https://www.politico.com/news/2023/0...setts-00097411

The MSM hasn't made this a very big story for obvious reasons, but the Biden appointed Massachussetts AG recently resigned after a scathing report from the DOJ inspector general noting numerous serious ethical lapses and lying under oath about them. Quoted from the Politico link above,

“Ms. RollinsÂ’s conduct in leaking non‐public DOJ information [on multiple occasions she was found to have leaked non-public information to the media to smear political opponents] constitutes an extraordinary abuse of her authority and threatens to erode public confidence in the integrity of federal law enforcement actions,” Special Counsel Henry Kerner wrote as he delivered a 105-page report to President Joe Biden.

“We found Rollins’s conduct described throughout this report violated federal regulations, numerous DOJ policies, her Ethics Agreement, and applicable law, and fell far short of the standards of professionalism and judgment that the Department should expect of any employee, much less a U.S. Attorney,” Horowitz concluded in his 161-page compendium on allegations against Rollins.

--Despite this, the DOJ has declined to prosecute. Keep in mind this is the same DOJ that is under pressure from Democrats to prosecute Trump for much less serious infractions (legally at least. If you want to argue Trump's transgressions were more morally abhorrent, then be my guest). Is there an actual legitimate legal argument for not pressing charges in this case, or is it just a simple matter of a highly politicized DOJ deciding they are above the law and only prosecuting their political enemies and not their allies.

As an aside, LOL how the MSM has managed to make this such a minor story because it is so inconvenient to the preferred narrative. Could you imagine if this was a Trump appointed AG and DOJ. The media would be going nuclear right now with outrage.

It was reported in the NYT, WaPo, and CNN. Those were the first three I checked.

Just once I want to see one of these “The MSM isn’t reporting this!” posts that isn’t a blatant lie.

She also isn't the Massachusetts AG. She is the U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts. Biden obviously has no say in who the Massachusetts AG is.

I just checked an additional 8-10 sources. Is there a MSM source that didn't report on this story?

I agree. Kelhus is living in an absolute fantasy land when it comes this sort of thing.

I mean, he's clearly just lying.

The OP linked a Politico story, so clearly I am acknowledging this story was reported on. I still stand by my assertion this is a MUCH bigger story if the narrative was more preferable.

And you never actually addressed the OP whether this seems like the kind of thing an uncompromised DOJ would be declining to prosecute. Leaking sensitive information to the press to smear political opponents and then lying about it under oath seem like pretty big deals (and this is on top of some other more minor stuff, like threatening reporters she would call the police and make up charges against them when they tried to legally interview her)

Every major news outlet covered this story and accurately described her misbehavior. You seem disappointed the general public isn't make more of a fuss about this, and you're laying the blame for that on the media like it's somehow their fault.

Only an "uncompromised" DOJ would prosecute her? Based on what exactly?

From the Politico article:

Horowitz found that Rollins violated the federal false statements statute, and he indicated that he referred the matter to the Justice Department for a “prosecutive decision” on Dec. 16, 2022. But three weeks later, he noted, “the Department informed the OIG that it declined prosecution.”

From this write-up about the DOJ (2014):

DOJ “Willfully” Corrects Its Stance on False Statement Prosecutions: Change Could Have Major Impact on Future White Collar Investigations and Prosecutions

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently adopted a more defense-friendly position on criminal prosecutions under a commonly used federal charging statute, False Statement to Government Agency, 18 U.S.C. §1001 (“Section 1001”). To be convicted under Section 1001, a person must act “willfully” in making false statements to federal investigators. Courts are divided over whether Section 1001’s “willfulness” element requires proof that the defendant knew his or her conduct was unlawful.

Source: https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/pu...-false-stateme

You argue that others are compromised but don't realize it's your own thinking and objectivity that's compromised.

So, you contend Rollins had a reasonable defense she didn't know it was against the law to use non public information to smear political opponents and then repeatedly lie about it when investigated under oath? And the DOJ declined to prosecute because of this?

Yeah, I am going to say hell no to that one, especially for someone with her high level of education and experience.

This line of reasoning would actually be a much bigger theoretical defense for Trump, as he had no training or experience in law or government when he was President, and has repeatedly shown he wasn't aware of and uninterested in the law when he was president.

You’d still say this no matter how heavily it was reported.

I don't understand. This woman was the U.S. Attorney for one of fifty states, not the Attorney General of the United States. Her horrendous conduct was reported on by literally every MSM outlet. What are you expecting?

No, I contend that prosecutors have lots of factors they consider when making a decision whether or not to prosecute. I provided an example. The world isn't a binary "compromised" vs "uncompromised" when an action is taken you disagree with.

Maybe you are right. And maybe things are exactly as they appear. That we have a highly politicized DOJ that cares little for the rule of law, and exists to protect the crimes of its political allies and punish its political opponents.

OP definitely has a hard on for anthropomorphising "the MSM" as some sort of monolithic, homogenous entity that plays the part of the antagonist in his fantasy land. It's such a unique style that a few years back I actually realised who he was on another forum due to that alone.

OP - what are your thoughts on whether the MSM has sufficiently covered what’s going on with actual state AG Ken Paxton for the past four years and DOJs refusal to charge him?

What about DOJs refusal to accept various Trump era referrals from the IG for ethics violations and abuse of position like Ryan Zinke and Wilbur Ross?

Or maybe because she repented and resigned her position after the report came out and before they decided to press charges, they decided to let it go. It's almost like doubling down, saying you did everything perfect and the people after you are on a witch hunt are stupid positions to adopt when being investigated by the government.

Do you have any evidence she repented? If she did so, it would certainly have made the story, and I haven't seen anything.

Much more likely her lawyers talked to the DOJ and made a arrangement where she would quietly resign without making a stink in exchange for not having charges pressed. The last thing Dems need in 2024 was a messy investigation, even if it was completely warranted. But again, this would be the DOJ putting politics in front of serving the American public.

In the Rollins case, the DOJs own watchdog recommended prosecution, and laid out a ~200 page case why. If this happened in the other cases, I definitely feel the DOJ would need a very good reason not to do so. Are you claiming the inspector general recommended prosecution in these other cases?

Ross was referred for lying to investigators about the inclusion of the citizenship question on the census: https://www.govexec.com/management/2...census/183843/

Zinke was referred for repeatedly misusing funds for his own personal benefit:

https://www.axios.com/2018/10/30/int...eferred-to-doj

If you want a serious answer- DOJ prosecutes what they want. It could be corruption. It could be they just didn’t think it was worth it. I’ll note that IG reports contain a lot of stuff that might not end up being admissible in a criminal case. Most importantly, they are allowed to compel government employees to speak to them or else be fired. You can’t use that in a criminal case if you adopt it without some serious litigation.