The American justice system is not without its flaws as we’ve seen all too many times. A grievous crime is committed and the perpetrator is never discovered. Sometimes there is a suspect who seems to be the perfect candidate but a grand jury doesn’t find sufficient evidence for the prosecutors to move forward. And in other cases, even if you get them to trial a jury doesn’t see things the same way as the public. (O.J anyone?) In very rare cases a pardon can be issued and the system seems to have been short sheeted. (Democrats will always cite Nixon for that one.) But all of these scenarios have one thing in common: the rule of law was followed, the accused were given their fair shot at defending themselves and the republic managed to stumble along on its way.

But what if the case never even makes it into the system? If a crime is perceived by the public to have been committed but the government fails to even attempt the prosecution a new problem emerges. Kevin D. Williamson at National Review has looked over the Justice Department’s decision not to pursue a case against Lois Lerner (or anyone at the IRS) and determined that we may be approaching Banana Republic status.

I think this makes it clear that the Department of Justice either cannot or will not do its job. Lois Lerner’s cynical, overt politicization of the Internal Revenue Service, and the fact that she and other IRS leaders misled investigators, Congress, and the public about the extent of the IRS’s political shenanigans, undermines the legitimacy of the federal government. DOJ won’t lift a pinky against a friend of the Obama administration. This is banana-republic stuff.

This is a subject we’ve broached here of late, though not in quite so overt terms. It’s become obvious that nobody in the federal government can be fired… for anything. And we’re not even talking about criminal prosecution in many cases. The rules are set up such that you can’t fire an incompetent worker bee without the unions tying the case up for years. And if it’s someone in a position of authority, firing them could make it look like an admission of error on the part of the administration. Much better to simply let them retire with benefits and wait for the public outcry to blow over.

But sometimes the various inspectors general will actually do their jobs and look into allegations of wrongdoing. Lengthy investigations take place and recommendations are made to the Justice Department. But if the person in question is too well established, such as the case of the IGs finding that Huma Abedin could be prosecuted for embezzlement, then Justice can simply shrug their shoulders and turn a blind eye. In case you forgot, here’s how they explained that case to the Washington Post.

The “alleged violations” cited were improperly requesting and approving annual leave and “embezzlement,” the documents state. “The case was not declined based on the merits of the investigation,” stated the final investigative report, dated Jan. 26. Such a designation usually means federal prosecutors decided not to pursue a case, but only because they didn’t think it worth the resources, not because the facts and evidence couldn’t support a case.

Here we have a person who is so tightly joined at the hip to the Democrats’ presidential frontrunner that you’d need a surgical saw (or the bars of a prison) to separate them. Having something as untidy as her being hauled into court for embezzlement would be a tremendous embarrassment to the campaign. So it’s hard to draw any other conclusion than the one reached by Williamson: the Justice Department either could not or would not do their jobs. After more than a year of investigations the case was simply flushed down the drain and Hillary and her assistant went merrily on their way.

Banana republic stuff indeed.