Just read this article on AOL--- seems like the Democrats are attempting to weaponize the DOJ.
"Garland has said he wouldn’t make the second volume of Smith’s report, focused on the classified documents case, public while the charges against Nauta and De Oliveira are still being prosecuted.
Democratic lawmakers said in their letter that any concerns that dismissing the case could enable further corruption "are outweighed by the many indications that Mr. Trump will simply end the prosecutions against his co-conspirators upon taking office anyway and then instruct his DOJ to permanently bury this report."
The Justice Department declined to comment Thursday on the letter.
The classified documents case against Trump was dropped after he won the election, with Smith citing a long-standing Justice Department policy of not prosecuting a sitting president. Trump had pleaded not guilty and denied any wrongdoing.
Smith resigned Friday after having led a pair of federal probes into Trump’s handling of classified documents and his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, which resulted in indictments but no trials.
The first volume of his final report was released this week. It said that Trump “inspired his supporters to commit acts of physical violence” when the U.S. Capitol was attacked on Jan. 6, 2021, and that he knowingly promoted false claims about election fraud after he lost the 2020 presidential race.
Over the past year, Garland has released several high-profile reports drafted by special counsels he appointed, including Robert Hur’s report on President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents and David Weiss’ report on Hunter Biden’s tax and gun charges.
On the campaign trail, Trump vowed to prosecute his political opponents during a second term. Senate Democrats on Wednesday grilled Pam Bondi, Trump’s pick for attorney general, about whether she would pursue those efforts at his behest at a confirmation hearing. Bondi said she wouldn’t politicize the office of attorney general or “target people simply because of their political affiliation.”
MY VIEW---
If Garland were to drop the cases against the two co-conspirators, it could indeed be perceived as weaponizing the DOJ, particularly if it appears to be done in response to political pressure (a letter from Raskin) or to achieve a particular outcome. These individuals have already been charged and are in the midst of ongoing legal proceedings, which makes dismissing the cases seem like an extraordinary and potentially unjustified intervention. It would raise questions about the fairness of the legal process and whether decisions are being made based on the law or political considerations.
From your perspective, dismissing the cases would undermine the integrity of the legal system and send a message that certain individuals are above the law, especially if it appears to be done for political purposes. The legal process should, ideally, proceed based on evidence and facts, rather than political influence. If these men have been charged, then they should face trial unless there's a compelling legal reason to dismiss the cases—not simply because of political pressure or a potential future political agenda.
This situation highlights a deeper concern about the DOJ's independence and the risks of political interference, which can erode public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the legal system. If Garland were to dismiss these cases, it could fuel the perception that the DOJ is being used as a political tool, undermining trust in the institution.
One would think the Democrats would stop trying these slippery ploys. It well appears Garland is doing exactly the right thing following the law.
If these men have been charged, then they should face trial unless there's a compelling legal reason to dismiss the cases—not simply because of political pressure or a potential future political agenda.
So you'll be in disagreement when Trump's AG dismisses these cases?
We all know these cases are going away like next tuesday. But it's weaponization if Garland dismisses them but not Bondi? Do tell?
Oh but I'm sure Bondi will make the report public, right? I'm sure she'll want to be as transparent as possible, right?
These individuals have already been charged and are in the midst of ongoing legal proceedings, which makes dismissing the cases seem like an extraordinary and potentially unjustified intervention. It would raise questions about the fairness of the legal process and whether decisions are being made based on the law or political considerations.
This will not age well. Tell me how you feel after Bondi washes these cases away...
For this attitude to avoid hypocrisy, the same principles must apply universally: decisions about ongoing cases should be based on legal merit, not political considerations, and transparency should be demanded from all parties. Anything less risks turning the justice system into a tool for partisan gain, eroding its credibility and fairness. If Bondi were to dismiss cases without clear justification, it should face the same scrutiny as Garland or anyone else in a similar position.
Raskin’s request for the DOJ to drop charges against two men so the second part of the Jack Smith report can be released raises significant concerns for me. It seems like an attempt to prioritize political or procedural convenience over the justice system’s obligation to prosecute crimes based on evidence and the law. Garland’s decision to withhold the report because of the pending prosecutions reflects a commitment to DOJ protocol, ensuring fairness and impartiality. By asking for the charges to be dropped for strategic purposes, Raskin appears to be weaponizing the DOJ, and I struggle to understand his motive. This kind of action undermines the independence of the judicial process and raises ethical questions. To me, it highlights the hypocrisy of criticizing Garland or others for similar actions while excusing this behavior when it aligns with political goals. If Bondi were to dismiss cases for political reasons later and receive praise, it would mirror the same issue I see with Raskin’s request. Decisions about prosecutions should be based solely on legal merit, not political agendas or expediency. I also find it troubling that Raskin’s push for transparency, through the release of the report, could come at the cost of undermining ongoing legal proceedings. Transparency is important, but not when it sacrifices the integrity of justice. For me, this situation illustrates the very concerns about weaponizing the DOJ and highlights the need for consistent principles, regardless of political affiliation.
