"A case of this magnitude, it does take some time," former AG explains to a Whinging Wallace

[bigtree]

zzelda01 Read my BIO @zzelda01 6m
MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace grills ex-DOJ official on why in 800 days since Jan. 6 there've been no Trump arrests

RS:

___Wallace turned to Mary McCord, former acting assistant attorney general for national security, to ask why nothing has been done for the upper-level people that helped create Jan. 6.

She began explaining that investigations begin by looking at the easiest and lowest level offenders that can be convicted. Then they climb up the ladder from there.

"All indications are that that is what is happening," McCord promised. "That's the investigation that Jack Smith has taken over. We certainly know from reporting that there have been a number of people very close to the former president who have been subpoenaed in recent weeks and months it appears that some of those people are not cooperating. It's also been reported that Jack Smith sought the assistance — or sought an appeal to the chief judge in D.C. for her help."

She went on to say that she thinks that the Justice Department will be pressured to act before the 2024 election ramp-up. She agreed that she too shares Wallace's frustration with the time it has taken.

"But I will say, it's not unusual in a case of this nature," said McCord. "I say this nature. There's nothing of this nature that I experienced in my more than 23 years in the department. But a case of this magnitude, it does take some time. The records are voluminous. And getting the right evidence — if the department is going to indict a former president, they want it to be locked up solid."

[Torchlight]

1. She knows the form.

As grandad would often tell me, 'you can do it quickly, or you can do it correctly; if you want both, go to church bingo.' I've got no Actu exercito tantrums to throw.

[MLAA]

3. Good one, granddad!

[Alexander Of Assyria]

2. Time? Time! Since when does law stuff take time??

All that rule of law, innocent until proven guilty, and proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt…so pedestrian!

Too bad armchair in a media studio criminal lawyering isn’t applied as needed!

[brush]

4. 800 days? It's time news hosts start asking questions.

We saw what happened with Barr being allowed to put the kibash on the Mueller report. So we sure don't want that intentional slimming repeated by the likes of Tucker Carlson's doctored J6 videos gaining winger traction. There was so many months of hesitancy to just put Jack Smith on the case. Was nothing being done before that?

We know trump's game of delay, delay, delay. If the presidential campaign and loud rallies pick up , is there going to be more hesitancy to indict?

I say keep it up, Nicole Wallace. Put feet to the fire.

[bigtree]

5. poppycock

...indictments weren't handed down for the “Watergate Seven,” including John Mitchell, H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, until March 1, 1974, almost two years after the burglars were charged. The equivalent measure of those burglars, or 'foot soldiers,' would be the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers in court right now.

There is no parallel to these dual DOJ investigations, and talking about Mueller is diverting from the investigation unfolding right in front of us. It just is.

I also think it's interesting how a Whinging Wallace is diverting from those dual grand juries and talking about Garland, as if he's in control of the process right now, and not Jack Smith.

[brush]

8. The Press is the fourth estate, the fourth power.

It can apply pressure. Funny how press and pressure derive from the same antecedent.

The press comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable.

[bigtree]

15. Bush's communication's director is working overtime to discredit the Garland/Smith investigation

...why?

Why is she attacking an investigation that's in its late stages? Why is she advocating disrupting that process to jump into court without knowing squat about the state of evidence?

Why is a Whinging Wallace trying to discredit this investigation against Trump?

[onenote]

31. What benefit do you see from her second guessing Garland and Smith

That they will cave to the pressure and commence a prosecution before it’s fully baked in their professional opinion? Because that would be absurd and isn’t going to happen. Or is the benefit that Garland and Smith are labeled as incompetent or worse? Who does that help?

[Bev54]

34. The press cannot apply pressure nor should it. This is a legal matter and should not

be influenced by anyone other than the law.

[brush]

39. Ahhhh...that's one of the functions of the fourth estate in a democracy.

The press comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable.

[Bev54]

41. No the fourth estate investigates and makes public, they do not pressure or influence

prosecutors to bring charges.

