MSNBC: Claire McCaskill and Andrew Weissmann were complaining, trashing Garland then this happened.

[fightforfreedom]

Last edited Mon Jul 25, 2022, 06:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Breaking News, Pence Chief of Staff testifies in front of grand jury in Jan 6th investigation. They both shut up real quick, they looked foolish.

In my opinion, people need to let Garland do his job and stop complaining that things are not going the way they think they should. There is a chance you could end up looking foolish.

[Kid Berwyn]

1. Rather be surprised and wrong...

…than on the wrong side, doing wrong.

It’d be best if both McCaskill and Weissman were part of the DoJ investigation of the Treason of January 6.

[TheProle]

46. Why would a former senator and private sector lawyer, both now on on media payroll

be part of the DoJ investigation?

[Kid Berwyn]

100. For the good of the country.

With their government experience, they know enough to pontificate on TV about Pisswig and DoJ, so maybe they can help imprison the traitor and his toad horde. I certainly value their observations and opinions, even in regards to AG Garland and DoJ.

I can understand if they want to stay out of government service and on TV, though. The level of discourse is almost that of posting on social media.

[FoxNewsSucks]

2. In the long run, we're better off if some of us look foolish

than we will be if we turn out to be right.

I will have no problem saying "thank god my suspicions were wrong". When tRump criminals are behind bars, I'll be damn glad to say it.

[Demsrule86]

7. Is that before or after we lose the midterm because of such clueless comments as those two

made?

[calimary]

43. THIS, DAMMIT!

I don’t care if some folks don’t like my lack-of-patience. I’ve spend YEARS hearing various versions of “keep yer powder dry.” Once upon a time there was a DUer who closed out every post with that admonition.

And look where we are. Yes, we have Dems in charge (just barely) in Washington DC, for now. But the bad guys own more states than we do, and as long as we’re dutifully “keeping our powder dry,” the barbarians are AT the gate and scaling the walls on either side of it. And we have a Democratic president who can’t get much done because our side doesn’t have enough numerical support to mow down the enemy.

I’m not willing to lay low and stay meek ‘n’ mellow. Easier to get run over, that way.

[calimary]

50. Duplicate. Sorry...

[Demsrule86]

51. There will be no take over if we win the midterm decisively and run Biden if he is healthy

in 24. And if we win the midterm, we can get such protection. It is quite likely we will take Ohio and PA. It looks like we will hold Georgia and Arizona too. Winning is the only way to protect ourselves...The tRump criminal will have no effect on 22 or 24 since Trump is not in the office. We want to believe that Trump must go down in order to save our Republic...but I don't believe it. I think Trump is on his way out. The January 6 committee was very thorough.

[ancianita]

94. +1

[Demsrule86]

98. Thank you Ancianita! How are you?

[ancianita]

101. Hi, Demsrule86! I'm good. You are you?

[Demsrule86]

115. I am recovering...still in shock that I have been so ill...I never took any meds before.

What I thought was a mild case of Covid pretty much almost killed me and has left me with A-fib, a heart murmur, pneumonia, and blood clots. Damn, I was only sick a couple of days and felt fine...so beware. Take the Medicine if you get Covid no matter how you feel. I wish I had done so. But after pouting for a couple of weeks, I am determined to live the best life I can.

[ancianita]

116. Oh no, that IS a shock! I'm so sorry you've suffered! Your advice is much appreciated.

I'm really shocked about your bodily damage while you only felt mildly sick.

Please take care. I'm hoping your body recovers, and hope you're boosted and have access to the new medicine.

[Demsrule86]

117. I am fortunate that I can afford the meds...(barely). I did not choose a plan with good

pharmacy benefits as I did not take any meds at the time. I am lucky I picked an advantage plan as I would have no coverage for Eliquis with original medicare. The advantage plans cover it but I don't know how much my plan will cover...it is with coupons around 540.00 per month with no insurance. The alternative is Coumadin (Wayfarin) which would be problematic for me.

