Who controls the DOJ?

Is the Justice Department part of the FBI?

Is the FBI part of the Justice Department?

Is the Federal Bureau of Investigation part of the Government of the United States, or does it operate outside of it, perhaps at the behest of, or in close coordination with, elements within the government itself?

What could possibly be the reasons behind such deep institutional entanglement with those who are sworn to protect the U. Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic? The answer to this question, I believe, lies in the question itself. If the FBI really is supposed to protect the U. Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, then those in charge should logically explain why they can't be impartial - if they truly are sworn to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

But they won't. In fact, as we are now seeing, the very people who are supposed to protect the Constitution don't even want the FBI to be impartial. It is apparent that their own interests conflict with those of the U. Constitution and the American people.

What about the Justice Department? After all, the President of the United States controls the Department of Justice and the FBI. And, by extension, does the president control the Justice Department? Who controls the Justice Department? And does the Justice Department control the Justice Department? If so, then what is the relationship between the Department of Justice and the Justice Department, exactly? These questions deserve a clear, concise, unbiased and detailed answer. But, so far, none of these questions have been answered.

The only answer I have seen is this: You have to trust us. We're the people you voted for. But that response is not satisfactory. If the Justice Department really is in charge of the Justice Department, then shouldn't they be able to give a simple, plain, accurate answer to such a question? This is not a request, it's a question.

But apparently they don't want to answer these questions. Because the people who are supposed to be protecting the U. Constitution - ie, the Justice Department, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security - are instead doing everything possible to advance their own narrow interests.

And what do their interests entail?

Who controls the DOJ?

By Matt Taibbi I can understand why Barack Obama might not want the administration to focus on the kind of scandal-of-the-month business that is all to common with Washington in general and the D.

C. News media in particular. After all, these have the capacity to distract from other matters of policy.

But this latest instance - it seems a pattern is emerging now - is far too important for the administration to keep in the background, both in terms of its political consequences and its immediate relevance to our financial system. It involves Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department in a whole host of issues not necessarily germane to a Democratic government intent on making it appear as if there is not a problem with this administration. The scandal revolves around just how much the administration knows about the controversial prosecution of New Black Panther voter intimidation candidate for governor of Maryland, William Donald Schaefer, and the way that the department has handled the matter. And though the latest developments are not a surprise and were almost expected given history, they are still significant for anyone who is interested in our financial system and justice reform.

The new scandal is already getting lots of attention, though much of it is based on false claims from conservatives which have been picked up in the rightwing press (I should add that the Associated Press, whose reporter broke the story on May 14th, has never made any claim to have inside information on this development, although they did run an excellent piece on Friday). One big question that this case raises is: if Democrats think you can't prosecute a sitting governor for running for office with the support of groups like the black panthers, or otherwise prosecute someone even for such blatantly racist actions, then how is it that Republicans haven't been held responsible for their own involvement with such groups? After all, the entire scandal is based on theory that the Department of Justice could have prosecuted a black candidate for governor on mere involvement by white people with such groups. The fact that black people are involved with the conservative movement doesn't mean that George Bush wasn't wrong to pursue it.

Who runs the US Department of Justice?

Not the Department of Injustice.

We're a week away from the release of the annual, official U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the "state of justice." In fact, they just released their latest version, but the one that will make it to the front page of every website and news outlet is the GAO's "annual report on the state of justice." That's not what I'm interested in here.

What I'm interested in is the underlying assumption of the report itself. The assumption, buried deep within the report, is that the Justice Department is doing its job as it should be doing it.

And, yet, it is not. I don't want to say that the Justice Department is doing its job as it should be doing it. But I want to say that it is not doing its job as it should be doing it.

The report tells us that there is, and I'll repeat that, the GAO says there is, a huge problem at the Justice Department, a problem of its own making. A problem that can and must be fixed.

The problem is that the Justice Department can't, in good faith, enforce the law. The DOJ has failed to enforce the law, and that's why it is doing its job as it should be doing it.

So, what happened? The Justice Department is incapable of enforcing the law. They are paralyzed by the fear that if they enforce the law, they will be charged with violating it. The Justice Department is unwilling to enforce the law because they do not wish to be charged with violating it.

That's the problem. There is no "problem" with the Justice Department except that they won't enforce the law because they fear the consequences of violating it. And they don't want to violate the law because they fear the consequences of violating the law.

Why is that? Because there is a special, powerful group of people, who know better, who are more knowledgeable, who have more experience, who are more intelligent, who are more capable, who are more moral, and who are more virtuous, than the rest of us. And that group of people, these special, privileged few, these people, these powerful people, that special group of people, they are the judges. And, more important, they are the lawyers.