Nicolle Wallace Just Went There

[gab13by13]

At the end of her show she said that Republicans were counting on Merrick Garland doing nothing.

She said only after the explosive testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson which showed the extent of the insurrection/coup did Garland appoint Jack Smith.

I have been trying to show the importance of time. Trump is going to become the Republican nominee and then Garland will have another decision to make. Can Jack Smith beat the election time clock?

I can see it now; we need to GOTV to save our democracy, just like we were told in 2020. If that's the case, so be it.

Everything that Jack Smith is doing, Merrick Garland could have done long ago.

[Scrivener7]

1. There is no way Smith beats that clock, no matter

how fast he is working now.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. The best case scenario now might be the issuing of two strong "talking" indictments

As I understand it a "talking" indictment is an option a prosecutor can use instead of simply listing the crimes a person is being charged with. A "talking" indictment lays out many of the facts in a case. If Smith has a really strong case against Trump and indicts him with much of the damning evidence made public, or better yet does that twice, Trump will have to carry that into the election campaign, which should lose him more than enough swing voters to make his winning the election impossible. It's one thing to have a trial pending over false business records, it's another for it to be over a charge of insurrection etc.

[Scrivener7]

23. That would be good. And I think Smith would do it.

But isn't it up to Garland?

[pnwmom]

60. Why? The standard for not taking new actions is 2 months before the election. We're far from

that point yet.

[Redleg]

88. Exactly- and no matter what, the GOP is going to complain

about an indictment interfering with the election. I think it is entirely plausible that an indictment could be made before the end of this year, and certainly before this time next year which is well outside the DOJ's self-imposed window.

[BlackSkimmer]

201. 100%.

We're out of time.

[BComplex]

2. Merrick Garland was not the right pick for that position.

I'm sorry Obama didn't get to pick him for the Supreme Court when it was HIS TO CHOOSE, and the choice was stolen from him. Maybe he would have done better on the Supreme Court. He's sure as hell not aggressive enough for what this country is going through at the present time.

[Trueblue1968]

4. i sure agree with you. any ideas why Garland is working so slowly?

[BComplex]

6. I think he's timid.

But that's just me.

[Shipwack]

182. And me... nt

[stage left]

185. And me!

We needed somebody with fire in their belly. Garland would have been fine on the Supreme Court.

[Trueblue1968]

202. scared to make tough decisions? AG needs to be tough!

[Marcus IM]

19. Obama picked him because he is very conservative.

Wanted to demonstrate the obvious about McTurtle stopping the process.

America didn't notice nor care, by and large.

What a dismal failure, imo.

[gab13by13]

22. He certainly is conservative

He moderated 10 or 12 Federalist Society events.

[Marcus IM]

24. Obama thought he'd be stickin it to the cons.

Look how that turned out.

[617Blue]

28. God I did not know that. Why did Biden pick him?

I was hoping for a return of Eric Holder but there must have been many many great people to choose from.

[Beautiful Disaster]

39. lol what did Holder ever do?

[OMGWTF]

176. Holder always appeared to me to be interviewing for his next corporate stooge gig.

[electric_blue68]

186. Ooh That sounds a bit problematic

[NotVeryImportant]

27. And remember, "conservative" in this country, is a euphemism for "right wing."

Real sad state of affairs we're in, and we've been in for decades now.

[Marcus IM]

29. In the bigger picture the US is conservative

I mean, the USA is the only nation of the OECD nations that never ratified the ERA. Even most so-called 3rd world nations have ratified it.

Pointless to mention all the other normal things the US doesn't have. Shithole nation by many standards.

Sad. That.

[NotVeryImportant]

30. Yep

It's the most right wing Western country in the world.

[niyad]

43. Never ratified CEDAW, either.

[thomski64]

180. ...full on fascist..

[LizBeth]

32. Nope, not even. And we knew it then. Geez, he said it then.

[mysteryowl]

34. Agreed, and I am so disappointed and frustrated with Garland.

[calimary]

64. THIS, DAMMIT!!!

[NewHendoLib]

61. THIS!

[relayerbob]

102. You have exactly ZERO idea of what they have *not* been doing

But feel free to look up the extremely long list of what he and the DoJ *have* done.

[BComplex]

171. And YOU have ZERO idea about what I know or don't know.

He has NOT charged anyone with any POWER in PAYING FOR 1/6.
He has NOT charged anyone with any POWER in INSTIGATING 1/6.

For starters.

