Nichole Wallace Panel snickering

[Boydog]

about the timidity of Merrick Garland when it comes to investigating Trump. If it weren’t so tragic it would be funny. Wonder if today’s ruling by the federal judge in California will have any effect.

[gab13by13]

1. Claire McCaskill and Frank Figliusi don't snicker,

they are respected people who believe that DOJ may have been asleep at the wheel. What was the tragedy, wanted Trump and Eastman held accountable? Wouldn't it be tragic if they were not held accountable?

If DOJ let's this slide then Garland should resign.

[OnDoutside]

5. I think it's time for some senior Dems to muse that Garland should consider his position.

[dem4decades]

11. If Garland is not investigating this then Biden will lose. People elected

Biden to hold Trump accountable, Garland was his pick, Garland's inaction will hurt Biden.

[Rebl2]

52. You are correct. They

absolutely do not snicker.

[brush]

2. He's a disappointment all right. He only got the job because...

McTurtle wouldn't allow him on SCOTUS. And maybe that's a good thing considering how timid he seems to be.

Now if he'd just do something as AG, as something is better than the nothing we're getting.

[Grasswire2]

3. I have to post this.

Understand that I fully support Biden. I have no criticism of him. I knew (and stated here many times) that he was setting his first priorities on the economy and Covid. And that investigations early on could derail those objectives.

But I saw this the other day, and it's troublesome, if Garland is operating under that philosophy expressed by Biden in November 2020. We need clarification. Sooner rather than later.

[link:https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/president-elect-biden-wary-trump-focused-investigations-sources-say-n1247959?msclkid=49c9de3aa7bc11ec88a919028c198773|


WASHINGTON — President-elect Joe Biden has privately told advisers that he doesn't want his presidency to be consumed by investigations of his predecessor, according to five people familiar with the discussions, despite pressure from some Democrats who want inquiries into President Donald Trump, his policies and members of his administration.

Biden has raised concerns that investigations would further divide a country he is trying to unite and risk making every day of his presidency about Trump, said the sources, who spoke on background to offer details of private conversations.

They said he has specifically told advisers that he is wary of federal tax investigations of Trump or of challenging any orders Trump may issue granting immunity to members of his staff before he leaves office. One adviser said Biden has made it clear that he "just wants to move on."

Another Biden adviser said, "He's going to be more oriented toward fixing the problems and moving forward than prosecuting them."

[iemanja]

4. This is what I feared

The problem is that it empowers Trump to do it again should he be reelected, or if he isn't.

[Eliot Rosewater]

8. and it tells me the rules simply do not apply to them, but they do to me...

I will not continue to do what I do if that is the case.

[Magoo48]

18. Like George Carlin said, "There's a big fuckin' club and we ain't in it."

There has always been one set of rules for the club and another set of rules for us.

It is a two tiered system.

[whathehell]

15. It empowers more than Trump..It empowers Lawlessness

generally...This shit has got to STOP.

[gab13by13]

6. Someone pointed that out to me,

and I hesitated to post it because it was back when Biden was president-elect. His opinion could have changed since then.

[whathehell]

9. Say it ain't so Joe..

If true, this would be REALLY disheartening..This happened after the Bush-Cheney administration with "Impeachment is off the table"
Screw the "move-on" bullshit - We NEED accountability in this
country! Sick of this.
..

[Hoyt]

12. I support Biden in moving on. Smart move and philosophy, but Democrats

are turning on other Democrats— Garland, Bragg, and I suspect Biden is next.

trump was convicted by the ultimate court, voters. I’m enjoying seeing him consumed by his loss. I’m for moving on to more important issues too and not allowing trump to consume us.

[uponit7771]

14. article is from 2019 and not close to relevant

[Hoyt]

16. Find it perfectly relevant. Hope we move on before midterms.

[uponit7771]

17. Attacking democracy isn't something to be "moved on" from.

[Hoyt]

21. Sorry, I disagree. But spend the next 20 years letting it eat you up.

The POS trump is irrelevant at this point. And the 5 to 10% of voters who will decide the next election are more interested in the real issues.

[uponit7771]

23. Americans believe attacks on our democracy are real issues

[Marius25]

31. He's not irrelevant. He's still inciting violence

and the overthrow of Democracy.

[Hoyt]

38. But he's not getting anywhere with his crud.

[Marius25]

32. No other issues matter if Trump and his supporters get away with sedition.

[Hoyt]

37. Sorry, I disagree. He's a loser and his Magetts are too. But hey,

you can wake up every night 2 or 3 times to see if Fitzgerald arrested bush if you want.

We have better, and much more important, issues to face, including midterms in a little over 6 months.

[Marius25]

41. No we don't. Because we're likely to lose Midterms,

especially if we don't hold seditionists accountable.

[Hoyt]

51. And maybe focusing on punishing previous admin will spur loses.

Don’t think the 5 to 10% of voters who will determine midterm results give a damn if trump is convicted. They have other concerns.

[Marius25]

56. Then they're idiots. American Democracy will not survive

Trump getting away with this.

