Neal Katyal On Nicolle Wallace

[gab13by13]

Neal Katyal wrote the description for a special counsel, he understands it. Neal Katyal just said there is no need for a special counsel, just said that Merrick Garland isn't up to the job, just said that Garland is giving Trump super special treatment, just said that if Jack Smith does not quickly indict Trump then this move is just another delay tactic for Trump that will run into 2024-2025 where it may be possible for A Magat president to pardon Trump.

Katyal said the use of Jack Smith to give the appearance of impartiality is meaningless, Katyal said no matter who decides to indict Trump will be accused of being partisan. Donald Trump can use this special counsel as a target to rile up his base in his presidential run.

Katyal said that if Garland thinks that Smith will insulate him from partisan criticism he is mistaken because Garland has to sign off on any indictment.

I guarantee that what Katyal said about (Democrat?) Garland was far worse than what I said today, Katyal would have gotten his post erased, guaranteed.

Katyal said that Garland is giving Trump super special treatment, what a terrible thing to say about a Democrat, shame on him.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

1. So a Gorsuch and Kavanagh supporter is against it

Good source!

[Just A Box Of Rain]

5. Beat me to it.

[Iwasthere]

2. There's a whole lot of people in here that are smarter than Katyal

sarcasm

I think Katyal is right. The very high level of crimes begs for a swift response, to save our country, our Democracy. Garland could have acted a long time ago, he did not. And don't tell me he wanted to make sure the evidence was solid. JESUS CHRIST!! It is solid. HE. HAD. TOP. SECRET. FILES. IN. HIS. HOME. For starters

[Evolve Dammit]

25. for starters

[Fiendish Thingy]

36. Took three years to indict Joshua Schulte for espionage

And he wasn’t a former president.

[Genki Hikari]

39. Reality--what's that?

You can always tell the people who have zilch experience with our "justice" system--namely how fricking S-L-O-W it is at nearly everything.

[Justice matters.]

37. Yep. It's all on tape, photographs, witnesses (the cofee boy incl.), surveillance cams...

In the DOJ Subpoena, in the Legal Search Warrant (TM) 15-months-after, in the COVID tapes (this thing is vewy vewy lethal then publicly, it's a democrat hoax and a million died!).

Soooooo many other scams and frauds it's hard to keep up! We saw most of them in living color!

But two-years-after, let's delay some more ... The Laughing Stock Of The WORLD.

[LexVegas]

3. Yep. nt

[lapfog_1]

4. my feeling is that Garland did this so when the new congress starts to investigate him

he can say... "I have no knowledge of and I do not direct this investigation"

and if they call Smith... he can say "I will not comment on ongoing investigations and I was not here for the investigations that lead to today"

[gab13by13]

8. Katyal said that Garland must sign off on any indictment

[dem4decades]

19. so any indictments better come before a new AG. Just more bullshit. another Mueller.

[Evolve Dammit]

26. that's how it feels, just more kabuki

[dem4decades]

28. agreed. lucy is teeing up the football again.

[Evolve Dammit]

30. and again, and again, and again. I no longer believe in "justice." Sorry Glenn Kirschner....

[Genki Hikari]

40. And where is your evidence that Garland wouldn't sign off on it?

You know the man well enough to speak for him?

Your experience as an attorney is...?

Or even with the legal system in any capacity is...?

Y'all have some seriously unrealistic ideas about how the federal judiciary operates.

Garland can't indict anyone, for one thing. Only a grand jury can.

Do you even know that there are different kinds of grand juries?

And if anyone thinks that our justice system ever ran quickly, or that it would now after it got even more backlogged from COVID and then on top of all else got slammed to the dickens by having literally HUNDREDS of unexpected cases dumped on them from J6--well, I have some bridges to sell you at a great price!

[TwilightZone]

6. "would have gotten his post erased"

Unlikely. There are countless posts about Garland that are far worse than what Katyal said that haven't gone anywhere.

[gab13by13]

9. Not totally accurate.

😒

[TwilightZone]

15. Very, very few of them have been removed.

The board is currently littered with them.

Any claim otherwise would be patently false.

[MOMFUDSKI]

18. The Board

could wind up without a job if they do it right.

