Fitzmas avoidance does not require multiple wet blanket cannons

[Bernardo de La Paz]

Those of us who don't let our hopes shoot up in a frenzy also don't try to infect others with depression.

Let things play out.

Unless you are involved or have inside info. But if that were the case, you wouldn't be looking for sparks of hope to step on. You wouldn't be talking. Not with Garland's DoJ.

We get that you are cynical. So are we. We've been around this block more than once. We get that you are realists. So are we. Which is why we avoid the depths of cynical lows along with the unstable pinnacles of aspiration and desire.

[Irish_Dem]

1. I can only do so much happy talk.

Then I have to get back to data based reality.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

2. Agreed. . . nt

[barbtries]

29. thank you.

it's a turd, and it stinks. Should I pretend it's not there?

nobody has to read anything i post, but I'm allowed to get it off my chest from time to time.

[Hortensis]

56. :) Data based? Yeah, but how "data based" are the emotional responses

of most of us and/or the searches for information they generate?

This subject has understandly caused a lot of negativism and dissatisfaction, and deliberate obfuscation, generating tons and tons of media product, including data, to serve the market. Uhoh right there for searching for information that might contradict the "confirmation bias" of a significant majority. It's out there, but requires digging.

Just look at so many posts on this topic. How many of us have read even a slim but well-regarded book on this subject? This one? Not me.

[OneGrassRoot]

3. So well said. K&R. n/t

[Bernardo de La Paz]

10. Thank you, you are kind. . . . nt

[Walleye]

4. Seems like Trump is really pissed. That's good enough for me

[The Magistrate]

5. The Problem, Sir, Has Been Put Very Well By Mr. Charles Pierce....

Garland seems more concerned about the perception of a political prosecution than he is the perception of a DOJ paralyzed by politesse and standards and norms that the suspects don't respect in the least.

Garland's clear responsibility is to root out whatever crime and corruption there was during the previous administration*. It is to present to the country a clear indication that a defeated president* cannot call out the mob whenever he pleases. It is not—repeat, not—to try and shield the DOJ from Fox News and from the hysterics of yahoo congressmen on a spree. He is the chief law enforcement official of the United States. Enforce the damn law, and do it yourself.



https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a42009508/merrick-garland-special-prosecutor/?src=socialflowTW

[Hermit-The-Prog]

8. Pierce deserves respect, but I think Garland was required to appoint a Special Counsel.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

14. To the second point, quite right.

This move is REQUIRED now that the DOJ has determined that indictments and prosecutions are warranted.

Not sure how so many are missing the salient points.

That's not "realism," but rather reality-denialism.

Even TBL understands what this means.

[former9thward]

25. Please link to where the DOJ

"has determined that indictments and prosecutions are warranted."

[Just A Box Of Rain]

37. It can be inferred by the DOJ policy that requires the appointment of an SC in such circumsances.

Garland is both ethical and strategic.

[former9thward]

41. You are creating that out of thin air.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

45. Quite to the contrary.

See the revenant policy in the OP of this thread:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=17388189

[former9thward]

47. Nope.

You said the DOJ had determined "indictments and prosecutions are warranted". What you linked to is about "a criminal investigation". Nothing about indictments or prosecutions.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

52. The "circumstances" have changed due to announcements by TBL and indications

by the sitting president.

It isn't a big chore to connect the dots.

This appointment was/is necessary given the circumstances.

Forward!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

53. Garland undoubtedly has determined, but would not say if he has. He has not said tRump is cleared

Garland has not said that tRump is not being investigated any more. That is very significant.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence with regard to the link you request. Absence of link does not make its existence impossible. Garland's DoJ is one of the most tight-lipped DoJs ever.

Especially when Mueller's report remains redacted (mostly likely due to ongoing investigation).

Especially when Garland has actually appointed a Special Counsel.

Especially when the statements clearly alluded to the fake elector scheme tRump is entangled in.

Especially when Garland is currently actively suing in court to lift the restrictions on investigation of the tRump document crimes.

Especially when Garland explicitly refused to rule out tRump:

Merrick Garland does not rule out charging Trump and others in January 6 probe
By Paul LeBlanc, CNN
Published 4:40 PM EDT, Tue July 26, 2022

Attorney General Merrick Garland has declined to rule out prosecuting former President Donald Trump and others for their role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol or attempting to interfere with the presidential election.