[ancianita]

118. Glad you can. Meds that are priced that high priced need competitive purchasing by our govt.

It's ridiculous that meds produced in Switzerland, the big pharma capital on Earth, should be priced outside its borders so high that we subsidize the EU's meds. We give them volume business; they can afford to have their profits shaved.

In the meantime, I hope they help you recover over time to the point where you won't need them.

[ancianita]

123. DU is fortunate for you.

Congratulations for getting back on the MIR Team!

I hope it doesn't get too tense. Please take it easy there; you need to keep your health up.

[Ferrets are Cool]

59. This

[jcgoldie]

52. Nobody is going to lose any election because...

...Claire McCaskill held Garland's feet to the fire on teevee.

[stopdiggin]

69. "Nobody is going to lose an election"

because of misinformation, half truths and jaundiced opinion being bandied about on TV ...
Well of course not! - Whoever would suggest such a thing?
--- -- -- ---

[jcgoldie]

86. Its not a question of misinformation

Its about whether you think the Democratic Party benefits by demanding absolute conformity of opinion on issues. Folks can disagree and we will without costing someone an election every time.

[stopdiggin]

89. Agree in general

Totally disagree in this particular case where I see McCaskill's uninformed (and, yes, jaundiced) opinion - burbled about on mainstream TV - as a service neither to the party - nor, much more critically, to the upcoming midterms. (where I very definitely see the "Doing nothing" narrative - rather than the fact itself - doing real damage to the Democrats)

So - thanks, Claire! Open mouth, insert foot. Friends like these ...

[BlueSky3]

93. Extra points

for use of the word, "burbled".

I like Claire McCaskill and I respect her opinion most of the time, but burbled is the perfect word to describe how she made her comments today.

Thanks.

[Willto]

106. Walk Me Through

how someone on TV saying that Garland should be more aggressive leads to a Democrat losing a midterm election. Is Garland running for office? Which Democrats in the upcoming election are responsible for Merrick Garland's actions to the point that a tv pundit criticizing him will cost them the election?

[Demsrule86]

97. Really. First of all she was wrong and it is not just one person...they all pile on and yes it could

make a difference in the the midterm.

[Duppers]

79. +10

[Going to Canada]

99. Agree.

We need to be a voice that holds our government accountable! Being quiet does nothing. Be pro - active.

[uponit7771]

111. +1,

[Lovie777]

3. They did right ....

in this day and time, there should be disagreements, that's what Democracy is all about.

Without killing each other or killing any one that you disagrees with.

[Demsrule86]

5. No they didn't. Not before the midterm. Glad I cut MSNBC off in general they suck.

[Lovie777]

8. I disagree . .. .

[Demsrule86]

13. My only goal at this point is to win win and win...winning is the only thing that matters...

If we don't, the GOP will begin their sliming of Biden and Democrats... so I do not believe in holding their feet to the fire as it was described in 2010 when some turned their backs on Obama thus making sure we got nothing not even judges for six long years...is a smart tactic. But this is America if you think this? OK, then far be it from me to say a word about it...except as you put it. I disagree. And the reason I disagree probably doesn't interest you but here it is... I have seen this play out too many times. And then we lose.

[FoxNewsSucks]

24. Obama SAID to hold his feet to the fire.

Did you forget?

He used the example of Roosevelt saying "make me do it". In other words, make a show of public support.

We did, and got a weak healthcare payment method reform that still shackles us to the whims of for-profit insurance companies. We also got "look forward" instead of seeing BushCheneyCo war criminals punished. They walked away free, with billions.

That's the reason for the 2010 lousy turnout. I don't want a repeat of that.

[Demsrule86]

39. Oh so that made the shellacking Obama recceived OK? No it didn't. Obama was blamed unfairly.

And what was the result? We lost six years and numerous judges. I doubt Obama expected his own party to be so well enthusiastic in holding his feet to fire, of course, and calling him among other things a used car salesman. Sadly, we lost a great opportunity for passing a great deal of important policy, and I had hoped that those that caused this debacle would recognize their mistakes. It seems they have not. And I don't mean you by the way. What a shame. “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Winston Churchill.

