It’s a self sustaining bureaucracy that is disconnected from any particular administration. Administrations will, of course, set a particular tone.

The DoJ is in federal executive branch. President is top of chain-of-command of executive branch. In fact, the constitution itself [0] states the [federal] executive power is vested in the president. Disconnect is probably not an accurate word to describe the relationship between DoJ and President.

[0] https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/arti...

True but the president can’t fire the whole department and hire a new one. They have enough trouble when the want to fire the USAG if the other party doesn’t want to see change.

You don't need the presidency for that. You just need to be the majority party in congress because the majority party controls the committees and agenda. Congressional midterm elections are this year.

The legislative branch (congress) isn't supposed to be law enforcement. Law enforcement is squarely executive, as is presidency.

Right, but the presidential branch doesn't do investigations, or congressional hearings, or have the subpoena power that the congressional branch does (like we're seeing in the Jan 6th committee). They have a lot of investigatory power. They can release documents and emails. They can swear in testimony. They can hold you in contempt.

So there is no presidential branch. There is an executive branch. There also isn't a congressional branch. There is a legislative branch.

The executive branch conducts investigations, issues subpoenas and certain agencies can directly hold you in contempt if you don't respond to a subpoena others can ask a court to find you in contempt of court. After all the FBI, DEA, ATF, CBP among many more law enforcement agencies are part of the executive branch.

Pedantic arguments aside, congress does all of that too.

> The executive branch conducts investigations,

>> Essentially, the Court held that the Constitution's text implies a power to investigate given its power to legislate.

> issues subpoenas

>> the U.S. Supreme Court clarified Congress's power to issue subpoenas in a 1917 case (Marshall v. Gordon), stating that "in virtue of the grant of legislative authority there [was] a power implied to deal with contempt."

> certain agencies can directly hold you in contempt

>> The authority of Congress to cite an individual with criminal contempt is found in Title 2, Section 192 of the U.S. Code.

> others can ask a court to find you in contempt of court

>> Either chamber of Congress may start the process in a committee (such as the House Judiciary Committee) and may rely on the legislative counsel's office like the Office of Senate Legal Counsel for help drafting a contempt resolution. Once the resolution is drafted and voted out of committee, it then goes to the full House or Senate (depending on where it originates) for a simple majority vote.

https://www.findlaw.com/litigation/legal-system/contempt-of-...

Yes, Congress does issue subpoenas and conduct investigations as stated in your original post and I didn't disagree with you on this point, but you also claimed that the "presidential branch" doesn't do these things. The main point of my reply is that the executive branch does do those things also.

What are you implying with this comment?

That this is essentially a low-key Stasi that can and will be used to improperly go after political dissidents under the guise of "domestic terrorism."

The entire campaign/programming around "protecting our democracy" was the precursor psychological operation so the population goes along with single party rule.

NBC News was running this last year (more priming): https://ww3.bongino.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/dhsadviso.... It's all clever wordplay designed to manipulate the public into thinking people who disagree politically are terrorists (absent any actual proof that they have intent/motive/etc to commit acts of terror). It's the same logic that's held people from January 6th in solitary confinement without charges of insurrection (despite the media parroting/programming that it was an insurrection).

You're implying that democrats are doing all this PsyOps preparing to rule the country indefinitely? From where I sit, democrats are lame ducks who are set to get swept in 22 and 24.

No. The whole Democrat vs Republican thing is itself a psyop to drive the country apart (divide and conquer). It's about normalization of single-party rule in general. The end goal being willful acceptance of global governance. The public face of that, typically, is someone who is a democrat but there are plenty of republicans (neocons) in on it, too.

This new unit is just a way to flush out the straggler dissidents who will get in the way.

I don't believe that. It would take too much work to have a coverup like that, especially as total nitwits are elected to congress constantly. To address that, you'd have to say that no, people are divided into two camps with an infinite chasm between them: the ones in the know, and the total idiots. The far more plausible and minimal explanation is that it's a complex power balance that can tip unpredictably.

You're overthinking it. You can have a few in the know coordinating the direction while the eager idiots follow. It's happened time and time again throughout history.

Have fun, Alice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQNitCNycKQ&list=WL&index=1

According to that lady, the Mexican drug war is an American psyop, and US Marines are the ones running the drug flow into the US.

The CIA was running cocaine in Nicaragua [1]. It's not that far fetched.

https://archive.is/uFSlR

Administrations change and you better be ok with future executives inheriting powers that you create.

One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter, especially domestically. Nelson Mandela is a fine example of one of the greatest humans in history who was defined by the South African government as a domestic terrorist during apartheid.

I think he is implying it may be used on political enemies or just generally for discretionary prosecution that disproportionately targets those who fall out of favor with the powerful.

Huh?