hillary Clinton nt

[SheltieLover]

7. +1,000,000!!!

[marybourg]

8. Therefore the 60 day so-called rule should be considered dead

[stopdiggin]

23. making a strong argument

for why it might be a solid guideline (if not hard and fast rule)?

[allegorical oracle]

38. Repugs don't follow guidelines so Dems seem always functioning at a disadvantage. nt

[Tommymac]

56. And following The Rule of Law is the right thing to do. We are not THEM. Truth wins in the end.

If We become Them we may win a battle or two but the war is lost.

[inthewind21]

80. Yes

but, the 60 day "rule" is NOT a law. The law is, you break the law, you get investigated, indicted, prosecuted and convicted if that's what the evidence proves. No matter what is going on or what time of year it is. Making "rules" for just politicians is total BS.

[stopdiggin]

68. yes? and, so?

kind of hope you're not suggesting that the Dems should therefore jettison any adherence to principle, morals or rules.

[doc03]

81. Why should Democrats fight with one arm tied

behind their back all the time. Can't fill a SCOTUS vacancy on an election year. If there were a vacancy next year Moscow Mitch would hold it up until 2025, he even said he would.

[stopdiggin]

83. you answered the question

by not answering the question. Count me out in your efforts to 'skirt' the standards and basic values I inquired after. No interest at all in joining the, "can't beat 'em - join 'em" crowd.

[doc03]

84. My rule is what goes around comes around nt

[stopdiggin]

85. how ethically - convenient for you. -(nt)-

[calimary]

35. THIS!!!

[Farmer-Rick]

51. Soo, the FBI disregarded this supposed 60 day rule for Hillary

But we can't disregard it for a known traitor?????

Just another excuse to ignore the total destruction of America's state secrets. Those secrets gleefully handed to Putin probably were useless, of no value, not important at all. Trump just wanted to make friends by giving away our secret nuclear information to foreign dicktators to help America.

Let's just ignore all that because a handful of Billionaires love, love, love monster Trump.

[llashram]

77. agee

yet the country was not so 'dangerously' divided. With the trump pundits on Fox and now CNN fanning the flames of RW discontent...we do have to consider the rule...at this juncture in American politics. I feel.

[nuxvomica]

9. Subtract the time parties caused unnecessary delays

Either delays in cooperation, holding back requested materials, or fighting subpoenas that were eventually served. Otherwise, you are allowing a run-out-the-clock strategy of obstruction. With this math, we might be all the way back to last year.

[SheltieLover]

10. If doj follows the 60-day "rule," it will speak volumes imo

Our national security is in serious jeopardy!

Lock the slob up!

[Xoan]

11. Made-up news.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

12. Scaling back 'work on the case' altogether seems extreme

If they want to scale back what they DIVULGE during this timeframe, okay, I guess.

I also wonder if they aren't lulling him into a false sense of security by letting this leak out. Get him to commit more unforced errors and such.

[stopdiggin]

26. article says there are 'discussions'

and it'd be really disappointing (not to mention tone deaf) if there weren't some fairly high level discussion. Your take is much more plausible. You might see a lot of gag orders being issued ... Telling everyone to take a break for 2 months ... ? Hardly!

[calimary]

65. But if so, how many of those "unforced errors" will he actually be held accountable for?

All we see are the many ways this fucking snake has figured out to game the system and get away with it. And he keeps getting away with it.

Bad publicity? If that’s all we wind up with, then we’re screwed. And he’ll just take that bad publicity and laugh and wipe his ass with it.

DAMMIT! I want to see CONSEQUENCES, DAMMIT!!!

[Hugh_Lebowski]

67. I feel you sister ... it's frustrating beyond words (nt)

[calimary]

75. I swear, I've heard more voices in the talking head crowd asking - what if a Democrat did this?

And the assumption always - ALWAYS - is - "they'd be in jail/prison now."

I HATE this double-standard. When does THIS particular slice-o'-shit stop?

I guess I should take some comfort in the fact that I'm hearing that question voiced more and more frequently lately.

And it's a DAMN fair question.

[Mr. Ected]

13. Gentlemen's agreements about election "rules" only apply to gentlemen

If anyone can give me one good reason why we should show even the most rudimentary courtesy to Donald J. Trump, please speak now or forever hold your peace.

[live love laugh]

25. ✔️

[stopdiggin]

27. because the damage incurred is to the electorate

and the system? Not the individual?

[Mr. Ected]

34. If you can connect a line between the two, great

Otherwise, merely proceeding with due process against someone who is not on the ballot (and has even been eschewed by Trump spawns running for office) is not going to tip the balance one way or the other. For goodness sakes, anyone not aware of Trump's legal challenges is either not paying attention or doesn't care one whit.

[stopdiggin]

70. I'm saying, yes, I can quite clearly see a connection

between a perceived political bias on the part of the DOJ .. and lasting damage to the electorate. How not?

(were you not literally sick to your stomach when Bill Barr was fiddling the Mueller investigation? in relatively transparent fashion? want more?)

And, it's not a matter of whether it actually "tips the balance" - the issue is whether the government is perceived as trying to tip the balance.