[betsuni]

103. ACA was the best that could get votes at the time. Nothing is not better than something.

It saved lives. The success of the ACA has made Americans less afraid of government involvement in health care (which Republicans took full advantage of by scaring the hell out of people about "death panels" ) and still want the option of buying health insurance or keeping their insurance plans.

[Cha]

119. Yes Pres ObamA sAID That.. NOT

sit home and Don't VOTE.

This is On those who Stayed Home.. Not President Obama.

Pres Obama & VP Biden Got the Best HealthCare Plan that they could get with the Members of Congress who were Voting.. Did you Forget That?

Please Fight to Save Our Democracy💙 in 2022 & 2024!

[USALiberal]

17. Lol, ok!!

[Torchlight]

36. ok lol nt

[USALiberal]

90. LanternWaste you are back!!!!!

[Demsrule86]

44. I have strong opinions about the need to win elections and support Democrats...hehe.

[Demsrule86]

4. I like Claire but this a pure bullshit...media action...for shame on both of them.

[fightforfreedom]

10. Exactly, Garland just told the entire country he will investigate everyone involved.

We have people who should know better, appear on the news and say Garland is not looking at the people at the top. Garland is way behind the committee, he is doing things the wrong way. That sends the wrong message to the American people and then people repeat what they hear from these so called experts who don't have a clue what Garland is up to.

[OnDoutside]

12. If it keeps the pressure on Garland etc, then it's not the worst thing

that could happen.

[Beastly Boy]

42. It doesn't, and that's why it's a bad thing.

It merely creates undue animosity towards Garland and divides Democrats.

[OnDoutside]

45. He's a big boy, he can take it.

[Beastly Boy]

54. He sure is, but there are too many pearl clutchers among Democrats.

[SouthernDem4ever]

71. No one beats Susan Collins at pearl clutching

that is who I think of everytime I see that term.

[OnDoutside]

109. Yep, and time is not on their side, sort of like the boiling frog principle. Too late when you

realize the shit you're in.

[Demsrule86]

55. We can't take it and by that I mean the risk that we will lose the midterm because of this

shenanigans.

[OnDoutside]

110. On the contrary, people aren't asking for anything unreasonable, they're asking for the DOJ to do

their job, rather than discretely tucking their heads in the sand. Time is not on your side. If Dems lose the House and/or the Senate, it's pretty much done.

[stopdiggin]

114. problem is, the narrative that the department

is not investigating, and/or not doing their job - is largely narrative not fact.

And, as such - damaging and corrosive. Contrary to popular belief - words matter. And 'opinion' and narrative can sink political agenda and movements.

So, yes - the drivel about "he's a big boy" - is wildly missing the point. Poisoning the well is the point.

[stopdiggin]

77. that's really not the point is it?

the DOJ can take care of itself, thank you. The TV audience that is being spoon fed this drivel, on the other hand ...

----- -----

[OnDoutside]

108. And yet, the DOJ were surprised by the evidence that the J6C turned up, 19 months after the

insurrection. So feck their sensibilities. If republicans get hold of the House and/or Senate in November, the game will be pretty much up for any accountability & justice.

[Cha]

120. Yes AG Garland can take it but

Not sure about the Dems in the Swing States who we Need to KEEP the HOUSE.

Please Fight to Save Our Democracy💙 in 2022 & 2024!

[BlueJac]

72. We must keep pressure on them, and not back down.

[Beastly Boy]

78. Not back down from what?

Uninformed assumptions?

Hell, that would be the first thing I would back down from!

[Cha]

121. TY! Yes, It Does.. I wholeheartedly Agree!

As I said in another post.. Ag Garland can take it but Not sure about the Dems in the Swing States that we NEED to Keep the HOUSE.

