Federal Judge Scolds Politically Activist DOJ For Media Statements, Interviews and Leaks

It is this writers opinion the DOJ has no plan to succeed with guilty convictions in prosecuting defendants connected to the January 6th DC protest.  The process is the punishment. We see this pattern with many of the activities associated with the Lawfare group inside the DOJ.   Using a weaponized justice system for political value is the essence of Lawfare.

As a consequence, the politically weaponized DOJ is engaged in a public narrative building campaign intended to create political value only.  Prosecutor Michael Sherwin appearing on 60 minutes in combination with DOJ officials giving statements to the New York Times is exactly the same historic pattern used by Main Justice in their political attacks against President Trump and his campaign.

AG Merrick Garland takes-over exactly where Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, Eric Holder and DAG Rod Rosenstein left off.  However, this time a federal judge is warning the DOJ the actions of the justice department are compromising their case, and he will take action against the department’s lawyers if this continues.

WASHINGTON – U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta said during a court hearing conducted by phone and Zoom he was “surprised” to see Michael Sherwin, the former acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, and other officials discussing the pending investigation into the insurrection in interviews with the New York Times and CBS’s 60 Minutes.

“I was surprised — and I’m being restrained in my use of terminology — surprised, to say the least, to see Mr. Sherwin sitting for an interview about a pending case in an ongoing criminal investigation. Whether his interview violated Justice Department policy is really not for me to say, but it is something I hope the Department of Justice is looking into,” the judge said. “As for the New York Times story, I found it troubling that sources within the Department of Justice were detailing the possibility of additional charges in a pending criminal case in an ongoing criminal investigation. I have little doubt that anonymously divulging internal department deliberations is contrary to department policy.”

[…] “No matter how much press attention this matter gets, let me be clear that these defendants are entitled to a fair trial, not one that is conducted in the media,” Mehta said. “They are also entitled to defend against charges that are actually brought against them, not speculation about what might or might not be coming. … The fact is, these types of statements in the media have the potential of affecting the jury pool and the rights of these defendants, and the government, quite frankly, in my view, should know better.”  (read more)