Dieser Bereich kann Inhalte enthalten, die nicht für alle Nutzer geeignet sind. Dazu können unter anderem Texte, Medien oder Diskussionen gehören, die als beleidigend, extremistisch, gewaltbezogen oder anderweitig belastend empfunden werden. Wenn du solche Inhalte nicht sehen möchtest, nutze bitte die jeweiligen Filter- und Meldeoptionen der Plattform oder meide entsprechende Threads/Communities.
It is inappropriate to word the headline like this when the author of the story knows damn well that that’s not what they’re doing.
It’s a review of one author’s theory, but of definite interest to the current administration. The OPR has not ruled out a full investigation; rather, this event is a preliminary review toward one. The above article is a rehash of a Wall Street Journal article that goes into it further:
The basis of the whole thing is that an author is convinced that in 1972 the DoJ failed in its due process obligations to the Watergate defendants, has written several books that are appealing to the Trump administration, and has now been specifically invited by the DoJ to informally present his case again (emphasis mine):
Note: The WSJ article is brief and well worth reading, but it is behind a hard paywall. I found an archive link but there are known problems with the site. It has the content; use at your own discretion:
Archive link: https://archive.ph/asff3
Just waiting for Trump to pardon Benedict Arnold.