[Samrob]

31. It all depends on who the moderators are. nt

[Lovie777]

7. I think it was a good move.....

[gab13by13]

10. Just some quotes from Katyal.

"I don't think it's needed under the regulations and I think it risks delaying this investigation needlessly," Katyal told anchor Nicolle Wallace. "One of my first jobs at the justice department was drafting these regulations, and really the appointment of a special counsel is primarily about a circumstances in which you're fearing a cover-up, in which you're worried that the attorney general is being asked to investigate, perhaps, the president who appointed him or some other high-ranking executive branch official and you're worried that investigation will get truncated, short-circuited through a cover-up or something like that."

"Here, however, that investigation has already largely happened," said Katyal. "Particularly with respect to the Mar-a-Lago stolen documents piece. The January 6th one, I think, is somewhat different. But the investigation's happened. And so to me, I don't see what the case is for a special counsel. Attorney General garland said it was because of a conflict of interest, because Trump has announced that he's running and Biden is evidently running in '24, as well. That, to me, is tantamount to rewarding Donald Trump for all of the maneuvers that he's making, including announcing his election right now. You know, I

[bigtree]

12. funny how those don't read anything like the op

...Katyal is second-guessing people actually on the job who have at least as much experience, if not more.

[qazplm135]

38. This is just the obverse

of "you're worried that investigation will get truncated, short-circuited through a cover-up or something like that"

It's the same ethical consideration though.

[hlthe2b]

11. Quite a few DUers need to see this video when it is available. I will look for it too

but hope several of us do find it and post it.

[krawhitham]

13. He wrote it, does he understand it? He also claimed Barr couldn't protect trump by ...

shielding the findings of Mueller's investigation and that is exactly what Barr did

[ancianita]

14. Garland has never said what party he votes for. There is no record that he's a Democrat

except in his home district, maybe. It's not public knowledge, though.

https://ballotpedia.org/Merrick_Garland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland#Personal_life

https://www.quora.com/Is-Merrick-Garland-a-Republican-or-a-Democrat

[gab13by13]

16. Well then why did I get spanked?

[ancianita]

20. Spanked? Explain?

[gab13by13]

32. Not allowed.

[gab13by13]

17. Maybe Katyal wouldn't get spanked here,

but I just listened to Elie Mystal and I guarantee he would not last here.

[SoCalDavidS]

21. Sorry I Missed Him

He must have been PISSED!

[LexVegas]

22. He was livid. nt

[SoCalDavidS]

23. But Probably Not Surprised

I dig him.

[LexVegas]

27. ...

Link to tweet

?t=u0IQKEMUDvhJ9YNFU5kGmw&s=19

[frogmarch]

24. Someone on one of the shows said

that Smith will not be who indicts, if there's an indictment. It will be Garland.

[Genki Hikari]

41. Wrong

I keep having to repeat this, because people don't seem to understand how the federal legal system works, but here goes:

ONLY GRAND JURIES CAN INDICT IN FEDERAL CASES.

All Garland can do is sign off on a grand jury indictment. It's almost always an administrative formality, nothing more. The only reason he wouldn't sign off on it was if he saw something seriously wrong with the indictment from a technical standpoint, but that's a rarity.

[frogmarch]

43. I stand corrected.

I must have misheard. Thanks for clearing it up.

[Escurumbele]

29. Shame on Katyal?? You don't agree with him so shame on him? I happen to agree with him.

Katyal and other lawyers have been saying for months there is plenty of evidence to indict trump, why isn't Garland doing it? What is he afraid of?

I said it somewhere else that this favours trump because it creates more delay. Smith can say anything he likes but he will need to come up to speed and that will take time, he will also steer the investigation where he feels it needs to go, and that will take time as well.

I agree with Katyal, Garland is not up to the job, and I do want to be proven wrong, nothing I would like more than to eat my words and be proven wrong, but from what I have been watching, it is a very disappointing situation, the rule of law is being laughed at, and no one is above the law is proven to be a lie.

[SoCalDavidS]

33. This!

[gab13by13]

34. Did I forget the sarcasm thingy?

[Genki Hikari]

42. Garland isn't indicting because he DOES NOT HAVE THAT POWER

Good grief, only grand juries can indict for federal crimes. Garland cannot do that.

The only power Garland has with indictments is agreeing as an administrator that the court process can begin once an indictment has been reached. That almost always gets approved. Maybe--MAYBE--he would send the case back if he saw some technical error in the indictment, but that hardly ever happens.

[Escurumbele]

44. OK, change indict with prosecute

[Fiendish Thingy]

35. Well, I guess that settles it

Except that Garland’s teacher , Laurence Tribe, as well as Barb McQuade and Joyce Vance are all OK with Smith’s appointment.