January 24, 2023, Georgia: "Decisions are imminent"

[Silent3]

I'm still hoping, but is three weeks and counting "imminent"?

[Effete Snob]

1. .

[Beastly Boy]

2. I don't think "Decisions aree imminent" means

what you think it means.

What Willis referred to was decisions on whether to seek the indictments based on the special grand jury findings.

That would be HER making decisions, not us being informed of her decisions. You will only find out about what decisions she made AFTER indictments are issued. Issuing indictments is a fairly long legal process, and it involves a lot mire than Willis signing a piece of paper. Deciding to indict may have already happened, but that will remain between her and her team of eminently qualified legal professional, not her and the general public.

[Silent3]

3. Yep, no rush.

Rinse and repeat.

[Beastly Boy]

19. That's a complete disrespect for her work and her words.

At least have the deceny to not take what she said out of context so you can make a snarky remark to make yourself feel better.

[Silent3]

23. What about having the decency not to project your own preconceptions....

...on what other people say? I've cast no disrespect on any particular persons work. Individual well-intentioned people can get bogged down or even defeated by flaws in the systems they have to deal with.

[Beastly Boy]

27. Seriously?

"Yep, no rush" is not a snarky disrespectful response to a demonstration of how time consuming the process of issuing indictments is? Unless you don't count Fanny Willis as a particular person, your assurances ring hollow.

Don't try to persuade me that your post didn't deserve the decency of being assessed accurately and within the context of the thread.

[Silent3]

29. No, you've got it wrong again

Fani Willis could well be doing her absolute best, but her efforts could easily be frustrated and slowed down by pro-Trump people in Georgia.

[brooklynite]

35. And what ability do "pro-Trump people in Georgia" have to interfere in her investigation?

[Beastly Boy]

38. My, how could I have possibly missed it?

"Yep, no rush. Rinse and repeat." In response to indictments being a fairly long legal process. Nothing shows confidence in Willis doing her best more than a snarky remark about her not rushing things, rinsing and repeating, right?

[brettdale]

15. using that theory

It must mean she is going to indict. Because if her decision was NOT to indict, she could announce
it straight away.

[Beastly Boy]

20. That's pretty much what she is hinting at.

Her request to delay the special grand jury report because it may jeopardize her ability to bring charges in the future only makes sense if she intends to bring charges in the future. Otherwise, why make this formal request to the judge?

[fightforfreedom]

17. Correct, imminent has no specific time frame.

It means as soon as possible. Decisions are near, not far away.

[Iggo]

36. "Imminent" means "about to happen."

[msfiddlestix]

26. And you know this because how?

[Beastly Boy]

32. If by "this" you mean the AG not informing the public on the progress of the investigation

until the indictments are issued, the answer is easy: because this is a standard mode of operation for just about every Attorney general's office, and, as a rule, attorneys general don't like to improvise.

If "this" refers to my hunch that decisions to indict may have already been made, I don't know "this". That's why the there is a "may have" in the sentence. But I have reasons to believe that the decisions already took place. Further, I have reasons to believe that the decisions were in favor of issuing at least two indictments. Willis' recent request to delay the special grand jury report because it may jeopardize her ability to bring charges in the future (https://news.yahoo.com/georgia-judge-orders-partial-release-of-grand-jury-report-showing-trump-allies-may-have-lied-under-oath-223254275.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall) only makes sense if she intends to bring charges in the future. Otherwise, why make this formal request to the judge?

Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman, the authors of the cited article, seem to agree with me:

Three weeks ago, Willis had urged McBurney not to release any of the report until she had completed her own investigation into the conduct at issue so as not to jeopardize the rights of “future defendants” — comments widely seen as signaling she is actively preparing indictments.

[msfiddlestix]

34. So she had not completed her own investigation. That's a factoid missed and not made clear in the

original announcement that her GJ was finished. Adding more confusion about the entire process.

As a side note, speaking for myself of course but I believe others who are skeptical of the end game results are not critical of Fanni Willis's efforts and work. It's our SYSTEM of justice in the main which is deserving of not only serious criticism, but of serious REFORM.

I do not see lawmakers of any stripe willing or capable of addressing the glaring inadequacies which also involve the entire court system. it's too complicated for one thing, but additionally it's fraught with political taint and corruption.

