Let's be clear. Tribe and Weissman are full of shit about the Trump investigations

[bigtree]

Laurence Tribe 🇺🇦 ⚖️@tribelaw
As @AWeissmann_ argued from the start, AG Garland’s bottom-up, follow-the-money approach was wrong-headed and ill-suited to the kind of election crime obviously at issue here. We’re all paying the price.

Wow. Can you think of anything more absurd than spending years castigating Trump for his autocratic politicization of justice, and then complaining because your own party's president's DOJ didn't do the exact same?

I mean, that's what the 'Garland late' canard has devolved into. Just a complaint that the DOJ prosecutions of Trump didn't commence in time to convict him before the election, as if that, by itself, would relieve Democrats of organizing that defeat at the ballot box; or as if merely convicting or charging Trump would bar him from running or assuming office if elected.

Have we really come to the point where a convicted rapist and fraudster who openly associates with Russians and white supremacists while leveling attacks against Americans and the country is some surmountable obstacle for the party that we need to use our admin's Justice Dept. to advantage us in the election?

That's what this sophistry against Merrick Garland is centered on. I hesitate to say that's what it's all about because it's so false and ridiculously contradictory that it just seems like pure trolling.

The premise behind all of the over-the-top vitriol is that the AG has lost us the election, despite his office and appointments filling out the stated aims of the Jan. 6 committee investigation (self-declared incomplete by the chairman) to the letter, and beyond.

The NYT sham of an article (and Tribe) complains about DOJ's 'bottom-up investigation,' as if they were in some sort of bubble of indifference about the Trump WH.

Schiff should be thanking DOJ for doing what Congress could only talk about. The Jan. 6 panel drew a straight line from Trump to the OKs and PBs, and Garland's DOJ made that case in court with convictions up to sedition and obstructing the vote, several cooperating with the DOJ.

But was the Jan 6. panel Schiff sat on wrong in their own 'bottom-up approach? Is that what Tribe thinks? Weissmann?

Of course, fucking not. They're too busy feathering their sophistry about DOJ. But, lookee here:

Jan. 6 Panel Drew A Straight Line From Trump To The Proud Boys And Oath Keepers

The committee made clear that it viewed the Trumpian conspiracy to overturn the election as a months-long plot, and it applied the same logic to Trump’s relationship to these right-wing extremist groups, featuring testimony from a member of the Proud Boys saying Trump’s presidential debate command to them to “stand back and stand by” — all the way back in September 2020 — boosted membership “exponentially.”

They traced the relationship from there, including testimony from multiple Proud Boys saying they were in D.C. on Jan. 6 because Trump asked them to be there. The panel presented extensive footage of the groups on the day itself, labeling the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers as such when they appeared on camera. And Vice Chair Liz Cheney (R-WY) said the Proud Boys “ultimately led the invasion of the Capitol, and the violence on that day.”

I mean, wtf does Tribe say about the Jan. 6 committee's efforts and direction, since Schiff, Weissmann, and others criticizing Garland want to pretend the toothless, incomplete congressional hearings that DELAYED actual PB and OK trials were superior and ultimately influential to DOJ?

NPR: Jan. 6 panel shows evidence of coordination between far-right groups and Trump allies

The House select committee investigating the attack on the U.S. Capitol tried to make the case Tuesday that far-right groups and the effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election are inextricably linked, detailing the mobilization of extremist groups after then-President Trump sent a tweet on Dec. 19, 2020, calling for supporters to protest in D.C. on Jan. 6.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/12/1111132464/jan-6-hearing-recap-oath-keepers-proud-boys

And that's all we hear from Garland critics; that Congress was ahead of DOJ. But Congress DELAYED actual trials of PBs and OKs who the committee identified as an essential link to the Trump WH by holding back witness testimony needed to reconcile with DOJ evidence and demanded in discovery by both defendants in both trials until late that year.

Let's get this straight. Garland was following the money trail from the insurrectionist riot groups long before the committee was a sparkle in the chairman's eye:

___

Thomas Windom, a little-known federal prosecutor who was representing the Special Counsel position today on the Trump protective order, is the man Deputy AG Lisa Monaco tasked in Fall 2021 to oversee key elements of the Justice Department’s investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election results - one of the first indications that Trump and his associates were under DOJ investigation.

NYT:

"It (was) Mr. Windom, working under the close supervision of Garland’s top aides, who is executing the department’s time-tested, if slow-moving, strategy of working from the periphery of the events inward..."

"He ha(d) been leading investigators who have been methodically seeking information about the roles played by some of Mr. Trump’s top advisers, including Rudolph W. Giuliani, Jenna Ellis and John Eastman, with a mandate to go as high up the chain of command as evidence warrants."

"Mr. Windom’s second objective — mirroring one focus of the Jan. 6 committee — is a widening investigation into the group of lawyers close to Mr. Trump who helped to devise and promote the plan to create alternate slates of electors."

The other investigative team, looking at efforts to block the transfer of power from Trump to President Joe Biden after the 2020 election, had even a year ago been given the greenlight by the Justice Department to take a case all the way up to Trump, if the evidence leads them there, according to the sources. Work that’s been led by the DC US Attorney’s Office into political circles around Trump related to January 6 now will move under the special counsel.

Partly led by former Maryland-based federal prosecutor Thomas Windom, DOJ has added prosecutors to the January 6 team from all over the department in recent months. Windom and the rest are also expected to move over to the special counsel’s office. Some, like Mary Dohrmann, a prosecutor who’s worked on several other Capitol riot cases already, appear to be reorienting, according to court records of open Capitol riot cases.   

Another top prosecutor, JP Cooney, the former head of public corruption in the DC US Attorney’s Office, is overseeing a significant financial probe that Smith will take on. The probe includes examining the possible misuse of political contributions, according to some of the sources. The DC US Attorney’s Office, before the special counsel’s arrival, had examined potential financial crimes related to the January 6 riot, including possible money laundering and the support of rioters’ hotel stays and bus trips to Washington ahead of January 6.

In recent months, however, the financial investigation has sought information about Trump’s post-election Save America PAC and other funding of people who assisted Trump, according to subpoenas viewed by CNN. The financial investigation picked up steam as DOJ investigators enlisted cooperators months after the 2021 riot, one of the sources said.

In interviews with people in Trump’s orbit over the past several months, some of the DOJ focus has been on the timeline leading up to January 6 and Trump’s involvement and knowledge of potential events that day, according to a source familiar with the questioning.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/11/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel-high-profile-moves-trump-criminal-investigations/index.html

...here we can see Garland's team, already far ahead of Mueller's entire investigation, and Jack Smith taking on over 20 prosecutors in a 'fast moving investigation.'

___ Jack Smith takes over a staff that’s already nearly twice the size of Robert Mueller’s team of lawyers who worked on the Russia probe.  A team of 20 prosecutors investigating January 6 and the effort to overturn the 2020 election are in the process of moving to work under Smith, according to multiple people familiar with the team.

Smith will also take on national security investigators already working the probe into the potential mishandling of federal records taken to Mar-a-Lago after Trump left the White House.

Together, the twin investigations have already established more evidence than what Mueller started with, including from a year-long financial probe that’s largely flown under the radar.

