I Will Admit That Until The Last Couple Of Days

it didn't occur to me to research the ways in which modern democracies, as distinguished from the very late medieval one* we managed to once have eked out of the U.S. Constitutional system, have sought to distance the investigation and prosecution of crimes from the kind of political manipulation that is built into the U.S. system.   

I will acknowledge that to one extent of another,  the U.S. system has been utterly reliant on the sense of morality (huh!) and honor (ha!) felt by the politicians and lawyers (and judges[ha!ha!]) who manned the government and the so-called Department of Justice and the judiciary at any given time or at least on their fear of effective consequences for delivering injustice but as we have seen increasingly since Nixon had what was once the most overtly criminal Attorney General,  John Mitchell who was never anything as obvious a law breaker as what Republicans have appointed since then and what you can be sure the "honorable" Roberts Court (give me a frickin' break!) would allow to be done now as it is unillegalizing all manner of crimes for the Trump crime spree of all times.  

I did look up to see at least a description of how Britain separates its  Crown Prosecution Service from the direct manipulation of the Prime Minister this morning and wondered if I should look at other democracies to see how they have done it as a clue as to what might work better than our obviously catastrophically failed system.   That failure long predates Trump,  it having been obviously in serious trouble under Bush I and II, something which certainly dates back to when Reagan had the crooked Ed Meese as his AG.   Meese was never prosecuted - the reluctance of prosecutors to prosecute the white, the male, the straight the rich and the power-linked is an intrinsic problem of all prosecution offices, I suspect - but he was certainly enough of a sleazebag that even back in Reagan's once record-breaking law-breaker administration, he had to resign.  I will say any Department of "Justice" that could harbor and nurture the likes of Bill Barr operates under rules that are seriously defective and, remember, he was once the duly Senate approved Attorney General of the United States.    And don't get me started on the to-be-held-as-honorable Robert Mueller,  Barr's good buddy all during his entirely sleazy, certainly often dubiously legal career.   "Honor" in such circles is entirely of the ersatz kind. 

I haven't looked far enough into the antifederalists to see if any of them addressed the glaring problem of having a president appoint the head of prosecution who, like all of the president's cabinet has a vested interest in not noticing law breaking by the president and their fellow cabinet members,  I would suspect that the blatant criminality of our system will never go back to something that kinda worked under the honors system,  Republican-fascists of the kind who man the DoJ and the Supreme Court have the same relationship with "honor" as Trump,  it's all a matter of appearance or at least a con job and transaction on those bases.   

Anyone with any ideas on how other countries have at least made an improvement over our totally failed system is welcomed to let me know at least where to look for that.   I'd have to see how it works in reality instead of on the stated intentionality of the thing,  ours is so obviously an open invitation to corruption that I'm kind of shocked that a lawyer like John Adams had such a role in creating it.   Maybe he figured everyone would be as honorable as he liked to think he was and Washington was alleged to be.**  Or maybe, him being a lawyer, after all, his sense of honor was entirely consonant with the filth that that profession regularly perfumes and whitewashes.  

* I think any Constiutional system that included overt slavery should be considered late medieval and ours had and still has those slave-power enabling features baked into it. 

** No figure who held people in slavery or sanctioned slavery has any right to be considered honorable, not even in history.   Washington held People in slavery his entire lifetime, he tried to gull Ona Judge back into slavery after she escaped while they were in Philadelphia.  She was not safe from that until he and Martha who was her enslaver were dead.     I believe I'm correct that if she had gone back to her,  she would have ended her days under the particularly cruel and brutal enslaver Robert E. Lee,  as the inheritance of Martha's great granddaughter.   In the end, the Washington's were no better than he was and he was notably more cruel, making it his practice of breaking up every enslaved family under his ownership.   I don't hold with telling history on the terms that slave holders and other criminals would have it told in.   It is an indictment of our culture and system that Lee died as an officially honorable man, peddled as such in a library full of lying books and a filmography of even more lying movies and TV shows.