Please Fight to Save Our Democracy💙 in 2022 & 2024!

[Demsrule86]

53. To make such statements publicly on TV is the worst thing...She should be ashamed.

[LiberalFighter]

6. Claire....

[viva la]

9. Help me understand.... this is Pence's chief of staff.

During Jan 6, he was back at the White House? Or was he with Pence at the Capitol?

What would he be testifying about?

It's so hard to keep all the details organized!

[OnDoutside]

11. I thought Marc Short already testified?

[gab13by13]

16. Not to DOJ.

[OnDoutside]

18. No, not the DOJ but previously to the J6 committee?

[fightforfreedom]

23. To the committee, this was a grand jury investigating Jan 6th.

[gab13by13]

31. Are you sure?

Are you aware that DOJ doesn't leak its investigations. Why did we find out the same day?

Now I am more fearful than ever that DOJ is lagging because all along I have been told that DOJ is doing secret investigations that we are not aware of.

You can't have it both ways, fff. It is great news that DOJ subpoenaed Short, we need a lot more of it. 106 days to election day.

[Bev54]

38. Short was spotted by media leaving the grand jury and confirmed he testified.

[Beastly Boy]

49. DOJ doesn't leak, but apparently Marc Short does.

[vanlassie]

67. The person interviewed is allowed to tell.

If I recall correctly from the Mueller days.

[Beastly Boy]

70. Absolutely, but he wasn't a DOJ employee,was he?

My point was that DOJ didn't leak.

[vanlassie]

73. True. Apparently the media caught it.

[lapucelle]

66. Short testified last week.

ABC News broke the story today.

Former Pence chief of staff appeared before grand jury probing Jan. 6: Sources
Marc Short appeared under subpoena, sources tell ABC News.

The former chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence appeared last week before a federal grand jury investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.

Marc Short was caught by an ABC News camera departing D.C. District Court on Friday alongside his attorney, Emmet Flood.

Short appeared under subpoena, sources said.

snip===================================================

Short declined to comment to ABC News. His attorney did not immediately respond to ABC News' request for comment.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's Office also declined to comment.

In March, the Department of Justice expanded its criminal probe into the events of Jan. 6 to include preparations for the rally that preceded the storming of the Capitol, as well as the financing for the event, multiple sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.

https://abcnews.go.com/ABCNews/pence-chief-staff-appeared-grand-jury-probing-jan/story?id=87384833

[fightforfreedom]

20. He knows everything Trump and others did to try and force Pence to overturn the election.

The entire conspiracy depended on Pence doing what Trump wanted. Stop the vote count and put in place false electors. Doing this by force is the definition of seditious conspiracy.

Marc Short was also well aware of the security threat to Pence after Trumps infamous tweet. He testified before the grand jury for 2 to 3 hours. That's a lot of questions asked.

[Fiendish Thingy]

28. Short was in the room at times when the coup plot was developed and executed.

He was in the room when Trump and Eastman pleaded with Pence to delay the count, reject the contested states, or accept the fraudulent slates of electors.

He was there when Eastman outlined his illegal rationale to overturn the election.

This is a BFD

[Captain Zero]

41. They probably have questions about J 5-6-7

Would be my guess.

They could ask him questions about November all the way through THE END OF his stint as Pence's Chief of Staff.

He witnessed A LOT.

[malaise]

14. They all think they are writing some TV scriot

Garland knows what he’s doing.

[Demsrule86]

57. Thank you Malaise...it make my blood boil when some still want to hold Democrats feet to the fire.

Hasn't that been a failing strategy for decades now?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

96. Fully agree,

he's not flashy, bold or take chances, he's methodical, steady, he goes where the evidence leads him, no matter where it leads him, and it would seem, IMHO, that he's tightening the noose around the Mango Menace's neck.

[gab13by13]

15. What Claire McCaskill and Andrew Weissmann said,

was not refuted by Pence's Chief of staff being called before a grand jury.