“Mueller was starting virtually from scratch, whereas Jack Smith is seemingly integrating on the fly into an active, fast-moving investigation,” said Elie Honig, a former federal prosecutor and senior CNN legal analyst.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/11/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel-high-profile-moves-trump-criminal-investigations/index.html


...Tribe and Weissmann are just beating up DOJ for not only pursuing the Trump WH's financial trails, but also filling out what Congress had made their entire fuss about.

You can't credibly elevate the non-enforcing Jan 6 committee over DOJ, above the people who actually did the work of gathering evidence that can stand the rigors of appeals and challenges.

It's just galling to hear these second-guessing complaints about DOJ's 'bottom up' approach at the same time they're giving props to the Jan. 6 committee who actually directed them to the riot leaders.

At least they should get their stories straight about the prosecution they're criticizing, which, other than the contradictory imaginings that make up most of the claims against them, looks an awful lot like the imaginary one they've been lauding.

[Think. Again.]

1. Unfortunately, this OP starts off with a false premise when it says...

"...and then complaining because your own party's DOJ didn't do the exact same?"

The Democratic party doesn't have a DOJ.

As President Biden has said multiple times, and has proven even more times, the DOJ under this Democratic administration is run independently from the Executive branch and under the sole administration of Federalist Society connected merrick garland.

I didn't, and won't, read an OP that begins with such a blatant misrepresentation of reality.

[bigtree]

4. lol

...you know that isn't what I said.

I am going to have a sad that you're not reading though.

[Think. Again.]

8. Perhaps I missed some nuance, but it is exactly what you said...

...I copy/pasted it.

[bigtree]

9. not arguing your parsing

..it's not what was said, not meant, so you're barking up the wrong tree.

Par.

[cachukis]

6. Don't think that was the intention.

I suspect the poster referred to the ideals of our party represented by our picks.

[FHRRK]

25. This is one valid point - eom

[Goodheart]

30. Good call.

[Fiendish Thingy]

42. You are the one spreading falsehoods

As President Biden has said multiple times, and has proven even more times, the DOJ under this Democratic administration is run independently from the Executive branch and under the sole administration of Federalist Society connected merrick garland.

Biden has never insinuated the words you put in his mouth.All DOJ’s are supposed to have a firewall between the WH and DOJ- Trump’s was the exception.

[Think. Again.]

72. Say wut?...

“Because you’ll notice I have never once, not one single time, suggested to the Justice Department what they should do or not do, relative to bringing a charge or not bringing a charge. I’m honest,” Biden responded.
Source; https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4041189-biden-insists-he-doesnt-pressure-doj-as-possible-trump-indictment-nears/

"I will not do what this president does and use the Justice Department as my vehicle to insist that something happen,"
Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/president-elect-joe-biden-not-use-justice-department-investigate-trump-2020-11?op=1

This echoes his earlier statements as the President-Elect when introducing his nomination to the Attorney General back in January 2021: "I want to be clear to those who lead this department who you will serve: You won't work for me. You are not the president's or the vice president's lawyer."
Source: https://www.aol.com/news/does-president-control-over-department-182936379.html

I could go on.

[Fiendish Thingy]

94. The OP never mentioned anything about "The Democratic Party's DOJ"

From your original post (false statements in bold)allegedly quoting the OP and Biden:

"...and then complaining because your own party's DOJ didn't do the exact same?"

The Democratic party doesn't have a DOJ.

Actual quote form the OP:

and then complaining because your own party's president's DOJ didn't do the exact same?

Big difference including one the additional possessive noun. Just as every department in the Executive Branch is “Biden’s”, so is the DOJ, even if Biden is taking the traditional hands off, no meddling or micro managing approach.

So, it was you who responded with a false premise.

As President Biden has said multiple times, and has proven even more times, the DOJ under this Democratic administration is run independently from the Executive branch and under the sole administration of Federalist Society connected Merrick garland.

Biden never said those words in bold- he did assert that DOJ would operate independently from the White House, which is part of, but not the same as, the entire executive branch. DOJ cannot be removed from the Executive Branch.

Biden also never referred to Garland as being associated with the Federalist society. Garland’s association was limited to participating in some legal discussion panels sponsored by the society, whose participants also included the former chair of the Democratic Party of Illinois, former Deputy AG under Bill Clinton, one of Biden’s current undersecretaries of Homeland Security, and of course, many conservative legal figures.

https://fedsoc.org/contributors/merrick-garland

From that page:

A person listed as a contributor has spoken or otherwise participated in Federalist Society events, publications, or multimedia presentations. A person's appearance on this list does not imply any other endorsement or relationship between the person and the Federalist Society. In most cases, the biographical information on a person's "contributor" page is provided directly by the person, and the Federalist Society does not edit or otherwise endorse that information. The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues. All expressions of opinion by a contributor are those of the contributor.

…and another myth bites the dust.

[bigtree]

95. to be fair to the poster

...the qoute with 'president's party' was an edit of mine to clarify the op after the lecture from the poster about who's DOJ it is.

As I told the poster, it was not my intent to write that the DOJ is a Democratic one, rather, my point and emphasis was that it is a Democratic administration's Justice Dept.

The poster made a perhaps undertandable mistake about what I meant, but then chose to ignore that it was not my intent, even after edit and went on to do what they came here for.

I suppose I should appreciate that they have a clear undersanding of the separation of Justice and the Executive, but I was more intent on redirecting them back to my actual point, and further, to what the op is actually about.

It's like a fucking game, instead of a discussion, and I guess I'm supposed to knuckle under to the gotcha canard. If I didn't have so much energy for this (and more sense), I'd certainly shy away from these deliberate diversions.

[Fiendish Thingy]

96. If we cannot exist within a shared reality, how can we hope to defeat fascism?

That’s why I waste time and pixels defending not Garland, but reality.

[Think. Again.]

97. Wow, you're really bad at this.

[Fiendish Thingy]

99. Substance free reply.

Using Trump’s time tested “I know I am, but what are you?” form of projection attack.

[agingdem]

2. regardless of when the DOJ pursued Trump,

Last edited Sat Mar 23, 2024, 09:53 AM - Edit history (1)

Merrick Garland/Jack Smith were never going to "save" us from a Trump 2.0..but the ballot box will..we vote we win..

and I am tired of Weissmann and Katyal rotating between shows trashing Garland and the DOJ, regurgitating their woulda/coulda/shoulda gloom and doom scenarios..we're way past that shit...

[Nasruddin]

40. I'd like to believe this

But think the ballot is not going to save us either.
We won the presidency and the House and effective control of the Senate in 2020
Lots of people thought Trump would tuck his tail between his legs after 06 Jan & slink off into the sunset....

Neither our political system nor our justice system is designed to deal with a high level narcissistic psychopath
and his relentless battering ram of cult followers. Maybe both our systems together can do it, or delay him long enough
the passage of time itself catches up with him. It's going to be a near run thing.

