So, those who were suspect over DoJ/FBI

[boston bean]

doing their job who were told over and over that their suspicions were hog wash cause there was no evidence, beyond there being no evidence something was being done. Were maligned, questioned, called all sorts if things and attempted to be shut up or face the wrath of people who were just so much smarter because they had blind faith in a man and institution. Even though Schiff was also questioning.

I gotta say the absence of action, the long delays, the silence was the evidence that they weren’t investigating for 15 months because they didnt want to appear political. Which in itself is the ultimate in political.

You go where the evidence takes you. You don’t delay justice because you might be called a political hack. You let the evidence and only the evidence lead.

I am so pissed off.

[WhiteTara]

1. Don't forget the Durham interference

tfg has had stooges in every part of the DOJ.

[WhiteTara]

2. edit to add

Wray's head should roll.

[JohnSJ]

7. Sure, but it won't happen because President Biden doesn't want to do what trump did

[WhiteTara]

27. No one wants to do what tfg did

I'm not sure your point.

[JohnSJ]

29. If Biden fired Wray, it would be viewed by some like trump firing Comey, even though it isn't

the same thing, it would be viewed as political because Wray didn’t do Biden’s bidding

[arthritisR_US]

42. No it wouldn't because Biden hasn't ask Wray for

anything other than to do his job without prejudice like any other President before the orange shitginbon did.

[TexasDem69]

3. I'd say that the FBI did a good job

But that’s just me. Half the country was going to be pissed whichever way it went and they didn’t rush into anything.

[JohnSJ]

6. Not really. It started with Comey, and Wray according to the WP contributed to the delays

[WhiteTara]

76. Comey said the NYC office had gone rogue.

[JohnSJ]

78. Comey 11 days before the general election, against direct orders of the AG, took it upon himself to

send a letter to the republicans in Congress saying they were looking at Weiner’s laptop, which the republicans went on every news program, along with the illustrious media saying that the e-mail investigation was reopened. That was a lie. Comey made himself unavailable to everyone until late Friday night the weekend before the general election, saying nothing new was discovered, and disappeared.

I would argue that Comey went rouge because he disobeyed the orders from the Attorney General, because what he did was a violation of the Hatch Act.

[WhiteTara]

80. why hasn't there been any repercussion for his actions?

He and the entire group went rogue. They definitely threw the election. The Russians couldn't do it, trump couldn't do it, the Israeli's couldn't do it the RNC couldn't do it so he took it upon himself to throw the election. He should live in hell for aeons.l

[JohnSJ]

81. That is a good question.

[WhiteTara]

83. WE'd love an answer

[JohnSJ]

4. The people that one should be angry with is the DOJ and FBI, not our colleagues here expressing

different views

In my view, this isn’t even Monday morning quarterbacking. It was clear from the Georgia and Arizona calls trump made, and that the January 6th committee

[boston bean]

8. That is who i am angry with.

[JohnSJ]

10. Of course, I was speaking generally. I agree with you

[stopdiggin]

40. that OP seems to take a pretty hefty swipe

at opponents here on DU. Are you saying we're misinterpreting?

- were told over and over that their suspicions were hog wash cause there was no evidence, beyond there being no evidence something was being done. Were maligned, questioned, called all sorts if things and attempted to be shut up or face the wrath of people who were just so much smarter because they had blind faith -

[Scrivener7]

54. Nope. All those things did happen and there's nothing wrong with acknowledging it.

It's OK to reference the insulting and swarming nature of those attempts to shut us up.

[stopdiggin]

64. read the string

bean responds to this post -

The people that one should be angry with is the DOJ and FBI, not our colleagues here expressing different views

in the affirmative -

That is who i am angry with.

Excepting - with plenty of vitriol left over for 'our colleagues' as well.
Which is what I (using his/her own words) come along to point out. You're either slamming the opposition - or you're not.

[Scrivener7]

66. Yes. She said it. So what?

[stopdiggin]

69. and I responded

as articulately as I'm able (to both that post, and yours)
Anything wrong there?

[Scrivener7]

9. Meh. The attempts to shut us up quite pissed me off.

I find I am able to be mad at both the DOJ and the people who yammered, "It's not a law and order episode!!1!" for a year and a half.

[JohnSJ]

11. Sure, but do you expect a mea Culpa from them?

[Scrivener7]

13. No.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=18021328

But why do you bring that up now? Boston bean didn't ask for a mea culpa.

