« "Criminal Courteaucracy" | Main | Mass filing from Louisiana death row seeking mass clemency from Louisiana Gov »

June 13, 2023

Can and will GOP leaders persistently attack both federal criminal justice and federal criminal justice reform?

Two new headlines this morning focused on two different aspects of federal criminal justice and the activities of former Prez Donald Trump prompt the question in the title of this post.  These two pieces are worth reading in full, but here are the complete headlines, links and key paragraphs:

From The Spectator, "The GOP is sprinting away from criminal justice reform: The nation’s violent crime wave has changed the conversation":

In the five years since it hit the president’s desk, ... the First Step Act has become a source of controversy within the Republican Party. Members of the GOP are reticent to appear soft on crime as America’s major cities undergo a post-pandemic crime wave and progressive members of the Democratic Party advocate for defunding the police and installing left-wing prosecutors who are keen on giving second — or third, or fourth — chances to criminals.  Trump has hardly talked about the landmark legislation on the 2024 campaign trail, and his primary opponents have started to use it as an attack line, as proof that they are the true law-and-order candidates....

The GOP’s abandonment of criminal justice reform is likely a welcome change for tough-on-crime mainstays like Senators Tom Cotton and John Kennedy, who voted against the First Step Act, while the libertarian wing of the party will be vexed.  The real story will be in how these internal fights are received by primary voters, as 80 percent of Republicans said crime is a real threat in communities in a March NPR poll.  Which primary candidates can run the fastest from the perception that they might be gracious to criminals?

From the Washington Post, "Republicans slam law enforcement over Trump indictment, showing shift in GOP: Many in the party have sought to discredit the integrity of federal agencies that have investigated and charged the former president, marking another step away from the GOP’s longtime positioning": 

Polling from Pew Research Center suggests that the GOP attacks on the FBI and the Justice Department have had an effect.  Only 38 percent of Republican and Republican-leaning adults said they viewed the FBI favorably in a survey released in March; and about 40 percent of those respondents viewed the Justice Department favorably.  Although Pew’s older data is not comparable to the 2023 survey because of changes in survey mode and the wording of questions, one earlier survey showed that before Trump took office, most Republicans had a positive view of the FBI.

Trump has set the tone for the invective against federal law enforcement agencies.  Shortly after the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago last year, he called the FBI and Justice Department “vicious monsters” and scoundrels.

In political speeches over the weekend, he said the FBI and the Justice Department were “corrupt” and alleged that Biden “is trying to jail his leading political opponent”....  In April, Trump called on the Republican-led Congress to defund the FBI and the Justice Department — a day after he was arraigned in Manhattan on separate charges.

For a variety of reasons, I suspect we will continue to see at least some GOP leaders continuing to attack both federal criminal justice (going after Trump's federal prosecution) and federal criminal justice reform (going after Trump's FIRST STEP support). But I am quite unsure how all these attacks might echo through and impact the politics and policies of federal criminal justice reform debates in the coming months and years as we approach another big federal election. 

Ultimately, I find it fascinating that Trump is now the nation's highest profile criminal defendant, in both state and federal courts (and also has already been found liable for a tortious sex offense), and yet he is still the most popular figure in the supposed "law and order" party.  Go figure.

June 13, 2023 at 11:35 AM | Permalink



What's your sentence, Doug?

Posted by: federalist | Jun 13, 2023 11:47:59 AM

This post misses the obvious--I support law enforcement, until law enforcement starts egregiously breaking the law or it becomes partisan. One can look at how the DOJ handled the Flynn stuff (why was Lisa Page doctoring, er editing, the form 302?) and not want lenience for common criminals. Or it could not want the DOJ prosecuting ordinary people for lying to the FBI, but letting the USA for the District of Massachusetts walk.

Posted by: federalist | Jun 13, 2023 11:51:50 AM

(and also has already been found liable for a tortious sex offense)--something that happened years ago, and the prosecutrix talks about learning bedroom arts from dogs.

And look, Joe Biden is prez, yet his daughter talked about how he used to shower with her, and oh, by the way, there are creepy videos of him with barely pubescent girls . . . .

Posted by: federalist | Jun 13, 2023 11:54:54 AM

should have said, something that allegedly happened decades ago . . . . the whole thing stinks.

