The DOJ does not comment on investigations, and they shouldn’t. Is the lesson of Comey’s letter to Congress do soon forgotten?DOJ assurances — it'll hold #January6th perpetrators accountable "at any level" (Garland) "no matter at what level" (Monaco) — don't suffice.
— Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) March 28, 2022
The public needs stronger assurance Trump is under investigation post Monday's court ruling.
My interview here.👇https://t.co/lUJQPMQ4NK
Even announcing an investigation is as good as a guilty verdict to some people. The recent comments by a judge prove a criminal case can be made; but not that it has been. Some people would take any report on an investigation as equivalent to a conviction. No matter the defendant, that’s an abuse of the system.
Justice is not about locking up your political enemies. I’d have thought we’d learned that lesson, too.
I'd like some reassurance that DoJ is going to prosecute those who are clearly in contempt of Congress, though the judge in the Bannon case is clearly a sign that that's no guarantee of quick and sure justice which isn't knowingly a tool of criminals when charges are brought. I have never understood the evil of the laws delay quite as much as I have since Trump started weaponizing it with the full and lazy acquiescence of judges and lawyers.
ReplyDeleteI've come to understand just how much of the legal profession is engaged in finding ways, under the letter of the law and the rulings of judges and "justices" is in finding ways for the rich and powerful to do wrong and get away with it. And I don't think that's something that just happened, judges and, especially, "justices" have used their legal training and experience to facilitate that use of the law for those people. It was those rare instances when courts, like the Warren Court tried to do it on behalf of other people that the outrage flowed like poison from those the law usually serve.
If Merrick Garland doesn't make some move soon, his good intentions will be moot and if people think he didn't have them to start with, I'd say that's understandable.