[brush]

42. Hahahahahahaha! Whadaya think that reporting, investigation and publicizing creates?

Pressure on the PWTB to prosecute crimes. It's why it's part of the very First Amendment, as the founding fathers knew that a democracy can't function without a free press keeping everyone honest by investigating and publicizing wrong doing.

Middle school civics.

[jgo]

9. Some context ...

Not sure whether a comparison to Watergate is that illuminating or not.

The second break-in to the Democratic National Committee's headquarters at the Watergate complex was on June 17, 1972.

Less than a year after that, on March 21, 1973, McCord was up for sentencing on eight counts of conspiracy, burglary and wiretapping. That is what cracked the wider case open.

About a year after that, Haldeman and Ehrlichman were indicted.

I'm not sure whether this is a useful comparison or not, but as pure speculation, perhaps a fitting comparison is that Eastman would have been up for sentencing in 2022?

[brush]

10. Good one. As I said earlier, this pace seems glacial...

compare to the examples you posted.

[bigtree]

12. why Eastman, if he's going to be used in a prosecution of the WH officials

...why assume trotting people into court willy nilly is the best course?

It should be assumed that DOJ is making a cohesive presentation of charges which would be jeapordized by revealing things in court before they're ready.

The second-guessing of an investigation that's already at the late stages of TWO grand juries is just an internet game.

[Dave says]

16. I love DU

thank you for the perspective, it helps allay my anxiety.

This is the third or fourth post of this sort today. Us worriers need to take a collective deep breath. Truly, thank you.

[lees1975]

54. Well said! Exactly!

[hlthe2b]

6. Time is not on our side. I get the attempts to keep perspective: we don't know what we don't know

and I do believe Garland is honorable. I likewise believe Jack Smith has taken whatever had been started and put a rocket charger under these efforts.

That said, time is not on our side and I have no problem with good interviewers like Nicole Wallace asking--even if she chooses to put a voice to the frustration that is building up among the public.

Time is not on our side.

[bigtree]

7. she's just a broken record on this

...and it's disinforming.

It's just noise against the AG, and she knows she can't get those answers about an insular investigation that doesn't share those details.

Moreover, she's attacking Garland DAILY over time taken by the GRAND JURIES at this point, and led by JACK SMITH , not Garland.

So what is the actual point in the exercise, except to generate cynicism about dual legal processes which are ongoing and reportedly near their conclusion?

It's not going to rattle anyone involved, and it shouldn't ffs, because it's the GRAND JURIES who hold much of the fate of indictments at this point, and those fine people, as we've seen in Ga. are completing their evidentiary process and moving to the deliberative phase.

They don't deserve the noise, and neither does the DOJ.

It's a legal process that shouldn't be relied on to mete out political concerns. Those are for voters to defend at the ballot.

[brush]

11. Press equals pressure. Pressure from many directions gets results.

Which, btw, is why Garland finally had to put Jack Smith on the job — he felt it and had to finally look like he was doing something.

[bigtree]

13. who is this pressuring? No one, especially not the grand jury members

..who would want that?

Who wants to disrupt this process right now, to do what? Just inane.

The jousting over Jack Smith vs. Garland is just intellectually absurd. It has zero to do with the investigation.

[brush]

17. You don't think Garland felt pressure to show he was doing something?

Last edited Thu Mar 16, 2023, 11:59 PM - Edit history (1)

Jack Smith was the result of that pressure, and Jack Smith has racheted up the pressure on the trump camp — multiple subpoenas and all.

Not that complicated when you think about it.

[brooklynite]

18. No, I don't.

The social media blogosphere (DU included) is not the real world. He's doing exactly what he said he'd do in his March 2021 speech.

[brush]

20. Open your perspective. Who's talking about only DU? Garland was getting pressure...

from media figures, some House and Senate members, from subtle but real Admin figures, and the J6 committee was getting stuff done on national TV where everyone could see, while it looked like Garland wasn't doing much.