[Beastly Boy]

184. You seem to be leaving out the 1000 or so people charged by Garland (DOJ)

Last edited Fri Apr 28, 2023, 08:12 PM - Edit history (1)

who do not fit your definition of those "with any power in paying for 1/6" or "instigating 1/6". And, apparently, these 1000 indictments are not included in your rationale for you claiming that Garland is "sure as hell not aggressive enough for what this country is going through at the present time".

Perhaps, based on this statistic alone, which you are excluding from your argument, you can name at least one AG in America's history who, in your opinion, favorably compares to Garland in being "aggressive enough"? If not, what objective, verifiable standards are you applying to Garland in your judgement of his aggressiveness in achieving real results? Are you comparing him to anyone who ever existed, or some unattainable standard that is not present outside of your imagination?

May I also assume that you are aware that the 1/6 investigation is not over, and that a number of people whom you would describe as "anyone with any power" are currently being investigated, and that charges usually come AFTER the investigation is over? If so, you must then agree that your judgement of Garland (DOJ), regardless of its merits or lack thereof, is quite a bit premature.

[relayerbob]

190. I will grant you this much

You value your own opinion very highly.

[dalton99a]

142. Garland belongs in a law library

dotting the i's and crossing the t's

[mysteryowl]

165. or something slow and non-aggressive

[republianmushroom]

168. agree with this posting

[brush]

5. Yep, the documents case was/is a slam dunk obstruction case.

trump should,ve been indicted many months ago.
But Fani Willis will get him this summe before the DOJ does and that won't conflict with the '24 election.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

132. Conflict with the 2024 election...how many months away...red herring for the pessimists!

[brush]

137. This summer is still 2023 so no way does it conflict with the '24 election.

We're talking the indictment of course, who know when the trial will happen as the DOJ will finally do something on the docs case, and then there's the much more complicated J6 attempted coup case.

I just want him indicted by Fani Willis, which is a strong case too because of the recorded phone message of trump asking the Georgia Sec. of State to "find" votes to overturn the Georgia election count in his favor.

Even if those trials haven't happen by the '24 election season, a candidate with indictments for: paying off a porn star and a Playboy starlet; another indictment for Georgia election tampering; the stolen classified docs at Mara-log-go; and J6, and then there's the rape trial going on now.

Hard to believe many voters besides his hardcore magats will vote for him in the general election. He may win the republican nomination but Indies and Dems won't look favorable at a candidate facing so much legal jeopardy.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

11. Not many local lawyers I know could outdo dedicated and talented prosecutors.

Chief Inspector Smith, himself with the most excellent resume, has the best of the best, of that one can be assured.

And most cases don’t turn on the skills of lawyers, they turn on the facts.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

15. Might be so...but Jack Smith!!? His background is as impressive as any lawyer in the world.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

45. Media bio is same as his actual bio and it's the envy of any lawyer in the world.

Formidable. Could crack open a dozen Kraken grade lawyers with a glance!

[Alexander Of Assyria]

48. That's his official World Court photo, it's nice!...don't be anti-beard!

[oldsoftie]

54. A real obvious one there, at least IMO

Dont know how the boom hasn't been lowered yet

[treestar]

123. for defending Jack Smith?

[oldsoftie]

136. No, not at all

The way things are its hard to get into details without getting burned, but just ready ANY China post.

[onenote]

90. Why would you have heard of Jack Smith.

Do you closely follow all of the talented prosecutors?

[inthewind21]

148. "Folks here on DU have better skills than what I've seen the last few years on tv"

It's not an episode of NCIS. Mayby try getting your info from somewhere other than TV.

[Effete Snob]

83. "And most cases don't turn on the skills of lawyers, they turn on the facts."

A little louder for the folks in back.

Courtrooms are the Afghanistan of ego.

[treestar]

124. people seem to like to believe

that courtrooms are mere arenas for contests between lawyers. Like tennis courts.

Not that many (male) lawyers don't treat it that. It's all about winning, did you win, one guy I worked for said are you carrying your shield or on it?

I recall a situation where the judge and both lawyers were female in a domestic relations case. A very different feel. Trying to resolve the matter rather than start a contest so we could see who was the best lawyer.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

128. Good analogy! The tennis ball is Evidence...no game without it! Lawyers just hold the racquets.

Of course lawyers have egos, they wouldn’t made it that far without one…and who doesn’t like to win? If the facts are on your side you win, if not…thump the table and bore the judge…Facts are the key to all win or loss.