[JohnSJ]

17. You are right, but other posts I have seen from asking for that, to even going as far as saying

they were happy Garland never became a SC Justice

For me some of those discussions, which no doubt are out of frustration, are absurd

President Biden is not going to fire Garland or Wray now.

I suspect the reason the DOJ finally pursued the investigation of trump was because of the January 6th committee findings, when the DOJ should have been leading the charge.

[boston bean]

18. He would have made a fine Justice.

[JohnSJ]

26. Two different jobs, head of DOJ and Supreme Court justice. Not comparable. Most important thing

is his appointment would have prevented one of trump’s appointments

Most of us here are angry as you expressed in your OP, and the irony of trying not to appear as political, makes it political. Well said.

What will really piss us off if they refuse to indict because it runs up against the 2024 election

[arthritisR_US]

44. The DOJ should have been leading the charge you say

and clearly they weren’t so they should be held accountable.

[dem4decades]

19. I agree. I was told that DOJ was on top of things because pawns were going to jail.

Big deal, there wasn't any action against this higher up. Doesn't the FBI works for the DOJ?

It's over, this country is doomed of their is no justice, and DOJ doing nothing only makes that more possible.

[Silent3]

25. I'm angry at both, at least at those on DU who were demeaning to people who rightly suspected...

...foot-dragging and special treatment for Trump and a lack of an appropriate sense of urgency.

It was apparently all true, as long as this new Washington Post reporting holds up. Our complaints about the speed of the DoJ, and it's apparently skittishness about pursuing Trump, certainly were not way off base or uncalled for.

[Earth-shine]

45. This is well said. I have plenty of tolerance for those on DU with opinions different than mine,

but on the Garland issue, some of his supporters here were often demeaning toward others.

To question authority is consistent with being a loyal Democrat.

[Scrivener7]

51. This. I have even seen, TODAY, a post that suggests

we are part of a plot to discredit the DOJ, and this article is just another part of the plot.

It is one thing to be insulted. It is another to be insulted by bat shit crazy nonsense.

[uponit7771]

5. K&R, the fake electors could've been arrested weeks after the attempted coup. They had SIGNATURES ..

... on record and took over a year to open a full fledged investigation on them.

We'll see if the timing is material but I'm sick of the "political" for the sake of the GQP

[arthritisR_US]

46. Great point!

[Fiendish Thingy]

12. Being obstructed is not the same as willful delay.

These investigations were interfered with, obstructed, thwarted, but the incomplete and not wholly accurate WaPo report does not establish that it was purposely delayed.

What you call the “absence of action” was in reality, the absence of public information about action.

But if you feel the need to be pissed off, you do you.

[Scrivener7]

15. So at least we agree there was a senseless delay.

That's new.

[Fiendish Thingy]

24. Well, I see it as a senseless obstruction.

But sure, if that’s our common ground, OK.

[republianmushroom]

31. It wasn't senseless it was planned and well though out.

It is do did the thinking and planning ?

[Doc Sportello]

35. Lot of unsubstantiated accusations there

You state the Wapo report was inaccurate without proof of same. In fact, those are veteran investigative reporters and your take is not substantiated. Likewise you claim that you know the "reality" that there was action - it just wasn't public information. How the hell do you know that. If you're going to slander respected reporters - as they are and have been for a long time - it's best not to follow that with unsubstantiated claims of your own.

And your last line is unfortunately emblematic of the kind of derisive potshots many on your side have been taking for a year now. And that's why some on here are reacting the way they are to the report.

[Fiendish Thingy]

38. I will repost the substantiation of the gaps and inaccuracies:

You must have missed it the first several times I, and others have posted it on DU:

https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/06/19/the-wapo-shows-there-should-be-more-scrutiny-of-steve-dantuono/

The fact is, there was little, if any public information coming out of DOJ for the first year+ of the investigations. Grand juries were convened and hearing witnesses for months before that became public information in the middle of last year. Since then, information about witnesses, subpeonas, device seizures, comms evidence all gradually surfaced, months after DOJ obtained the evidence or took the actions. Now, the indictments reveal even more information that wasn’t known publicly before.

But some are using this WaPo report as confirmation that Garland was sitting on his hands, deliberately not taking action, not investigating. The link above shows that is absolute nonsense.

We now know some of what we didn’t know about the investigations when it was happening, and also, as revealed by the WaPo, the unprecedented obstruction by one particular FBI agent.