I watch Nicolle every chance I get. Claire and Andrew both stated that DOJ was behind both the Fulton County and select committee investigations.

Claire and Andrew were prosecutors. Claire made the point that what is going on at DOJ is out of the norm. DOJ always wants to take the lead in investigations, but in this investigation it is not. Pence's chief of staff going before a grand jury did not refute anything Claire said.

Andrew said that DOJ was not investigating Trump or his inner circle, other than the fake electors and that is being done by the IG division of DOJ. Andrew made the point that we would know if DOJ was investigating higher up people. The fact that we found out immediately about Pence's Chief of staff proves Weissmann's point. Weissmann, upon hearing the breaking news complimented DOJ for investigating Short.

Amazing how people can watch the same show and get completely different opinions.

[fightforfreedom]

25. It proved Weissmann was wrong and had no idea what Garland was doing.

[gab13by13]

34. How was Weissmann wrong?

He said DOJ wasn't investigating the inner circle or we would have heard about it. Guess what? We heard about Short which proves Weissmann's point.

Weissmann went on to give DOJ credit for subpoenaing Short, saying it was a good sign.

[Demsrule86]

60. I guess if the guy was testifying to a grand jury...there is an investigation and Weissmann

realizing his mistake next complimented DOJ or Garland...what a guy when proven wrong he pretends he is still right. He didn't fool me or anyone else.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

35. Right.

Marcy Wheeler (emptywheel.net) mentioned weeks ago that Weissmann and many TV talking heads didn't know what they were talking about

[gab13by13]

80. How many cases has Marcy Wheeler prosecuted?

[OilemFirchen]

37. A Grand Jury subpoena would likely indicate the END of an investigation.

You have it 100% backward. And it demolishes Weissmann's "point".

[Bev54]

48. Neither of them know exactly what Garland is doing, we know Garland has at least 4 grand juries

running concurrently, so we do not know what grand jury is investigating which part. If he is not investigating Trump's inner circle then what the hell was the subpoenas and warrants on Eastman, Giuliani and Clark all about? He also has the IG's investigating other portions. He is using all the resources he can, I think including the Georgia and 1/6 investigations. The resources it takes for this kind of investigation is tremendous and he did not get all the resources he requested. The DOJ grand juries can hand down criminal indictments but the Georgia grand jury can only recommend that a new grand jury investigate criminal charges.

[stopdiggin]

81. and yet feel perfectly free to warble on in front of the camera

delivering 'expert' opinion (about which they are self evidently at least partially wrong). It's a disservice to the public. (despite the myriad calls of "no harm, no foul" here on DU)

[Demsrule86]

58. I disagree and she looks pretty silly now...I wonder if she will apologize...probably not.

[Beastly Boy]

68. Both Mc Caskill and Weismann proved themselves wrong on the air.

McCaskill by assuming that "the norm" she is familiar with applies to a very out of the norm DOJ investigation into an ex-POTUS, and Weissman by suggesting we would know if DOJ were investigating the higher ups.

Of course, it was out-of-the-norm ironic that they were proven wrong by the breaking news: VP's chief of staff testifying to a grand jury was hardly the norm, and Weissmann had no clue Marc Short was testifying as Weissman spoke.

[Treefrog]

88. Thank you for this.

This OP is in for a rude awakening one day, I'm afraid.

I'd love to be wrong about this.

[mcar]

21. MSNBC's goal seems to be

to have Rs win the midterms.

[FakeNoose]

27. No I think they want a tight-tight race

That's when all the eyeballs are glued to the TV sets. Yep they love those.

Probably Chuck and Andrea are the only ones hoping for the Repukes to win.

[Demsrule86]

61. If it is tight the GOP will win...and this shows why no one should listen to MSNBC or any

cable station.

[mcar]

95. Yep

Plus, they have no business picking winners and losers. They are supposed to be reporters.