[jaxexpat]

150. Why only "most"?

"And most cases don’t turn on the skills of lawyers, they turn on the facts." What, then, do the other cases turn on? Some sort of symbiotic relationship between the attorney, the accused and the judge, maybe?

[Alexander Of Assyria]

188. Your answer is in there already!

[Captain Zero]

172. If Rump wins white house again the very first thing

He does. In his inauguration speech. Is fire Jack Smith and seize all the evidence. Legal or not.

In fact. It will be worse than that.

[Sneederbunk]

9. Was not Smith appointed only after Mar a Lago docs search?

[Scrivener7]

26. Months after. He was appointed in November 2022.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

10. Investigations can't be done long ago...they go along slowly, and then they ripen.

It’s hundreds of investigations by the way, of the most complex criminal conspiracy in history…jump the gun and it’s all for naught..tie the dog to a leash it can’t escape!

Just today the second to top dog and the one who refused to turn the key to a constitutional crisis is being interrogated by a man with excellent interrogation skills team , and the dog is barking, willing!

Justice does not travel at the speed of Twitter.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

14. The huge difference is seditious conspiracy has only be done couple of times.

[gab13by13]

20. I wouldn't even go after seditious conspiracy

There are numerous other crimes much more easy to get a conviction.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

41. The many convictions already secured means not so, if you have overwhelming evidence.

Pence is THE Evidence needed to secure a conviction against the chief organizer of the conspiracy.

And now after a regular 9 to 4:30 full day in court…whet more has Chief Inspector Smith secured?

The writing is on the wall…seditious conspiracy with Trump the leader of it all.

[treestar]

125. are you sure you

would not be saying "why the hell don't they prosecute him for seditious conspiracy? Why are they watering down the charges?"

[kacekwl]

91. Bingo.

Since when do they have to wait to prosecute all the crimes at one time. Pick one and go.

[gab13by13]

17. What about the investigations that were already done by Mueller?

Garland passed on “individual one” and the obstruction of Justice crimes. Garland decided not to prosecute those cases not because of lack of evidence but for political reasons.
Republicans counted on Garland doing nothing.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

42. Questioning the VP in a grand jury criminal investigation is not my definition of nothing...not

to mention all the other witnesses that have been paraded before the People.

If there isn’t a massive nuclear grade indictment soon then you don’t know Jack!

Jack Smith is also not nothing…when the indictments drop hope all are on board, not hanging onto pessimism like a lifeboat.

[LudwigPastorius]

101. "If there isn't a massive nuclear grade indictment soon then you don't know Jack!"

Jack isn't the one who decides whether or not to indict Donald Trump.

That falls on the man who has reminded his employees that an indictment that merely has the appearance of influencing an election, whether that is the intention of the prosecutor or not, will not happen.

...prosecutors may never select the timing of... criminal charges, or any other action in any matter or case for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party. Such a purpose, or the appearance of such a purpose, is inconsistent with the Department’s mission and with the Principles of Federal Prosecution.

https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/january-6-clearinghouse-attorney-general-garland-memorandum-election-year-sensitivities-may-25-2022.pdf

[Alexander Of Assyria]

127. Focusing and ragging on Garland because....?? is puzzling and nonsensical.

Jack is Garlands man, Garland is Biden’s man, Obama was Biden’s man, in them I trust.

Don’t believe there is any election on the horizon…17 months is not a horizon.

[LizBeth]

33. We are working on four years

[Alexander Of Assyria]

44. The legal roadblocks, if one was watching, created a great deal of delay...witness Pence.

Not to mention the most complex investigation in history…four years to investigate then prosecution begins to make sure democracy is saved forever….doesn’t seem long enough.

[gab13by13]

53. Last I checked Democrats controlled the presidency,

Congress, and an AG appointed by President Biden in 2021 and 2022. In 2023 we lost control of the House. Robert Mueller was restricted, lied to and obstructed by Bill Barr and yet in 22 months he indicted or got guilty pleas from 34 people and 3 companies. Many of those people were attorneys, were pals of Donald Trump.

[inthewind21]

151. Dems control congress

Really? That happen overnight while we were sleeping?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

161. Two, but who's counting...

[agingdem]

63. I agree..justice is a slow slog to the finish line...

Garland wasn't sitting on his hands doing nothing before Jack Smith..and Garland understood the House could flip and he had to get both January 6 and the stolen documents investigations cocooned so MAGA Trump ass-crawlers like Jim Jordan and Kevin McCarthy couldn't get their filthy digits on the investigations..

