Ship's article is worth the read in toto, imho.
The corruption of the 'institutions of government' in DC under Obama-'Biden' was deliberate and done quite broadly.
Quote:
One thing I learned in handling 90+ cases involving January 6 defendants is that the roster of AUSAs across the country who I encountered looked nothing like me in my last 10 years with DOJ from age 42 to 52. The number of J6 cases prosecuted by DOJ was so large that the AUSAs working in the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office were unable to handle them all. The Biden DOJ put out a "tasking" to all U.S. Attorneys' Offices across the country to designate a certain number of AUSAs from their offices to be assigned to handle J6 cases. I personally handled cases that had AUSAs assigned to them who worked in Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New Mexico, Chicago, New York, Boston, and Tampa just as a sample.
The majority were women from their late 20s to their late 30s. To the extent I was able to discern their "politics" through conversation or taking the time to learn more about them online, they were uniformly liberal progressives not a single exception that I can recall.
Similarly, the male AUSAs I encountered with only 1-2 exceptions who were well into their 40s were pretty obviously liberal progressives.
I do not recall a single encounter across 90+ cases where the AUSA ever let on or suggested any kind of political "alignment" with the January 6 defendants as a group. I don't mean comments that might have excused the conduct or criticized the Biden Admin. approach to the prosecutions I don't recall a single comment that could have been construed as suggesting the AUSA was a Republican who supported Pres. Trump during his time in office in his first term.
There is a long backstory to this problem that has been lost to the "Sands of Time" unless you lived through it like I did.
In July 2008, the DOJ Inspector General issued a 140 page report regarding an investigation of a DOJ official who was Counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales over allegations that she Monica Goodling improperly screened candidates for employment in career positions at DOJ for their political views.
In the executive branch, so called 'politicals' serve a key function of carrying out the President's policies/directives (Schedule C employees), but the 'career' types historically were not expected to have such overt political motivations/hiring screens. This is the deep state though that Obama and whoever ran the WH from 2020-2024 built up though. Much more at the link.
Quote:
For 12 of the 16 years from 2008 to 2024 Democrat Presidential Administrations engaged in deliberate hiring practices in order to rid DOJ of the vast majority of experienced conservative trial attorneys who joined from 2000 to 2008. That group of conservative attorneys, if they were still in DOJ, would range in experience from 18 to 26 years, over the course of which dozens of significant investigations and trials would have developed and refined the skill set necessary to lead an investigation like the one taking place in Florida.
The absence of that contingent of prosecutors inside DOJ when Trump began his second term is what has forced the Administration to look outside for someone like Joe diGenova. I don't expect to see Joe turn up in any courtrooms arguing motions or examining witnesses before the grand jury. I expect his role to be more "strategic" than "tactical" how to move the investigation from Point A to Point B to Point C based on the evidence as it is gathered. How to look, reconsider, pivot, and pursue alternative theories all in the same sequence of events without losing momentum.
That takes experience gained through trial and error.
I know some are skeptical of diGenova but I am a big fan of his appointment. This is the type we really need handling/managing a large prosecution such as that of Comey-Brennan et al. It is complex (criminal) litigation.
