The entire legal profession needs a reckoning after this.
Carroll is not a political figure. She's not tied in to the political parties that close to defend their own. She does not have any of the immunity that politicians get.
It may seem small, compared to the pursuit of other politicians, which undercuts the fundamentals of democracy. But another fundamental protection is the assumption behind immunity, that people who are just doing their jobs are at risk from persecution from criminals using the legal system against them.
We give police, prosecutors, and judges extremely wide latitude, and neither party really wants to upset that. They rely on in when they're in power, legitimately.
Assuming that nothing comes of it (as is almost certainly the case), everybody on the DoJ side needs to be charged with abusing their offices. The justification for immunity has been stretched far past its breaking point. Both parties need to be put on notice that this is not an unlimited right.
I'm well aware that what I'm suggesting will backfire. With immunity pulled away from DOJ prosecutors, the next Democratic administration is going to be besieged with counter-suits every time they try to prosecute crimes by the other party.
Perhaps that's even the point: the target isn't Carroll, but the next Democratic Attorney General.
Pity that the anti-weaponization fund only pays out if the government weaponizing the law against you was Democratic. (Seriously). Otherwise, she'd have a bloody decent claim, I reckon.
The entire legal profession needs a reckoning after this.
Carroll is not a political figure. She's not tied in to the political parties that close to defend their own. She does not have any of the immunity that politicians get.
It may seem small, compared to the pursuit of other politicians, which undercuts the fundamentals of democracy. But another fundamental protection is the assumption behind immunity, that people who are just doing their jobs are at risk from persecution from criminals using the legal system against them.
We give police, prosecutors, and judges extremely wide latitude, and neither party really wants to upset that. They rely on in when they're in power, legitimately.
Assuming that nothing comes of it (as is almost certainly the case), everybody on the DoJ side needs to be charged with abusing their offices. The justification for immunity has been stretched far past its breaking point. Both parties need to be put on notice that this is not an unlimited right.
I'm well aware that what I'm suggesting will backfire. With immunity pulled away from DOJ prosecutors, the next Democratic administration is going to be besieged with counter-suits every time they try to prosecute crimes by the other party.
Perhaps that's even the point: the target isn't Carroll, but the next Democratic Attorney General.
Pity that the anti-weaponization fund only pays out if the government weaponizing the law against you was Democratic. (Seriously). Otherwise, she'd have a bloody decent claim, I reckon.
[flagged]