What you either don't know, or fail to recognize in your thesis, is that career prosecutors - not political appointees - looked at these accusations over three years ago, and found them to be without merit. It's part of the liberal political narrative to say that these events have not been investigated, when in fact, they were investigated with great enthusiasm and candor.
Holder himself now, is overruling long-held traditions (and policies) in reviewing these cases after there has been a determination in the prior administration not to prosecute. This is a precedent in the history of the DOJ, and one that I'm sure others will come to regret long after this particular issue has become irrelevant. While this is not a violation of the principle of Double Jeopardy in the strictest sense, I personally feel it violates at least the spirit of the 5th Amendment.
If we were to examine this from a historical perspective, what would have kept subsequent administrations from investigating and prosecuting Harry S Truman for war crimes at the end of WWII? After all, Truman intentionally targeted and destroyed an two entire citie causing incalculable death and destruction to the civilian populations of those cities. In Eric Holder's world view, nothing would have kept Eisenhower or Kennedy from launching an investigation to examine the legality of Truman's actions. In fact, using Holder's principles of justice, Truman would have been investigated, prosecuted and convicted of war crimes. Now, is that the behavior of a mature democracy, or is that the behavior of a banana republic? I would submit it's the later, and certainly not the former.
My concern was not with regard to this particular case, but rather with regard to the precedent it appears to be setting.
I thought I made that pretty clear, but you made no attempt to show why “fault” distributed as I claimed could not be used to shelter all parties. You only said it wasn’t properly applicable in this particular case.
In some future case where actual criminal acts are performed after legal opinions have been obtained from Justice Dept. attorneys, which of the three groups should be held legally responsible?