By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Greg Rosen, the former chief of the Justice Department’s Capitol Siege Section, resigned his position to join a private law firm. Rosen expressed alarm at President Trump’s pardons of January 6th rioters, deeming them a dangerous message condoning political violence. He highlighted the Justice Department’s exceptionally high conviction rate in these cases, attributing it to overwhelming evidence, not bias. Rosen also criticized the subsequent demotion or dismissal of prosecutors involved in these cases, viewing it as an attack on the department’s independence.
Read the original article here
Greg Rosen’s resignation from the Department of Justice, a top prosecutor in the January 6th investigations, has unsurprisingly sparked a wave of reactions. Many express surprise that he lasted as long as he did, given the political climate and the seemingly relentless attempts to undermine the investigations into the events of that day. His departure is viewed by some as another blow to the pursuit of justice and accountability, a further dismantling of efforts to hold those responsible for the attack on the Capitol accountable.
The sentiment of disappointment is palpable. Years of dedicated work, fighting to uphold the Constitution and bring those responsible to justice, feels wasted, particularly in light of actions taken to pardon those convicted. This perceived undermining of the judicial process is understandably frustrating and demoralizing, leading to feelings of anger and disillusionment.
The comparison to past eras of historical injustice, particularly the Nazi regime in Germany, is frequently made. While acknowledging that the parallels aren’t perfect, the analogy highlights concerns about the erosion of democratic norms and the potential for the normalization of extremist behavior. The fear is that if accountability for January 6th is stifled, a dangerous precedent is set, undermining the rule of law and paving the way for future transgressions.
Rosen’s resignation is not simply viewed as a personal decision; it is seen as a symptom of a broader problem. The perception is that the current administration actively works against efforts to hold those involved in the January 6th attack accountable. This leads to a feeling that dedicated public servants are being worn down, forced out, or simply choosing to leave due to the hostile environment. The suggestion of a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice through attrition is a recurring theme, with some suggesting that this is a more sophisticated tactic than simply firing inconvenient individuals.
There is a sense of foreboding and worry about the future. The concern is not just about the individuals involved in the January 6th attack but also about the longer-term consequences for the country’s democratic institutions. The potential for a rewriting of history, minimizing the severity of the events, is a major point of concern. While many express hope for accountability in the future, the prevailing sentiment is one of deep unease about the current trajectory.
Several commenters point out the parallels with past instances of political purging, contrasting the situation with events during the Obama administration. This serves to highlight the perceived hypocrisy and the selective application of justice. The contrast emphasizes the belief that the current administration’s actions are politically motivated and aimed at undermining the principles of fairness and accountability.
The concern that historical accounts of the January 6th attack may be skewed or minimized is pervasive. The possibility that future generations will have a distorted understanding of this pivotal moment in American history is a major source of worry. The hope remains that accurate records will prevail and that the full extent of the events, including the attempts to subvert the democratic process, will be preserved for posterity.
Despite the overall sense of gloom, there is a degree of admiration and respect for Greg Rosen and his service. The suggestion to keep a secure copy of his work highlights a concern that evidence might be suppressed or destroyed. This underscores the fear that the attempt to rewrite the narrative extends to actively destroying evidence, further fueling the belief that this is not merely a matter of partisan politics but an intentional assault on truth and justice. The comments reflect both frustration and a deep concern for the future of American democracy. The resignation serves as both a personal loss for those who admire his work and a symbolic representation of the broader challenges facing the country.