I believe the news report about appointing a special counsel is misleading.

[fightforfreedom]

It makes it sound like Garland is passing the buck to someone else who will start their own investigation. I find that hard to believe.

What Garland may be thinking about is appointing a special counsel to oversee the indictments and trials that are coming, not the investigations. Garland may want someone as non-partisan he can find to lead the prosecutions.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Exactly. Non-partisan likely means a couple of things:

1. A politically non-affiliated individual, an Independent voter.
2. A "RINO"/non-MAGAt, classic Republican who registered as such in the Sixties or Seventies.

[gab13by13]

3. Why does it have to be one of those? You have bitten into propaganda.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. Not necessarily.

Any attorney or judge who has even the appearance of partisanship will be discounted.

[gab13by13]

7. Watch Nicolle Wallace

She made a very good point. Merrick Garland could appoint Bill Barr and Magats are going to attack him.

[no_hypocrisy]

9. True, but MAGAts would only be satisfied if someone like

Rudy Giuliani were appointed as Special Counsel. That's rather limiting.

[agingdem]

10. True..think J6 committee..

McCarthy "appointed" Jim Jordan and Jim Banks...both insurrectionist co-conspirators...

[Fullduplexxx]

14. It's like people don't understand with whom they are dealing .

It won't matter who does it. Unless the appointed says what the right wants to hear The right will marginalize that person. The right will say they're a rino or has become part of the deep state or a never Trumper or a dem bought and paid for shill . It doesn't matter who he appoints the right will never accept them unless they say what trump wants them to say.
All of this is just to eatup more time

[NJCher]

2. Meanwhile

The Republican dogs are foaming at the mouth over their desire to impeach Biden, hold hearings on Hunter Biden, and other political theatrics.

[gab13by13]

4. I was yelling for a special counsel 18 months ago.

It's way too late now, would take way too long, It takes time to select a person, who would take the job now and be under continuous threats from Magats? He/she would take time to set up staff people and then compared with other special counsels it would take them at least 2 years to come up with results.

Donald Trump would be smiling broadly at more delay tactics.

By the bye, Andrew Weissmann who was involved with special counsel Robert Mueller, thinks it is a bad idea.

[fightforfreedom]

6. This is why the news report is misleading.

It says they are thinking about appointing a special counsel. It does not say they are going to appoint one. The news report also lacks detail.

It is too late to appoint a special counsel to start their own investigation. It is not too late to appoint a special counsel to handle the prosecutions. The investigations have been going on for a long time. They are closer to the end than the beginning. Indictments are coming, someone has to be in charge of all the prosecutions.

[gab13by13]

8. I agree.

Weissmann did say, on Nicolle, that Garland may just be touching bases, legally, in his consideration of a special counsel. He said as you suggest, Garland is just touching all the bases, may not do it.

[Chainfire]

11. A special council would accomplish one thing; further delay.

Trump is a criminal, treat him like a criminal, charge him, try him and let the chips fall where they fall.

Garland needs to gather his courage and go for it. (If he ever intended to)

[Firestorm49]

12. Man, I hope you're right. As much as I try and am told to be patient,

my patience is running thin. Get on with it!

[Phoenix61]

13. This has already been talked about. If we lose the house

the J6 committee will end. A special counsel could take up where they left off.

[Fullduplexxx]

15. Until the right defunds it

[Phoenix61]

16. And....nt