Those who lead any substantial organization—military, political, religious or corporate —are subject to pressures that impact critical decisions.
Three examples:
- On April Fool’s Day, 1993, Louis V. Gerstner, Jr., became the CEO and Board Chair of IBM. During his leadership over ten years, he turned the company’s fortunes around by changing a culture he later described as “inbred and ingrown.”
- In August 1945, U.S. President Harry Truman had to decide whether to drop the atom bomb on Japan. Meanwhile, the planning for Operation Downfall—the invasion of Japan—was well underway, with causalities on both sides expected to be horrific.
- The Papacy of the Roman Catholic Church leads over a billion Catholics, worldwide. Since becoming the Pope in March 2013, Pope Francis has faced a mounting scandal involving pedophile priests. His effectiveness to date in dealing with it is in dispute.
Decisions made in nations, companies, and religions, where decisive power is held by one or a very few, can present a dilemma. Is the best decision driven by the need to change that which is failing, regardless of the shock of the change? Or, is it better to protect the status quo in order to sustain the institution as is?
In short, is the essential role of leadership to shield the institution, or do what is right regardless of any consequential damages to it?
This question faces the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) today under the leadership of Attorney General William Barr.
The DoJ has already failed America once during Trump’s Presidency.
On November 22, 2017, then Attorney General Jefferson B. Sessions III sent the U.S. Attorney for Utah, John W. Huber, a letter wherein he tasked Huber ”…to look into concerns raised by President Trump and his allies in Congress that the FBI had not fully pursued cases of possible corruption at the Clinton Foundation and during Clinton’s time as secretary of state, when the U.S. government decided not to block the sale of a company called Uranium One.”
Huber’s investigate yielded no results.
It yielded no results because it never began.
It never began because it was never intended to begin.
DoJ head fake
It was a DoJ head fake.
Trump subsequently fired Sessions, who is now running for his old Senate seat, touting himself as a Trump supporter.
Meanwhile, Huber remains the Obama-appointed U.S. Attorney for Utah.
On, or about, May 13, 2019, current Attorney General William P. Barr assigned “the top federal prosecutor in Connecticut to examine the origins of the Russia investigation,” as reported by the New York Times. The media widely heralded the creds of U.S. Attorney John Durham.
On December 10, 2019, the Washington Examiner reported Barr‘s hint that “Durham’s inquiry in the Russia investigation is not expected to wrap up until the spring or summer of 2020.”
In an interview with NBC News’ Pete Williams, Barr said that Durham’s investigation is taking a wide-ranging approach to his inquiries, “looking at the whole waterfront,” starting back before the 2016 election.
The meta-message to the readers was clear: Be patient because we have much to investigate, and that will take much time. (Don’t be shocked if it doesn’t come before the Nov. 2020 election.)
And the Farmer hauled another load away! Smokescreens and deception is rampant in the Swamp…I do hope and pray that we will finally see justice prevail, but what’s going on right now is anybody’s guess what will or will not happen! Without Honorable and truth seeking investigator’s we will just get more of the same! There is very little of that in the Swamp…but we can certainly hope that there is someone left that still has not sold their soul and do the right thing. We deserve the truth and restoration of our way of life. God Bless the U.S.A.