• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2810 days ago

    I still don’t understand how this is an official DOJ policy. I always see it referenced as a DOJ memo from the 70s. Who gives a shit about memos? This is supposed to be a country of laws, not 50 year old memos.

    But yeah, would love Garland to issue a new memo overturning that policy. Let Trump’s first official act be to overturn an existing policy to prevent him from being investigated. Not saying he would even hesitate to do it, just saying I’d like to make it an explicit step he has to take.

    • @Telodzrum
      link
      1810 days ago

      Legal memoranda are not just an interoffice note. They are policy interpretations and internally-governing documents. The memorandum is from the Office of Legal Counsel which is an independent subdepartment — neither Garland or the President himself can overturn the policy.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        10
        edit-2
        10 days ago

        Thanks for the clarification. I’m glad that presidents can’t just overturn Justice Department policy when they want.

        Wish we had a remind me bot so I can check this comment in 4 years and see if that’s still the case.

        • @Telodzrum
          link
          810 days ago

          It won’t be. Because: fuck everything

      • @tacosplease
        link
        29 days ago

        I was under the impression the OLC interprets things heavily in favor of the President (the position not a particular person) pretty consistently.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      410 days ago

      That’s government for you. If the 50 year old memo is the only thing that talks about it, then that’s the basis forever. There’s so much stuff like this that there’s an actual legal term for ignoring it: Desuetude. But that’s usually for things much, much older than that, and they would have been actively ignored for almost as long.