I know, I know, behind the scenes who knows what he and the DOJ were doing as that's how they operate, but it sure looked like it was very little — thus the appointment of Jack Smith.

Oh yeah, he felt some pressure. And that's a good thing.

[brooklynite]

24. And if he resisted the "pressure" what would happen?

[brush]

38. He didn't. He appointed Jack Smith, a man known to be aggressive.

[brooklynite]

44. Not my question. What WOULD have happened if he resisted the alleged pressure?

You're claiming he made a political rather than legal decision with absolutely no evidence.

[brush]

46. Appointing a special counsel was a political decision?

What proof do you have of that?

[brooklynite]

53. I'm not claiming the decisions made were political.

You're claiming they were made do to pressure from.....somebody.

[bigtree]

19. no, it sounds like something you just made up

...I remember clearly the reasons Garland gave for appointing Smith.

I also remember the whinging when he did, complaining that the appointment of a SC wasn't needed and would slow down the investigation.

Now that it appears he's making progress, his appointment is being used as a cudgel against Garland. Many of the same people who've shifted their opposition to this investigation to the time taken are now caught between claiming Smith did all the work and complaining that he's taking too long.

I can see why there's a need to go back to Mueller to hit Garland. There really isn't a logical path complaining about Garland's investigation pace that he is said (by Garland critics) to have accelerated by appointing Jack Smith.

[brush]

22. Everybody feels pressure on their job to get the job done. Live in the real world pls.

[bigtree]

26. this was fun

...back to the real world.

[fightforfreedom]

21. Garland told us why he hired Smith.

It was not because of pressure. It was because Trump made it official he was running for president.

[brush]

23. See post 37.

[Moosepoop]

36. There are only 35 posts on this thread so far. n/t

[spanone]

14. K&R

[czarjak]

25. She wad good. Best to remember they're dealing with a fire hose of criminality.

[niyad]

27. "Whinging Wallace"??? Really?? But then, this IS raw story.

[bigtree]

30. 'a' Whinging Wallace

...that's one of my own.

[brush]

47. What does Whinging mean?

[bigtree]

50. what am I, a farking dictionary?

...glad to oblige, in this instance

whinge (present participle)

...to complain persistently and in a peevish or irritating way:

[jxla]

51. Whinging vs whining

https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2007/03/on-whinge-and-whine.html

Though Americans use only one word, “whine,” the British use both: “whining” covers a variety of meanings, including sounds made by people, animals, or inanimate objects, and “whingeing” (also spelled “whinging”) is more specifically for peevish or fretful complaining. The British sometimes use the terms together for emphasis: “Stop your whingeing and whining!”

[brush]

52. Thanks. It's a new one for me.

[Talitha]

28. I really like her show but turned "Whinging Wallace" off today... first time ever.

[Bev54]

35. I feel like maybe she is being influenced too much by her husband.

[Duppers]

43. What's wrong with Michael Schmidt? nt

[bigtree]

45. those half-zip fleeces

...not my style.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

29. I keep on being reminded of Fitzmas.

This feels a lot the same.

[Bobstandard]

32. 25 months and counting

[BannonsLiver]

48. "Any day now."

[Mr.Bill]

33. I'm well beyond worrying about it taking too long.

That ship has sailed. If Trump was indicted tomorrow, his trial will not begin until well after the 2024 election.

[bigtree]

40. elections are the obligation of voters to manage

...not the Justice Dept.

The word from cynics is that Garland is too afraid of political consequences of any indictment of Trump or higher-ups. That admonition swirls around in the same cynical air as the one about 2024.

They're both based on the idea that an indictment or even a conviction makes the political problems recede or vanish. It's like opening flood gates in a deluge and expecting that action alone will make a garden prosper just because there's water involved.

The political problem is still ours (voters) to remedy with our participation in elections. No shortcuts.

[inthewind21]

49. Amen!

[Mr.Bill]

55. I agree. n/t