[agingdem]

66. Trump knows he going to lose the election..

Last edited Sat Mar 23, 2024, 05:57 PM - Edit history (1)

just as he knew he was going to lose the 2020 election...and because he knows he's going to lose in November, he's laying the same groundwork....then he said the only way he could lose the election is if it was rigged.....two weeks ago he said if he loses the election there will be a bloodbath..more threatening, more hyperbolic but the gist is the same...

[MorbidButterflyTat]

116. YES, I agree

Seems like only yesterday Weissmann and Katyal were at the "freak out stage," hope they're both okay.

Such lame pundit hype for the book tour along with calling themselves, "The Law Firm."

[TwilightZone]

3. Celebrity lawyers are paid to fill a role and support an agenda.

We put much too much emphasis on their TV and social media opinions. They lead DU and others on the left to have ridiculously-high expectations and when those unrealistic expectations aren't met, we go nuts.

[cachukis]

5. Pretty awesome accounting.

Will need some moments.
Thanks for the post.

[Silent3]

7. There's not politicizing the DoJ, and then there's being so afraid of the appearance of being political...

...that you give Trump and his minions way, WAY more slack than deserve, and allow hacks like Hur pull bullshit like he did in his report on Biden.

Neither Tribe nor Weissman are hypocritically expecting a biased, political DoJ. That premise is bullshit.

[bigtree]

10. I think the NYT article's mind reading is as bogus as a carnival medium

...wtf do they know about Garland's intentions or state of mind.

This is Bob Woodward talking to a brain-dead Casey bogus.

I'm looking at an exoneration in the Hur report, and Garland critics want to talk endlessly about his salacious editorializing.

I suppose you think that's politically sage to highlight the lies over the politically-protected exoneration by this partisan republican.

Did you not notice the WH and the Biden camp taking the win and moving on?

[Silent3]

14. "Salacious editorializing" is not a minor thing

It turned an exoneration into a convenient Republican talking point against Biden.

And none of us need to read Garland's mind to judge him on poor, too-slow results that sure as hell look exactly the same as you'd get from someone worried way too much about appearances, to the detriment of real justice and the good of the country.

This is not a court of law here when we discuss who is and isn't doing a good job. Garland and the DoJ are not owed a huge benefit of the doubt until incontrovertible evidence to the contrary is produced.

[bigtree]

19. funny that the exoneration isn't your talking point

...just on and on about the editorializing as if that's more important thing to stress, rather than the acquittal.

What's the point? It's not as if ragging on what Hur said is supposed to be something of political value.

If you're so concerned about that what hur said is politically damaging, why are you insisting that it's so important to keep talking about it?

[Silent3]

26. Now there's an intellectually dishonest debate tactic!

Don’t ever, ever complain about dishonest propaganda because then you’re somehow the one spreading it.

Puhlease.

[bigtree]

32. I'll make it simple

YOU are talking about what Hur wants you to talk about.

Me and the Biden campaign are just talking about the exoneration, when we bother to mention it at all.

Do you think you're actually doing something more here than talking about what Hur wants us to talk about?

Doesn't Hur want us to ignore the exoneration and go on and on about the lies he put in the report?

So why are you doing just that?

[Silent3]

70. I'm talking about my opinion of Garland and the DoJ

What I say has everything to do with what I believe most likely to be true (Garland being excessively concerned about looking political, to the point of failing in the opposite direction, coupled with a DoJ containing some people afraid to go after Trump, and some unwilling to do so) and not one bit about any of your imagined side-effects of me talking about it.

I have no intent of changing what I say or don't say based on worrying about what Hur might or might not want me to say.

Now, if you want to play the game of screening your speech based on imagined agendas, have at it. I'm not joining you.

[bigtree]

75. you've posted nothing to back that up

...your opinion is actually contradicted by the facts.

It doesn't matter how wedded you are to it.

[Silent3]

76. No, my opinion is only contradicted by your opinion

And my opinion is supported by people more knowledgeable than either of us on the subject.

Your opinion seems to be based on creating straw man versions of differing opinions and bravely knocking them down.

[bigtree]

81. I actually posted facts that you didn't address at all

...so, you're basically debating with yourself.

You've posted nothing to back up your opinion, but you've disregarded the facts I've posted about the investigation.

Tribe said we're all 'paying the price' because of DOJ's 'bottom-up investigation.'

Neither Tribe or you adressed the fact that DOJ not only engaged in a top-down investigation of the Trump WH beginning (as I posted the facts) in the Fall of 2021, but filled out the incomplete Jan. 6 investigation with actual convictions of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers the COMMITTEE said was connected to the Trump WH.

Why was it fine for the Jan. 6 committee to recommend that DOJ essentially conduct a bottom up investiogation of PBs and OKs at the end of their hearing, in their final report, but not okay for DOJ to pursue those exact same facts raised in the hearing?

Tribe not only misrepresents the DOJ investigation by leaving out the fact that a 'top-down' investigation of the Trump WH began in the Fall of 2021, he ignores the Jan. 6 committee's actual recommendations and concludes that the investigation in his mind would have been superior.

It's a clear contradiction and I provide receipts. Don't just pretend that I invented the facts I posted. There's nothing credible about dismissing facts posted right in front of you, no matter what dismissive derision you post in response.

Address the facts, not opinions.

[Silent3]

119. I've seen many lists before of all the things the DoJ has supposedly done...

...here and on places like emptywheel, and I'm not impressed.

I'm not disputing whether that stuff has happened. I'm disputing if it was enough under democracy-threatening circumstances.

The end results have been awful.

If Tribe and Weissman don't believe your laundry lists of supposed good works by the Garland and the DoJ were enough, and given the crappy situation we're in where Trump is benefiting quite well from his expected delay tactics, I'm far more inclined to go by their judgment of the situation than yours.

[Takket]

24. "Taking the win and moving on"?

Biden was enraged he held a press conference about it.

I think only political concerns about the optics of firing garland on the spot for letting that hit piece be published stopped Biden from firing him that day.

But I seriously doubt Garland will be back for a second term if Biden is re-elected. .

[bigtree]

34. they spent ONE day on that and moved on.

...what actual purpose is there in continuing to elevate the lies over the exoneration?

That's what you've done here. What's the point?

The Biden camp isn't doing this.

I'll be honest. This looks like it's a deliberate attempt to divert from the op. We used to call it hijacking a thread.

[Sky Jewels]

80. Milquetoast Merrick needs to go.

His appointment was a massive, massive mistake.

[bigtree]

82. I can think of some other folks who are also pining for him to leave

...they sing about it from their prison cells.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

118. Yep

Doesn't take much to lead the crowd by the nose, or is it noise?

Who benefits from eviscerating Merrick Garland daily?

My opinion: with dozens of informants and connections to Putin and who knows where, it's a massive investigation. ONE informant could lead investigators to dozens of crimes, I don't understand this small, desperate thinking, that all that has been made public is all there is.

And, that a trial, any trial MUST happen before the election!!!1!! Or we are DOOMED.

No one considers the horror that would result from a *rump acquittal.

I just don't understand the hate for AG Garland, ignoring everything he and the DOJ have done.

"B...But he didn't do it my way! He didn't do it fast enough!" Where did the Garland hate originate? I wonder.....