“We pursue justice without fear or favor. We intend to hold everyone – anyone – who is criminally responsible for the events surrounding January 6 or any attempt to interfere with the lawful transfer of power from one administration to another accountable,” Garland told NBC News’ Lester Holt in a taped interview that ran in part Tuesday on MSNBC. “That is what we do. We don’t pay any attention to other issues with respect to that.”

[...]

Pressed by Holt on whether a 2024 White House bid from Trump would change that, Garland maintained: “I will say again that we will hold accountable anyone who is criminally responsible for attempting to interfere with the legitimate, lawful transfer of power from one administration to the next.”

All of this points to intent to indict, one way or another.

I am confident Jack Smith will indict tRump for more than one crime.

[Autumn]

72. They can't because there is no link. Nothing but opinions.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. Sure. Emphasis on "seems". But I think it is other than "shielding from Fox and hysterics"

I say time will tell, but a hypothesis (and that is all that Pierce and you and I have -- hypotheses) is that considering what is left after the passage of time is important to Garland. And I'm not referring to reputation.

I think that Garland and Biden are such honorable persons that they are taking the time to do the right thing and taking the slings and arrows while being patient. I think they may have (my hypothesis) the long view that I try to find and retain.

Now, and before, a powerful case can be made for moving indictments forward at breakneck speed, given that democracy remains in peril, even if Pelosi's leadership has reduced that level of peril on multiple occasions.

But while not quite being burn the village to save it there would leave too much smoke in the air.

I think the slow but RELENTLESS approach is what is needed. Tightening the vise crushing the authoritarians without letup and no escape.

Democracy is best defended by very deliberate and carefully considered systems, techniques and approaches, like the US Constitution was and is. It has lasted because the writers and signers spent a lot of time and effort leading up to and during the process. They were very deliberate about what they did. They "deliberated" a lot, literally. They did not write it before the Declaration or even a year or two after. And yes there were an attempt or two at prior documents.

The counter to the case for haste in indictments is that success rates count.

The more convictions there are the better. And the greater the ratio of convictions to indictments the better. Ultimately indictments don't matter once they begin to be processed. It's the outcome that is the true measure.

Democracy will endure longer the stronger it is built and that includes the hard work of maintaining it by convicting plotters, insurrectionists, corrupt politicians, careless idiots, and fascists alike.

The Special Counsel and especially THIS Special Counsel insulate the process to a great degree from the falsification by Republicans about the motives, facts, and law. It is further evidence that Biden and Garland want to rivet shut an airtight case so that the corrosive effects of the tRump era and the runup to it are fully reversed and thereby prevented for a very long time.

When future civics and history teachers explain to classes, it will be crystal clear if all the facts and law have been tested multiple times in court and found true and correct, without smoke in the air.

[Yavin4]

20. You could have said the exact same thing about Robert Mueller's investigation.

How did that one work out?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

22. Barr barred Mueller from indicting tRump then Congress (Republicans) didn't do their job

Very different situation.

1) Sitting President.

2) Barr's "finding" against indicting any sitting President.

3) The crimes were lesser.

4) Everybody was four years more naive than they are now.

5) There is a very high likelihood that there was just not enough evidence uncovered to obtain convictions beyond what was obtained.

Other differences too.

[Autumn]

26. Has the complete Mueller Report ever been released? Since that POS Barr left?

[FoxNewsSucks]

34. One really wonders why that wasn't released immediately.

[Autumn]

36. Was it ever released? If it was I missed it.

[FoxNewsSucks]

44. It wasn't. Only the Barr-censored version has been seen.

[Autumn]

51. Which means to me the DOJ is protecting Barr and his cover-up of Trump.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

55. Means to me DoJ is protecting ONGOING investigation of tRump

If there are sources and evidence of crimes by tRump or tRumpkissers, it will NOT be released while there is an ongoing investigation.

We know that there is an ongoing investigation of tRump for several reasons, not the least of which is the appointment of the Special Counsel and Garland actively suing in court to lift restriction on his ongoing investigation of the tRump document crimes.



If there are not sources and evidence in the redacted portions, then releasing/unredacting would greatly benefit Garland, the Department of Justice, and Mueller.

In that situation, it would enhance the Department of Justice's reputation for being fair and honest and clean because it would make Barr look either stupid or malevolent. Barr is tRump's appointment. It's on tRump, not on the Department that they had Barr catapulted in to flatten the whole thing. Garland has no motive to protect Barr. Protecting Barr sullies the Department because, as a thinking man with experience, Garland knows that truth comes out.