[Catherine Vincent]

22. Well,

I do notice one thing... Since Garland hasn't revealed much (which is a good thing), I haven't heard or seen any republican bad mouth him like they normally do with Democrats. I guess right now, all their scorn is directed at the J6 committee.

[Fiendish Thingy]

26. Ha Ha! Uninformed Pundits get owned by reality. Nt

[Demsrule86]

62. Hey FT...about time...hehe😊

[Cha]

29. The "pressure" is Already On

AG Garland.

Focus!
Please Fight to Save Our Democracy💙 in 2022 & 2024!

[Novara]

30. Everybody is an expert. Everybody apparently KNOWS what the DOJ is or is not doing.

Until the experts are surprised by something they had no prior knowledge about. Hm. Funny how that works.

So if they were surprised with today's news, I guess they didn't know that the DOJ was already investigating Pence's COS until he actually testified. Gosh, the DOJ kept that a secret - even from all the experts. So I guess they'll keep saying the DOJ isn't investigating this person or that person until suddenly it is made public. They didn't even know that Pence's COS was either subpoenaed or had been in talks to come in and testify. You all know he didn't just show up out of the blue, right? The DOJ obviously were working on getting him to testify. Maybe all they did was ask and he said yes. But no one knew it was happening, did they?

See what I mean about prosecutors not making investigation decisions public? Until they have to?

I contend that we still do not know who they are investigating. And we won't know, until they make it public. That does not mean they are doing nothing, and this proves it. They were working on getting this guy in to testify and no one knew about it until the day he did testify.

I guess those of us who have been saying that the DOJ is working on this were right.

Yeah, it really is amazing how two people can watch the same thing and come to different conclusions, isn't it?

I am happy the DOJ is this good at keeping their investigations under wraps. If the orange fuck doesn't know where they are in their investigations, he doesn't know which evidence to destroy.

And I'm pleased that the DOJ is this leak-proof!

[gab13by13]

40. Except that DOJ didn't keep the fake elector investigation under wraps.

My memory is still half decent. The Michigan AG started the ball rolling by publicly making a criminal referral to DOJ to get them to investigate the fake electors. She even stated that if DOJ declined that she would investigate the Michigan fake electors.

Then a couple months went by and finally Lisa Monaco gave a public announcement that DOJ was looking into the fake electors, anyone remember that?

We then knew right away about the Clark and Eastman warrants and today we found out about Short.

The only thing missing in the supposed secret fake elector investigation was a red ball to follow.

I am extremely happy that DOJ is investigating the fake electors, I called for it back when the Michigan AG alerted everyone. I am not so happy that the warrants on Eastman and Clark were done by the IG division of DOJ, that gives me pause.

[Novara]

56. That doesn't have anything to do with other investigations kept secret

Look, No one had any heads-up that Pence's chief of staff was testifying. Certain things are obviously worth keeping under wraps. I would expect that the closer the DOJ gets to the orange fuck, the tighter the lid. The VP's COS is getting pretty close.

On the other hand, there are good reasons to tell everyone that the elector impostors were being investigated. It puts pressure on the rest of them! Makes a few of them think about spilling the beans on that conspiracy, no? To protect their families?

Apples and oranges, man.


Garland is pretty damn clever. Release information about certain investigations strategically, when doing so might increase the odds of cooperation to give up others within the conspiracy. Keep a tight lid on the biggest investigation so he doesn't tip his hand and risk the orange fuck fleeing or destroying evidence.

[gab13by13]

83. We knew that DOJ was investigating the fake electors

Lisa Monaco told us so. That's good enough for me, I don't need to know any more details about who they subpoena.

Fani Willis has let the world know the fake electors she has subpoenaed, that may be putting pressure on DOJ. A lot of talk about how it is unusual for DOJ to let others take the lead in doing investigations.

[ecstatic]

32. I think you're wrong here-it's never foolish to question the progress of an investigation into

a coup plot / terrorist attack on our Capitol. It is our right to expect and demand timely justice. Frankly, I don't believe anything would be happening right now without the pressure Garland has been receiving. He seems to be taking a "make me do it" posture.