Posted by: federalist | Jun 13, 2023 12:16:29 PM

I'd need to see the sentencing memos before even starting to suggest a sentence for Deja Taylor. But do you think, federalist, that she should have found the charges by arguing selective prosecution and/or a Second Amendment defense given that literally tens of millions of people use marijuana while possessing a firearm and almost nobody gets federally prosecuted AND there district court rulings that the applicable statute is unconstitutional? (Also, weed is legal under VA law.)

Notably, she is being subject to a number of state charges for her mishandling of the gun that lead to the harm to the teacher, which seem to be the real reason these federal charges were pursued. Of course, she makes a lousy "poster child" for assailing federal overreach here, but I am curious if you consider this overreach.

Posted by: Doug B | Jun 13, 2023 12:20:53 PM

(Also, weed is legal under VA law.)---wouldn't say that. It's illegal in VA. You know, the whole Article VI thing.

I'd like to know what the state guys plan to do---can't imagine there weren't discussions with feds This prosecution isn't a great look, but I don't think it has Second Amendment infirmities. I don't think there are selective prosecution issues either, given the effects, but it's still not a great look. I think I would have declined to prosecute were I the USA for that district, unless the state decided to punt, then this feels about right for the state charges.

Funny that you feel like commenting on some BS court case--I mean really, they re-opened the SOL. But no comment on the Ashley diary. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

Posted by: federalist | Jun 13, 2023 12:29:17 PM

Without a doubt, Donald Trump is the most pernicious, divisive, and malignant force in American politics since Aaron Burr and Jefferson Davis.

Posted by: anon13 | Jun 13, 2023 1:28:44 PM

Well, anon13, what do you have to say about the Ashley Biden diary, Biden's lie in the debate about Hunter's laptop etc. etc.

Posted by: federalist | Jun 13, 2023 1:33:15 PM

Kind of hate myself for this - but "The law is an ass" - "created by legislators and administrated by the justice system, cannot be relied upon to be sensible or fair."

I think of the term "The Law" as a universal - not an individual law. It's not a healthy mind set for someone who cares.

Posted by: beth curtis | Jun 13, 2023 1:33:36 PM

Two things can be true. The DOJ can be putting their finger on the scale and Trump is a criminal. The DOJ gets less criticism than they deserve. They are scoundrels.


The Medicis of Delaware are at least as disgusting as Trump. Denying your own grandchild is unforgivable. And according to the unclassified HUMINT the FBI has but will not allow Congress to have even under subpoena, there are two audiotapes of phone calls with Sloppy Joe working with Burisma while VP.

And let’s just be honest. Burisma didn’t buy access to a Parmesan cheese sniffing, stripper’s baby daddy, who did not speak English or know anything about the energy sector. It’s obvious who they were buying access to.

Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jun 13, 2023 2:16:27 PM

I know Republican politics decently well. This is the state of play on law enforcement: Most in the party view DOJ and the FBI with suspicion, as having become more political than is healthy (or traditional). An even bigger majority fully support state and local police and oppose legislation that would reduce accountability for criminals.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 13, 2023 2:16:45 PM

"The Medicis of Delaware are at least as disgusting as Trump."

Trump never sold out America.

Posted by: federalist | Jun 13, 2023 2:31:57 PM

federalist, what exactly makes the jury determination that Trump is tortiously liable for sexual abuse "some BS court case"? Are you saying you know the jury got it wrong and that Trump did not sexually abuse E. Jean Carroll? Or any you saying nobody should care about a jury deciding that he sexually abused someone?

My post is not about Biden or about his political party. It is about Trump and his political party's strong support for a person who is now the nation's highest profile criminal defendant in both state and federal courts (and who also has already been found liable for a tortious sex offense).

(Also, you should understand law and language well enough to know the difference between saying "weed is legal under VA law" and saying it is legal in VA. I was clearly referencing state law, and my statement is accurate.)

Posted by: Doug B | Jun 13, 2023 3:05:11 PM

There's a reason for statutes of limitation. NY reopened a closed statute of limitation, and Carroll couldn't identify dates or even the year. It's an abuse of the justice system. And she talked about learning about sex from dogs--sign of a sicko.

You made an aside comment about Trump's popularity with the public and his party's support--but you never seem to wonder about the party's support of Biden--but I am the partisan. Yeah, whatev.

Yes, you were referencing state law, the way you phrase it makes it seem that somehow the feds' prosecution decision is somehow wrong . . . . but you don't make that argument. You just throw it out there.

