Let’s be honest here — the Justice Department had a big problem before President Trump arrived on the scene, or, more specifically, the FBI did. Then-FBI director James B. Comey acted in an extraordinary fashion to insert himself into the 2016 presidential election, very likely affecting the outcome (as did other factors). That history is about to be reviewed in a report from DOJ Inspector General Michael E.  Horowitz. If Republicans think it will reveal a deep state plot to “get” Trump or improper “spying,” I suspect they’ll be disappointed. More likely, it will reaffirm that without Comey, the outcome might have been different.

ABC News reports on the IG’s report, which Trump has begun to criticize via Twitter:

The draft of Horowitz’s wide-ranging report specifically called out Comey for ignoring objections from the Justice Department when he disclosed in a letter to Congress just days before the 2016 presidential election that FBI agents had reopened the Clinton probe, according to sources. Clinton has said that letter doomed her campaign.

Before Comey sent the letter to Congress, at least one senior Justice Department official told the FBI that publicizing the bombshell move so close to an election would violate longstanding department policy, and it would ignore federal guidelines prohibiting the disclosure of information related to an ongoing investigation, ABC News was told.

Trump may declare vindication insofar as his termination of Comey was premised in part on such conduct, as cited in Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein’s memo. But then Trump would be arguing Comey was unfair to Clinton, leading to the conclusion she might have won if not for Comey. (Moreover, Trump never talks about this as the cause for Comey’s firing.)

If the final report remains essentially unchanged there will be bitter “I told you so’s” from Clinton supporters who claimed Comey, far from going after Trump’s campaign as he claims, kept the Russia investigation quiet and blabbed all about Clinton.

The legacy of the 2016 election will hang over the FBI and DOJ for some time. And we suspect it is going to get worse.

The administration has already given up trying to appoint a new associate attorney general, the third-highest ranking post at the DOJ. (It was previously held by Rachel L. Brand, who quit.) It should come as no surprise that qualified people don’t want to serve and that the toxic atmosphere that possible appointees want to avoid also affects those currently there. The DOJ, and the FBI specifically, are continually hammered by the White House and goaded into undertaking politically motivated investigations.

Moreover, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is the president’s favorite punching bag. One report describes the scene:

The pall of the Russia probe hangs equally heavy over current D.O.J. officials, who are constantly dodging attacks from the president over their own roles. Trump has repeatedly and publicly admonished Sessions over his recusal; in his latest attack, Trump blamed the top lawyer for the probe’s indefinite timeline. “The Russian Witch Hunt Hoax continues, all because Jeff Sessions didn’t tell me he was going to recuse himself . . . I would have quickly picked someone else. So much time and money wasted, so many lives ruined,” Trump tweeted, adding, “Sessions knew better than most that there was No Collusion!” The Trump-Sessions relationship has reportedly deteriorated to the point that Trump refuses to say the former Alabama senator’s name out loud, a practice his [top] aides have also picked up.

That’s the storm Rosenstein must navigate. Recall his memo was used to fire Comey (although that may not have been Rosenstein’s intention), he has witnessed some of Trump’s conduct that may be considered part of a pattern of obstruction and he has had to bend to Trump’s will (e.g., sharing information about a confidential source with Trump’s House cohorts). In a speech in Philadelphia on Tuesday, Rosenstein described DOJ’s mission and work ethic:

In the courtyard of the Department of Justice headquarters, there is a sculpture of the scales of justice with an inscription that reads, in Latin: “Prīvilēgium Obligātiō.” It means that when you accept a privilege, you incur an obligation. Working for Justice is a privilege.

Attorney General John Ashcroft liked to point out that our Department is named for a moral value. We aspire to live up to it.

Our goal is to instill a culture of ethical conduct from the first day employees take the oath of office – an oath to support and defend the Constitution, to bear true faith and allegiance, and to well and faithfully execute the duties of the office. Our employees learn that their job is to seek the truth, apply the law, follow the Department’s policies and respect its principles.

The rule of law is our most important principle. Patriots should always defend the rule of law, even when it is not in their immediate self-interest.

That’s the goal, in case Americans forgot. And Rosenstein added a pointed illustration. “One of our nation’s most famous Attorneys General held a similar view. In his first speech after taking office in 1940, Robert Jackson spoke about the duty of government officials to serve the public interest. He said that ‘most … mistakes … [result from] failure to observe the fiduciary principle … the principle of trusteeship, without which our kind of society cannot long endure.'”

Was Rosenstein perhaps speaking about Comey? Sending a warning to Trump? He continued, “Jackson reportedly directed his subtle criticism to the mistakes of two predecessors: Harry Daugherty, who failed to investigate the Teapot Dome scandal; and Frank Murphy, who made public comments about ongoing investigations and instigated criticism of Jackson. Jackson explained that lawyers ‘who sit temporarily in the position of government counsel, are subject to [obligations] … that those outside the profession never’ face. He contrasted the special duties of government lawyers with what he called ‘the volatile values of politics.'”

Sometimes a nice speech on the rule of law is just a nice speech on the rule of law. But at a time when Comey’s conduct is under scrutiny for disrupting an election and Trump’s attempts to politicize the DOJ are at the forefront of our national debate, one tends to think Rosenstein is defending himself and his turf. His department might appreciate a moral boost, since Sessions rarely defends his troops.

One hopes at some point, likely after Trump leaves, the normal separation between partisan politics and the department’s day-to-day business returns — perhaps with help of legislation designed to maintain some separation. In the meantime, Rosenstein and the rest of the attorneys at DOJ are caught in a maelstrom. They better brace themselves — the storm isn’t anywhere near over.