Garland has one shot at the gold ring...so we wait...

[Alexander Of Assyria]

129. If Garland had done the dirty deed of Indictments...would appear political...Jack is insulation

and he’s also a legal hound dog…perfectly played to date from what we all know.

And we know only a little of what a Jack knows.

[agingdem]

135. Yes..

unlike Bill Barr's weaponized DOJ, Garland's investigations are shrouded in secrecy as they should be...

[Alexander Of Assyria]

189. Maddening! Investigation done right! But...We want information! Damn the poisoning of further

prosecution! How can we make an accurate determination of likelihood of anything if wont release all the information in real time, preferably!

Twitter has ruined everything, most of all logic and respect for facts before judgment…courts got it right way around!

[Autumn]

16. I agree 100%. I also think the Senate did most of the work for Garland.

He chose to wait as long as he could before he appointed Jack Smith.

[LizBeth]

31. Yep... and so many of us saw this way quicker. We are what, 3 and half yrs in?

[Sneederbunk]

35. We will never know what Smith finds or recommends unless

Garland wants us to.

[Bobstandard]

65. Don't be surprised if..

Don’t be surprised if Garland one day announces, a solemn Jack Smith standing by his side, that after the most exhaustive investigation in history, including testimony up to and including the Vice President, the evidence leads us to conclude that the former President committed no crimes he could be convicted for.

There will be a Muelleresque report on the investigation. To us it will show conclusive criminality. To Garland it won’t pass the a ‘are we super-ultra, no question, guaranteed, positive that a jury would convict?’ test. He’ll say so and go quietly into the history books touting the many convictions of schmucks who invaded the Capitol and a job well done.

Sigh.

[Bev54]

36. Let's be very clear, Cassidy Hutchinson's original testimony did not offer much, it was

only after she got rid of her Pac paid lawyer that she started to really talk to the 1/6 committee. It seems some people will look anywhere to find something to disparage Garland. We have no idea who he had talked to and when, I am sure he has talked to many that the committee did not.

[gab13by13]

67. DOJ never interviewed Cassidy Hutchinson

That is a fact. Her testimony embarrassed DOJ into acting.

[Beastly Boy]

139. That's a piece of horse manure, not a fact, and you know it.

Most of Hutchinson's testimony to the J6 Committee is inadmissible in court, and you know it. DOJ would have been embarrassed, if not downright admonished, by a judge if they brought this kind of testimony to a trial. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see what exactly it is about Hutchinson's testimony that has the potential to embarrass DOJ.

[CrispyQ]

37. I lost confidence in Garland when I saw how he dealt with the Cyber Ninjas.

There will be lots more of that in 2024 since he let it go on & on & on & on & on.

[BeerBarrelPolka]

40. Garland

Garland testified that he's a huge Steven Bishop fan.

[CrispyQ]

52. Ha ha.

I never liked that song.

[BeerBarrelPolka]

55. .

My buddy saw him play at a small bar in California. He said it wasn't enjoyable because he did lots of acoustic stuff without any backup and he's not a very good musician.

[spanone]

38. ...K&R...

[Just A Box Of Rain]

46. Another trash thread here on DU.

[gab13by13]

51. Explain why?

Do you think it was a good idea for Garland to pass on indicting "individual one," and the 10 obstruction of justice crimes? If so why?

Why did Garland wait to investigate Trump and his inner circle? Do you think that was a good idea? Why?

Do you not understand that time matters in indicting and convicting Trump? DOJ goes dark 60-90 days prior to an election.

The insurrection did not stop on 1/6, it is growing.

Do you think it was a good idea for Garland to not prosecute the Cyber Ninjas who violated federal law, Title 52? Why? The Big Lie is the rallying cry on the insurrection.

[oldsoftie]

56. This really should've come to a head long ago.

Especially the secret docs in FLA. Its all right there; ignoring the subpoena, ignoring the requests to send the docs back, lying, etc. Its all right. there.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

68. Garland hasn't "passed" on anything.

Over 1000 insurrectionists have been charged, the last I looked.

And Trump is also facing indictments.

I have full confidence in Merrick Garland and Jack Smith.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

107. Garland has been sending insurrectionists to prison and the noose is tightening on Trump.

The narrative that he's been slow or ineffective is pure bunk IMO.

Since the stakes are so high, cases have to be air-tight. I want to see Trump convicted, not just indicted, and especially not indicted but found not guilty.

