By that I mean that if the Attorney General determined that the crime was being investigated was a political crime, he had discretion not to comply with the request. If the crime was not a political crime, then it seems to me he did not have discretion under the treaty even if the UK authorities should not have made the request for one reason or another.

Right, a political argument, not a legal argument. That’s why the decision was for the Attorney General to make, not a court.

Which is an excellent political argument against MLATs in their current form.

Under § 1, but not §1bis, it seems to be enough that there be an investigation of a crime, even if there is not currently a plan to prosecute. At least that’s how the government reads the treaty, and I think the reading is plausible. In any event, this is not an argument that is open to BC or any other private party to make, as the First Circuit held.

If no prosecution is planned or intended, it’s not a “criminal matter.” It’s pure politics. The intended product is a report that can be used to bludgeon Sinn Fein.

Towards meeting our treaty obligations to the UK? We ask the UK for legal assistance in controversial criminal matters (e.g. extradition) under our treaties all the time.

The Department of Justice is participating in Irish politics, not in a criminal investigation. Dolours Price said in public, repeatedly, that she drove Jean McConville across the border to be killed. In the months between those public statements and Price’s death, she wasn’t arrested, wasn’t interviewed by the police—Garda or PSNI—and died at home, untouched by the law.

If the point isn’t prosecution, and has never been prosecution, then what the hell are they doing? Federal prosecutors are using their power toward what purpose?