[Hoyt]

58. Yeah, trying to stop people from facing voters just doesn't sound like

democracy to me. I’ll never vote for trump, Greene, Hawthorn, or anyone like them. But efforts to keep them from running, or speaking, ain’t democracy.

[reACTIONary]

60. +100 nt

[Marius25]

62. They're insurrectionists. The Constitution doesn't allow them to run.

[Hoyt]

63. Gotta convict them first, and it will be 2024 before they would

be tried, assuming prosecutors find hard evidence.

We’re going to have to beat them at polls.

[Marius25]

65. That's unlikely to happen with Biden's approval rating

and the state of the economy.

And Greene isn't losing her seat - her voters are all Qanon terrorists.

[Hoyt]

70. Definitely agree on Greene. That district went 80% for trump. But

some small group of Democrats is trying to keep her from running. Something, unsupportable in what is supposed to be a democracy.

[Lucky Luciano]

64. Talk about soft on crime! Holy Shit!

I damn near want them burned at the stake, but will gladly settle for real prison time!

Moving on is so insane I can’t even comprehend the notion. It simply doesn’t compute. I need to reboot my machine when this kind of error comes up.

[Hoyt]

67. You are going to be disappointed, especially when we lose midterms

because we demand retribution.

[Lucky Luciano]

72. We're going to lose the midterms most likely either way, so we'd better act fast.

I have known for a while that that piece of shit will never be held accountable. This is why people get dejected about politics. There is nothing more clear cut than this garbage human and his entourage of evil needing to face consequences.

While it is indeed retribution I personally seek, it is just and righteous in the grand scheme well beyond me.

[Hoyt]

81. People get dejected about politics because of all BS too. I prefer Dem's stuff to GOPer, but still.

[Hoyt]

82. I was like you with bush, but learned my lesson. It's easier to move on and stop eating

our own like Garland, Bragg, etc.

Not saying investigations should stop, but it's time to present what evidence they have and let the people decide whether we move on.

Hopefully, whatever they have doesn't require connecting a lot of dots. We need a video of trump using a Sharpie to draw the entries into Capitol for the various state/rube militias, or trump directly calling for killing Pence, or something.

[ecstatic]

49. +1000. Exactly. WTF? nt

[Boydog]

74. Great post.

[Grasswire2]

29. the article is from November 2020. He was president elect.

And the quotes are his.

We need an update. Is that still his philosophy, knowing what we all know now?

[Grasswire2]

78. not true, stop saying that!

The article is from November 2020.

[Marius25]

30. Yeah. We turn on people who side with the criminals

and refuse to uphold the rule of law and Democracy.

[Hoyt]

39. Jailing trump, which I don't think is even possible, ain't supporting democracy.

[Marius25]

42. Why wouldn't it be possible?

[Hoyt]

48. Because the jury won't think like you and me.

[reACTIONary]

59. Probably because you need evidence in a court of law...

... rather than general dislike. So far, from what is known in public, there hasn't been the sort of evidence that would stand up in court. That doesn't mean there won't be, or that there are facts we don't yet know, but you can not simply snap your fingers and throw someone in jail.

[Marius25]

61. There has been tons of evidence that would stand up in court.

He's literally on audio recording extorting the Secretary of State of Georgia to overturn the election.

[reACTIONary]

71. Good point, and the sate of Georgia is looking into it...

... that's their jurisdiction, not Garland's. Even still, I don't think a jury would convict. The jury pool will not include DU'ers.

[Marius25]

75. The Jury pool actually would include DUers in a federal case.

DC is the bluest region of the country. Only 4% of the entire city voted for Trump.

[reACTIONary]

76. Nope. First question a potential jurer would be asked is...

... "do you read any newspapers or political news and opinion sources?" Anyone who does would be out. Let alone anyone who reads a partisan source that contains threads like this.

There wouldn't be anyone on that jury who thinks like we do. Maybe noone who thinks at all.

[Marius25]

77. It's impossible to find a jury in DC that has never read the news.

[reACTIONary]

80. Maybe.. But they will not have been reading DU...

of course GA may be a different matter.

[uponit7771]

13. Article is from 2019, after J6 things ***NO DOUBT*** changed

[Grasswire2]

27. article is from November 2020.

Quotes from the president elect.

We do not know if his philosophy has changed unless he tells us so -- or someone speaking for him does.

[Deminpenn]

33. Same as Obama philosophy towrd

the promoters and practitioners of torture under GW Bush's administration. He just wanted to move on, but sometimes there has to be a moral reckoning regardless of perceived political cost.

[Hoyt]

53. Obama was smart too. He, like Biden, represents everyone.

[Grasswire2]

68. "Look forward, not back"...

...a philosophy that has, I believe, gotten us where we are today. The RW will not stop until they are made to feel significant pain.

I love Obama. I cried when I cast my vote for him.

But that "strategy" eventually has a price to be paid. Will we pay for it with our republic?

Or will we truly, truly uphold the oft-touted NO MAN IS ABOVE THE LAW premise/promise?

[Dan]

40. Well, if that was the Biden approach - he should have told us his views.

I would have voted for another Democrat but I would have respected his opinion.