[sop]

79. Let's be clear, Hur testified he "did not exonerate" the president.

Hur said his report did not exonerate Biden of wrongdoing: “I did not exonerate him and that word does not appear in the report." Hur did say Biden lied at least twice to the public, "once when claiming he had not shared classified information with a ghostwriter and again when the president alleged that he had locked up the documents in question."

Hur wrote in his report that Biden “willfully retained and disclosed classified materials” but found that the 81-year-old should not face charges because jurors would likely see him as a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

[bigtree]

83. the fuck

...declining to bring charges is exoneration.

Maybe you can point to the prosection of Pres. Biden coming out of that report?

I mean, the SC actually quit after declining to charge him.

[sop]

88. You keep on using the term "exoneration," yet Hur specifically testified he did not exonerate Biden.

Biden did nothing wrong. Hur should have stated that clearly, both in his report and during his testimony at the hearing, but he did not. Instead he chose to focus on minor discrepancies in Biden's handling of classified documents, and then "editiorialized" about Biden's age and mental capacity. Garland should not have allowed Hur's report to see the light of day.

[bigtree]

89. you're using Hur's language to make that point

...really an amazing contradiction of concern over the lies he put in the report.

Not charging Biden is an exoneration. You can quibble over his retention of his diaries, but you can't make that into a crime.

Neither could Hur, and that is an exoneration, no matter how hard the partisan republican worked in that report to cast aspersions on the president's memory and actions.

I'm unconvinced of any argument that Garland should have laid a finger on the report. It's that non-interference which allows the declination of charges to stand without further debate about DOJ medding on Biden's behalf, and certainly not favoratism from this clear partisan republican.

“The idea that an attorney general would edit or redact or censor the special counsel’s explanation for why the special counsel reached the decision that special counsel did? That’s absurd,” Garland said Thursday.

If Garland had pulled the report over the passages about the president's age and memory, that's alll that would be highlighted, all that would be discussed.

I'm perplexed and a bit bemused by those who insist we should emphasize the lies in the report above the declination to bring charges. What actual political value is there in turning the discussion back to the lies in the report instead of the exoneration from criminal charges?

That report is not a credible political document. It's a one-sided whinge that Hur couldn't find any evidence Pres. Biden committed a crime, complete with political judgments as red meat for Hur's republican friends and allies.

The ONLY relevant part was the declination to bring charges. Everything else in the report is opportunistic, political pablum.

___The White House on Tuesday said special counsel Robert Hur’s testimony before Congress absolved President Biden of any wrongdoing in handling classified documents, just hours after Mr. Hur insisted his investigation did not exonerate the president.

“After all this time, the millions of pages of records that have been reviewed; 150 witnesses have been interviewed. The conclusion was there is simply no case here. Case closed. It’s time to move on,” said White House spokesperson Ian Sams.

[sop]

90. Let's cut through all the pointless semantics:

Do you believe the majority of media coverage following the release of Hur's report focused more on Biden's exoneration, or on Biden's age and mental capacity? That's the point of all this.

We can all agree Biden didn't do anything wrong. Most of us agree Hur's report was a blatantly political document, written to create the false impression Biden is a senile 81-year-old man, and to damage Biden's chances for re-election. And many of us hold Garland responsible for having released such a biased Special Counsel report.

[bigtree]

91. but we're not the media

...most of us are advocating on behalf of the Biden campaign, with zero interest in repeating Hur's lies, for whatever reason.

To the point of the political impact of the report. I believe we're in better political stead pointing to the declination to charge, rather than whinging on and on about it and highlighting Hur's lies.

Moreover, it's clear to me that having this openly partisan republican declining charges is a far sight better political outcome than a Democratic SC defending against charges of favoratism or collusion.

[dchill]

11. Thank you.

[cachukis]

12. We have all been part of the show.

We are looking for answers and we all use what we find.
Empathizing with every character is Dostoevsky on steroids.
We are part of the unfolding and the mistakes we have made are made up for when we step back after time and examine our conscience as to how well we've done.
If you were on this from the beginning I'd say you were whoa!
But this is so big picture I have to stand back and say whoa, whoa!

[cachukis]

16. Man, I have reread this twice.

You are getting shadows in the cave.

[republianmushroom]

13. Posting on the earlier article I said the cheer leaders would be staying up

late tonight. They are.


Today's NYT addresses the question of whether the pace of Garland's investigation of Trump was too slow
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=18799888

Here’s a gift link of the article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/22/us/politics/trump-jan-6-merrick-garland.html?unlocked_article_code=1.ek0.tH3q.sl-f0UJzer7I&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb

[edhopper]

17. I stopped responding to

the Garland fan club here. No point in it.

[Celerity]

22. Thankfully their numbers are now small.

[edhopper]

29. But vocal

It's become the usual suspects

[Celerity]

33. Well, that is unfortunately usually a given here.

[bigtree]

23. you have a lot of nerve talking about me like that

...as if you would tolerate me characterizing your own attacks on this administration's AG as something other than your sincere opinion and concern for justice.

Where do you get off talking about people here like this?

[dchill]

15. I have the nauseating feeling that we are all...

...frogs. Being boiled.

[appmanga]

18. I don't know what this post is trying to prove...

...other than brevity in explanation is a talent, and such talent is lacking here.

Merrick Garland made the conscious decision to not open investigations into several avenues where they were merited, and that's been proved out by the fact that robust investigations he finally authorized have led to the indictments that have led to the trials that are now in the federal courts. This rambling apologia on the behalf of Garland doesn't change the fact Garland's DOJ had little interest in getting answers until the J6 committee pointed out the breadcrumb trail that led to the blinking neon sign with the big yellow arrow that said "CRIMES -- THIS WAY".

Garland's deference to the norm of not going after political opponents, a deference given to G. W. Bush and Dick Cheney, among others, was misplaced because Trump's crimes go far outside of the fallout of a policy decision, something that was plain and obvious. This is the very legitimate basis for Weisman's criticism. If you bother to investigate the crime you'll find evidence of the collusion.

Let's be clear: the late to the game critique of Merrick Garland is dead ass on the money and because a Democrat appointed Garland, that doesn't put him above criticism.

[cachukis]

20. I rest my case.

[bigtree]

21. so you read nothing

...because, if you bothered you'd see that Garland's DOJ was far ahead of the Jan. 6 committee which actually hindered and delayed actual PB and OK trials by withholding discovery materials demanded by denendants in those trials for months, until the end of the year.

Fuck, not reading appears to not be working in your favor.

DOJ April 2022 received phone records of key Trump officials, including Mark Meadows. That effort is another indicator of how expansive the Jan. 6 probe had become, well before the high-profile, televised House hearings in June and July on the subject.

The Washington Post and other news organizations have previously written that the Justice Department is examining the conduct of Eastman, Giuliani and others in Trump’s orbit. But the degree of prosecutors’ interest in Trump’s actions has not been previously reported, nor has the review of senior Trump aides’ phone records.

The revelations raise the stakes of an already politically fraught probe involving a former president, still central to his party’s fortunes, who has survived previous investigations and two impeachments. Long before the Jan. 6 investigation, Trump spent years railing against the Justice Department and the FBI; the investigation moving closer to him will probably intensify that antagonism.

This year, the fake-elector scheme has become a major focus of the Justice Department inquiry. After Trump lost the election, lawyers and others close to him urged GOP officials in key states to submit alternate and illegitimate slates of electors to reject the results of the state vote totals. Those would-be electors were aided in their effort by Trump campaign officials and Giuliani, who said publicly that the rival slates were necessary and appropriate, and has been described as overseeing the strategy.

Last month, federal agents fanned out in multiple states to serve grand jury subpoenas, execute search warrants and interview witnesses — a significant escalation of overt investigative activity. As part of that effort, agents searched Eastman’s electronic devices, and conducted a search at the home of Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official who enthusiastically embraced some of Trump’s last-ditch efforts to stop Biden from becoming president. Many of those who received subpoenas were told specifically to turn over their communications with Giuliani.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/07/26/trump-justice-investigation-january-6/

[Fiendish Thingy]

45. You clearly did not read the NYT article

Merrick Garland made the conscious decision to not open investigations into several avenues where they were merited,

That is a provably false statement that is clearly refuted by the verifiable facts contained in the NYT article.

The non-paywalled link has been posted in this thread- I encourage you to read the whole article, carefully.

[OAITW r.2.0]

27. Fucking "Rule of Law" thing pisses me off

Just kidding. Trump ain't winning in November or for the rest of his sad life. When he dies, who will remember in 10 years?

[Goodheart]

28. Can you fit any more strawmen into one post?

Can you think of anything more absurd than spending years castigating Trump for his autocratic politicization of justice, and then complaining because your own party's president's DOJ didn't do the exact same?

How is investigating and prosecuting someone in a timely manner an "autocratic politicization of justice"? That's a deliberate misrepresentation of what's actually at play.

"as if that, by itself, would relieve Democrats of organizing that defeat at the ballot box; "

I haven't seen a single Democrat assert that prosecuting trump in a timely manner meant that we wouldn't have to defeat him in the election.

as if merely convicting or charging Trump would bar him from running or assuming office if elected.

Please link to anyone of importance who has made the assertion that prosecuting trump on time would bar him from running.

"we need to use our admin's Justice Dept. to advantage us in the election?"

What we need and have called for is justice. Would timely prosecutions have been advantageous politically? Probably, but you're putting the cart before the horse. The political advantage is consequential, not causative.

"The premise behind all of the over-the-top vitriol is that the AG has lost us the election"

I don't see many Democrats claiming we've lost the election.

I could go on and on, but others will get the point even if you don't. Your post is mighty defensive, to the point of absurdity.

[ancianita]

31. Thank you.

Every single day.

[rubbersole]

35. I can't be the only one that thinks the slower the better.

Keep TSF and all the Russian loving gop toadies front and center 24/7 until the election. tsf isn't going to win anything. Neither is the gop. Orange boy won't ever be in a cell and who cares? The oligarch takeover of the gop happened years ago. They probably could have gotten the rest of what they don't already have, except for one thing. Women are livid and are going to get madder. This is a watershed era. The old white uber-rich dinosaur fucked with the wrong people. It will take awhile. Decades maybe. The blue tsunami is step one.

[brush]

36. Still at it writing tomes defending Garland, huh?

The man was late going after the trump cabal. That is why we're up against a fast-approaching election and trump hasnt been tried yet.

Period.

[Goodheart]

37. As I've said... the proof is in the pudding, and here's the pudding

THREE AND A HALF YEARS after trump quite publicly incited an insurrection, and even longer still since he started planning to overthrow our government, he STILL hasn't been brought to trial.

And here are the dates that really matter: the HEART of the matter, the nitty gritty:

Date that trump refused to accept his election loss, and ostensibly began scheming to overthrow it: November 4, 2020

Date of insurrection: January 6, 2021

Date Merrick Garland was confirmed as Attorney General: March 10, 2021

Date Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith as Special Counsel: November 18, 2022

NO LESS THAN TWENTY FULL MONTHS after Garland took office, when it was obvious on January 6 2021 to the entire world that trump had incited an insurrection.

I'm amazed how anyone can think that's anything other than dereliction of duty.

[brush]

39. You are exactly right. Garland has been a poor AG. The OP poster keeps posting the same crap...

defending him. I don't get it.

[Goodheart]

41. Family member?

[brush]

43. Really?

[Goodheart]

44. I have no idea. Wouldn't surprise me because of the over-the-top defensiveness.

[Fiendish Thingy]

50. Your timeline is incomplete

Date that Garland formed a special investigative team to target Trump’s inner circle, including those at the Willard Hotel on Jan5/6: June 2021.

I suggest you read the full NYT article (free link posted in this thread) to learn the full timeline of all publicly known actions of the DOJ prior to Smith being appointed, throughout 2021 and 2022.

[bigtree]

46. If you think his job was to win the election, you're making the same mistake Trump made about his DOJ

...it's really a canard of a complaint, because there's absolutely nothing preventing Trump from being elected or from running if charged or convicted.

What an absolute sham of a concern.

What you're really saying here is we can't beat a man already convicted of sexual assault and major tax fraud, and that we need another conviction to help us out.

How fucking pathetic is that?

It's never been Garland's job to win this election for Democrats. It just isn't, no matter how much ridicule you sling at those of us expecting justice, and not some election fix.


fyi:

Trump Indictment: Why A Conviction—Or Imprisonment—Wouldn’t Prevent Him From Being President

The charges, some of which carry a maximum sentence of up to 20 years in prison, would not prevent Trump from continuing his third campaign for the White House nor would a conviction keep him from holding office, experts have said, noting the Constitution only requires presidential candidates to be natural-born citizens who are at least 35 years old and have lived in the country for 14 years.

If Trump is convicted and sentenced to prison, he could potentially serve as president from behind bars—a scenario that would introduce unprecedented security and logistical challenges, Reuters noted.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/06/09/trump-indictment-why-a-conviction-or-imprisonment-wouldnt-prevent-him-from-being-president/?sh=29c9fdf01c31

[brush]

49. Win the election? No. His job was to prosecute the orange toad and his cabal who lead...

the severe threat to our democracy since the Civil War.

More than 3 years later and he hasn't come close to that yet.

[bigtree]

55. he is prosecuting him

...you just expect all of that to be on a political timetable.

And you suppose that the over 20 investigators who folded under Jack Smith after amassing more evidence than Mueller did in his entire probe care less about prosecuting the man than you do, which is just absurd.

Jack Smith is prosecuting Trump, not Merrick Garland, but you still insist on this narrow interpretation of what's occurring that seems to fit your criticism of the AG; one that has you representing him here as still overtly involved in the Trump prosecution effort.

Nothing you say indicates that you know anything of substance about the actual investigation. Weird, because you're usually right there when actual facts about the probe are posted.

[brush]

56. Keep on your crusade. He's still been a poor AG.

[bigtree]

59. you listen here

...I'm not on a 'crusade' or any of the other derisive insults you post to deflect from your own dearth of information or interest in anything other then attacking the AG.

I make an effort to inform, and I bring evidenced facts to the discussion.

Are you going to just keep up with the ridicule here, or did you have something of substance to offer?

I'm an old man, and I'm goddamned tired of the baiting. If you don't have anything of substance to offer the thread give it a fucking rest.

[brush]

61. Ok, ok, ok. I give up. Have at it.

[bigtree]

63. I don't need your permission

...I'm 63 years old, and I'm not anyone's bitch, not here for you to kick me around for whatever reason.

Goddamn it, I'm not a politician or some political operative. I'm a man, a citizen who cares deeply enough about my country and government to speak out, and I don't deserve your ignorant crap.

[brush]

64. Ok. Ok. You're taking this too seriously.

[bigtree]

65. there's always someone jumping on my threads to tell me all about myself

...do you have any fucking idea how goddamn rude that is?

You have zero idea of what that person you're being cute with is experiencing at the time, but you're throwing shit like we're some kind of abstractions, here for you to get all of your petty projections off your chest.

Get a fucking clue.

[brush]

67. It's just a discussion board. Not that big a deal.

[bigtree]

68. baiting and bullying on these pages is a big deal

...you're trifling with a grown adult like we're in high school.

But thanks for telling me that it's not a big deal.

[Goodheart]

51. AGAIN with the strawmen?

Nobody here thinks Garland's job is to win the election.

You know you lose when you have to resort to absurdities, right?

[Fiendish Thingy]

38. As bad as the NYT article is, it still destroys nearly all of the myths about Garland

In attempting, and failing to support the “Garland too slow” narrative, the NYT report, by including the factually verifiable detailed timeline of the investigations, utterly destroys all the other myths about Garland that serve as red meat for the knee-jerk scapegoaters, including:

“Garland did nothing to investigate Trump until Smith was appointed”
“Garland sat on his hands”
“Garland was too meek to investigate”
“Garland did nothing until Cassidy Hutchinson testified to the J6 committee”
“Garland is a Republican who deliberately stalled and sabotaged the investigation “

All disproven by publicly available, verifiable facts included in the NYT report, and conveniently ignored by Weissman, Tribe, Nicolle Wallace and the others who feed the recreational outrage machine.

NOTE: I’m not defending Garland, I’m defending reality.

[brush]

47. Yet we're 3 years+ since J6 and trump has yet to be tried.

Somebody in the DOJ dropped the fucking ball...and who heads the DOJ?

[Fiendish Thingy]

53. Your impatience does not mean a ball was dropped

Joshua Schulte posted classified information on a public website in one of the CIA’s worst data breaches, and yet it took three years to indict him, two years to convict him (and he was serving as his own attorney), and almost another year to sentence him to 40 years for some of the same violations of the Espionage Act that Trump has been charged with.

And Schulte didn’t have any claims of executive privilege or attorney client privilege or immunity to litigate.

[brush]

54. 3 year plus is not impatience. Blind to reality is unfortunate though. He's been a poor AG.

[bigtree]

57. Garland has not been working on the Trump prosecution for 3 years

...he just hasn't.


When he was hired in 2022, he took over what was described as a 'fast moving investigation."

December 11, 2022:

Smith takes over a staff that’s already nearly twice the size of Robert Mueller’s team of lawyers who worked on the Russia probe.  A team of 20 prosecutors investigating January 6 and the effort to overturn the 2020 election are in the process of moving to work under Smith, according to multiple people familiar with the team.

Smith will also take on national security investigators already working the probe into the potential mishandling of federal records taken to Mar-a-Lago after Trump left the White House.

Together, the twin investigations have already established more evidence than what Mueller started with, including from a year-long financial probe that’s largely flown under the radar.

“Mueller was starting virtually from scratch, whereas Jack Smith is seemingly integrating on the fly into an active, fast-moving investigation,” said Elie Honig, a former federal prosecutor and senior CNN legal analyst.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/11/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel-high-profile-moves-trump-criminal-investigations/index.html

"including from a year-long financial probe that’s largely flown under the radar."

[brush]

58. No more pls. Keep tilting at windmills.

[bigtree]

62. jesus

...as if ridicule was an argument.

It's just trolling. Banal trolling.

And who is the audience?

Who's cheering you on in this baiting?

[bigtree]

48. there's that

...no accounting for those who can't read past their own antipathies, though.

[stopdiggin]

60. +1. and thanks. you are not the only person I have read today

that has pointed to this same NYT article - as doing a a fairly straightforward job in undercutting its own overriding premise. (the familiar Tribe hobbyhorse of 'little done before Jan6 committee')

Also nothing like a Garland fanboy here. But the narrative wasn't true then - and it is no more true now.

[Silent3]

71. Perfect example of a straw man: "Garland did nothing to investigate Trump until Smith was appointed"

Please, show me the quotes where Tribe, or Weissman, or nearly anyone here on DU rightfully disappointed with Garland and the DoJ emphatically exclaim Garland did NOTHING until Smith was appointed.

We'll wait.

[bigtree]

86. talk about a straw man

...those two can't find one thing good to say about the arrests of over 1300 white supremacist insurrectionists and the riot leaders on charges ranging up to sedition and obstruction the counting of votes in a presidential election.

Never. It's just this superior talking down of an investigation they have absolutely zero sustanative details about because, they aren't part of the mostly secret probe.

The downplaying of that DOJ effort and accomplishment is a contradiction of all of their concern about Trump. Trump is under two mutiple felony indictments as a result of Garland hiring Jack Smith.

It makes no sense to downplay any of that just to swipe at the man who made it happen. It's tantamount to opposing everything he's done, so far.

I mean, really? WTF are they accomplishing by whinging everytime there's a setback? It would help if they did so with suppoortable facts, but here we are, with bogus opinionating from a 'constitutional expert' and a paid tv pundit.

[Silent3]

107. I don't think you understand what a "straw man" argument is

A criticism of Garland and the DoJ not doing enough soon enough does not require a display of gratitude for all the good but insufficient things that have been done.

If I complain that the painters hired to paint my house only painted three sides of it, but left the front unpainted and never came back, I’m not making a “straw man” argument against the work that has been done. Not finishing the job is not finishing the job.

Hell, even if I stupidly exaggerate and say nothing got done, the flaw would be excessive exaggeration, not a flaw of lacking a valid complaint against the painters.

When you post yet another list of things the DoJ has done, and when it did those things, none of that had been enough to erase the complaints many of us rightfully have.

Even if you can find quotes of people saying the DoJ did nothing, rather than more accurately saying “not enough soon enough”, you’re not finding a “straw man” that way, just excessive exaggeration. You aren’t addressing the core of the problems generating criticism of Garland and the DoJ.

[bigtree]

111. unless 'core questions' come with more than angst over time passed

... and with actual receipts to back all of that up (which you notably haven't provided), it just amounts to sea-lioning.

Btw, characterizing it as "post(ing) yet another list of things the DoJ has done" is not only false, but an actual strawman.

More than that, it's a diversion from the op. The op leads with Tribe's absurd measure of that angst over time passed.

Take another shot at it. I'll summarize:

Tribe and Weissmann made the now shifted complaint that the Garland investigation began with a bottom-up pursuit, going after the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers.

They offer no actual proof of this other than riffing off of the NYT article's reutation of their earlier point that DOJ 'waited too long' to investigate the Trump WH, reporting the DOJ investigation before Smith delving into the finances behind Stop the Steal and it's connection to the Trump WH.

Tribe's and Weissmann's conclusion abandons their earlier claims that DOJ 'did nothing' for a year, and adopts this new whinge that their investigation should have been focused on the Trump WH instead.

But it was the Jan. 6 committee which focused almost exclusively on the 'foot soldiers' and probed their connection to the Trump WH in their own 'bottom-up' investigation.

In the committee's final report, they point the way from their investigation of the PBs and OKs to the Trump WH. I'm not sure why Tribe and Weissmann think that's fine and dandy for them to pursue that avenue of investigation, but not DOJ, but let's put that aside.

In fact, Garland's team not only arrested and prosecuted scores of domestic terrorists at that time, but was also engaged in an effort tasked by Deputy AG Lisa Monaco to seize phones and records of communication of Guliani, Meadows, Clark, and others involved in Trump's election scheme.

Not bothering to reference the NYT article or use their clickbait garble of events as my own source or guide, it's clear from multiple sources that I provided here that DOJ did not just go after foot soldiers, but was actually engaged, under Merrick Garland, in a 'top-down' investigation of the Trump WH well before the Congressional hearings were a glint in Adam Schiff's eye.

Reported facts found outside of this navel-gazing NYT piece point to a multi-pronged investigation by Garland's DOJ beginning with investigators assigned to the Trump WH as early as Fall of 2021, tasked to look into the financial affairs, including money-laundering with Trump's PACs, not the 'bottom-up' imaginings of Tribe and Weissmann.

As I bothered to provide above, we can see that there was significant sharing of information between the SC and DOJ which came from the defendants Garland's team had gotten to cooperate.

If you can't refute any of that with actual evidence or proof, as I provided all throughout this thread, you're just diverting from it. And you haven't provided ONE citation for that word salad, whatever 'man' you're putting up here.

Start by addressing what Tribe said, and maybe, just maybe, you'll get to the point of the op.

[Silent3]

117. "and with actual receipts to back all of that up"

I've already rejected your premise that those of use who complain about Garland and the DoJ need anything other than results to judge Garland and the DoJ, results that are leaving our democracy in peril far more than any imagined slippery slope that would have resulted from a more aggressive approach to pursuing Trump and his cronies.

If you reject my rejection, fine.

Just don't keep talking over it and around it like you haven't even heard it before. Explain to me WHY only impossible-to-get inside knowledge and mind-reading skills are good enough to have reason to complain, explain to me why Garland and the DoJ deserve such a huge benefit of the doubt.

Tribe and Weissmann made the now shifted complaint that the Garland...

(emphasis mine)

I reject your premise that Tribe and Weissmann finding more to complain about is "shifting" what they are complaining about, as if you've caught them in a "gotcha" of implicitly abandoning old complaints, as if those are suddenly no longer valid, as if they are scrambling to find news complaints to back up supposedly now-failing old arguments.

I suspect Tribe and Weissmann will find yet still more to complain about in the future, and probably quite rightfully so.

[bigtree]

120. you're making a simple argument

...more time has passed than you think should have, and Garland bad.

Even simplified, your logic fails. Mainly because it's backed up by nothing more than this fallacy that because the prosecutions haven't convicted Trump yet, they must have been conducted wrong.

The only thing that's worth addressing about time passed is that it's premised on DOJ's legal pursuit being an election-focused enterprise, a clear abberation of justice which is supposedto be Trump's bag, not ours.

I can't imagine anything more damning and self-defeating to an investigation of the AG's boss' political rival in this election than rushing a prosecution to suit an election timetable.

Our bag is running our candidate against a rival already convicted of major tax fraud, and found liable for a sexual assault, facing two multi-felony federal indictments.

The idea that yet another conviction is needed to win the race is pathetic enough.

But pushing aside what dozens of career and special hire prosecutors have been working toward, and making arbitrary judgments about their work based on an election timetable, isn't the democratic or justice flex you may think it is.

[bigtree]

121. the thread is packed full of responses to your fallacy

Explain to me WHY only impossible-to-get inside knowledge and mind-reading skills are good enough to have reason to complain, explain to me why Garland and the DoJ deserve such a huge benefit of the doubt.

...Garland handed over a "fast moving" investigation which had gathered "more evidence than Mueller's entire Russia probe" at the time Jack Smith was hired and took on the over 20 prosecutors who were already working on the investigation under Garland.

Not only were these dozens of career and special hire prosecutors already deep in investigating Trump and associates when Congress began their hearings, they also worked through their own evidence and Congress' to investigate links between the riot leaders and Trump - just as Congress directed them to.

They conducted a multi-pronged investigation, assembled and worked thought two grand juries resulting in two multi-felony federal indictments of Trump.

Whether you trust Garland's DOJ at this point is irrelevant, mainly because Jack Smith is independently investigating and prosecuting Trump at this point, not the DOJ or Garland.

[Fiendish Thingy]

92. That is/was a common complaint amongst Garland bashers

Go find any Garland bashing thread over the past couple of years, and you’ll find someone making that claim in almost every one of them.

It’s a myth that was perpetuated by Adam Schiff in his many media appearances during the J6 committee hearings, complaining that, (because there was no public information on DOJ actions at the time) Garland was waiting for the committee to finish and turn over its transcripts to DOJ before moving ahead with their own investigation.

As the NYT report shows, those complaints by Schiff, echoed by many on DU, were false, and based on the absence of information. Nevertheless, many claimed that Schiff would have inside information and would know the “TRUTH” about Garland’s failure.

[bigtree]

93. it was really galling to hear the committee members like Schiff to complain about delays

...even though DOJ had been requesting their witness transcripts and other evidence gathered that Proud Boys and Oath Keepers defendants were demanding in discovery for nearly a year before the committee turned them over.

The committee's delays were responsible for the rescheduling of at least two actual trials of riot leaders from respective groups which ultimately ended in sedition and obstruction convictions.

Recalling the faux outrage at Garland last week for supposedly holding up discovery requests by Bragg.

[Joinfortmill]

52. Thank you. I need to read this again, twice.

[jalan48]

69. Anonymous internet poster says renowned Constitutional scholar Lawrence Tribe is full of shit. All righty then.

[bigtree]

77. this discussion board isn't a clearance house for Tribe and Weissmann

...they're not DUers, and I'd think people here would do more than just take these paid pundit's personal opinions as fact.

Especially when the facts contradict them.

You saw what Tribe said. He called out Garland for a 'bottom up' investigation for which he said we were "paying the price.

But he said squat about the Jan 6 committee who's investigation was nothing but a bottom up investigation.

Tribe said nothing about the DOJ following due dilegence in making sure no stone wasn't overturned. Here they are filling out the committee's admitted incomplete investigation, but what they get for that is this second-guessing twaddle about us 'paying the price' for it.

It's fucking bullshit.

Does he think were 'paying the price' for the Jan. 6 committee's bottom up investigation focusing on the proud boys and oath keepers's ties to the Trump WH?

Do you think appointing Tom Windom in the fall of 2021 to investigate the Trump WH, specifiaally the financial connections, is a 'bottom-up investigation?

Either address the points or just go listen to Tribe. It's not as if I'm not providing points in rebuttal for you to discuss.

It's not my fault that you're not prepared to do anything more with the facts here than cite the credentials of Tribe.

I mean, well done, if that's all you're interested in.

[lostnfound]

73. I'm reminded of that famous Apollo 13 quote, "Success IS an OPTION"

Is trump a festering wound, and all around him the American body is an oozing disgusting mess?
Is he a virus, separating families and creating hatred and distorting large pockets of culture into misogynist, vile, anti-democratic, deluded shock troops?
Will he be a funnel through which foreign money pours in to convert Margie Taylor greenes and mike Johnson’s into representatives and speakers of the house?
Do we have to wait until he dies before his communication as the queen bee of a slobbering vile alien race finally ceases?

If only he were a traitor, then he would be whisked away, limited to $10 per minute weekly calls to his mother.

Alas, he is the biggest of all big men.

I like Merrick. He’s cute, looks neighborly like the friendly guy who is glad to lone you his lawn mower when yours breaks.
II hate it when people throw stones at those in the ring. At those who fight the good fight. I honestly don't care to judge him. He is one person, not overtly terrible or rude or dumb or greedy, so i assume he is a decent man.

If i were director of NASA when Apollo 13 was struggling in space, my role would be to shout at the engineers: “We’re not going to cut any corners here. Dot every “i”, cross every “t”. The process is going to take what it takes. This is important work, and you can’t rush rocket science.”

[Silent3]

78. If the lives of billions of people depended on getting to the moon in a hurry...

...then, yes, it would be perfectly reasonable to "rush rocket science".

Donald Trump is an existential threat to democracy. This was not a matter that should have been approached with the same mindset as prosecuting a tax evasion scheme or an intellectual property dispute.

And now we're ridiculously in race against the clock to bring Trump to justice before Trump can regain the power to derail justice himself.

[lostnfound]

122. I 100% agree. And in the case of Apollo 13, rushing rocket science is exactly what they had to do

Otherwise they might have brought back the capsule but not living astronauts.
Time is of the essence.

[NanaCat]

74. IOW

time-tested, if slow-moving, strategy of working from the periphery of the events inward

Which is another way to describe the 'spokes and wheel' investigation, not a bottom-up type, that many of the Garland detractors have claimed that he didn't pursue. And yet this person's asserting that it's what DOJ have been doing, all along--and that it's far more time-consuming to establish than a bottom-up investigation.

Imagine that.

People are frustrated, I get that, but I don't think they realise how much more difficult and time-consuming it is to investigate and prosecute genuine conspiracies. A spokes & wheel don't have the bottom-up flipping up the pyramid to make their job easier. They have to go through a bunch of different pyramids to get to the hub of them all. It's like having 20 pyramids to plow through to reach the top, rather than one.

Gee, who would have thought that would be a more difficult process?

[Sky Jewels]

84. Let's be clear. Garland failed us.

There was a literal coup attempt. Time was of the essence. Any country with a high-functioning justice system would have pursued the big players immediately. There were mountains of evidence showing that several Republicans conspired to overthrow the government. This was not the time for an exhaustive focus on the small fry. People like Ron Johnson and MTG, who literally helped plan a coup, are still in office.

Democracy was/is on the line, and Garland didn’t step up to meet the challenge. He fucked up and fucked us all over.

[ms liberty]

85. I believe Tribe and Weissman have valid points.

But I've never thought the courts would stop TSF before the election, because the pace has obviously been too slow for that. I have always maintained that we have to defeat not just TSF but the GOP in November. And it needs to be a landslide. Think 1932. It's the only sure fire way to stop the GOP - to send them all home.

You seemed really upset upthread, so I l'll close with this: I'm 64 and have been here about the same amount of time you have, I just post a lot less. Neither of us are spring chickens any more. You should know by now that DU IS EXACTLY the room for an argument and if you have an opinion about anything it's likely to get challenged here. Don't take the arguments so personally. Maybe step away some. Pace yourself and take care of yourself. We want you here - even though we might disagree, okay? We all agree about much more than we disagree, and our differences keep us rooted in reality much better than those fruitcakes on the other side.

[bigtree]

87. since you've been here a while, you should know about hit and run posting

Last edited Sat Mar 23, 2024, 10:36 AM - Edit history (1)

...and every so often, people need to be reminded that there are actual people here on the other end often dealing with challenging lives.

Not pols or pundits, but voters who we presumably care about. That's who this forum is for, not pols and pundits who already have a platform to share opinions and debate.

You'd think it would matter to people here to read what actual citizens in this country think and believe, but this forum is treated like sport for many here, and I'm not a punching bag.

[Paladin]

98. bigtree, you must be getting lonely, being a diehard Garland supporter.

There used to be plenty of DUers who shared that support; that's not true, anymore. For good and obvious reasons. Garland seems to be a lot more comfortable with cellphone issues than he is with putting a stop to the fascist overthrow of our nation.

[Moosepoop]

100. His OP has 36 recs at last count.

There are maybe a dozen or so detractors posting on the thread, so it would appear that there is more support for his argument than not.

The reason that bigtree and Fiendish Thingy are pretty much alone in posting fact-based replies is that they're so good at it, and there's not much to add to those responses. They do the heavy lifting -- the rest of us just sit back and watch. And rec.

[Earth-shine]

103. Actually, if you look at the number of recs divided by the number of views, the quotient is remarkably low.

There's a reason we don't have an unrec button.

[Moosepoop]

105. Recs divided by views means exactly what?

You seem to be assuming that the number of views represents individual viewers. I've clicked on the thread many times to read new replies. I'm sure others have, too. We can only rec once.

[Earth-shine]

106. I assume that "number of views" represents people on "both sides" of this argument.

It's remarkable how very low that number is ... and getting lower.

Just compare to other posts in General Discussion.

[Moosepoop]

108. Of course the views are from "both sides."

And I did look at other posts in GD -- the view/rec percentages are all over the map.

[Earth-shine]

110. Frankly, that's a load of Moosepoop. People can do the math for themselves.

As I said previously, the percentages are remarkably low.

So, you it's you just hitting refresh?

[Moosepoop]

113. Yes, they can.

You're getting into silly territory. I never said or implied that this thread's view count was all due to me.

And thank you for pointing out the the views are increased from both sides reading new replies -- that pretty much undercuts your entire premise.

Any agreeing viewer can still only rec once.

Have a nice day.

[Earth-shine]

115. Exactly. The number of recs doesn't go up at all, does it?

And you think it's just people hitting refresh? I suggest you quit while you're only five steps behind.

I'm having a great day! Thanks.

[Moosepoop]

114. Duplicate post n/t

[Quixote1818]

112. Bingo! nt

[bigtree]

104. most of us have come to grips with the fact that the AG hasn't been investigating or prosecuting Trump and Co.

...since he assigned that job to Jack Smith.

Apologies for not keeping up with the fantasy internet prosecutions.

[Scrivener7]

101. This is becoming sad.

[bigtree]

102. have some tea and a cookie

...and read a book.

Or maybe an uplifting movie.

[demmiblue]

109. Yes, it really is. n/t