If they were going to release/unredact, they would have done much more much earlier in Garland's tenure. They would have simply said, "the former AG made a determination about the legality of indictment of a sitting president. Regardless, Mr. Trump is no longer president and that determination is no longer applicable. Thus we are releasing today ...." whatever it is.

But they haven't.

[Autumn]

59. Obviously you and I see very different things. Appearing before the Jan 6 committee

does not mean he is under investigation by the DOJ. You have an intimate knowledge of Garland if you know his motives. I only know what I see. Bill Barr is as comfortable now as he was after his part in the Iran Contra was covered up.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

64. Yes, there is much more than the J6 committee; J6 committee has nothing to do with this thread

Garland is suing in court to speed up the lifting of restrictions on his investigation of Donald tRump's handling of the documents.

... his investigation of Donald Trump ...

The investigation by the Department of Justice headed by Garland.

Okay, so you did not see that and you thought there was no DoJ investigation.

Walp, you DO see different things.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

65. Bill Barr was too smart to do anything illegal. Remember, he resigned BEFORE Jan 6

Of course Bill Barr is comfortable about his role in L'Affaire Trump. Iran Contra is another story but is an older story.

[Autumn]

66. Nothing has changed about that SOB since IC. He got away with his shit then and it looks to me

he will pull this one off because there were more crimes committed by Trump well before Jan 6. He covered up any crimes in the Mueller report.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

48. The leading hypothesis is that it contains info about ongoing investigations

The hypothesis explains why Barr redacted it in the first place and why it hasn't been released or further unredacted than it has.

[The Magistrate]

40. It Is Not Just In Comedy, Sir, That Timing Is Everything

No matter how the investigation and prosecution is handled, shrill shrieks and screams of 'partisan witch-hunt' will be raised, most loudly by politicians who have actually participated in insurrection themselves. There is no point to setting a course you hope might evade this. None will. Bite the bullet, grasp the nettle, get the thing done. Delay has long since been read as weakness by the rebels, and the bleatin' o' the kid incites the tiger....

[Bernardo de La Paz]

46. Yes. Hence my reasoning that it is not about evading shrieks of 'partisan witch-hunt'. . . .nt

[The Magistrate]

49. We Shall See, Sir

"Optimists meet frequent disappointment. Pessimists at times are pleasantly surprised."

[Bernardo de La Paz]

50. We have no other option but waiting. Garland is immune to social media / talking head noise

Also, the SC immunizes the investigation and prosecution at least to some extent and perhaps totally from Gym Jordan and the RepubliQon razor thin majority.

[Blues Heron]

6. It seems like a reactive move, not a proactive one

We needed Garland to step UP, not step ASIDE. Hopefully it all works out though!

[prodigitalson]

7. I agree with your post

though I must say we should also shun hagiographies of the latest hero who is gonna save us from the bad man. just wait for the guy to do his job, or not.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

11. Good point. . . . nt

[mopinko]

12. keep in mind he is likely fighting a rear guard battle against the left behind.

imho, he should have walked in and demanded resignations of everyone who was hired in the previous 4 yrs. but that's y i'm not in charge of shit.
i have no doubt that there are worms at doj that will be searching for every chink in the case. and leaking about it.
that's who he is trying to wall this off from. the enemies w/in.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

15. Whatever Garland is doing to keep a clean, tight, house is working. We hear nothing

I didn't hear about a Special Counsel or this SC before it was announced. Did anyone?

[mopinko]

19. i didnt. he's getting it done, but it has to be an extreme distraction.

[Thunderbeast]

13. This is the most complex criminal investigation in history.

The stakes are incredibly high.

If, as many of us believe, the criminality extends beyond TFG to his White House staff, his political advisors, members of the right-wing media, and a handful of congress members, indictments will be Earth shattering.

There can be no holes in the prosecution. No sloppy discovery. No squishy witnesses.

When you shoot the (former) king, you better kill him. Better to be successful than fast.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

16. +1. All of it. . . . nt

[48656c6c6f20]

17. I've never understood the need to control people

Is there a council that meets and approves how people are allowed to express themselves? Maybe a list of accepted posts and not accepted posts?

[demmiblue]

18. There is a small contingent of those who partake in this kind of behavior here:

[FoxNewsSucks]

33. Definitely. And as a mess-maker, they seem to like following me around.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

23. What are you referring to? There is no issue of control in this thread. . . . nt

[Autumn]

24. This isn't the only thread there is on this issue.

Last edited Sat Nov 19, 2022, 02:32 PM - Edit history (1)

[Bernardo de La Paz]

31. Sure. I'm not responsible for other threads, nor do I have any "control". . . . nt

[Orrex]

70. LOL. Not for lack of trying.

[Skittles]

71. THANK YOU

WTF, why do people expect everyone to have the same reaction?!?!

