All 4 Fed. judges who signed off on the FIB’s (er, FBI’s) warrants should be impeached.

They were either incompetently ignorant of the facts, or winkin’ & noddin’ deliberately dishonest. They may claim the FBI lied – but I don’t think that the documents the FBI gave to the judges were lies. They were carefully crafted partial truths that implied something false without saying it.

It was each judge’s job to make sure that the warrants were not only avoiding false statements, but were comprehensively honest. The judge’s failed to do that.

Derelictions of duty.
Maybe mitigation, as end of impeachment trial/ vote, for the judge slightly supporting Trump’s rights at MAL.

A Rep Congress can do impeachment without fear of Biden’s veto. And the impeachment process is part of the process. Perhaps the only punishment, but it remains real.
AND if it’s unsuccessful, as impeaching Pres. Clinton for perjury in a sexual harassment lawsuit was unsuccessful, the Dems who vote to acquit will be a bit vulnerable on that point.

Impeachment failures will increase calls to more radically reform the FBI.

This is 3rd world stuff, and once one side goes there that bell cannot be unrung. This is not the 1960s, where the establishment was (mostly) shocked by the violence. Nowadays, half the establishment approves, and the other half is (a) too corrupt to say anything because they see it as a fundraising opportunity, (b) too cowardly to do anything for fear of being called unpleasant names, or (c) is secretly in agreement with the left, so long as it’s directed at Trump voters.

In short, the warmups are over and the war is on. No more pretending. These guys are out to win, to take over, to run the joint as they like and to use all its resources to suppress or demolish any opposition or even any arguments. Whether by some ultimate Great Leader, or just a Politburo-in-being, it’s diktat-or-else as soon as they pull off the final election or coup, whichever comes first.

Here’s a hypothesis about Barr: (1) he knew that Robert Mueller was impaired (their wives are friends); and (2) he was anxious (fed information by Rosenstein) that Andrew Weissmann’s plan to manufacture a self-licking ice cream cone in the form of making the case that Trump was criminally liable for obstructing Weissmann’s obstruction investigation would not only fail but generate a backlash which would incorporate a general housecleaning in the Department of Justice. So, he auditions for the Attorney-General’s job in order to protect lifers like Rod Rosenstein and the Department’s customary (abusive) way of doing business. He was never on the level. Note, he was in office during the Ruby Ridge catastrophe. Every FBI agent implicated in that was in his chain of command.

Here’s another suggestion: the whole edifice of federal law enforcement stinks and needs to be replaced. Every aspect requires replacement. The code, the rules of criminal procedure, the jurisdictional boundaries, the rules on the liability of judges and prosecutors, the distribution of function between the departments concerned with law enforcement, the tenure of personnel. Not one element should be untouched.

And what faith do you have that anything was actually done?

Mike

Reminds me of the argument, ” we hold the moral high ground;” an argument tossed about by the “good” guys whenever the “other” side was committing atrocious acts.
This point of argument merely encouraged bad behaviour because it demonstrated that the “bad” guys could proceed without anybody interfering.

Those individuals shot in the back, sprawled upon the barbed wire and left to die there as they attempted to escape East Berlin had the moral high ground.
The million tossed into Stalin’s and Hitler’s gulags, had the moral high ground.
The moral high ground is one of those nice sounding, rational expressions that, in the real world, has no real power or influence.

Fire must be fought with fire.
It’s best never having to resort to fire, but sometimes that is the only recourse.

Have you noticed the Republicans in Congress protesting the Garland Gulag ? Me neither.

You keep stating the same thing over and over with no links.

Also, pay attention to the timeline. Barr said there were ongoing investigations just a few days after the election. He also said (about a month later) that many of the legal remedies could not be federal, procedurally speaking, but state actions. That was the case, but as I said, the state actions went nowhere for the reasons I’ve already stated.

He also said (from that same link I offered earlier):

Barr said earlier that people were confusing the use of the federal criminal justice system with allegations that should be made in civil lawsuits. He said a remedy for many complaints would be a top-down audit by state or local officials, not the U.S. Justice Department.

“There’s a growing tendency to use the criminal justice system as sort of a default fix-all,” he said, but first there must be a basis to believe there is a crime to investigate.

“Most claims of fraud are very particularized to a particular set of circumstances or actors or conduct. … And those have been run down; they are being run down,” Barr said. “Some have been broad and potentially cover a few thousand votes. They have been followed up on.”

You need a link to provide the information: which US attorney? What was the investigation and the timeframe? Of course some investigations would be shut down for lack of evidence at some point. Among them, ultimately were the ones that alleged widespread Dominion fraud. That allegation turned out to have been incorrect or at the very least there really wasn’t evidence for it.