Well, we can't have it all three ways.

[BWdem4life]

Either Garland was just about to pull the trigger and indict Trump - which necessitated Trump's early announcement - which necessitated the SC announcement

(in which case Garland is the hero in our story)

Or Garland was NOT about to pull the trigger, and the early Trump announcement just gave him an easy out in appointing a Special Council

(in which case Garland is a villain, notwithstanding Trump's explosion and Marjorie Taylor Greene's call to "impeach Garland" ).

But if he wasn't going to pull the trigger anyway, why appoint a Special Counsel now?

Doing so would seem to project weakness and undermine his statements that the DOJ is up to this task. He could have just stayed the course, insist that a SC was not necessary, then wuss out at the appropriate time after re-dotting and re-crossing too many i's and t's.

I'm as skeptical as the next person when it comes to my faith in seeing justice finally being done here, but I'm just trying to look at this logically.

It kinda looks like Trump really was expecting some kind of impending action, and if there's anyone whose instincts should be finely honed to detect that kind of thing, it would be Donald J. Trump. If his plan was to delay things by forcing a SC, that plan would have worked better if he had DELAYED the announcement of his presidential run. Doing so now gives the SC more time. So he must have felt that he had no choice - therefore HE is the one who was pressured BY Garland, and not the other way around.

And, finally, there's that pesky third option: Garland is incompetent.

He should have foreseen Trump's announcement long ago, and appointed the Special Counsel 18 months ago, that's the argument.

(I would be willing to bet that some of those describing him as incompetent were quite adamant in 2016 that he was competent to serve as a Supreme Court Justice, but let's just move on with this scenario anyway.)

There were calls for Garland to do this, probably from both sides. Anything I can say here would just be speculation. So, I'll speculate. Perhaps he did foresee Trump's announcement and decided that politically, the best time to appoint a SC would be after that. Perhaps he didn't foresee that Trump would announce before he (Garland) was ready to indict. This is a very early presidential run announcement after all. Perhaps he felt that having a SC too early would complicate things and cause the delay many people are now anticipating, when he might otherwise be able to beat Trump to the punch.

I don't know. I don't really see Garland as an incompetent man. I do see a lot of institutional pressure to not indict a former president, which he may or may not be going along with. But again, if he is doing so, why would Trump announce early the way he did?

I haven't really been one of the wait-and-see people, I've been at turns impatient and fatalistic. But I can see the possibility that this really might not end well for Trump and his acolytes. Sometimes, the people are able to force the hands of those in charge, and this seems like perhaps it's one of those times.

So, er, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. How long? Politically, it's gonna need to happen by the end of next August, I would think. But I personally would not wait that long - the classified documents case must be nearly ready by now, and I can't see it taking more than three months to indict. Time is of the essence, so save the J6 stuff for later on down the road.

Just my opinion.

[LexVegas]

1. It's a punt. The investigations will slowly die. nt

[applegrove]

2. You don't appoint a special council if you don't think the investigation is

going anywhere unless you are a Republican.

[onecaliberal]

3. Garland still has to make the decision from everything I've heard legal experts say.

It’s a judgement call.

[MOMFUDSKI]

6. At least 3 attorneys

on the shows tonite said there was no reason for Garland to appoint. I am sure they know exactly what is going on but aren't saying specifics. More wait and watch.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

4. Appointing a Special Council was a necessary step towards indicting and prosecuting Trump

under the circumstances under DOJ policy.

Bad news for TBL.

Good news for the rest of us.

[Sneederbunk]

5. All you need to know is that TFG remains above the law.

[republianmushroom]

7. This is a very smart move by Garlands

if there is no indictment, and Trump walks Garlands say it is the fault of the SC, I had nothing to do with it, it was out of my hands, but if there is
an indicted and Trump is convicted then Garlands says that why I appointed him.
Win, Win
Well he has had 21 months to think about.

[Tribetime]

8. If tfg is passed about it and mtg

Then it must be good for us. I think they would subpoena Garland to death if not.

[ecstatic]

9. I appreciate your perspective. The 2nd option makes a lot of sense.

I think I fall among the folks who wonder if Garland is just a powerful white man (blindly?) protecting other white men, even at the expense of our entire country. It's a national security issue at this point. The MAGAts are completely out of control and it won't be long before they unleash more violence. Meanwhile, his DOJ didn't hesitate to put a sting out on Andrew Gillum, for example. Where was his concern about political persecutions then?

Then there's the lack of action with regard to the complete and utter lawlessness of the GOP when it comes to violating voters' rights. We have voters in Florida being arrested for voting after being ASSURED that it was OK to do so.

Or how about the busing of migrants to northern states? Absolute silence. Zero consequences. It's disgusting. I'm sorry, I'm not a fan of G's right now. I don't feel safe or protected under his leadership.

Edited: I want to clarify that I really do think your theory makes a lot of sense, but I'm just so frustrated with G, not just about trump but everything else that's not being addressed.