Can There Be a Dept. of Justice Without Justice?

And if the answer to this question is “yes,” what should we instead call it?

by Mustang

The history of the DOJ is a study on creating bureaucracies. Our country never had a Department of Justice until 1 July 1870.  Congress decided we needed the department as part of the executive branch to handle the legal business of the United States.

Of course, the new department needed someone to run it, the Attorney General of the United States and a Solicitor General to assist the AG.  And a few full-time lawyers to manage a plethora of lawsuits following the Civil War. Today, the DOJ is the world’s largest “law firm.”

File:U.S. Department of Justice headquarters, August 12, 2006.jpg

U.S. Department of Justice Headquarters

In those early days, the AG was only required to be “learned in the law.”  Now, the AG must be a political hack, which suggests an individual lacking personal integrity — but there is no shortage of dishonest attorneys and, therefore, no shortage of lawyers working at the DOJ.

The mission of the DOJ, as stated on the DOJ website, is “To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior, and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.”

The “fair and impartial administration of justice” seems to be a leap, particularly when the entire weight of federal law enforcement has been directed against parents who (gasp) care about the kind of public education their children are receiving.

As a case in point, Mr. Scott Smith (Loudoun County, Virginia) attended a school board meeting as a parent in June 2021.  Mr. Smith’s concern was the rape of his daughter by a “transgender boy” in the girl’s bathroom at Stone Bridge High School.  The school district issued Smith a no-trespassing order before the meeting that forbade him from telling his story — part of an elaborate cover-up by the school district to hide the fact of the rape of Mr. Smith’s daughter.

Since Smith violated the no-trespass order, police arrested him.  And, of course, a leftist anti-Fa thug at the school board meeting vocally accused Smith’s daughter of lying, and the school board announced that no rape occurred, period.  Except that a rape kit proved that a rape had occurred.

The same “transgender” boy committed another rape a few months later.

This incident may never have come to the attention of the DO(?) were it not for the fact that the National School Board Association wrote a letter to President Joe Biden complaining about parents “speaking out” at school board meetings.  The letter specifically cited Mr. Smith’s “run-in” with the Loudoun County School Board and claims explicitly “that parents’ protests and speeches at school board meetings could be equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism.”

President Biden subsequently handed the letter to AG Merrick Garland (of Chicago, Illinois), a former federal judge of the U.S. Circuit Court of the District of Columbia.  Mr. Garland then wrote a memo to the FBI directing them (and other federal and state agencies) to “take measures” to address “criminal conduct” directed toward school personnel.  Apparently, Garland intends to “shut parents up” about the rape of their children and also critical race theory.

Note that the United States Attorney General has no authority over “state agencies,” which causes some wonderment on my part why no states have sued Garland for overstepping his federal authority.

Developing Trends

In the early morning hours of 6 November 2021, Biden’s/Garland’s FBI raided the home of James O’Keefe, founder of Project Veritas.  Federal agents collected his cell phone, reporter’s notes, copies of his communications with his lawyers, and confidential health information.  Within a few days of this raid, the New York Times published O’Keefe’s cell phone data.

A year before, O’Keefe filed a lawsuit against the New York Times for defamation over a report he publicized about ballot harvesting in Minnesota.  How federal authorities “justified” their raid in November 2021 was the “suspicion” of the theft of Ashley Biden’s diary, wherein she allegedly recalls “taking inappropriate showers with her father, Joe Biden.”

Presently, a jurisdictional court is curious how federal authorities obtained confidential legal communications between O’Keefe and his attorneys, but if the judge is a Biden appointee, it is a question that may never be answered.

Democrats, be thou ever so foul

This is not a recent problem.  During the Obama administration, the DO(?) pulled out all the stops in prosecuting political commentator Dinesh D’Souza, charging him with one felony count of making an “illegal” contribution to New York senate candidate Wendy Long.  D’Souza maintained that it was “political payback” for his general criticism of the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton.

Judge Richard M. Berman, a Clinton appointee, rejected D’Souza’s claim.  Berman sentenced D’Souza to eight months in a halfway house, five years’ probation, and a fine of $30,000.00.  No doubt D’Souza imagined the political payback scheme, which Clinton appointee Berman discounted out of hand.

Some Interesting History

Early in the department’s existence, harsh measures were meted out to political opponents and those who steadfastly resisted official policies.  Because the department seemed omniscient and omnipotent, the country reacted with fear and trepidation over the influence and reach of the investigative arm.  In many sections of the country, the department sought to suppress any source of political ideology other than its own and set out to muzzle churches and religious lay-leaders.

Even parents, who had concerns about what their children were learning in public schools, and their children’s safety, were squashed.  They were “traitors,” you see … and even the president referred to these people as “destroyers.”