[Demsrule86]

63. Yes it is wrong when you have no idea what is truly going on and endanger the midterm. It is very

foolish.

[Silent3]

105. I think it's the lack of DoJ action that's endagering the midterms

The DoJ should have already well and thoroughly disgraced the Republican party with prosecutions already underway.

[uponit7771]

112. +1,

[triron]

82. Yes the committee's finings lit a bit of a fire under the DOJ I think.

[mchill]

33. I didn't see it that way

I think they were happy to be, not necessarily wrong, but be pleasantly surprised. On the other hand, I got a hint of Schmidt feeling a bit discouraged as the news made his recent article less relevant and dated.

If this Grand Jury event means a new line of questioning-fantastic. A long time coming and too many disappointments from the past not to get discouraged. Campaign finance, money laundering with the innauguration, and probably one more. Too many.

[Demsrule86]

65. Some who turned off the show may never realize the truth and that is damaging.They should

not make statements that are not true.

[kentuck]

74. I saw it a little differently...

I saw it as Garland feeling a little pressured from the Committee, and people like Weissman and others, and made the decision to re-assure some people that he was on the case. I still believe he will do his job in a methodical and slower pace than a lot of people want, and in the end, he will appoint a "Special Prosecutor" to investigate the former president. But that does not keep the Justice Dept from going after all those that tried to cover it up for TFG. Trump cannot protect them from the evidence.

[JohnSJ]

47. All I will say is Short is terrific in HULU's "murders in the building"

[Demsrule86]

64. I love that show!!!!

[JohnSJ]

76. Same here

[peppertree]

75. There's an old Turkish saying that if you're going to eat crow, best to de-claw it first

Or maybe Chinese.

[Joinfortmill]

84. Yes! He's a patriot. He's smart & careful.

He'll bring them allI down. It's coming.

[Pepsidog]

85. Weismann, along with Mueller one of the worst kick the ball down the road in history.

[quickesst]

87. there must be..

.... In your opinion, a whole whole lot of people, including many here at Democratic Underground, assorted newscasts with a myriad of commentators that are looking quite foolish since this "trashing" of Merrick Garland has been going on for weeks, if not months. Does Claire mccaskill and Andrew Wiseman deserve more criticism than the thousands of those who we're talking the same "trash" the day, week, or month before they did?

[yorkster]

91. Thought it was strange that nicolle wallace let claire

and weissman go on for so long and then announced that marc short had testified before the grand jury. She said that the news had just broken or words to that effect, but I had seen this news an hour or so before, I think. Maybe she had just received notification of the testimony...

[Paladin]

92. Way too much sanctimonious, excessive relief from you Garland supporters.

Thank you, McCaskill and Weissmann. Your criticism is well-founded. Keep up the good work.

[Willto]

107. I agree

Keep the public pressure on him. From what I've seen Garland does his job with about the same enthusiasm that I used to do math homework. NONE AT ALL!

[uponit7771]

113. +1,

[Meowmee]

102. I for one am not a bit concerned with looking foolish

I am concerned with fascism taking over this country because there has been NO real or no accountably at all for the pos mass murderer and any higher ups. TIME IS RUNNING OUT.

[Silent3]

104. Can I complain the DoJ is already too late?

If they indict Trump tomorrow, they've already wasted too much time.

[msfiddlestix]

122. You characterized Andrew Weisman "complaining" ....

I'm not on cable, when I was streamsing every single day for 3 years of Trumps reign and the Mueller investigation, after which Weismann began making appearances, whining isn't something I would ever, EVER taint him with.

Not Ever.

Now these past 2 years I've pretty much shut down cable news streaming all together, with the exception of streaming J6 hearings.

Andrew Weisman is no longer on my screen, but I always respected and enjoyed listening to his analysis.

It kind of bends and stretches credulity reading this description of him, which puts a taint on everything else.

Ball's in your court, and of course you have the last word if you care to explain