Posted by: federalist | Jun 13, 2023 3:12:11 PM

Much as you like to politicize the comments, federalist, I am writing a sentencing blog that seeks to focus on sentencing and related CJ issues. Politics, especially elected officials' and parties' support/opposition for CJ policies and reforms, necessarily becomes part of the discussion. But until Joe Biden gets criminally charged, I am inclined not to spend much time on "whataboutism" (especially with so many others so inclined).

Meanwhile, you did not address my questions relevant to why I mentioned the sexual abuse verdict against Trump: "Are you saying you know the jury got it wrong and that Trump did not sexually abuse Carroll? Or any you saying nobody should care about a jury deciding that he sexually abused someone?"

On the weed front, the feds notably did not prosecute Deja Taylor for a federal marijuana offenses (and AG Garland has indicated his DOJ would follow the Cole memo that said DOJ would generally not prosecute individual state-compliant marijuana activity). Rather, Taylor is getting hit with a federal gun charge, though actually it seems she may not even be getting hit with illegal gun possession, but rather is getting hit with lying on the gun-buying form. I though it notable to flag that the feds here are looking for years of imprisonment for an offense like this after the the feds have given tacit approval for individuals to use weed in compliance with state law.

In the past, I thought you said that all others should have EP claims against these kinds of charges because Hunter Biden has not yet been so charged. I also thought you said nobody should be denied their 2A gun right absent a criminal conviction. Can you explain why you are not fully standing up for Deja Taylor given your prior comments?

Posted by: Doug B | Jun 13, 2023 3:37:45 PM

I don't know if the jury got it wrong or right---no one knows since it was so so long ago. Could you defend yourself against a bogus charge of 20 year old misconduct. No. I give the jury's "verdict" no weight at all.

"My point is flag that feds are looking for years of imprisonment for an offense like this after the feds have given tacit approval for individuals to generally use weed in compliance with state law."

Fair point, but mine about a drive-by comment was fair also.

"I also thought you said nobody should be denied their 2A gun right absent a criminal conviction." I probably wasn't thinking of this--I think the government has a right to ask whether you are a drug user. And, you technically don't lose those rights--stop using drugs, and you get to buy a gun.

Posted by: federalist | Jun 13, 2023 3:51:57 PM

"But until Joe Biden gets criminally charged, I am inclined not to spend much time on "whataboutism" (especially with so many others so inclined)."

He can't be. LOL. Nice try. Partisan.

Posted by: federalist | Jun 13, 2023 3:55:02 PM

federalist: I generally do not agree with the OLC view on charging a sitting prez, and Biden certainly can (and perhaps will) get criminally charged after he leaves office.

Also, would you say the Second Amendment would allow the feds to ask whether a person is an alcohol or tobacco or prescription valium user and to only allow sales if/when the person stops using those drugs?

Posted by: Doug B | Jun 13, 2023 4:04:56 PM

I think they could ask whether you are a habitual drunkard or, due to prescription drug use, unable to responsibly use a firearm. But that's probably a waste of time, and Gorsuch wouldn't like it, so . . . .

OLC is right as a matter of law--all the executive power is vested in the prez. Period.

And your refusal to answer is just obvious partisanship---you hate Trump and so you'll be ok with a money grab based on an allegation that is so vague it cannot be defended against.

Posted by: federalist | Jun 13, 2023 4:49:22 PM

And by the by, should you ever want to go back to the Trump v. Obama morality debate, I'll add Joe to the list---look what Joe is fighting for--absolutely sick:


Posted by: federalist | Jun 13, 2023 4:55:49 PM

federalist: not sure I understand your approach to the Second Amendment, which I think you have linked to self-defense rights. Do "drunkards" lose SD rights and/or 2A rights? When? Who decides? Do we need to check if Daniel Perry used any prescription drugs? If you really believe in robust 2A and SD rights, you seem little interested in defending them robustly.

And I am still awaiting you finding anyone other than you eager to make the case, with policy issues and partisanship aside, that Trump is more moral than Obama. When you find someone making that case, I am all ears. Perhaps Bill or Tarls?

And I have refused to answer what, exactly? Trump refused to testify in his tort trial, so we really do not if Carroll's charges can be defended against. And what was "vague" about the allegation?

