The DOJ has thousands of lawyers, almost all of whom are are the most ideological kind of democrats.[1] Law is a very specialized field that attracts a very narrow, highly unrepresentative slice of the population. Normally this is fine because the DOJ’s work doesn’t have much of a political valance.

[1] Every DOJ person I know is a great lawyer, phenomenal at their job, and the most upstanding, orderly, conscientious type of American. But they can’t be trusted with that much power over politics. It’s like how you can’t give the One Ring to Gandalf. You have to give it to the Hobbits.

And? Is "people [allegedly] have different political views than me" supposed to be equivalent to "this is the personal defense lawyer for POTUS?"

Re your analogy: the power is with Hobbits. We call them grand and petit juries.

You can’t give such an ideologically homogenous group of people that much power over elections and candidates. People can’t be trusted to put aside their personal beliefs and value systems and act objectively.

You’re getting closer with juries. But the DC jury pool is extremely skewed. Its like Aragorn trying to get a fair trial in Mordor District Court.

> can’t give such an ideologically homogenous group of people that much power over elections and candidates

Agree. We also can’t tolerate the level of blatant corruption we have now.

The solution is something more flexible than we have now, but still with a high bar. The check is the courts. America didn’t fall apart when Bob Menendez went to jail.

> People can’t be trusted to put aside their personal beliefs and value systems and act objectively

We don’t need them to. Prosecutorial discretion means anyone can charged with anything. The test is whether it sticks. (The FBI already has, and has already abused, the powers you’re concerned about.)

Nobody is suggesting prosecutors be allowed to unilaterally jail politicians. If we trust voters to mind misconduct in office we should be able to trust them to read through charges.

> Agree. We also can’t tolerate the level of blatant corruption we have now.

Your proposal would replace petty corruption with institutional capture of elections by the legal profession. That’s a solution worse than the problem.

> If we trust voters to mind misconduct in office we should be able to trust them to read through charges.

You can’t trust a jury of 12 people in a handpicked jurisdiction, where evidence is carefully screened by lawyers and judges, to make such consequential decisions for the whole country.

As expected, you ignore the actual complaint and just draw specious comparisons, making unsubstantiated claims that "most" of the people at the DoJ are totally democrats, trust me dude.

I'll just leave this here, since this was the actual complaint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Blanche

The comparison was between the current “DOJ” and the Texas AG’s Office. Not just the guy in charge, the whole agency. No matter who you put in charge, an agency of 10,000 lawyers who are overwhelmingly democrats is going to be very different in terms of partisan behavior than the Texas AG’s office.

As to the political makeup at DOJ, information about political donations at federal agencies is public.

>> The DoJ is literally run by trump’s personal lawyer. <<

> As to the political makeup at DOJ, information about political donations at federal agencies is public.

I'm sure many of the rank-and-file at the DOJ DO donate to democrats these days, after all the republican party has demonstrated rank criminality across the last ~ 15 years, which is only getting worse. Anyone at the DOJ who still cares about criminal justice and the rule of law is going to likely support the only remaining party that isn't bending the knee to criminals and con men.

It still doesn't change my original criticism - that the DOJ is run by Trump's personal lawyer - and it doesn't make your whataboutism suddenly relevant.