We need convictions. I believe that will happen.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

109. The redline date is when the case is ready. Not before, not later.

Air-tight cases are had all the time. Most prosecutors do not bring cases to trial that they are not highly confident they will win.

"Goose stepping lessons?"

The carping on Garland--who has been damn active securing convictions--was wrong then and it is wrong now.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

111. So I disagree entirely.

Seems like a pattern.

I think Garland is doing a commendable job and stand apart from the tiresome attacks made on him here on DU.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

113. It is appropriate to have a Special Council.

Jack Smith seems like another inspired choice by Garland. I have full confidence in both of them.

I'm not sure what grounds you have for making false accusations of my being "hateful," but whatever.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

118. Wonderful news.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

120. That's ironic.

[inthewind21]

152. Amazing

News!

[Alexander Of Assyria]

131. Bingo! Sometimes it's just pessimism addiction and fact avoidance that gets in the way of logic.

[Beastly Boy]

74. Gawd, look at this thread! Everybody and their mother speculating on something

they just heard from a DU poster who heard something from a commercial network personality on teevee!

And the conclusions you are drawing, which, strangely enough, is the same exact conclusion you draw every time Garland's name is mentioned in any context, is based this time on...what? Interpreting what you think you heard from a TV host who uttered a single speculation on the impact of one witness' testimony on Garland's decision to appoint Smith???

Give me an effing break! I even doubt that your recollection of what Wallace said justifies what you wrote. I would love to be wrong on this, so please, give a direct quote of what she said for comparison.

[edisdead]

92. Beauty post!

[LiberalFighter]

50. Law should take precedence over politics

[Justice]

57. On Melber's show, Jack Flannery made excellent point in response to Nicole's statements

If Trump is the nominee, and we get close to the 2024 election, should DOJ not pursue charges against Trump from 2020 election Trump tried to overthrow?

Meaning that the election time clock may be irrelevant in this case.

[BeerBarrelPolka]

62. My

My crazy, hypothetical thought has always been, what if there was irrefutable proof on video of a presidential candidate or even the president committing murder? As crazy as that sounds, no one can tell me that law enforcement wouldn't go after him/her. I'm not posting this to wade in on trump. I'm actually truly serious about my hypothetical.

[Fiendish Thingy]

58. You've got to get out more

You hang on Nicole’s every word, even when she’s absolutely wrong.

She said only after the explosive testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson which showed the extent of the insurrection/coup did Garland appoint Jack Smith

Smith’s appointment was triggered by Trump announcing his 2024 candidacy just two days before Smith was appointed, and nothing else.

The “special” in Special Prosecutor doesn’t mean “faster”, “more aggressive”, or “now we’re really taking this investigation seriously”, it only means there is an additional layer of insulation to address political and ethical conflicts.

But you already knew that, because you’ve been told many times before.

Everything Jack Smith is doing, is because he started on third base, thanks to Merrick Garland.

[gab13by13]

69. She is my sole source of information on cable

Merrick Garland’s pyramid strategy was a bust, not investigating Trump and his inner circle early on played right into Trump’s delay strategy, none of the unwashed Magats flipped on Trump, Meadows kept Trump’s hands clean.

Where do you get your news?

[Fiendish Thingy]

145. Most of Nicole's show isn't "news"

It’s punditry. (With the occasional exception of some late breaking story, in which case the anchor throws it to a field reporter to provide details and actual information)

Most of cable news is designed to provide opinion and analysis (telling you what the news means, and if that is a good or bad thing) that aligns with their target audience’s beliefs. That’s why FOX doubled down on The Big Lie, and why MSNBC presents an anti-MAGA (but not necessarily pro-Democratic party) viewpoint.

I watch Rachel’s show on Mondays, and on rare occasions Chris Hayes and Lawrence. I watch MSNBC for election night coverage.

The bulk of my “news”, that is, facts and data, the Who, What, Where, When and How type of information, I obtain mostly from primary print sources online such as Reuters, AP, the Guardian, Propublica, WaPo, and occasionally exclusives from other less desirable sources such as Politico or NYT.

There’s nothing wrong with enjoying Nicole’s pundit filled shows, as long as you realize what you’re getting. Using her show as your “sole source of information” is quite risky however.

[inthewind21]

153. "She is my sole source of information on cable"

And here lies the problem.

[getagrip_already]

75. Uhhm, nope, sorry.....

The process to vetted candidates, recruit and negotiate terms, and then finally announce a special council is not a 2 day process.