[Scrivener7]

52. Blech. While we are mocked for believing Schiff and the Washington Post and

Rachel and Nicole and the J6 Committee, those doing the mocking love to hold up emptywheel as their Info Jesus. Emptywheel ffs.

They also hold her up as some kind of proof that the Post article should be ignored when in fact, though she is still dedicated - without evidence - to the notion of the double secret probation investigation, emptywheel negates nothing the Post article says.

It's bizarre.

[msfiddlestix]

56. Didn't emptywheel just last week report that Cannon would not be the judge in TFG's doc trial?

I stopped reading/listening to emptywheel several years ago just following the Fitzmas fiasco. I hung on every word during the investigations, later to learn of a few too many flaws in analysis and leading to flawed predictions and outcomes.

Everyone makes mistakes, including yours truly. My point is I see it repeated at critical points, which gives me pause with regard to their analysis.

[Fiendish Thingy]

60. Emptywheel did not claim Cannon would not be the judge for Trump's trial

You are mistaken.

Quite the opposite- Marcy said, despite her weaknesses and shortcomings, it’s not the end of the world for her to preside over the trial, and people need to face the reality that she won’t likely recuse herself, and Smith won’t seek her removal. Since then, including this morning, emptywheel has covered Cannon’s rulings so far as routine and typical and nothing to have one’s hair on fire over.

If you stopped reading emptywheel years ago, you have missed out on a lot of coverage you will find nowhere else. As I’ve said before, emptywheel gets into the weeds, examining court transcripts, legal precedents, and other details that nobody else, not even Rachel (who has had Marcy on her show in the past) does.

If you reject sources once they make a mistake, then I don’t know how you get any news from anywhere, since every source, including FOX, was wrong about who would win the 2016 election.

[msfiddlestix]

75. Marcy's 'not the end of the world" article was published just after The Cannon Will NOT preside OP

Written by a former federal judge of the same federal court district as Cannon.

it's all good, no worries.

[Doc Sportello]

58. More specious claims

"The link above shows that is absolute nonsense." No it doesn't and self-righteous tones don't prove anything.

From the link: "The story implies DOJ first sent out subpoenas in the fake elector plot in June 2022." So the story doesn't make that claim. It "implies" it ,which in your mind and Wheeler's shows it is inacccurate. There are many examples of this in the article, including her cherry picking of what she thought should have been included. That doesn't prove your charges of inaccuracies. It's her take. That's all.

If you want people to come to your point of view first try to drop the snark and the belittling and the hubris that you have knowledge that in reality you don't possess. We won't know for sure what happened, if ever, but it certainly is a legitimate discussion to have whether Garland dragged his feet. It's a discussion forum and this attitude that too many on here have that discussion is not permitted because we have to trust (fill in the blank) is as anti-democratic as it gets.

[Fiendish Thingy]

62. Many are blindly trusting the WaPo story as confirmation

That Garland dragged his feet and deliberately delayed investigating Trump, a narrative that plays right into Trump’s hands IMO, making Smith look even more aggressive and partisan than Trump claims.

The emptywheel article shows how the WaPo article cherry picked what to emphasize, diminishing focus of where the actual obstruction and resistance was coming from, and how Garland proceeded anyway, investigating from the bottom up, something we already knew was happening, and something that was standard procedure for DOJ.

[Scrivener7]

67. And many are blindly trusting the empty wheel story.

Though most of those seem not to have actually read it.

[Fiendish Thingy]

70. Best case scenario:

Reasonable people will read both stories, and understand the nuances contained within, rather than using the headlines to jump to bias-confirming conclusions.

[Scrivener7]

72. Yeah. Too late for that.

Though, Fiendish, I do have to say that I appreciate your response to my post where I pointed out an area where we agree.

I have tried that with other posters and have been yelled at. I tried multiple times with one poster to say, "how about we agree to disagree," after the hundredth go round, and that poster insisted on another doubling down on the "you're an idiot" kinds of posts.

So. While you and I may never agree on this, I appreciate your response and I happily acknowledge that you are an ally who votes for the same people I do for the same reasons.

[Fiendish Thingy]

84. 👍😁 yup

[arthritisR_US]

47. Is your DOJ so weak they can be so obstructed? Sad

[Scrivener7]

53. Was the boss of the DOJ so unable to manage his people and steer the work they did?

Somehow Jack Smith was able to cut through all that obstruction within a week of taking office. Imagine that.

[bigtree]

14. that's not what the article says

...not even close.

What is says is that Garland pursued the case from the 'bottom up.'