It's a given that these cases will be dismissed. Why is Bondi the only one who is able to do so?
It’s not a given. Once again, you’re quick to criticize a stranger simply because you can. Neither you nor I have any idea how Bondi will perform as the new Attorney General. There’s plenty of time to revisit this issue if Garland decides not to act on J. Raskin’s request—or even if he does. Both of them might very well choose to do the right thing. Who knows.
We all know there's a snowball's chance in hell that Trump will let those cases proceed and will direct Bondi to ax them. Yes, weaponizing the department.
I’m not sure what Trump will do—it’s really up to Bondi. Let’s face it, if she dropped those cases, she’d be out the door and ridiculed instantly. Trump might feel that since his document case was dropped, the charges against those considered accomplices should also be dropped.
I looked a bit into this issue and found this ---Accessory or Accomplice Charges: If individuals are charged as accomplices in a crime, the outcome of the primary defendant’s case can influence their charges but does not automatically determine them. Accomplices are charged based on their own actions, evidence, and legal culpability. Even if charges against Trump (or another primary defendant) are dropped, accomplices could still face prosecution if there’s sufficient evidence against them.
I believe these cases should go to trial. Transparency is essential, and these cases could provide valuable insight into the Document case. If Bondi decides to drop these cases without presenting a solid legal precedent—truly compelling reasoning—then I would view it as political weaponization, something I believe has been a concern during Biden’s term. I hope to see better judgment and impartiality from a Republican Attorney General.
I take pride in my party, but I’m not afraid to criticize them when I believe they’ve done something wrong.
"Just read this article on AOL--- seems like the Democrats are attempting to weaponize the DOJ."
Attempting?
I think we have seen them be quite successful doing just that for many years now.
by Leslie McCowen 12 years ago
Illustrious Rick Scott.....the one who's throwing Americans off the voting rolls to stop Obama supporters from voting....seems he pulled a Ross Perot!“It’s a house of cards. From what we found in our case was Medicare defrauding paid for the acquisitions,” he said. “They charged the Medicare...
by Tim Mitchell 2 months ago
Trump announces Matt Gaetz as his pick for attorney general by NBC News (Nov 13, 2024)Gaetz, a Florida lawmaker who has been under federal investigation, is a staunch Trump ally on Capitol Hill.https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justic … rcna180042"WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald...
by Sharlee 19 months ago
"Then on June 7, "“I want to make clear that, as the attorney general has stated, I have been granted ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when, and whether to file charges and for making decisions necessary to preserve the integrity of the...
by Allen Donald 4 years ago
If I were voting, I'd vote to confirm Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS.I'd ask her some questions about her views on various settled cases, but that is not a litmus test for her confirmation. Her political views should have nothing to do with her confirmation. The only question that matters is whether...
by Ralph Schwartz 5 years ago
There have been deals floating around on "witness trades" - the Democrats want Bolton and the Republicans want Hunter Biden. The Democrats want Mulvaney and the Republicans want Eric Ciarmella. The list continues, but it's not necessary to list everyone.The bottom line is that...
by Readmikenow 8 weeks ago
Did the democrats actually believe this wasn't going to happen? Did they actually believe biden and other democrats saying nobody is above the law? How could democrats be so wrong about so much""Were you surprised?When President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter Biden, many...
Copyright © 2025 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2025 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.
For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy
Show DetailsNecessary | |
---|---|
HubPages Device ID | This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons. |
Login | This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service. |
Google Recaptcha | This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy) |
Akismet | This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Google Analytics | This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Traffic Pixel | This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized. |
Amazon Web Services | This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy) |
Cloudflare | This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Hosted Libraries | Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy) |
Features | |
---|---|
Google Custom Search | This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Maps | Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Charts | This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy) |
Google AdSense Host API | This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Google YouTube | Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Vimeo | Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Paypal | This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Login | You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Maven | This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy) |
Marketing | |
---|---|
Google AdSense | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Google DoubleClick | Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Index Exchange | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Sovrn | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Ads | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
AppNexus | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Openx | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Rubicon Project | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
TripleLift | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Say Media | We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy) |
Remarketing Pixels | We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites. |
Conversion Tracking Pixels | We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service. |
Statistics | |
---|---|
Author Google Analytics | This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy) |
Comscore | ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Tracking Pixel | Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy) |
Clicksco | This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy) |