And that is the bottom line cause of cynicism, anger and frustration. Nothing to do with Fanni Willis, or Merrick Garland, or Joe Biden.

They are doing whatever is in their limited power I imagine The scope of which remains unclear, until one day perhaps will be written about to some degree. Those of us still around will have an "ah hah" moment and understand why this happened that way or not at all because of thus and such. But that is of little value for meeting the moment of this importance, in my view.

thank you for the explanation, btw.

[Beastly Boy]

44. You are correct: it was the special grand jury that completed their investigation, not Fanni Willis.

And that was made abundantly clear in her statement. In fact, her entire request to delay the release og the special grand jury report was founded on her need to continue her investigations. And the judge agreed. Somehow, he didn't miss it, and he didn't get confused by it. And that's what really counts, isn't it? Willis has no obligation to dumb down complex legal matters for the consumption of the general public, does she? Neither does Garland. They both have rules complex sets of rules to follow independent of the casual ignorance and the subsequent skepticism of the general public.

Yet, it is the most uninformed among the general public that I find to be the most vocal critics of their offices and the system of justice. Rarely do they make a distinction between the two, and my hat is off to you for making this distinction clear. But I must note that the current state of the justice system is the result of many years' worth of reforms, and reforming it further means challenging past reforms. This process cannot be indiscriminate or be subject to the populist sentiments of the day, it needs to be well founded and well conceived. Pointing out the perceived flaws as a source of one's cynicism is woefully insufficient and ultimately meaningless. It's a huge task that doesn't deserve to be trivialized with expressions of personal sentiments alone.

[msfiddlestix]

57. It may seem woefully insufficient and ultimately meaningless to you from your perch

You might consider and forgive the ignorant masses who are not legal professionals, may still apply observable common sense in their analysis on the whole.

So many analogies come to mind but I believe you to be intelligent enough to get my drift

[Beastly Boy]

59. I am not separating observable common sense from consideration in any analysis.

But in this case, common sense tells us that much of the process is not commonly observable. And this is no reason to get confused by the process: this is its intentional function. There are no ulterior motives involved, and it is a sign of competence, not incompetence. Conceding that the vast majority of the process plays itself out in the domain of legal professionals and not the general public is sufficient to not get confused by it.

My observation concerned those among the general public who are most vocal in passing judgement on the process based entirely on what is observable to them, and do not concern themselves with the much more significant non-observable aspects of the process. Furthermore, they tend to amplify their observations, narrow as they are in making up the entirety of the field they are commenting on, to a status of conclusive criticism of the entire justice system.

This is not common sense. This is ignorance.

[bigtree]

4. I'm still hoping at least one of these complaints comes with ANY evidence

...that hopers are following the actual investigation.

Not seeing any in this thread. What I don't get is the thinking there's some value in fucking with Fani Willis here like she's some opponent.

I think post like this are just attacks on the people working to hold Trump accountable. It's definitely not support for them. It's just an invitation to cynicism and apathy.

I always wonder if the posters realize that.

[Fiendish Thingy]

5. Cynicism and apathy are coping mechanisms

In the face of ambiguous uncertainty.

Some folks just can’t tolerate not knowing how something is going to turn out, so they assume a negative outcome, despite it conflicting with their desire for a positive outcome, which actually relieves their distress over the uncertainty of it all.

[bigtree]

7. I think it's just like misinfo posting that here

...deliberately, in many cases, promoting the notion that either the DOJ is unconcerned with investigating Trump, to the more encompassing rhetoric that Garland won't act to indict, regardless.

The latter absolves the critic from any responsibility to pay attention to the actual investigation.

The former has legs as long as the investigation is continuing. After that comes the cynicism about Garland. It's an insidious and influential effort.

[msfiddlestix]

28. Some of us folks have seen this movie over and over and over and over again, outcome: No Justice

That's what some of us folks who have been on this planet approaching the century mark have witnessed.

[Fiendish Thingy]

37. Unless you remember the Harding administration, not sure anything compares

And as corrupt as Harding was, he didn’t try to overthrow the government.