[Yavin4]

21. After the Robert Mueller experience, I do not have faith that our justice system will ever prosecute

a Republican president.

[Sympthsical]

27. You got mad because people dismissed wildly speculative fan fiction

A fantastic hopium scenario of such ridiculous heights, I wasn't sure if I should be keeping narcan handy while going through it.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217391159 in case anyone's curious what prompted this.

I have no idea what will happen with Trump and kind of checked out on the Garland stuff ages ago. Something will be done or not. Awesome if it is, kind of on brand for our country if not.

But after decades of power never really being held responsible (we committed actual war crimes) I'd say cynicism is well earned through experience. At the very least a, "We'll see."

No one can wet blanket serious constitutional concerns. This isn't a party. It's not supposed to be an internet good time for everyone. (Even though serious issues are generally treated as exactly that, which is exactly our problem)

You cannot be angry when someone doesn't feel the fantasy whenever bidden. Earth beneath feet does occasionally beckon in this world one hopes.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

28. That is not what prompted this thread. Fitzmas was a lack of indictment. Speakership is different.nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

30. I'm not mad. Wasn't the OP clear enough for you that I was advising an even keel?

[Sympthsical]

38. Slapping hands for not believing in a ridiculous cloud castle isn't an even keel

There's a serious outbreak of tone policing and scolding hovering about.

Don't worry if people are clapping hard enough. Tinkerbell will be ok.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

42. This thread is not about that thread. I don't know why I have to repeat that. . . . nt

[Hekate]

32. TYVM, Bernardo

[Bernardo de La Paz]

35. YAVWHA

[Hekate]

39. You made me laugh -- I guess I deserved that, whatever it was. Thank you very much....

Muchas gracias for your OP.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

43. You Are Very Welcome Hekate Also

... and kind.

[MustLoveBeagles]

54. K&R

[Hortensis]

57. :) Good post. Cooler, calmer eyes tend to come with age and experience.

Of course.

We get that you are cynical. So are we. We've been around this block more than once. We get that you are realists. So are we. Which is why we avoid the depths of cynical lows along with the unstable pinnacles of aspiration and desire

Speaking of something related that brings to mind, many studies have demonstrated that negativism bias is strongest in younger years. Who'd have thought it? Seriously.

Instead, people tend to develop more of a positivism bias with age, and many studies have proved it's not because we're getting senile or want to hide from truth. Older people actually notice and pay attention to positive information that younger people are biased to not notice or blow off. This trend continues throughout life, at least among the fortunate majority who continue to develop.

Of course, those who have long perspectives and knowledge from several decades of experience tend to be less vulnerable to the latest waves of "what everone knows" and to the emotional contagions may swamp those who don't.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

61. Thanks. Positivists live longer and (or because) they enjoy life more

Experience makes comparisons more accurate.

This current open flirting with authoritarianism is in my experience the most dangerous and merits careful attention and action, short term and long term.

Even so, I am still confident about the USA.

[Orrex]

58. We're lucky to have people so eager to tell us how to think and react

The last thing any of us needs is to decide all by ourselves how we feel about things.

[intheflow]

60. Fitzmas brings me back!

Back to when DU had its own version of Urban Dictionary and every acrymym and inside joke had an entry. I remember the McConnell entry was just a photo like this:





Seriously, tho. How do newer DUers keep up? And kudos on an excellent post.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

63. Thank you! . . . nt

[Mr. Ected]

62. In the footrace between due process and those that are criming

Those that are criming have a huge lead and may decide to end the race before the official blows the whistle.

[LAS14]

67. What's this thread about? What's Fitzmas? nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

68. From the "gift" of indictments that prosecutor Fitzgerald was highly anticipated to deliver

... in the Scooter Libby case / Valerie Plame endangerment case 2005.

Like his name mashed up with christmas.

The indictments didn't come and there was huge disappointment on DU.


This time around indictments are highly anticipated. My feeling is that if we are trying to avoid the big letdown if there are no or disappointing indictments, we don't have to overdo it by firing wet blankets onto every thread that touches on the subject, a hot one now with Jack Smith appointed.

[LAS14]

69. Thanks. The depth of DU historical knowledge never ceases to impress. nt