Who is to say that wasn't the best course in the end? What's the standard? The coming election. That can't be it because nothing the DOJ would do in indicting Trump makes a bit of difference in his campaigning.

Also it remains to be seen how long it will take to get to trial. So much gaslighting, it's no wonder there's pissitude. But, for shit sakes, get a grip on what's actually happening.

One indictment down and one coming. You have to wonder who the fuck wants to make us feel bad about the people who made that possible -all while it's happening - which includes Garland if anyone bothers to read beyond this choppy, incomplete and misleading report.

[boston bean]

16. Why did Garland appoint a special prosecutor?

What was the impetus?

[bigtree]

20. obviously Trump as candidate, which is what he said

...but you're free to choose from myriad denigrating reasons given by Garland critics if it suits your 'anger.'

[boston bean]

21. Thanks for your permission, but don't need it.

So, what would have happened if Trump hadn’t announced. Pretty sure I know the answer. Same thing that wasn’t happening for the past year and a half.

[bigtree]

22. and there's that unfounded, nonfactual speculation

...which articles like this one thrive on.

Thing is, he did, and so did Joe Biden, so this isn't really something controversial.

It's sort of 'good Jack Smith indictment, bad Garland for appointing him.' Not sure where this is going but I'm out.

[boston bean]

23. That makes no sense.

[JohnSJ]

32. Can't you walk and chew gum at the same time as the saying goes?

[stopdiggin]

41. yes. but that doesn't really apply to investigations

(if that was the allusion you were trying for)
The reason these things are most often done bottom to top has been laid out fairly often, and fairly thoroughly here. And you're still free to disagree with that conventional wisdom - but it's not like it hasn't been proffered.

[JohnSJ]

59. The January 6 committee started in 2021, and was disbanded in January 2023, though I believe their

work was finished in December 2022.

Jack Smith was appointed in January 2023. Why did it take so long for the DOJ to appoint Jack Smith? It should have had nothing to do with the January 6 work. Those were independent investigations and also a separate branch of government.

[stopdiggin]

65. I thought your post was a reference

to the standard practice of going after 'smaller fish' first. (which in fact, in the case of the Jan6 riots, the DOJ has done with some alacrity) If that was not the point of your post - then the misunderstanding is on my part - and the point made moot.
----- -----

[JohnSJ]

71. I probably didn't word it correctly, regardless, the point I was making was I think they should

have begun the investigation around earlier, like the January 6 committee did, and maybe they were, but I don’t think so because the special counsel wasn’t appointed until January of 2023, which begs the question why that wasn’t done earlier.

[republianmushroom]

28. agree with this posting.

[JanMichael]

30. I know, right? We were the assholes. Who are the assholes now?

[Skittles]

33. THANK YOU

we were right all along, HEAVEN FORBID efforts to hold accountable people who tried to OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT start IMMEDIATELY

[kentuck]

34. Perhaps that is why he called Jack Smith?

They were getting resistance from the FBI.

Garland, in search of a compromise, requested that Smith take the job of Special Counsel. Jack Smith has been working at a rapid rate for last 6 months to catch up on time that may have been lost.

I feel like there is more to the story.

[summer_in_TX]

39. There's a reason the FBI was afraid of being too partisan.

The Durham investigation.

Marcy Wheeler, a.k.a. emptywheel says "From March, on how THE POINT of the Durham investigation was to make the FBI think twice before taking steps against Trump."

https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/03/06/trophy-documents-the-entire-point-was-to-make-fbi-obedient/


--------------------------

The FBI endured years of investigations by Durham, and now it continues since many were also hauled in front of Gym Jordan's committee.

[boston bean]

55. The reason he appointed Smith is because

Trump announced.

That is a fact.

Pretty sure if Trump hadn’t announced not much would have been done.

Maybe they were hoping he wouldn’t announce and it could go away.

[Phoenix61]

36. This is the standard way of going after organized crime.

“Whether a decision about Trump’s culpability for Jan. 6 could have come any earlier is unclear. The delays in examining that question began before Garland was even confirmed. Sherwin, senior Justice Department officials and Paul Abbate, the top deputy to FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, quashed a plan by prosecutors in the U.S. attorney’s office to directly investigate Trump associates for any links to the riot, deeming it premature, according to five individuals familiar with the decision. Instead, they insisted on a methodical approach — focusing first on rioters and going up the ladder.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/06/19/fbi-resisted-opening-probe-into-trumps-role-jan-6-more-than-year

[stopdiggin]

43. that doesn't sound so much like 'delaying tactic'

so much as a cover the bases and don't get the cart before the horse type of approach. And - if one goes on to find there was a certain amount of internal dissent on that score - that would also be fairly standard?

