FFS, Garland is NOT "punting", "delaying" or "scared"

[HelpImSurrounded]

Merrick Garland is a methodical, principled, ETHICAL public servant with a respect for the US Constitution and Legal ETHICS.

He is not a Trump-style political hack who shoots from the hip.

He is not going to take any shortcuts on prosecuting a gangster like Trump and risk an overturned prosecution on technicality.

He is taking the best, most appropriate next step for ensuring that a prosecution of Trump happens and STICKS.

[Elessar Zappa]

1. Agree.

[calimary]

2. I hope you're right, but maintaining that hope is NOT easy.

[Cha]

49. It is for me.. but I haven't

ever listened to the naysayers.

[Probatim]

65. We've had how many special prosecutors and they've always come up short?

Or someone has wrecked the entire process to come up short?

Sometimes I think the whole idea is to disenfranchise all of us.

I'll do what I can to maintain hope but it's getting tougher and tougher.

[getagrip_already]

3. the path he has reportedly chosen will cause at least a years delay.....

I don't see how that is the right choice.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

39. Why would it do that?

[getagrip_already]

46. because it will take time for a new prosecutor......

He doesn't have a staff yet or even an office. He will need to be read in to every investigation. He will need to vette every piece of evidence and re-interview every witness.

He will also need to form a grand jury and begin to present evidence.

This is something existing prosecutors should have been doing, but now he will have to re-do.

Even if existing prosecutors familiar with the cases are transfered to him, it will still be a long delay getting to a place where he can make a move.

It is a slow and tedious process, and now it starts all over again.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

52. I doubt that is the case.

It seems more logical that he would take over the existing investigations. And why would they need to re-interview every witness. Surely depositions are still valid.

[wnylib]

67. A prosecutor who personally knows

Smith said in an NPR interview that there will be a very minimal delay because a grand jury has already been reviewing evidence and Garland has laid the groundwork.

Smith's experience will allow him to pick up where Garland leaves off.

Here is Smith's background:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Smith_(lawyer)

[Thomas Hurt]

4. An independent counsel will avoid an appearance of conflict of interest...

even though it doesn't matter who is appointed the Pig will squeal and squeal and sue and appeal, and appeal.

[FalloutShelter]

5. Thank you!

Special counsel will bring evidence to the grand jury who will decide whether to indict. This should mean the investigation phase is over. Time to present the evidence.
There is no need for a Special Counsel if they are not readying charges.

[gab13by13]

6. Tell that to our foreign assets (people)

who were killed because of the stolen top secret documents.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

20. Which ones are those?

Oh, right, you don't know because
a) you don't know what was stolen and
b) you don't have the clearance to find out.

[FoxNewsSucks]

25. and of course you have proof none were compromised?

MF45 compromised our assets before, and our allies'. Why wouldn't he do it again?

[ProfessorGAC]

33. You're Asking For Proof Of "None"?

How does that work?

[secondwind]

7. I trust Garland.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

8. Agree. . . nt

[LexVegas]

9. Bullshit. nt

[Happy Hoosier]

10. I don;t disagree.... BUUUUTTTT......

It means likely no decision until next year, and maybe not then. The closer we get to 2024, the less likely there will be indictments. That's very frustrating.

[Nevilledog]

11. He's punting. It all comes down to who the special counsel is...

I do not take this as a power move, but I'll change my mind if someone good is appointed.

I'm not holding my breath.

[UTUSN]

36. "someone good" - impeccable credentials

[Nevilledog]

40. Guess we'll see... I'm not feeling positive about the delay in doing this.

I wanna know how this impacts the case in front of Cannon and the 11th Circuit

[walkingman]

12. What the fuck are we afraid of?? Trump will get away with it if we tuck our tail...he always has.

[Silent3]

13. Isn't it funny how "methodical, principled, ETHICAL" benefits the powerful most?

Fucking hilarious, in fact

[Nevilledog]

17. Are you familiar with this guy at all?

Link to tweet

Tweet text:

Ryan J. Reilly

@ryanjreilly
·
Follow
NEW: Hague prosecutor and former DOJ Public Integrity Section chief Jack Smith named special counsel in Trump probes.

nbcnews.com
Attorney General Merrick Garland names special counsel in Justice Dept.'s Trump probes
Garland is expected to make the announcement on Friday afternoon.
12:23 PM · Nov 18, 2022

Never heard of him.

[ok_cpu]

21. He sounds like an exceptional choice for a Special Counsel

who very well be making a charging recommendation to whoever 2025's version of Bill Barr is.

[Nevilledog]

26. If it takes that long it will never happen

[ok_cpu]

28. Correct. And I think today's announcement cements that

We're already on the clock for it being too close to the election.

This feels like an all-in bet that he won't win the nomination. If he does, he walks.

[uponit7771]

45. THIS !!!! ☝🏾☝🏾☝🏾 There was no "special counsel" for Marilyn Mosby !!!

[agingdem]

14. OMG the voice of reason..thank you!!

Last edited Fri Nov 18, 2022, 04:03 PM - Edit history (1)

Garland understands he's has to get this right...unambiguous, incontrovertible proof and the Federal statutes to backup the evidence...

[iemanja]

15. Wrong

There is nothing defensible about this move. His job is to prosecute federal crimes.

[claudette]

16. How come we

never heard that this would be the next step? Your defense of Garland is admirable but I think he has catered to the maga world. I’m sick about it

[AZSkiffyGeek]

22. I heard special counsel mentioned a month ago

I don't remember if it was "if Republicans take Congress" or if it was "if Trump announces he's running for president" but there was plenty of discussion about this.

