You said that the people involved were punished: This isn't an example of law enforcement attacks on the press going unpunished. You then walked back this comment when pressed: The punishment is not a "was", it is a "will be". I get it, though. Your original comment is not defensible.

all signs point to these people being brought to justice in due time

What signs? There's a history of cops doing this, getting caught and and the biggest reaction (I don't think this meets the level of "punishment") might be quietly moving them to another jurisdiction. I thought this was common knowledge, but I guess it needed to be spelled out. A lack of punishment (jail time, revocation of pension, whatever), is more or less codified as QI. Maybe the city gets sued and taxpayers have make a payout to the victim (these are civil cases). You seem to be implying that this case is different because the DOJ is involved. It's not. We know, as just one recent example, based on the DOJ consent decree in place in Minneapolis, and an ACLU lawsuit against the Minneapolis police department, that (among other things) the DOJ was aware of cops assaulting the press. There was a settlement that the city had to pay, but no one involved was brought up on criminal charges from this though. This is what the signs are pointing towards.