From here on, I'm referring to the owner of the cesspool formerly known as Twitter as "Leon", because that is what the Convicted Felon called him.

Kamala needs to make a change at this position. period!

...and what evidence is there that DOJ did so in this case, outside of this leak that could only have come from the target?

Where is 'warning letter' sending outlined in Justice Dept. regs?

It creates a paper trail proving they had criminal intent (for acts that continue after receiving the letter).

The next step would be a subject/target letter informing Musk he is the subject/target of a criminal investigation (not sure if a grand jury must be seated before those letters go out or not). DOJ doesn’t announce those letters typically, but the recipients sometimes do.

Trump and Giuliani both got target letters IIRC.

What will they do when they find that Harris’ new AG can’t just “lock him up!” either?

Criticizing a Biden appointee does not even remotely come close to being a Biden Administration Critic.

I thought this site was for intellectually honest people, not stink-bomb throwers.

...that isn't really a thing from DOJ, right?

Target letter, I would believe.

If this happened, it would be an effort to try and protect what's left of this election from the criminal activity described, not any definitive or final action.

It's more important to stop the criminal activity in a timely manner that " (create) a paper trail proving they had criminal intent".

So, a follow-up more-strongly-worded letter after the election? That'll do it.

Because if Trump wins, this all goes away.

enforcement on matters...if we go by his past history with finally starting after the J6 principal exciters and insurrectionists?


He when after the little guys who invaded the Capitol all right, but the big traitors...NO.

...about how to obtain evidence that will survive the kinds of challenges and appeals Musk can afford.

It's as if we knew nothing about how high profile cases are investigated and charged; not on a will or whim, but through the lengthy grand jury process that the Justice Dept. almost exclusively relies on to bring charges forward.

I know critics believe relying on clickbait reporting which has never revealed ANY of the details of investigations they criticized as slow or inept, mostly because those details aren't publicly available in ongoing investigations and prosecutions outside of court filings and testimony, is the beat all.

So sure, I believe anonymous internet prosecutors working it all out in the fantasy prosecution in their heads.

Alright, sure, okay.

...with the 'strongly worded letter' thing. Always a weird criticism.

Knowing even less about what the DOJ is actually investigating or intends to prosecute than Musk.


context:


Joyce Alene @JoyceWhiteVance 1h
If true makes absolute sense. DOJ policy prohibits confirming or denying a criminal investigation is underway except in rare circumstances, not applicable here. But hard to believe they wouldn't be taking a look at Musk's million dollar payments to potential voters.


..weird to pretend, as Musk is doing here, that this makes him immune from prosecution. If anything, it makes it even more certain they'll take action, warning him against further efforts to influence this election underway.

...DOJ hasn't responded, as they are apt to do.

please point me to where the DOJ issues 'warning letters' so I can believe this weird reporting.

Link?

If you don’t trust the site I linked in the OP, which is local to DC, they are talking about it on MSNBC.

You may want to refrain from being a Garland apologist as well. It’s messing with your perception.

...the report of a 'warning letter' whatever that is, came from Musk, not the DOJ.

All of the faulty reasoning you used to present this as DOJ intransigence is belied by these simple realities.

Any warning from DOJ would be to preserve the integrity of the election, not as a disciplinary action.

An actual investigation and prosecution of the crimes described would involve a grand jury process which DOJ relies on to bring charges forward, so it's premature, to say the least, to present this as the totality or pinnacle of DOJ action against Elon Musk as you've presented it here.

If I'm a Garland 'apologist' for explaining the facts behind this Biden DOJ bashing take on the report, what does misrepresenting the DOJ's actions and process in this thread make you?

Musk has not responded to comments and neither has DoJ.

The story was sourced by multiple sources and by multiple news organizations.

Bottom line is you can’t accept Garland’s inadequacy as AG. Noted.

...there are only two news orgs mentioning 'a' source each.

I do know that DOJ didn't leak anything about sending a 'warning letter' to a perp.

Silliness. You're drafting off of Musk's leak. It's obvious, and sad that this is being presented and regarded as legitimate news, and used as some nebulous, undefined criticism of DOJ.

Who's the perp here?

Could be DoJ, could be someone at America PAC.

You do not know.

If there are DoJ agents that are trying to press charges and the head is preventing them, then hell yes there could be leaks from DoJ.

But you do throw accusations freely here at DU. That much is clear. Some advice: take a break and sit this one out.

...this DOJ has shown zero propensity to leak anything.

You've done nothing here except cast aspersion on the people charged with enforcing the law, as if they aren't proceeding with criminal charges, or won't. Neither is in evidence in this 'report' of a 'warning letter.

Keep digging… you’re almost there

🤣

...you're hanging all of your Garland-bashing on an unsubstantiated leak from the Musk PAC.

Brilliant stuff. Legal-like reasoning and all.

...would go a long way in proving there actually was one.

I'm almost convinced that what Musk got was a 'target' letter, and he's intent on presenting it as some kind of benign warning.

The PAC already moved to change the language in the fine print of the contest rules, but legal observers say it's still in violation of the law.

What this should be speculated as is a precursor to a grand jury, not some nebulous 'warning letter' which isn't found anywhere in DOJ terminology, much less their regulations.

A strongly worded letter.. oooooooo. That’ll stop it.

Get. Fucking. Real.

...this is where that thing where critics claim DOJ can prosecute all crimes in an instant, and brings charges forward on Garland's will or whim comes in, right?

There's a grand jury process for all of that. It's not going to be like Serpico knocking down Musk's door, no matter what you've seen on teevee.

Moreover, we'll likely see the PAC members with charges before Musk, to squeeze them into testifying against him before the same GJ.

Why don’t you educate us all. You are a prosecutor, no?

...now you're going to start listening to me?

I have my doubts.

Start with presenting more relevant facts other than your own projected cynicism of Garland behind an unsubstantiated report about something that the DOJ has never been reported doing ever.

They send 'target' letters, not nice warnings to perps guiding them in the letter of the law through their crimes. I'd expect folks to understand that, but here we are.

😂🤣😂 That ought to do it!

I’m sure Musk is terrified of the current DOJ.

...they've just warned him against further criminal actions described.

He can pretend this means he's off the hook, but what's the interest in anyone else doing the same?

have him shaking in his boots.

Hope they follow through on the warning and arrest the dipshit when he ignores it.

Doesn’t get a warning letter. They get arrested.

He could be fined THOUSANDS of DOLLARS!

Is this that branch's first day in service?

Someone somewhere may accuse you of being too political.

....but a warrant is what's appropriate now.

...same as in this case where the individuals involved associated with Musk's PAC will be threatened with charges or indicted to compel their testimony against Musk.

AFTER that process of investigation, if what they've found supports it, the material evidence they've obtained will be presented to the grand jury, along with the testimony of all involved who aren't incriminating themselves (outside of an cooperating agreement) by talking.

DOJ will pursue evidence until they believe the benefit in continuing outweighs moving forward, or if they don't find enough they believe will convict.

Same for Dem or republican with this DOJ.