Meanwhile, I do not hate Trump, I actually find him quite interesting and entertaining -- and I am also grateful he backed the FIRST STEP Act (and also supported gay marriage and passed a (relatively progressive) tax cut). I just call things as I see them, which I know can sometimes aggravate partisans like you.

Posted by: Doug B | Jun 13, 2023 5:28:29 PM


Your unwillingness to discuss Joe is an act of cowardice. As federalist stated, he cannot be charged but there is so much more. You are clearly ignoring the rank corruption at the DOJ from the Hillary case and Comey changing the law, the “51” signing the laptop letter, to Andrew McCabe lying to Congress and the DOJ not prosecuting, etc. In fact, Brennan, McCabe, and Comey went on to lucrative careers at CNN, MSNBC, etc.

It’s like saying OJ is innocent. We all know better.

Finally, can you tell me a theory, that makes Joe look innocent, why Burisma hired a Parmesan cheese snorting, coke head, stripper’s baby daddy who doesn’t speak Ukrainian or Russian, and knows zero about the energy industry? Why are there at least 20 Biden shell companies that lead to nine Biden family members? Who starts shell companies? Do you have any? Why are there audio recordings of Sloppy Joe talking to Burisma, even though he has said he has never been involved in Hunter’s business dealings? They are clearly not buying Hunter.

Sometimes things are common sense and saying “he hasn’t been charged,” is cowardly.

Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jun 13, 2023 5:32:53 PM

Tarls--there's also this quote

“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six
hours. If the prosecutor is not ired, you’re not getting the money,’” Biden recalled telling Poroshenko.
“Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time,” Biden told the Council on Foreign Relations event, insisting that President Obama was in on the threat.

Of course, the guy Biden got ousted was investigating Burisma . . . . what a coincidence.

Posted by: federalist | Jun 13, 2023 5:51:45 PM

Doug, re: Carroll---she didn't supply a time or date---how the heck can you defend against that?

Obama was cool with siccing the feds on the incoming NSA, Michael Flynn, based on the fucking Logan Act. Totally destroyed norms and saddled Trump with a bullshit scandal. Obama should be on trial, not Trump.

Posted by: federalist | Jun 13, 2023 5:54:51 PM

Master Tarls, I have never been a fan of plagiarist hack Joe Biden for a wide array of long-standing policy reasons. But this is not a political blog focused on political allegations, and I tend not to discuss (nor do I have the time to research) political matters unless and until they become formal criminal matters.

This is not a matter of cowardice, it is a matter of limited time in the day and knowing my lane and relative expertise. I have seen some of the evidence assembled against Biden you are citing, but sometimes from sources claiming Trump won the 2020 election. It is depressingly hard to find trustworthy sources in the political sphere, and it is only when formal criminal justice matters are involved that I feel I can do my own research efficiently to reach an informed and independent view of what is really afoot.

As for DOJ, I have for the better part of 20 years on this blog criticized so many DOJ actions. From appeal waivers to stash-house stings --- from A to S, I could not think of a Z --- to so many other DOJ actions in between, I have assailed and criticized DOJ repeatedly and expect to continue to do so. I have often been particularly critical of DOJ's lack of transparency, going all the way back to summer 2004 when I posted a "Comey memo" that should have been made public but was not. That the Supreme Court had to cite to my blog posting of the document in the Booker case was, for me, an indictment of standard DOJ practices that extend well beyond the whatever political issues de jure have pundit lips flapping.

I get that you, Master Tarls and federalist, seemingly are ever eager to vent your anti-Biden and other political feelings here. Fine, I do not edit or moderate the comment space. But there are thousands of spaces in which you and others can talk politics, and I often tend to not even read a lot of the comments that focus on politics rather than law and policy. And, for my own writings, I will generally seek to spend my limited time on politics only as it relates to elected officials' and parties' support/opposition for CJ policies and reforms. (And, of course, to channel commentary Bill often makes, I am not afraid to use my real name.)

Posted by: Doug B | Jun 13, 2023 6:37:26 PM

"Do we need to check if Daniel Perry used any prescription drugs? If you really believe in robust 2A and SD rights, you seem little interested in defending them robustly."

You conflate separate issues---first of all, things like the questions to gun buyers, you know, have to be passed into law, and drunk people can defend themselves

There are common law restrictions on guns relating to mental illness etc. etc. Now there are due process issues (especially with Gorsuch parsing statutes) But you're not going to get me to say that dope fiends have a 2A right to have guns. They don't. Now how you define "dope fiend" is another issue, and that's why I think that the questionnaires are pretty dumb from a policy standpoint.