At a minimum, it would take 2 months to go from decision to announcement.

Which puts the decision to bring Smith on within days of garlands decision to bring bidens SC on.

It's more likely those are related than not.

[Fiendish Thingy]

105. Did you think I was suggesting they waited until Trump announced to begin the process?

Or did they anticipate the triggering event ahead of time, and prepared accordingly, so Garland could make the appointment as soon as Trump announced his candidacy?

[getagrip_already]

134. does it matter?

They would have still had to make the go-forward decision months before. Smith would not have agreed to be a "maybe" specal council.

So I doubt they were thinking "if he decides, we will be ready". It's possible it was coincidence, I'll give you that. But they weren't going to back out if he didn't decide to announce.

[Fiendish Thingy]

141. Nothing to prove your hypothesis, is there?

Trump announced, Smith was appointed.

Prosecution teams prepare plans for contingencies that are never enacted all the time.

If Trump decided not to run, there would have been no Special Counsel- what would the rationale have been? There would have been no ethical or political conflicts.

There is no special counsel investigating Mike Pence’s classified documents- why? (Because he’s not running for president- if he declares his candidacy, I fully expect an SC to be appointed if the investigation hasn’t already been completed)

[getagrip_already]

147. I just can't imagine anyone would accept a maybe position.......

It's fine to have a plan, but to keep a high power prosecutor on the shelf just in case isn't a reasonable scenario.

Who would do that?

This decision was made at the same time as appointing bidens sc. I'm sure he saw it as "balanced" that way so as not to appear political.

The timing with tfg's announcement was coincidental. It's more likely tfg moved up HIS announcement knowing doj might act.

[inthewind21]

154. You

think Smith would have been just sitting home waiting by the phone?

[getagrip_already]

166. that's my point exactly....

Nobody would go through all of the vetting and interviews just to be on hand "in case" tfg announced a run. Either there is a job at the end or there isn't.

I would never go that far into a process without knowing if the job is real. This isn't like someone going for confirmation where they might not be confirmed.

That isn't even considering the impact on their current job and family.

The decision to appoint was made long before the announcement, and wasn't going to be withdrawen unless something cataclysismic occurred which would make prosecution of any of the cabal moot.

[Fiendish Thingy]

167. Jack Smith wasn't kept "on the shelf"

Even after accepting his appointment as Special Counsel, he remained in Europe for a time, healing from his injuries and wrapping up his role at the ICC.

Trump had signalled his intentions to announce his candidacy immediately following the midterms for weeks, if not months.

To continue to insist that the appointment of Smith wasn’t triggered by Trump’s candidacy, and was merely coincidental is not supported by the facts, and shows a complete lack of understanding of why Special Counsels are appointed in the first place.

[Grumpy Old Guy]

59. Histoy will not be kind to Garland. Nt

[Redleg]

89. Whose toy?

I couldn't pass on that one.

[republianmushroom]

70. the republicans may be correct.

Yep, Garland dragged his feet for more than 18 months.
27 months and counting.

[The Wizard]

71. I think the rule is

an investigation cannot be initiated within 60 days of the election.

[Ligyron]

86. How hard and fast is this "rule"?

What if they just ignored this, like so many subpoenas have been, and just dropped the hammer on him anyway? Who is going to enforce this rule at that point? The Biden administration? Some MAGA's gonna sue?

So what.

If Jack Smith completes his investigation all wrapped up with perfectly crafted indictments all ready to go and Garland doesn't follow though? Biden needs to fire him, put in an acting AG and file charges immediately or this country is well and truly fucked.

[republianmushroom]

169. Who made the "Rule".

[ecstatic]

72. I was going to say something really nasty about MG

but I'm going to wait and see what he does. Hopefully he will do the right thing and not allow a coup plotter to get near the White House.

[BigmanPigman]

73. Every time I say this on DU I get a zillion

comments defending Garland. I have not and will not change my opinion (yes, we are still entitled to express our opinion here, but only sometimes when it come to issues like Garland) unless I see something that leads my to believe otherwise. People on DU either love him and his progress, or lack of, or are disappointed. It seems very black and white and I hate being intimidated for expressing my opinion!!! You have my respect for broaching this issue on this site. I too heard Nicole and agreed with her.

[quakerboy]

103. Evidence.

Waiting on evidence.

[lees1975]

76. There's enough evidence in media clips

to convict Trump of seditious conspiracy and put him away forever. All of this other bullshit is just other bullshit, delay, obfuscation and distraction.