You phrased your original question to the tune of, "why we should show even the most rudimentary courtesy to Donald J. Trump" - and the answer is because the issue and principle here are significantly larger than Donald Trump. Full stop.

[Mr. Ected]

74. We shouldn't show Trump courtesy, but to avoid the appearance of impropriety

It's essential that we do. We being the DOJ.

I hate applying democratic principles to he who would destroy democracy, but that's the more prudent approach to be sure.

Let's see who wins this game of chicken. It's going to be close.

[KS Toronado]

63. Here's my " one good reason "

Many people sit out midterm elections and presently it's looking pretty good for us. If tfg was indicted
or arrested (as he should be) right before the midterms, what new lies will he spew to his base?

Will he ENERGIZE reQublicOns to get off their behinds and go vote? What about Independent voters?

Have we learned nothing from Comey's action against Hillary? Let's not upset the apple cart
by running over our own feet.

More repugs are questioning tfg since the Mar-A-Lardo search wondering how they will vote in the
midterms, let's keep them confused, let's not ENERGIZE them.

In a way he is on the ballot with everyone he's endorsing and stumping for. IMO

[Mr. Ected]

64. And that is the ONLY legitimate reason to forestall indictments

One which I agree with wholeheartedly.

Sitting on the indictments until after the mid-terms also dampens any future accusations that the government had a partisan agenda when proceeding prior to the election.

Use this vacuum in time to promote the J6 Committee and let the country absorb, night by night, the nefarious nature of Trump and his allies. Same effect, less potential damage.

Nevertheless, I don't believe in this courtesy stuff. The GOP has proven that most of our processes are not in writing or prescribed by law, but rather are unspoken agreements that assume that all players are playing fairly. For instance, the memo that disallows the indictment of a sitting President. In this case, however, as a Democrat and viewing it through the lens of political expediency, it would be counterproductive to rush to indict Trump when the J6 committee can lend a helping hand there.

[SheilaAnn]

14. The only thing that SOB will be running for is his life..n/t

[LiberalFighter]

15. If there is a 60 day rule it should only apply to announcing an indictment or a new case.

And it should never apply when they involve individuals not on the ballot two months later.

[Marius25]

16. The DoJ is compromised.

No Democrat would ever get this level of leniency.

[Duppers]

52. Indeed! 👍 +100

[Rebl2]

17. He isn't running for

office in this upcoming election so there is no reason to stop the investigation or scale it back. Even if he decides to run for President, their is no reason to scale back investigation until summer (2024) before presidential election. Just my opinion.

[gab13by13]

18. The rule does not prevent DOJ from gathering evidence for an indictment.

The rule only applies to DOJ publicizing what it is doing. As far as I see it, DOJ can interview witnesses, if the witnesses reveal what happened, so be it.

[Scrivener7]

21. The rule doesn't prevent ANYTHING. He isn't running!

[JustAnotherGen]

19. It's a rule - not a law

DOJ, specifically AG Garland has dealt with Domestic Terrorists before (Oklahoma City bombers).

He knows we are in danger.

I trust him to protect Americans.

[Novara]

22. HE'S NOT RUNNING

So fuck him. Arrest his ass before he sells all of America's secrets!

[live love laugh]

24. "unwritten rule" just like exemption from prosecution is BS.

[LaMouffette]

28. I'm fine with the 60-day rule if indicting "Harry-Inept the Spy" within that time span

would damage any Democratic candidates' prospects in the midterms. I appreciate Merrick Garland's extreme efforts to avoid an appearance of partisanship, even though it's true that Republicans are never held to that standard.

As long as the DOJ continues its investigations and eventually does indict Trump for committing the most egregious security breach in the history of the US, I can wait.

[NullTuples]

29. Justice delayed is justice denied, period.

Delaying justice because of optics invented by the same group that is under investigation is beyond absurd.

[calimary]

36. Yep.

[COL Mustard]

30. They can't take a break until Veteran's Day

That would just encourage TFG and his henchmen (I've used that term before, but it really seems apropos now). The AG HAS to keep on the case and keep the pressure on. We're already seeing TFG self-immolate and there should be no mercy.

[dchill]

31. Sixty days in which a horrible lie is allowed to fester at the wheel...

...while truth and justice ride silently in the back.

[Beastly Boy]

32. Of course the DOJ would weigh whether OR NOT to apply the 60 day rule!

What's the big deal worthy of reporting here, Captain Obvious Times? The aforementioned DOJ officials wouldn't be doing their jobs if they were to completely ignore the 60 day rule!

So what exectly does the 60 day rule imply? Essentially, the rule "prohibits prosecutors from taking overt steps in politically charged cases within 60 days of an election" (https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/08/06/a_brief_history_of_the_dojs_60-day_rule_which_doesnt_say_60_days_124754.html#!%23:~:text=The%20Justice%20Department's%20so-called%2060-day%20rule,%20which%20prohibits,invoked%20by%20attorneys%20general%20in%20election%20years%20since.)

Covert steps? Not covered by the 60 day rule. Overt steps not involving politically charged cases? Not covered. This basically means that the DOJ is free of any restrictions on taking actions from analyzing evidence to convening secret grand juries regardless of the 60 day rule being applied.

