There are many reasons why the executive branch (pigs, DAs, presidents, etc.) often don’t comment. It all depends on the details of what they might say, though.
If they say “he’s guilty!” or “she’s guilty!” then there is a higher chance of corrupting the jury pool. This is especially true for national-level leaders (e.g., Luigi’s case).
If they discuss specific facts, but it turns out those are contested claims, then the same issue comes up, but it’s usually less of an issue, if they phrased everything properly.
If there are details of the current investigation status that might tip off potential criminals, they probably don’t want to say those. If they do, there’s some risk that they could face civil suits, depending on the exact details (e.g., Karen Read’s lawsuit).
Of course they can comment on things, and often they should, because the public sometimes really ought to get information on a given topic. In those situations, they need to do what Trump’s people never do, which is write their script and then triple check it for the above points, and only then read it out loud for the camera.
And above all, if they want to avoid negative consequences, they should definitely avoid outright falsehoods. It can be acceptable to say “Our agent reported that [situation]…”, for example, because then the leader is talking about what they heard happened, and not about what the situation actually was.
I wonder if this is why competent agencies “don’t comment on ongoing investigations”
🤔
There are many reasons why the executive branch (pigs, DAs, presidents, etc.) often don’t comment. It all depends on the details of what they might say, though.
If they say “he’s guilty!” or “she’s guilty!” then there is a higher chance of corrupting the jury pool. This is especially true for national-level leaders (e.g., Luigi’s case).
If they discuss specific facts, but it turns out those are contested claims, then the same issue comes up, but it’s usually less of an issue, if they phrased everything properly.
If there are details of the current investigation status that might tip off potential criminals, they probably don’t want to say those. If they do, there’s some risk that they could face civil suits, depending on the exact details (e.g., Karen Read’s lawsuit).
Of course they can comment on things, and often they should, because the public sometimes really ought to get information on a given topic. In those situations, they need to do what Trump’s people never do, which is write their script and then triple check it for the above points, and only then read it out loud for the camera.
And above all, if they want to avoid negative consequences, they should definitely avoid outright falsehoods. It can be acceptable to say “Our agent reported that [situation]…”, for example, because then the leader is talking about what they heard happened, and not about what the situation actually was.