Sure, Nixon was pardoned, Reagan-Iran-Contra blah blah blah, and Bush/Cheney got away scot free with their war crimes. Meuller was sabotaged…so not sure what “movie you’ve seen before”, unless you’re treating all presidential crimes and scandals like a MCU film (in which case, if you’ve seen one, you have seen em all).

IMO, comparing The Trump administration’s crimes, and the ensuing investigations, to anything else is apples to oranges, at least at this stage of the game.

If it helps you to deal with the uncertainty by saying “I remember Fitzmas, not getting my hopes up”, you do you, but if you express your hopelessness in the form of a factual certainty of a negative outcome, you should expect some pushback from those of us who can see the difference from past “movies”.

And yes, that includes all the past “movies” involving Trump. Yes, for most of his life, Trump has evade criminal consequences for his actions, only paying the occasional minor fine, or, more commonly, declaring bankruptcy.

But you must remember, Trump has never previously been under criminal investigation by the DOJ or any state outside of NY, and never for any crimes that weren’t financial crimes. So again, comparing Trump “movies” is also apples to oranges- at best it’s lemons to oranges.

[msfiddlestix]

42. Mock Me as you will re: Iran Contra Blah Blah Blah and Bush./Cheney got away scot free, Nixon sure.,

of course the crimes are apples and oranges. And yes it can be argued reasonably that tfg's crimes were far worse, but it can also be reasonably argued they were not *that* far worse.

And oh by the way, Iran Contra wasn't a blah blah blah. What Bush/Cheney did wasn't blah blah blah Nixon's crimes were treasonous as well.

And let's not so easily dismiss the fact that our justice system allowed for tfg to engage in money laundering, tax fraud, organized crime on an international level, and then allowed him to run for POTUS KNOWING everything in advance for decades.

Please go on and mock me some more. Tell us how honorable and dutiful our justice system is and how it works, and why we shouldn't be critical and why we should share your faith and trust that justice will prevail?

[Fiendish Thingy]

43. A "system" is made up of people

Individual people, each with their own ethics, morals and character.

Google “the banality of evil”; the Nazi’s couldn’t have succeeded without the cowardly complicity of accountants, train engineers, secretaries and a host of other civilians who assisted in the mundane tasks that enabled the Holocaust. The Germans have a whole museum built around these civilian enablers in Berlin as a reminder.

I don’t believe the Justice system under Garland is the same system that was under Barr, Sessions, or, for that matter Holder.

I don’t have “faith” that Justice will prevail, but I do see the differences in the current investigations, and I have the patience to wait and see how it all plays out.

While I am not certain of any particular outcome, I am comfortable within that uncertainty.

[msfiddlestix]

58. I have wondered how much change is even possible for one person to effect a clean up the corruption

which took decades to become almost institutionalized in that it had been cultivated on a number of levels.

Which of course is the elephant in the room that everyone pretends isn't there because they don't want to admit they see.

That would probably require a superhuman or a robot to cure and which would likely resemble authoritarianism at its worst.

None the less, it's a dilemma which must be addressed and work to solve. Since the effort to proceed is simply too daunting and the incentive to preserve the status quo easier and in some cases financially more lucrative, there simply isn't any point.

And that is the foundation for which cynicism and apathy to grow and prevail.

No one person can fix this and everyone has a role.

[Silent3]

60. The most important part of punishment for crimes is deterence, and we've already lost a lot...

...of the power of deterrence with the process dragging out this long already.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217648688

[Silent3]

6. I would guess that Fani Willis is doing all she can

But she's in the state of Georgia, so I'd also guess some people there are throwing every roadblock in her way they can.

That would be part of the "system" too, and I don't trust it.

I also rather doubt Fani Willis reads DU, or even if she does, that her actions would be affected one way or another by any of the impatience and cynicism she might find here.

The history of holding elites to account in this country does not merit giving our various legal systems the benefit of the doubt.

[bigtree]

8. I don't think that cynicism is related to anything Fani Willis has done

Last edited Mon Feb 13, 2023, 07:57 PM - Edit history (1)

...I think criticisms like this are projections, like you say, of folks' own preconceptions about 'justice' and the people who met all of that out.

Understanding that there are obstacles in Ga., though, doesn't make these posts any more validating, or any less apathetic.

