Freaky to have the government dictating law enforcement talking points.
As I've said on a few occasions, I don't think you want the president's finger on the scale of justice. Especially when the crime is politically sensitive.
That's a rule of law thingammy, and I know that isn't the way the US does things these days. But this is why it's a good idea to divide responsibilities in a democracy between the trust role and the operational one.
Hope (but doubt) folks see the issue and will write a fresh fix into the US constitution. Obviously having the senate play the balancing role isn't working. I've come to the conclusion that democracies don't manage checks and balances very well precisely because they are prone to partisanship. So you need a body that concerns itself with the trustworthiness of the system which is not constructed with partisan tools. People who can rise above the fray and who are vested in US institutions. Ex-SCOTUS judges, ex-presidents, ex-Secretaries of State, ex-Federal Reserve Board members, ex-speakers, ex-AGs and so on. But with exclusions for impeached people and criminals, of course.
When I watch what is happening in the US, I thank history for the fact that the British courts are crown courts, the military pledges its allegiance to the queen and the government can be dismissed and replaced if it gets overmighty or dishonest.
Our system suffers if we have a political monarch. But we've had a trustworthy queen for a very long time who understands her apolitical role extremely well.
| 