Even tonight, legal analysts are now saying that the DOJ can't pull the trigger too close to the election in order to keep this from looking political. More bullshit. They've got this guy, so pull the damn trigger and get his ass moving toward incarceration in Guantanamo.

I am not holding my breath on this. There are two different Americas and it is virtually impossible for the one we live in to cross over to the fantasyland of the rich and powerful and impose real values and ethics in a world where none exist and cannot be understood.

I'm expecting zero from any indictment, if they ever happen.

[inthewind21]

155. "There's enough evidence in media clips View profile to convict Trump of seditious conspiracy"

Where did you get your constitutional law degree? Never been involved in a criminal trial huh?

[Skittles]

77. it's a pretty good bet

he comes off as milquetoast to me

[Evolve Dammit]

80. I really think the game is rigged. Fitzgerald, Mueller, Holder, Garland. It just doesn't seem to

hold people in power to account. Hence, no one is above the law is a hollow expression. I could go on, but will probably already be flagged. Sorry, just my HO.

[NewHendoLib]

85. This.

[LizBeth]

122. +1. I never felt Biden was enthusiastic going after Trump either. Or Obama for that matter.

The only one with a little fire was Warren

[Evolve Dammit]

179. Nothing happened to Cheney/ Bush either despite war crimes and torture...n/t

[LizBeth]

183. Right. Exactly. Republicans just keep pushing further and further with criminality and

we give them a huge ass, meh

[Evolve Dammit]

191. "...made me feel ashamed. To live in a land where justice is a game." Bob Dylan Desire album

[Evolve Dammit]

192. agree. Liz is rightly pissed. She gets it.

[relayerbob]

87. Wha wha wha

This is, by a large margin, the largest, most complex and most politically charged investigation in this country, and possibly in history. It all takes time, A LOT of time, even in organizations that haven't been infiltrated by the enemy and purposefully damaged, defunded and attacked from the the highest positions. There is ZERO room for failure. The fact that this has been building since Jan 21, 2021 is lost on a lot of people who just want revenge. Get over it and grow up.

[agingdem]

98. thank you...

the big lie and and the January 6 insurrection was months in the making, long before the 2020 election...the multi pronged plot to overturn the election has layers of criminality within each facet of the coup..we tend to think Trump's plan was a closely held secret shared by Trump's inner circle when, in fact, there were untold numbers of people committing treason on Trump's behalf...and each one of Trump's complicit enablers has to be investigated/subpoenaed..and with every subpoena comes a series of appeals and each appeal has to be fought in court until the grand jury is privy to their testimony...and that takes time..the crimes that appear obvious to us have to be supported up by law..Garland cannot go into court and lose because we are impatient..so we wait

[relayerbob]

99. Yep! They need to get a conviction

and I have confidence that they will ... and not just Trump

[agingdem]

100. you're right..Trump needed help to set fire to the Constitution

and that "help" needs to be pay the price for aiding and abetting Trump and his attempt to stay in office..

[relayerbob]

93. This guy is one who knows what he is talking about

Link to tweet

[inthewind21]

157. You tell us

You're the one with all the knowledge of what has and hasn't happened in this investigation.

[Scrivener7]

104. *snork*

[bigtree]

94. Wallace is lying. The process for obtaining Pence's testimony began BEFORE Smith was appointed

...NYT from Nov. '22:

Thomas Windom, one of the lead investigators examining the efforts to overturn the election, reached out to Mr. Pence’s team in the weeks before Attorney General Merrick B. Garland appointed a special counsel on Friday to oversee the Jan. 6 investigation and a separate inquiry into Mr. Trump’s handling of classified documents, according to one of the people familiar with the matter. Mr. Garland has said that the appointment of the special counsel, Jack Smith, will not slow the investigation.

Officials at the Justice Department declined to comment. A spokesman for Mr. Pence also declined to comment.

The discussions about questioning Mr. Pence are said to be in their early stages. Mr. Pence has not been subpoenaed, and the process could take months, because Mr. Trump can seek to block, or slow, his testimony by trying to invoke executive privilege.

...why is the woman who handpicked Sarah Palin outright lying about the Garland DOJ?

More importantly, why is this misinformation and these provable lies being spread here?

