[bagster]

Okay, you made me not be lazy.

Brief History of the Justice Dept.'s '60-Day Rule' (Which Doesn't Say 60 Days)

(excerpt)

But the “60-day rule” is a bit of a misnomer, because there is no written deadline. "Nevertheless, the department has a longstanding unwritten practice to avoid overt law enforcement and prosecutorial activities close to an election, typically within 60 or 90 days of Election Day,” the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, said in a 2018 review of the policy.

*snip*

President Bush's attorney general, Michael Mukasey, issued the first “Election Year Sensitivities” memo to all DoJ employees in March 2008, advising them that politics should play no part in the timing of criminal charges, and that indictments should never be brought “for the purpose of” affecting an election.

One meme from one AG should not and does not constrain an AG in the future to follow that memo. It's not policy and memos, at least where I come from, have a shelf life.

If they had wanted it to be written policy, they should have, could have, and would have made it written policy.

They did not.

But it sure will give the derps something to whine about. And they surely will, no matter when indictments come down. We are no longer surprised by any derp action or reaction, and they are safely ignored.

I will concede this one point. There is a term 'past practice' that is sometimes used in labor disputes, whether there is a written policy or not.

I'll let the lawyers figure that one out. And they just may have to, cause there's a storm a-comin'.

Sidenote:

Technically speaking, every year is an 'election year', so with that in mind and a strict interpretation of this so called policy, there would be very short windows to enforce the law against any crime that was politically connected in any way. The derps are very good at these type of subversions.

[mbrfl]

Nice research. So it appears Barr isn’t legally restrained from indicting anyone, including right up to the day of the election. Now THAT would be something to see. Imagine Biden, or whoever ends up running, getting arrested on election day.

Nevertheless, I would expect Barr to follow the 60 day rule even if he isn’t legally required to. And it’s better for our side if it comes by Sep. 4th. That gives plenty of time for it to sway voters against the dems. Should be fun to watch.

[Wneighbor]

Brief History of the Justice Dept.'s '60-Day Rule' (Which Doesn't Say 60 Days)

I think it's probably accurate to say most of us FreeQs are boomers. A policy memo issued in '08 is like last week. If this were an advantage derp thing, I can hear ol' sniffer Jo sayin' C'mon man!

I agree with your assessment of "memo status" but have an even tougher time taking the whole thing serious knowin' the crooked shrub down the road from me was just protecting the next derp in line. I tend to think Barr probably shares at least some of my opinion on that.

[little jeremiah]

Thanks for digging on that “60 days” stuff.

[greeneyes]

Okay, you made me not be lazy.
Brief History of the Justice Dept.’s ‘60-Day Rule’ (Which Doesn’t Say 60 Days)
****************************************************************************************

Clapping for your efforts-A++. Very interesting information. Thanks for the research.

[AZLiberty]

Technically speaking, every year is an 'election year', so with that in mind and a strict interpretation of this so called policy, there would be very short windows to enforce the law against any crime that was politically connected in any way. The derps are very good at these type of subversions.

When the big indictments come between now and Election Day, they shouldn't be just announcements or press releases. They should lay out the facts (documentary evidence, sworn testimony, confessions) leading to the conclusions so that voters can judge for themselves whether the legal actions are merely political.