Here is perhaps the most frequent question we receive. Encapsulated:

….”OK, so we understand the problem, but what is the solution”?..

It’s a very valid question. However, it is also a question that is based on an incorrect assumption. Unfortunately, too few people ‘do‘ understand the scale of the problem(s). Until a significant number of more people understand the core issue(s), any discussion of a solution is essentially futile.

In the example of the corrupt DOJ and FBI (a common point of reference for the question) the baseline for any solution lies in first accepting the elements of the problem.

The institutions of the DOJ and FBI are corrupted; not just a few people within it, but rather the entire apparatus has been weaponized, over time, by participating political members who have politicized every function within the institution.

Every level of the Department of Justice (Main Justice); every national administrative office inside the FBI; and every state office of the U.S. Attorney and field office of the FBI; is being run through the prism of politics. Every outcome is clear evidence therein.

That’s the starting point.

Until the majority of voting citizens agree on that central tenet, any action taken in response to the symptoms of the corruption are not going to succeed. Any solution has to come from a position external to the organization or the cycle will simply continue.

Putting a former U.S. DOJ official in charge of the DOJ, regardless of former term or professional/honorable intent, only maintains the status quo. The career mechanisms inside the organization will expel any action adverse to their interests, and the rules are set to aide their retention.

[Pictured: AG Nominee William P Barr]

The rules, policies and administrative guidance within corrupt system has been structured to be self-preserving. Putting a former DOJ official in charge of the DOJ; and/or putting an FBI official in charge of the FBI, ends up with exactly the same outcome.

When an institution is failing top-to-bottom successful change is only viable when it is forced from a position external to the current corrupt enterprise. That approach must come to all divisions and branches of the system simultaneously, in order to affect change. In essence, the corrupt system has to be overwhelmed; shocked into a reset status.

The behavior of former FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe are symptomatic examples within the FBI. They didn’t gain their political skills to weaponize the agency overnight. Those skills were taught to them as they advanced within the system. The weaponization process was pre-existing.

Currently, that corrupt skill teaching system still exists. There are more Comey and McCabes’ waiting to take office…. [See current Director Chris Wray, and current Deputy David Bowditch as examples.]… Don’t forget, FBI Agent Peter Strzok was heralded and rewarded along this career path. Therefore cutting off the head doesn’t fix the problem when the replacement head comes from within the same corrupt body.

Relying on a career IG, comfortable within the institution, also seems rather naive. The example of IG Horowitz saying he could find no evidence of inherent bias actuated within the decision-making of the FBI is an example in simple, albeit brutal, acceptance.

The need to look externally for officials to change the inherent nature and disposition of the organization is why CTH previously suggested the Judicial Branch (federal judges) should be considered as a likely candidate pool to correct the U.S Department of Justice.

One possible solution would be to fire every U.S. Attorney and every Asst. U.S. Attorney, in every office across the entire country, and simultaneously replace them with former or current federal judges.

Then, and only then, can the investigative unit of the DOJ, the FBI, be addressed in a similar manner. The head, and deputy, of every single FBI field office needs to be fired simultaneously across the entire country. The replacement pool could be expanded to include any regional LEO (sheriff, chief); and/or from within the U.S. Marshals service.

That would currently be considered a rather radical approach. And therein lies the problem. Until we reach a point where such a solution is not considered radical; until people grasp the level of corruption within the system; any corrective action taken is merely our co-dependent enabling of a continual cycle.

There might be other, even better, solutions possible. However, until we see widespread acceptance of the politicization of the institutions, it’s unlikely we will see a discussion happen that might eventually find the solution.

Right now, the vast majority are still in denial…