Now for some common sense.  If you have an entire building full of federal prosecutors (93 at last count), do you end up with “prosecutions,” or do you end up with “justice?”  Where is the balance in this one massively powerful agency?

Oh, wait a minute.  Sorry.  The first paragraph immediately above was about the Gestapo in World War II.  Darn it.  Well, perhaps you’ll understand how I became confused.  Never mind, then.  I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

23 Responses to “Can There Be a Dept. of Justice Without Justice?”

  1. Baysider Says:

    @Mustang: “It blows my mind to think that anyone was able to converse in Latin.” Less palaver than, say Greek. I’ve often wondered if the builders and engineers used Roman numbers … or Egyptian. 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

  2. peter3nj Says:

    Should the GOP manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in the House and Senate this November all the rest is academic. BBB gulags may be the order of the day. Paraphrasing Chico Marx, Justice, everybody knows their is no justice.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. markone1blog Says:

    Don’t forget that (as can be read in tomorrow’s post at my blog) evidence points toward the Department of Education asked for the “domestic terrorism” letter from the school board group (which has lost over half of its membership).

    Also don’t overlook the raid on Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters.

    Liked by 1 person

    • markone1blog Says:

      I mention Tina Peters only because, in addition to her oversight of the Mesa County audit, she has been vocal regarding school board idiocy in Colorado.


      • peter3nj Says:

        Having graduated from HS in 69’
        Shakespeare’s Julius Ceaser was the extent of our exposure to him. Like most of my generation, I would suppose, we read the history on our own and self educated. That was the case with my older brother and I.

        Liked by 2 people

      • bunkerville Says:

        Good days in school… no drugs, just a bit of smoking a few regular cigs was the bad behavior.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Mustang Says:

      Have you ever noticed how smart Americans were BEFORE we had a U.S. Department of Education? I once saw an 8th Grade end-of-course examination from, I believe, 1892. There is NO WAY I could have passed that test. The progressives wanted “more” high school graduates, so to achieve that, they made primary and secondary education “easier to achieve.” Now we have college-educated numbskulls running the country most of whom do not even know their country’s history.

      Liked by 5 people

      • bunkerville Says:

        Believe it or not, my high school still required 4 years of Latin.. I hope I am the better for it and Caesar and the Gallic wars..

        Liked by 1 person

      • Baysider Says:

        I have a 5th grade reader from 1900. I had little exposure to most of that anywhere in education. I read Caesar in Gaul on my own – but not in Latin, heh, heh.

        Liked by 3 people

      • bunkerville Says:

        Up the hill and down the hill and over the river……and we had to be able to write it in Latin!


      • Mustang Says:

        It blows my mind to think that anyone was able to converse in Latin. This unwieldy language may explain why the Romans were so darn angry most of the time.

        Liked by 1 person

      • bunkerville Says:

        Latin has six main tenses: three non-perfect tenses (the present, future, and imperfect) and three perfect tenses (the perfect, future perfect, and pluperfect).[1][2][3] In technical language, the first three tenses are known as the īnfectum tenses, while the three perfect tenses are known as perfectum.[4] The two sets of tenses are made using different stems. For example, from the verb faciō ‘I do’ the three non-perfect tenses are faciō, faciam, faciēbam ‘I do, I will do, I was doing’, made with the stem faci-, and the three perfect tenses are fēcī, fēcerō, fēceram ‘I did, I will have done, I had done’, made with the stem fēc-.

        Other than that…. you may be on to something Mustang. Unless I wanted to be a priest I would have been better served having Spanish…

        Liked by 2 people

      • Mustang Says:

        Okay, Bunks … what I read in your first paragraph (above) was blah blah blah blah blah. I’m afraid there’s no hope for me. AOW is a Latin expert. And Spanish, as well. My Italian is good though … “Badda bing, badda boom.” [Mustang struts off stage]

        Liked by 2 people

      • bunkerville Says:

        It is long gone Mustang… conjugating a verb is what we spent our time and that is the end of my knowledge base at this point!!


      • bunkerville Says:

        amo, amas, amat, amamus, amatis, amant – Urban Dictionary › define › term=amo,…
        One of the first things many people will learn when taking Latin. First Conjugation amo:I love amas: You love amat: He, She, or It loves amamus: We love

        Liked by 1 person

      • peter3nj Says:

        Et tu brute?
        E pluris unum
        Bada bing
        That’s it for me I’m outa here..,

        Liked by 1 person

      • Mustang Says:

        Peter = Kinda sorta plagiarized my comment. Bad Peter. Bad.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Ed Bonderenka Says:

    The department of war became the Department of Defense.
    Perhaps the DOJ should become the Department of Offense.

    Liked by 5 people

  5. nrringlee Says:

    I propose “Ministry of Ideological Purity.” But that is just me.

    Liked by 6 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: