Even For Chuck Todd, Arguing Against A Criminal Referral Of Trump Is A New Low

[babylonsister]

https://www.politicususa.com/2022/12/11/even-for-chuck-todd-arguing-against-a-criminal-referral-of-trump-is-a-new-low.html
Posted on Sun, Dec 11th, 2022 by Jason Easley
Even For Chuck Todd, Arguing Against A Criminal Referral Of Trump Is A New Low


Chuck Todd said that he could argue both sides of a Trump criminal referral, but he only argued why Trump should not be referred for prosecution.

Transcript via Meet The Press:

PREET BHARARA:
Well, look, it is not their role to make a criminal case, although they’re making a referral. And if you look into the debate, what the value and virtue is of making a criminal referral–

CHUCK TODD:
I can argue both sides of that, good or bad.

PREET BHARARA:
I mean, to me, it’s largely symbolic because at the time we first started having this debate about a referral, it wasn’t clear how far along the Justice Department was. Since then, the Justice Department has appointed a special counsel, as we mentioned. And they had a lot of staff they’ve added to the matter. And they’re far along, and they’ve issued subpoenas that we’ve heard reports about. So they’re investigating this thing anyway.

CHUCK TODD:
Do you think that criminal report actually complicates things more than it helps?

PREET BHARARA:
I don’t think it complicates things. I actually don’t think it does anything for the Justice Department. I don’t think it prompts them to do anything more quickly or more aggressively.

CHUCK TODD:
But it doesn’t add negatively to the political stew? The word you don’t want to use.

PREET BHARARA:
You could argue that. I don’t know why they feel the need to do it. I think they want to make a statement for themselves. I think it has no impact on the Justice Department whatsoever.

Donald Trump tried to overthrow the United States government, and Chuck Todd is worried about adding negativity to the ‘stew’ by referring the former president for prosecution.

It is almost like Todd is incapable of seeing that there should be consequences for trying to overthrow the government, and a criminal referral is not the same thing as an attempted coup.

The corporate media chronically fails the nation and the American people on the issue of democracy, but Chuck Todd’s false equivalence is a special level of failure that helps to endanger American democracy.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Classic apologist.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

13. ...for NBC executives calling the shots. See him as a bot with a neural implant so CEOs control.

[panader0]

2. The referrals my be only symbolic at this point, but they are the fulfillment of the duties of

the J-6 committee. After all they have done, they needed to make referrals to wrap this up. They
have discovered real evidence and will now say by whom.
PS fuck Chuck.

[rsdsharp]

4. It will be a typical Republican "Tails I win, heads you lose," deal.

If they make a referral they’ll call it political. If they don’t, they say they must not have found wrong doing.

Prosecute the bastard! And his minions!

[PortTack]

5. Toad can and does say the stupidest things. So the DOJ put a special counsel in place the likes

of Smith and toad thinks their going to sit on their hands and not indict him??

Ya…you go right ahead toad and do your two siderism shit…Good gawd what an idiot he is

[skylucy]

6. Thank you for reminding me why I never feel the need to watch Chuck Todd.

[LiberalFighter]

7. Does he have the ability to use logic?

Or is he trying to cause another insurrection?

[Just A Box Of Rain]

8. There is nothing even slightly amiss about Chuck Todd's remarks.

Referrals by the J6 Committee--a body dominated by Democrats (to take nothing away from the fine contributions by Cheney and Kinsinger)--which I support, do have a side-effect of interjecting an appearance of partisanship into what is already a complicated situation.

Not recognizing the truth of that would amount to reality-denialism.

To repeat: I support making these referrals.

[CanonRay]

9. Jennifer Rubin had the same line of bullshit today.

[FakeNoose]

10. I wish Preet had asked Todd, "When and where did you get your legal degree?"

This is a slap in the face to such a distinguished career prosecutor as Preet Bharara.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

12. How so? Bharara was largely in agreement.

PREET BHARARA: You could argue that. ["that" being a referral would mean "adding to the political stew"].

I don’t know why they feel the need to do it. I think they want to make a statement for themselves. I think it has no impact on the Justice Department whatsoever.

[maxrandb]

14. Chuck Todd couldn't pour piss out of a boot

if the directions were on the bottom.

He makes a much sense as a Football Bat.

Chuck Todd is the kind of person that would see a turd laying on the floor, and would try to tell you that you could pick it up by the clean end.

[Fiendish Thingy]

15. Referrals would give defense attorneys ammo for jury nullification

I don’t agree with Todd about the risk of poisoning the “political stew” for voters, or the general public, but referrals could be used by defense attorneys to plant seeds in the minds of jurors increasing the chances of jury nullification (jury ignoring evidence and instructions and acquitting or ending up hung). In the absence of criminal referrals from congress, that is a much more difficult seed to germinate.

That said, I do think the committee should make criminal referral if there is any evidence supporting charges of perjury or witness tampering/intimidation, as those are directly related to the committee’s investigative process.

Otherwise, I think the committee should let the transcripts, evidence, and final report speak for themselves. The DOJ will have access to it all.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

16. It is time to fire Chuck Todd

Link to tweet

[Yoyoyo77]

17. I've looked at life from both sides now. Both sides now.

[onenote]

18. Preet Bharara basically agreed with Todd.