I think I get this post of yours, though. Apparently you just got so full up with cynicism about Fani Willis that it just boiled over into this open bid for agreement and commiseration with this tempest in your troubled mind.

That must be it.

[Silent3]

9. "Apathetic" is an odd word to use here.

I'm posting because I'm very, very interested in seeing justice done, which is the opposite of apathy.

As for "validating", who or what needs our validation? Of all the things delaying Trump being held accountable, I rather doubt that a lack of encouraging pep talk from the denizens of DU is a significant factor.

[bigtree]

11. I'm not seeing it.

...I see an arbitrary attack on Fani Willis.

Whatever concern you have for justice is marred by this open attack on the person working on that. I personally don't see that as support for justice, and believe it has the same effect as anyone else attacking Willis.

[Silent3]

13. You can see whatever you like

It's a strange and unjustified interpretation, but please, go nuts.

[Beastly Boy]

21. Irony just got shot in the face.

Are you sure that, after careful analysis of it, this is not the response to your OP?

[Silent3]

22. As you seem incapable of reading what others write...

...without jumping to excessive exaggerations (e.g. lack of confidence in justice system => lynch mob, concern over integrity => strident accusation of corruption), I think your qualifications for detecting irony are limited.

[Beastly Boy]

24. Well, some examples of irony being slaughtered

are so glaring that they require little or no qualification to detect with ease.

[Silent3]

30. Since you just missed badly think I was insulting Fani Willis

...perhaps you're just getting a sensor echo.

[Beastly Boy]

39. You were insulting to Fanni Willis

Not insulting Fanni Willis. A small distinction, which is nevertheless sufficient to take down your clumsy attempt to backpeddle.

Just keep digging the hole you got yourself into ever deeper.

[Silent3]

40. You should give up trying to discern subtext...

…in what other people are saying. You aren’t very good at it.

[Beastly Boy]

47. You are right. I am not very good at discerning hidden subtext

belatedly claimed after the fact. I am equally bad at discerning the existence of imaginary friends. But I am very good at discerning in-your-face snark meant to be insulting to its target. Very good indeed.

[Silent3]

48. If you'd bothered to look at what was "hidden" up the thread from your own snark...

...https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=17644914

I have nothing against Fani Willis. But I don't attribute to her God-like superpowers to overcome whatever bullshit she might face. Even when she's doing her best, she's embedded in a system in which I have little faith.

Tell you what? Willis is a big girl. I think she can stand up for herself without you riding to her rescue.

[Beastly Boy]

49. Let me see... your defense is that you have nothing against Fannie Willis, except

that she is full of shit, right?

Refer to your OP:

January 24, 2023, Georgia: "Decisions are imminent"
I'm still hoping, but is three weeks and counting "imminent"?

https://democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=17644709

That sounds weirdly familiar to me: "You are a nice guy, even though you are Jewish". I've heard it many times, and it doesn't get any less insulting with repetition.

Like I said before: you were not insulting Fannie Willis, you were insulting TO Fannie Willis

[Silent3]

50. Bemoaning that someone might mean something very different by the word "imminent"...

…than I’d hope it to mean is tantamount to an accusation of lying?

Riiiiigght.

[Beastly Boy]

51. It is certainly tantamount to an insult.

And you weren't bemoaning, you were downright derisive.

You didn't express anything resembling hope that there may be a difference of opinions. You took your interpretation of the word to be the only conceivable one, and you ran with it to mock Willis.

Keep digging.

[Silent3]

52. These words: "I'm still hoping, but is three weeks and counting 'imminent'?"...

Last edited Tue Feb 14, 2023, 09:58 PM - Edit history (1)

...followed by a funny Princess Bride meme translate to: "You took your interpretation of the word to be the only conceivable one, and you ran with it to mock Willis."?

And I'm the one who is digging?

You simply give yourself way, WAY to much credit for your ability to read imagined subtext, and given that, pour on a lot of melodramatic scorn for a pretty trivial thing. Even if I did mean what you thought I meant (which I did not) it's ridiculous for you to strap on all of this high dudgeon to bravely rush to Fani (who's first name you apparently don't even know how to spell) Willis's defense, as if it's near blasphemy that anyone might speak of her with anything short of obsequious deference.

