Aside from complaining we don't need a special counsel, then complaining that he hasn't started yet

[bigtree]

...are the critics grousing about Jack Smith 'recovering from a bike accident in the Netherlands' aware that counsels can do a great deal of their work remotely, on the inter-computing thing?

These complaints against DOJ are becoming hyperbolic and contradictory.

Special Counsel Smith can get up to speed on DOJ's ongoing investigation from wherever he's recovering from his knee surgery. And I'm looking forward to all of the support for his effort from folks concerned about his delay in the Netherlands, when he recovers enough to come back home.

[Ocelot II]

1. It has also been noted that DOJ staff who have been working on the investigations

will simply move to the SC's office and continue doing what they've been doing with no interruption.

[wryter2000]

7. That's really good to know

[Chautauquas]

2. The differences in opinion about the special counsel and Garland

really seem to piss off a lot of people. Why are people so upset that others view it differently than they do?

[Jade Fox]

3. +1

[onenote]

6. Probably because a lot of the criticism is essentially uninformed opinion?

It is a given that no one -- not a single person -- on this board, or anywhere on the Internet, knows what evidence has been presented to the grand juries, what evidence is yet to be presented to the grand juries, what evidence is still in the process of being collected, what arguments the defense are most likely to raise and what evidence, testimonial or documentary, DOJ has that might be used by the defense. Nor does anyone on this board have anything approaching the level of expertise with respect to the statutory and case law issues that would be in play.

Basically, a lot of DUers (and others outside DU) are clamoring for an indictment on the assumption that an indictment would inevitably lead to a guilty verdict -- that DOJ has a "slam dunk" case. Or they simply don't care whether there is a guilty verdict -- they believe an indictment, even if the charges are dismissed or Trump is acquitted, is a good outcome. It's not. It's a terrible outcome.

[WA-03 Democrat]

8. Thanks

I feel so much better about being dumb and stupid.

I thought I was just deeply wounded that the nation of laws got nuked.

[onenote]

10. Not "dumb and stupid". Just lacking necessary, relevant information.

[wryter2000]

9. The voice of reason

“It’s a terrible outcome.”

Reminds me of all the folks who constantly demanded impeachment. We waited until we had a slam dunk case…twice…and we still couldn’t remove him from office. I do not want to put him on trial for something and have him be acquitted. Hitler went to jail and came back to become a tyrant.

[WA-03 Democrat]

11. Trump the Tyrant

Only has to sit on his golf cart. Modern tech

[emulatorloo]

13. ++++

[Scrivener7]

15. Weird, isn't it? They're quite nasty about it, too.

[Tribetime]

17. Yes you should respect others have their own opinions

[agingdem]

4. that "in the office" thing...pre-lockdown..

that's why God invented Zoom, text, email..and overnight shipping

[WA-03 Democrat]

5. The Who saw the future

[Historic NY]

12. ZOOM is made for this but I suspect DOJ has secure links.

is never going away. I'm on a couple of boards, and they provide a link for meetings. What is especially good is the time is limited, so no one hogs up a meeting. I find it especially valuable on cold, winter nights I can stay home to have toddy of two/ I don't have to drive to a public building for a meeting.

[BannonsLiver]

14. Don't the critics know that Jack is DU's Fall 2022 "It boy"

[UTUSN]

16. K&R

[LexVegas]

18. ...

Link to tweet

?t=B0X2R_e833b1meEv11hCbA&s=19