Comey broke the 60 day rule, and that had a devastating effect on the political climate in the US ever since. Given this history, it makes perfect sense for DOJ to weigh in whether to apply the rule or not. Doesn't mean that even if the 60 day rule is fully implemented, DOJ would suddenly quit acting on any investigation they are currently involved in.

[fightforfreedom]

40. Good post, you nailed it.

The 60 day rule does not mean investigations stop, Grand jury subpoenas stop, etc. Comey fucked up big time and changed the course of history. I believe Clinton would have beaten Trump if not for Comey restarting the investigation 11 days before the election.

If you recall, many voters did not like Trump or Clinton. Many of them made up their minds at last moment and Comeys decision is what they went by.

[bullimiami]

39. Altering the timeline in any way will affect elections.

This rule is bullshit.

Justice should be blind to political timing.

[sarcasmo]

41. Being above the law brings out strange "rules" that only apply to Trump.

[Orrex]

42. Them maybe they shouldn't have dragged their feet for months and months and months and months

[liberalla]

43. The work can NOT stop! They should continue investigating and working on the case. It's critical!

Just don't make any public announcements, press releaseses, etc. Keep their heads down and keep working! Who knows what could happen if they "scale back"? This is NATIONAL SECURITY!

BTW, it will kill me to not know what's going on! But I will suffer and endure it somehow, if that is required of me...

[nowforever]

44. Garland is the tea and warm milk guy

After finding out how long it took for any decisive action to be taken, in regards to classified top secret documents, I have little hope that DOJ will do anything ever, because that requires guts and a backbone. Biden make a critical error in appointing Garland to be AG...he doesn't have the courage it takes to fight the real fight.

[DallasNE]

45. Comedy Reduced That To 11 Days

In the 2016 election. Just as McConnell twice smashed the 6 month rule on SC Justice's. Here justice delayed is justice denied. Please proceed.

[mn9driver]

46. Trump is not a candidate in the upcoming election.

If the DOJ goes dark on this in the name of “election integrity” you can be sure it is already game over for any accountability for TFG or the GOP.

To paraphrase a better wordsmith than me, “If Republicans cannot win elections without abandoning their Fascist principles, they will abandon Democracy instead.”

We are watching that happen in real time.

[AllyCat]

47. Slobfather isn't running for office.

60 days my arse. Prosecute this criminal.

[Heather MC]

48. Here's the flusterating thing about respecting Donald Trump because he was president

Donald Trump never respected this country or the position he wis where the position he was loopholed into.
And therefore I don't understand why we should give him the same respect he never fucking gave the United States.

They can indite him now perp walk his ass on election day who gives a flying fuck. the man broke the law why does he get special exceptions🤷🏾‍♀️ He doesn't deserve that dignity. And if his Arrest hurts the Repukes. GOOOOOOOD🤷🏾‍♀️ fuck them too

Considering what horrible horrible horrible person he actually is

[Evolve Dammit]

49. It's utter bullshit. For Repukes only. Now he got his "Special Master" too. Expecting zero, but

always hopeful for some actual accountability.

[Joinfortmill]

50. Yes, influence the vote with the truth, please.

[czarjak]

62. His mayhem will linger longer than his physical form.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

54. Plus this unwritten rule was violated by James Comey against Hillary

was it not?

[gulliver]

55. Garland has proven he's got this.

He'll do the right thing.

[dlk]

57. Given the partisan history of this rule's application

And given the seriousness and urgency of the threats to our democracy, waiting to charge TFG due to an upcoming election would be a serious miscalculation. We’re in a code red circumstance and unnecessary delays only intensify these threats. The sooner the infected wound is lanced, the sooner the healing can begin.

[DeeDeeNY]

60. + 100000

[dlk]

61. Yes!

[Tommymac]

58. When is the Left going to realize The NYT is NOT always on our side??? Remember yellowcake?????

This is pure and simply the Special Masters, the 1%, throwing out spin to discourage Democrats and embolden the Conservative Center.

Nothing to see here move on, just blahblahblah Lucy holding a football.

[Brainfodder]

59. More BS, ignore the not really a rule rule, ask Moscow Mitch!

[FossFafy]

66. The MSM promites the idea that the powerful shouldn't be prosecuted

because it's only not "divisibe" if a poor person is prosecuted.

[llashram]

76. hmmm?

[lame54]

69. The Jim Comey exception

[jmowreader]

71. That's okay. I can live with that.

Busting him now would risk bringing out the "sympathy vote" of MAGAts who might come to the polls and vote Republican simply because they think it will "save" Donald Trump from the electric chair.

Hauling him in at 3 am the morning after the election is more than fine with me.

[budkin]

79. Where was that rule for Hillary?

Also Trump is not a candidate.
Also it's irrelevant.

[myohmy2]

82. why not 90 days?

...why not 120 days?

...why not 360 days?

...why 60 days?

...scaling back or not scaling back, either way they're influencing...

...why not normally do your job and let us voters decide the significance of what you do?

...or maybe you want to elect republicans?

...