Posted by: federalist | Jun 13, 2023 6:38:32 PM

Federalist, I wrote that "without a doubt, Donald Trump is the most pernicious, divisive, and malignant force in American politics since Aaron Burr and Jefferson Davis."

You responded, "anon13, what do you have to say about the Ashley Biden diary, Biden's lie in the debate about Hunter's laptop etc. etc."

I reply that I have nothing to say yet. I'll wait for criminal charges to be brought, if every they are against Biden. Unlike Biden, Trump has been impeached twice, indicted twice, found liable once for molesting a woman and ordered to pay her $5million. Bill Barr says Trump is "toast" on the federal indictment. Mike Pompeo says by his reckless conduct with respect to national defense documents, Trump endangered the public safety. And still two more indictments to come. So I repeat that without a doubt, Donald Trump is the most pernicious, divisive, and malignant force in American politics since Aaron Burr and Jefferson Davis."

Posted by: anon13 | Jun 13, 2023 6:57:50 PM

Federalist, apropos of you discussion with Prof. Berman relating to Trump's loss in the civil suit, just today the federal judge allowed Caroll to amend the complaint to ask for more punitive damages:

According to CNN, "A federal judge will allow E. Jean Carroll to amend her original defamation lawsuit against former President Donald Trump to include comments he made at a CNN town hall. Carroll, a former magazine columnist, asked the judge for permission to amend the initial November 2019 lawsuit so she could try to seek additional punitive damages after Trump repeated statements a federal jury found to be defamatory. The allowance comes as Trump’s legal troubles have mounted in recent days. Also Tuesday, the former president was arraigned at a federal courthouse in Miami and pleaded not guilty to criminal charges related to alleged mishandling of classified documents in a case brought by the Justice Department.
“We look forward to moving ahead expeditiously on E Jean Carroll’s remaining claims,” Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, said Tuesday.
Last month, a jury found in favor of Carroll in her second civil lawsuit, which went to trial. The jury found that Trump sexually abused Carroll and defamed her by denying the attack, saying she wasn’t his type and calling her allegations a hoax. One day later Trump appeared at the CNN Republican presidential town hall and said, “I have no idea who this woman – this is a fake story, made up story.” He called Carroll a “whack job” and went on a tangent about her ex-husband and pet cat.
Trump’s lawyer opposed the amendment and said they wanted to move to dismiss the original lawsuit, which deals with comments Trump made while president and has been held up on appeal. Carroll has alleged that the former president raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman department store in the mid-1990s and then defamed her when he denied her claim. The judge also set a deadline of next month for the Justice Department to weigh in on whether it still believed that Trump was acting within the scope of his employment when he made the comments in 2019. The Justice Department under Trump and Biden said that he was, which tied the original lawsuit up on appeal. Following the May jury finding in Carroll’s favor, the Justice Department has asked for more time, suggesting it was reconsidering its position."

Posted by: anon13 | Jun 13, 2023 7:05:15 PM


It is not “anti-Biden.” It is anti-corruption. I also have contempt for Trump and feel a great sitcom idea would be those two sharing a cell in a Federal facility.

If there was justice, Hillary would be one cell over, as she spearheaded a coup that actually had a chance of working. It did, to a great extent. It is the biggest scandal in American political history, by far.

That corruption at the top of our most powerful law enforcement agency is not newsworthy of this blog is, in my opinion, a joke even knowing it is ultimately your decision as owner.

Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jun 13, 2023 7:30:03 PM


Saying that you must wait until criminal charges are brought is like pointing to the scoreboard and saying you won even though the refs spotted you 20 points.

Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jun 13, 2023 7:32:11 PM


Senator Grassley is about as serious a politician as you can get. He saw the unredacted 1023. The source is an FBI informant they have used several times, even paying him $200,000. This isn’t a Rudy Giuliani scenario.

Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jun 13, 2023 7:37:57 PM

On various political fronts, Tarls, I suspect we agree more than we disagree, though for me this goes back to the (original?) sin of Dems wrongfully and disgustingly defending Bill Clinton after it was clear he lied under oath about his affair with an intern. But when you say "corruption at the top of our most powerful law enforcement agency," I am not sure who/what you are referencing -- the Obama-era folks, the Trump-era folks, the Biden-era folks, FBI, all of DOJ, the political appointees, the career folks, all of the above? Also, by "corruption at the top," do you mean overly politicized decision-making or folks actually getting paid off or something else?