[Beastly Boy]

53. Yes, these words are evidence of your uncompromising insistence on your interpretation.

I didn't think I would have to go into a second-grade explanation of why it is so, but if you insist:

When Willis used the term "imminent", it referred to her decisions on whether to bring charges or not.

When you used the term "imminent" you were referring to your impatience with indictments not forthcoming. Not even an attempt to examine what Willis was really saying.
This is what I mean when I say you gave no consideration whatsoever to Willis' words. Were you to exert the slightest of efforts towards understanding her words in a way other than what you presumed them to be, you would have realized she gave you no clue of the timeline for indictments, only an indication of the inevitability in making decisions. Presuming, contrary to the content that was available for your consideration, that she meant what you wanted her to mean is absolutely a sign of dismissive, if not contemptuous, disregard for her words.

And you still show no awareness that Willis' apples have nothing to do with your oranges. That's the insulting part. That is the part that makes a mockery of her words for the sake of making a snarky remark. Like I said before: you don't have to insult Willis to be insulting towards her.

And now, as you are scraping the bottom of the barrel with accusations that I cannot spell Willis' first name (which I did on a number of occasions in this thread alone), this conversation has come to its logical conclusion: you are boring me to death. As a matter of self preservation, I will no longer respond to your prose. I will be using my time in a more productive way: there is grass outside, and I am off to watching it grow.

Cheers!

[Silent3]

54. The only "uncompromising insistence"...

...here is your insistence on maintaining hero status in your own mind, Defender of Justice and of Indirectly Maligned Attorneys General.

But have fun watching the grass grow. That will be more action-packed and lively that waiting for the American "justice" system to hold the rich and powerful and well-connected to account.

[msfiddlestix]

31. holding elites to account in this country does not merit an ounce of faith until proven otherwise.

Which happens so rarely, I am unable to call to mind more than a handful of elites prosecuted and sentenced to prison for crimes against the public trust.

The history of holding elites to account in this country does not merit giving our various legal systems the benefit of the doubt.

Indeed. Right you are. Anyone with a pair of eyes should see this clearly.

[fightforfreedom]

10. When talking to the judge Willis said something else before she said imminent.

To protect future defendants (plural). I don't know what others believe that means. To me it is clear. She is going to indict multiple people. She said imminent to the judge in an attempt to stop him from releasing the special grand jury report. She was telling the judge, I am going to indict people soon.

This is not rocket science.

[Silent3]

12. My point is that three weeks and counting doesn't feel like "soon"

So either that word means something very different to Willis than it does to me, or something/someone is possibly working against her to hold things up.

[fightforfreedom]

16. Soon does not have a specific time frame.

As soon as possible, as soon as I can, soon after the judge makes a decision I will make a decision.

[onenote]

25. Imminent probably does mean something different to Willis than to you in the context of this case

And what it means to her is what matters, not what it means to anyone else.

[doc03]

14. I heard that weeks ago! nt

[Sky Jewels]

18. Oh, I'm sure Trump will face consequences any day now.

Also, Jesus is returning to Earth very soon.
Also, the original Beatles are going to reunite.
Also, OJ is hot on the trail of the real killer.

[Johnny2X2X]

33. Any year now

Any year.

[sarisataka]

41. I recall a couple weeks prior

The 24th was the day indictments would drop, according to "sources" and "insiders".

I also recall "sources say his campaign is just a PR stunt. He will drop out before the first debate".

[Kaleva]

45. Decisions might have already been made

[Baltimike]

46. It's all just a slow walk to Fitzmas

and I won't believe otherwise until I see it.

Because arrests only happen if you're a liberal or a black man.

[JanMichael]

55. It is like groundhog day without a groundhog.

Or just the same old shit everyday.

[Initech]

56. I'm so tired of this shit. Fucking do something!

The psychopath is talking about public executions and firing squads! We have to keep him locked up and prevented from running in 2024!

[old as dirt]

61. She used that word, and the Judge understood what she meant.

Maybe somebody show that meme to the Judge.

[Silent3]

62. All of these people, even Fani Willis, who's probably doing the best that she can...

...are, I suppose, steeped in the culture of our legal system where no one expects anything to happen quickly. They might all think 2-3 months from now is "imminent".