[agingdem]

116. Looks like I'm not the only one that can't see Nicole Wallace

Last edited Fri Apr 28, 2023, 07:34 AM - Edit history (1)

without also seeing the specter of Sarah Palin lurking in the background ...Garland appointed Jack Smith after the 2022 midterms..the MAGAs had flipped the House and Garland was savvy enough to understand he had to insulate the two investigations (January 6/classified documents) to prevent Trump ass-kissers Jordan/McCarthy from gaining access to the ongoing investigations...so he appointed an independent prosecutor to oversee and cocoon the two probes....Garland wasn't wrong...Jordan and McCarthy both wrote letters to the DOJ demanding any and all evidence be turned over to the incoming judiciary committee...I suspect Jim and Kev were more concerned about their culpability in the insurrection than Trump's...

[lees1975]

140. The DOJ is an executive branch agency.

Not congressional.

[agingdem]

146. I know as does any 16 year kid in a US Government class..

Last edited Fri Apr 28, 2023, 12:47 PM - Edit history (1)

but Jordan, McCarthy and the rest of the MAGA morons think they are all powerful and the Constitution doesn't apply to them..in fact, they demanded the the DOJ hand over all documents pertaining to the two investigations a month prior to taking over the House ...Garland politely told them to shove it..

[Kingofalldems]

96. Should we give up?

[Meowmee]

106. Agree

We will find out.

[diva77]

114. I recall reading that TFG had embedded operatives throughout the bureaucracy

who would remain in their positions beyond presidential term limits. I wonder whether Garland has had to tread carefully to avoid any of those people.

...Just thinking out loud.

[ZonkerHarris]

115. FYI: We have to GOTV forever to save our democracy. If they win one more time we're done.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

121. No. . . . nt

[Paladin]

126. Thank you, Nicolle Wallace. (nt)

[live love laugh]

130. Nicole Wallace is a Bush holdover not to be trusted.

[inthewind21]

158. Funny

how everyone seems to forget that.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

164. I think it's part of a pattern

Schmidt, Conway, Kaytal, Walsh… lots of love when right-wingers criticize the Biden Administration.

[live love laugh]

174. They keep posting her name to justify attacks on Biden's DOJ.

It’s like bringing the garbage in.

but true

[bucolic_frolic]

133. Disagree DOJ had to get it right, gauge political fallout, not rush in without surefire evidence

Prosecuting insurrectionists at the lower levels has defused zealotry and given room for higher level prosecutions. The last thing in the world you want is for cases at a higher level to be dismissed because evidence was not firm, political mood supported them in courts and juries. Justice grinds slowly because justice has to get it right.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

138. Exactly.

[lees1975]

143. Everyone involved in January 6th will be prosecuted and have served time before they get around to

Trump.

My hope at this point is that enough voters realize what a scum bag Trump really is, and there are enough Democrats to keep an eye on the massive ballot manipulation that will be going on in places where Magats control the vote count to make sure we have a free and fair election and he either doesn't get on the ballot because Republicans will wake up and kick him out, or the majority won't let him win.

Because he isn't going to face any legal consequences for the crimes he has committed.

[PufPuf23]

144. Wallace cracked me up yesterday when she referred to some on the USSC as "Dudes",

as in "who do these dudes think they are"?

Wallace at present is the best at MSNBC.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

162. Name calling isn't my idea of good journalism.

[PufPuf23]

178. Name calling isn't my idea of good journalism nor a good practice in general.

But I am not perfect. Look at my posts.

Made the post to point out an exception rather than the rule with NW that found humorous.

[Magoo48]

156. Garland is a pearl clutcher, a hand wringer, a Kevlar briefs kind of guy.

Without massive pressure from high on high, which there has never been, he’ll let the clock run out and be content with the tie. The true power resides with the corporate billionaires, and from their pov, convicting tfg sets a bad precedent.

[inthewind21]

159. He'd fit in

nicely here.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

170. Malarky.

[live love laugh]

177. ✔️

[Farmer-Rick]

163. Well, at least we didn't get some stupid little sound bite

Or meme from the DOJ, like "look forward not backwards", when they did nothing about torture.

That's an improvement.

[YoshidaYui]

181. If Trump becomes President He will never leave office

And by then the US will look like China- or Russia - and this country will be a full blown Dictatorship with no chance to ever retuning to Democracy.

[onecaliberal]

187. But, But, But there is a long list of things Garland did...

It won't be ready for court by the time the election rolls around.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

195. Some of the actions taken by AG Garland before Jack Smith was appointed

I wish that the J6 criminal prceedings were moving faster but it is unfair to say that AG Garland did nothing before the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet