The 'Justice Department' unfurled a banner over the weekend that is a clear violation of the Hatch Act. It takes partisanship into propaganda. We appear to have a President with the most fragile ego ever, in constant need of praise and sycophancy. A department that appears more interested in currying favor with its Executive than actually finding 'justice.' Other than lawsuits such as against A&F's CEO, I see very little in terms of pursuit of criminal wrongdoing on the part of anyone in the Epstein files, co-conspirators (including Maxwell) included. It's true that the burden of proof is lower in a civil suit - even in a 'wrongful death' suit, the degree of culbability is variable and still subject to jury fine/award. Which means it may be easier to find monetary recompense than criminal liability in such cases. While a sitting President apparently cannot be indicted, according to a Nixon-era Office of Legal Council 'Opinion' (not a law, not a rule, just an opinion), if he can sue, as he is suing the IRS, he can certainly also be sued. As can anyone involved in any of his decisions - from demolishing the East Wing before even being granted 'approval' by the board he appointed to oversee such things, to not letting out request for bids on design or construction or even demolition of the same - to his orders to various members of his cabinet.
The 'Justice Department' unfurled a banner over the weekend that is a clear violation of the Hatch Act. It takes partisanship into propaganda. We appear to have a President with the most fragile ego ever, in constant need of praise and sycophancy. A department that appears more interested in currying favor with its Executive than actually finding 'justice.' Other than lawsuits such as against A&F's CEO, I see very little in terms of pursuit of criminal wrongdoing on the part of anyone in the Epstein files, co-conspirators (including Maxwell) included. It's true that the burden of proof is lower in a civil suit - even in a 'wrongful death' suit, the degree of culbability is variable and still subject to jury fine/award. Which means it may be easier to find monetary recompense than criminal liability in such cases. While a sitting President apparently cannot be indicted, according to a Nixon-era Office of Legal Council 'Opinion' (not a law, not a rule, just an opinion), if he can sue, as he is suing the IRS, he can certainly also be sued. As can anyone involved in any of his decisions - from demolishing the East Wing before even being granted 'approval' by the board he appointed to oversee such things, to not letting out request for bids on design or construction or even demolition of the same - to his orders to various members of his cabinet.
They should rename it the Department of Injustice. Kinda like the Department Of War.