Especially because I never worked in DOJ, I have very limited understanding of what goes on there internally and about how political folks and career folks interact. But, as my criticism of appeal waivers and stash-house stings and other suspect practices highlight, I have long feared that some inside DOJ have long placed parochial interests, acquisition of power, and self-serving views of "what's best" over commitments to law and equal justice. I suspect Bill Otis and others with DOJ experience may have very different views. But, looking from the outside in --- and admitting I often get just defense-side tales --- I sense the culture of prosecutors in general, and DOJ in particular, seems to underwrite a lot of troubling behavior (and a lot more secrecy than should be tolerated in the exercise of government powers).

On the topic of being paid off, I agree that Senator Grassley is a serious man (and in much better shape at age 89 than his colleague Senator Feinstein). And his latest press release on this topic, which was released just yesterday, caught my eye last night: https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/remarks/grassley-fbi-redacted-references-to-recordings-in-biden-allegation-shared-with-congress. Consistent with my prior comments on the need for transparency, I applaud Senator Grassley for saying: "The Justice Department and FBI must show their work." And if evidence shows Biden family misdeeds of any sort, I hope "their work" will be shown ASAP so they can face consequences for improper behaviors.

Notably, though, as I was looking for the link for the Grassley press release, I saw a Hill commentary by someone who worked for Grassley for 19 years lamenting that he has become "unrecognizably political in his oversight." https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/4046272-grassley-needs-to-get-his-oversight-focus-back/ This commentary further reinforces my fear that it is getting near impossible to figure out efficiently and effectively who to trust in the political space. Ergo my interest in staying in the sentencing law and policy space (which is itself plenty hard enough to follow and report/comment on).

Posted by: Doug B | Jun 13, 2023 8:43:53 PM

Oh good grief Doug, you don't need to be a chicken farmer to know a rotten egg.

Posted by: federalist | Jun 14, 2023 12:51:12 PM

A partisan often decides some eggs are rotten without even looking. I try to avoid that.

Posted by: Doug B | Jun 14, 2023 1:14:47 PM

I never worked at DOJ, so I'll defend them for calling the Hunter laptop disinformation . . . .

Posted by: federalist | Jun 14, 2023 2:07:45 PM

anon13, i don't know how you defame a woman who talks about dogs teaching her about sex

Posted by: federalist | Jun 14, 2023 2:12:03 PM

A jury has already decided that former Prez Trump defamed Carroll, federalist, though I know you always care more about your feelings than others' legal determinations.

And, because I never worked in DOJ, my speculations about various DOJ actions have been nothing more than speculations. Again, you demonstrate repeatedly here that you develop strong feelings about matters without too much concern for all the law and facts, but that's not how I seek to approach matters. But, since it seems you do not have other forums for sharing all your feelings, I assume we will keep hearing about them here. As I have said before, lots of law journals are always looking for copy, so maybe you might consider trying to explain your latest feelings more fully in that way.

Posted by: Doug B | Jun 14, 2023 3:23:31 PM

Federalist, you obviously didn't grow up on a farm. Lots and lots of country folks learn about sex from watching farm animals mate. Carroll just being blunt and honest.

Posted by: anon12 | Jun 14, 2023 3:41:27 PM

What’s missing in this conversation is that the indictment should never even have been brought.

Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jun 14, 2023 4:19:25 PM


That’s like saying you can learn about sex through porn. You might learn some of the mechanics, but anyone who did that to a woman is a dirtbag.

Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jun 14, 2023 4:22:13 PM

I will defer to Bill's expertise re Republican politics, but I do have to wonder about the accuracy of the Republican take.

DOJ & FBI as a hotbed of partisan activity of any sort, much less left leaning activity, is not at all my impression of the g-men in federal law enforcement. The few folks I know who have worked in DOJ have a very middle of the road/status quo sort of approach that trends conservative/mainstream/status quo.

Posted by: John | Jun 14, 2023 11:46:33 PM

All I can say was best said 2,000 years ago: "Pray for the welfare of the government, for without it the people would swallow each other alive."

Posted by: Michael R. Levine | Jun 15, 2023 12:53:40 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB