I think that the investigations that we're seeing, the targeted political investigations

are of a piece with the other predetermined outcomes that we're seeing across the department.

And one thing that you see, if you read the piece from Emily Bazelon that interviewed the 60

DOJ attorneys is how consistent this theme is across different sections of the DOJ, where people

are basically being asked to justify things the administration wants to do,

whether the facts supported or not.

These prosecutions have proceeded the exact same way.

Now, one thing that goes along with that, that I think these prosecutions have been really

powerful at revealing, is that when you get rid of reliance on objective fact and law,

when you shuttle out all of the attorneys whose

job it was to maintain a level of quality and integrity at the department, you start to make

a lot of mistakes.

And so one thing we're just seeing is just wholesale errors, both misconduct and just simple

deaths and just legal shortcomings in some of these things.

And unfortunately, especially the beginning of the administration, a lot of times people just did not push back against these accusations from DOJ.

Now that people are pushing back a bit more, we're actually starting to see DOJ put to its

proof.

And watching from the sidelines, having been in the department and knowing how much

it's transformed, it was frustrating to see people accept things as fact when it was clear to me

that if there were any testing, it would be revealed to be as thin as it is. Supreme Court Justice

Samuel Lelito has now weighed in on new gerrymandering congressional maps in Texas.

On Friday night, he blocked a lower court's ruling that barred the state from using them.

...