Emptywheel: WHINGER VERBS: TO INVESTIGATE ... TO PROSECUTE ... TO INDICT

[Ohio Joe]

Because Alvin Bragg chose not to prosecute Donald Trump, the whingers are out again complaining about Merrick Garland, who last I checked was an entirely different person.

I’ve copied the “Key January 6 posts” from my post showing what reporting on the January 6 investigation — rather than simply fear-mongering to rile up CNN viewers or your Patreon readers — really looks like below.

--snip--

There are multiple investigations implicating close Trump associates and the January 6 investigation is absolutely designed to incorporate Trump, if DOJ manages to continue building from the crime scene backwards. But that’s not actually what people want. None of these verbs — to investigate, to indict, to prosecute — are the ones that whingers are really hoping to see.

And the verbs they’re hoping to see — perhaps “neutralize” or “disappear” — are not ones that happen as part of due process.

And none of the due process verbs — “investigate,” “indict,” “prosecute” — are likely to work unless people at the same time think of things like “discredit.”

https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/03/26/whinger-verbs-to-investigate-to-prosecute-to-indict/

At the end of the article are some really good links and each article (like this one) is well sourced. For all those who want to say that nothing is happening, this is an excellent primer to get into the things that are actually happening and understand the how and why of the investigation. There is a ton of information out there... People seem to prefer to trash Garland and call for his removal rather the looking at it... I do not know why.

[Joinfortmill]

1. Thank you very much.

I suspect they are lazy, and might like to stir the pot.

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. Thanks for posting this OJ; to answer your question:

Recreational whining (whinging in Britspeak) is far easier and emotionally satisfying than reading well sourced information that runs counter to one's vegeance-driven outrage narrative.

[Fiendish Thingy]

3. More key paragraphs:

Bizarrely, Atkins doesn’t consider it a possibility that it would take Merrick Garland’s DOJ more than 380 days to prosecute the former President. It took months to just wade through Stewart Rhodes’ Signal texts. It has taken 11 months, so far, to conduct a privilege review of Rudy’s phones (for which DOJ obtained a warrant on Lisa Monaco’s first day on the job). DOJ has six known cooperators in the Oath Keeper case (at least four with direct ties to Roger Stone) and one known cooperator in the Proud Boys case (and likely a bunch more we don’t know about). Particularly in the Oath Keeper investigation, DOJ has been rolling people up serially. But that process has taken longer because of COVID, discovery challenges, and the novelty of the crime.

But that goes to Atkins’ curious choice of the word “prosecute” here. I generally use the verb to refer to what happens after an indictment — the years long process of rebuffing frivolous legal challenges, but for an organized crime network, “prosecute” might also mean working your way up from people like militia members guarding your rat-fucker to the militia leaders planning with your rat-fucker to the rat-fucker to the crime boss.

I think what Atkins actually means, though, is “indict,” or “charge.” But his entire post betrays a fantasy where one can simply arrest a white collar criminal in the act after he has committed the act.

[erronis]

4. I came here to post the same. Thank you for putting this out here!

I hope that everyone that sees Marcy's post keeps the URL somewhere that they can refer to when seeing yet another "why can't they prosecute/etc." or "they're sitting on their hands" or various conspiracies.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/03/26/whinger-verbs-to-investigate-to-prosecute-to-indict/

Please put this in a reply to whoever is currently whinging.