[claudette]

23. Guess I missed

It

[ok_cpu]

18. I don't think he's necessarily doing any of the above, either

but the time to appoint an SC was 12-18 months ago.

I don't believe an SC is necessary to bring charges and there is nothing, including reanimating Abe Lincoln to run the investigation, that will legitimize it in the eyes of MAGA.

It's hard to see what it serves other than kicking the can down the road.

[happy feet]

19. I disagree

He could have maintained his principals and ethics and continued the investigation --- he said wherever the law leads to.

NOTHING will appease the right wing. They will continue to say the investigation is politically motivated. EOM.


and btw: TFG has admitted to taking the documents - almost 2 years ago. and he still has some illegally in his possession. FFS. What happened to looking out for the security and best interests of we the people and the U.S.

[Autumn]

24. He should have done that a fucking year ago.

[oxymoron]

27. I completely disagree.

He could have appointed a special counsel months ago. This is most certainly punting and many prosecutors agree.

[Nevilledog]

29. I agree with you

Link to tweet

Tweet text:

MSNBC

@MSNBC
·
Follow

Official
.@FrankFigliuzzi1 on special counsel:

"I understand why this is happening, but yet I don't agree... we either have a DOJ capable of doing its job under the the most difficult, challenging of circumstances, or we don't." https://msnbc.com/live


Watch on Twitter
12:30 PM · Nov 18, 2022

[uponit7771]

47. +1, did Garland state a reasoning for a SC now? tia

[BlueCheeseAgain]

53. Yes. Basically, with both Biden and Trump running in 2024...

... it's imperative that there's no conflict of interest. It shouldn't be seen as Biden's executive department investigating his political opponent.

[uponit7771]

55. Shhhhit ... MAGA will see it as a conflict of interest no matter what

[BlueCheeseAgain]

56. Well, that's their problem.

I do think it's reasonable to communicate to everyone else-- Dems, independents, and rational Repubs-- that this is being done independently of any political considerations. And if, as Garland says, that it won't slow things down, I guess there's no real harm.

[uponit7771]

57. If its a known known that a SC wont make a difference then it makes no sense for it to be done.

We'll see, looks like TFG is being used as a football

[Emile]

30. I am very dissatisfied. I was expecting Trump is under arrest!

[UTUSN]

31. Hear hear to the OP!

[brooklynite]

32. But he didn't share his plan with ME PERSONALLY...How is the blogosphere to know how to respond?

(sarc)

[HelpImSurrounded]

42. ❤️

[NewHendoLib]

34. so once again, Democrats bring butter knives to nuclear warfare.

we just will never, ever learn.

[HelpImSurrounded]

43. This isn't war, it's a legal process and we have rules because

...we aren't fascists

[Silent3]

48. These aren't important legal rules, they are cover-your-ass procedures...

...that have nothing to do with protecting the rights of the accused, and everything to do with mere appearances, taken far beyond what's truly necessary for ethical prosecution.

[HelpImSurrounded]

58. Tell me you're not a lawyer without telling me you're not a lawyer

[Silent3]

60. Since there are real lawyers who think this is bullshit...

...I guess you'll just have to recommend that they be disbarred for not having your deep understanding of the subject, huh?

I'm sure there are plenty of lawyers, however, who happily agree with any policies and procedures that guarantee then years and years of well-paid work.

[HelpImSurrounded]

68. Not disbarred but they should be more careful about holding themselves out as public experts

The MSNBC commentator, for example, is a former FBI counter-intel guy so he is used to working in a system of "shortcuts" for "national security" reasons (e.g. secret warrants). Prosecuting Trump is a RICO action and requires the most intricate and precise work.

To follow your logic, there are plenty of other lawyers, like me, who agree with my take on the matter.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

54. Exactly. If you think of it as a Dem vs Rep thing...

... well, that's why you need a special counsel. The DOJ is not supposed to be on anyone's side.

[BWdem4life]

35. He's not the kicker, how could he be punting?

He's the one holding the football and pulling it away.

[lame54]

37. How many layers of bubble wrap does he need?

[orleans]

38. ugh

[onecaliberal]

41. This IS a delay, and then we will be back to the bullshit, of too close to the election.

[treestar]

50. Agree, there are more steps than people think

Things seem so simple when it's not your job. People need to think about what they do, and what if someone wanted them to do it in an amount of time they considered unreasonable?

[Cha]

51. Thank You, nt

[Just A Box Of Rain]

59. Right you are.

This is the necessary next step to being making indictments and prosecutions.

[JCMach1]

61. Betrayal and a lose/lose for our side

Not falling for the whole trust the special prosecutor routine again...

Note, I have not criticized Garland up to this point...

I feel there is very good reason to now.

[Angleae]

62. Of course not, he is however "playing politics"

Just like Mueller. Just like Fitzmas.

[yobrault1]

63. Thank you.

I have tremendous respect for him.

[ancianita]

64. Goddam right.

[Generic Brad]

66. If anyone is scared, it's Trump

Rather than complain about this development, take a moment to step back and observe how publicly frantic he is over this. If Trump is crapping his pants in fear and anger for all to see, I would venture to guess this is a positive development.

[RockRaven]

69. America is sleepwalking into oblivion.

But we can revel in the moral superiority of doing so by the book.

[Hekate]

70. Hasn't anyone noticed that The Hague is coming to Trump? All these years of insisting he should be

…sent there — and now, it’s coming to him, in the person of Jack Smith.

Right?