[ecstatic]

57. If true, that means Biden lied to us

He said he would stay out of the DOJ's decisions and I believed him, so I'm going to assume this article isn't true, for now...
Anyone who assists TFG in escaping justice will permanently lose my support and respect. This guy killed over a million Americans and then tried to overthrow our government and I'm supposed to move on from that? No. That's NOT unity, that's rich white men looking out for rich white men. Fuck that.

[Grasswire2]

79. I wouldn't say he lied to us.

I would say that that was his philosophy (stated) about six weeks before Jan 6.

Is it the same now? Now that we know what we know?

And is Garland operating under that philosophy?

Or has Biden's philosophy of accountability changed?

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO KNOW THE ANSWER.

Every time we assume the best of intentions when we see worrisome signals, we end up hammered because of our trust.

Think about ALL the times when we Dems have let crimes go. Arghhhhhhhhhhhhh.

[Trumpdumper]

10. Most of the posters here have no idea what they're talking about

There is not a scintilla of evidence that the DOJ is NOT pursuing Trump et al.

[whathehell]

19. and you do?

Enlighten us with your higher wisdom, then.

[Trumpdumper]

34. All I said was that there's no evidence he isn't being pursued.

[whathehell]

36. That's not all you said..You accused people on the thread

of " not knowing what they're talking about".

Of course there's "no evidence he isn't being pursued", because you can't prove a negative. The issue is, there's no evidence that he IS pursuing him.

[Trumpdumper]

44. I stand by the comment --

Those who are saying the DOJ is doing nothing have no idea what they're talking about.

[whathehell]

47. What part of "You can't prove a negative" do you not understand?

Those who claim there IS a way to do it, really "do not know what they're talking about",

[Lucky Luciano]

69. Let's pretend it's June 2024 and still the needle hasn't moved.

Would you agree that is sufficient evidence this is not being pursued? At what point will you cave in and say they snookered us this whole time?

[dem4decades]

20. No, there's not a scintillating of evidence that DOJ is PURSUING Trump.

No one fighting subpoenas, no court filings, no leaks by defense attorneys, nothing. No traces of an investigation when there should be many.

If this continues till the midterms the energy for Democrats to come out and vote will be crushed.

Understandably so.

[Trumpdumper]

35. "There should be many."

Why?

The very best prosecutions are those in which the governments keeps its lips sealed.

[dem4decades]

54. I'm so tired of that rational, not all leaks come from prosecutors, defendants and their lawyers

often leak for their own purposes.

[MustBeTheBooz]

45. Thank you!!!

Cheese and Rice! The DOJ is not some kind of ziplock freezer bag where nothing escapes. Yet we don’t hear a dog-damned word about, literally, anything going on with regard to the BLOAT. This is unheard of!

To me, this means ain’t nothing going on AND ain’t nothing going to happen. Folks that believe everything is just super-duper secret are in for an awakening. And those of us that have based our opinions on the history of things, will hear crickets.

[dem4decades]

55. We have heard something, the investigation that put Cohen in Federal prison closed down. Trump

is free from prosecution in that case, wasn't he Individual One? It looks to me DOJ is retreating, not advancing.

[MustBeTheBooz]

66. Right!?

Whatever happened to Individual #1.
The whole nation knows who that is, and yet, crickets. The man had his fixer make the payments but only Cohen gets indicted.

[Eyeball_Kid]

26. A lot of people have EMOTIONAL INVESTMENTS in the coup. They want to see Justice at work.

And their disappointment after over a year of investigations still leaves them with NO results whatsoever from the DOJ. They all know who the principles are. They know who organized and coordinated the coup attempt. There are few critical pieces of information that would change the apparent outcome from what's already known. So they're waiting... and waiting for an affirmation of what they already know.

So we hear about the timidity of Garland. We can only infer the timidity based upon both actions and non-actions. We don't know. But we do know that the DOJ isn't making public what the public already knows. So it's strange and frustrating.

[gulliver]

22. I'd need to see the video link to decide if there was really "snickering" going on.

Maybe it's just your perception of what you heard. I don't recall seeing much snickering on Wallace's show ever. That type of sound is more often emitted on Fox News.

[whathehell]

25. I heard what sounded like laughter,

butI didn't connect it to the topic of discussion..I thought it could have been due to something off- camera.

[Boydog]

73. Snickering or smiling as if to say

“Of course he isn’t making any effort to investigate Trump.” Kind of like sarcasm. An understandable response.

[gibraltar72]

24. As used to be said at my former company.

Let's talk about your future with the company!

[BlueIdaho]

28. Shhhhhhhhh!!!!

You’re going to wake up Merrick Garland!

[calimary]

43. Discouraging, isn't it!

[Mr. Evil]

46. My thinking on the subject of TFG

is that there has to be consequences for his actions. All of them. And for all the miscreants involved with him.

But, there's one glaring behemoth waiting in the wings and that would be the consequences for inaction. There are a great many people that just cannot fathom doing nothing to TFG and his accomplices for his and their lies and crimes.

[Rebl2]

50. They weren't snickering

They seemed almost angry to me.