[Deminpenn]

48. Sherwin was appointed by Wm Barr to the DC gig

Remember Sherwin got the job after the prior DC USA was nominated, them moved to another DoJ job. Imho, Sherwin made the correct call to work up the ladder, but he might well have been installed in the DoJ by Barr to help protect Trump. The size and violence of what happened January 6th, I believe, shocked Sherwin into action regardless of what Barr may have wanted him to do.

[Duppers]

37. "... the ultimate in political."

SO TRUE. 👍

[SunSeeker]

49. Fmr. Acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal & Andrew Weissman, fmr DOJ Eastern District Chief...

...agree with you. They were on Lawrence O'Donnell tonight to talk about the revelations of the Washington Post story. They were both critical of DOJ bending over backwards to appear non-political and needlessly causing delay when they had sufficient evidence to start an investigation. They said this delay caused real harm, that we would not be in the same place we are today if this delay did not occur.

[pecosbob]

50. I don't really care about blame...I want the Insurrection Caucus thrown out of Congress...NOW!

[Stinky The Clown]

57. Claire McCaskill, on Morning Joe today, sounded just as pissed at DOJ/Garland as you do

And I agree.

[inthewind21]

61. Oh well

If Clair McCaskill is pissed then we should all follow. Huh, it's clear now why my parents always asked , if Suzie jumped off a bridge would you just follow?. Turns out, most would. Who knew.

[Stinky The Clown]

63. ::snort::

[Scrivener7]

68. Would you prefer we accept the emptywheel article as gospel?

As opposed to believing the J6 Committee, the Washington Post, Nicole, Rachel, Schiff and McCaskill?

And BTW, the empty wheel article doesn't say what most of Marcy's fans are saying it says.

[stopdiggin]

73. Wheeler doesn't say the WP article is wrong

or completely off base in its conclusions. More to the effect that it has some shortcomings and failures (and some small number of inaccuracies?) within the greater overall. (which she lays out for examination) And - probably more importantly, that what a lot of people are taking away from that piece - isn't really the full take either.

And, yeah - while not infallible, Empty Wheel's reporting and coverage has been a good deal more insightful (and complete) on these issues than a lot of other major news outlets to date. So - basically when it comes to picking and choosing ...

[Scrivener7]

74. Yes, I know what it says. Unlike most of the people touting it, I have read it.

[Celerity]

85. There are some using the libertarian darling, ex-Intercept employee, previously Obama-bashing

(a curious choice for a 'rod of obedience') Wheeler as a cyber cudgel to try and bring about a chilling effect on any and all slightest deviation from those same people's personal beliefs, opinions, and stances.

It's a problematic modus operandi of self-claimed authority designed to suppress and taint even the mildest of dissent and/or frustration by labelling many (if not all) expressing even a hint of non-fidelity (to the personal opinions of the cudgel-bearers) as a wilful tool of the pro Trumpian ecosphere and a dangerous disruptor.

I have been one of the more patient, fairly neutral people when it came to Garland, but what I see emanating from some corners in terms of lock-step demands and commands for purity of extression, for absolute conformity to only those self-appointed gatekeepers' opinions, and yes, the scoundrelisation of those who fall afoul of the accusers' diktats, is most assuredly something I could never countenance.

[Scrivener7]

86. I haven't been neutral about Garland, but now that Smith is at the helm, I think we are

finally getting somewhere.

I think this latest bit of news was a blow to some people's certainty, and I think a few of those are the kind of people who will therefore need to trumpet that certainty harder. Some of their posts have become indistinguishable from sermons. This group who has to make everyone agree with them are very voluble, but I do think they're the minority.

I find a couple of things funny. It seems there are those who believe only emptywheel, and then there are those following all the other sources besides emptywheel. But it's the emptywheel acolytes who are insisting the rest of us are blind followers of our sources.

And second, from what I read from those who insist the emptywheel article negates the Post information, most of those guys haven't even read the emptywheel articlel!! They don't know what the emptywheel article says!

I'm kind of done with the whole argument. As I say, Smith is finally getting somewhere (was miraculously able to cut through all that obstruction within a week of taking office) so I don't really care that they still believe Garland was conducting a double-secret-probation investigation during those two years of inactivity. Lots of people believe in Santa too. Going forward, I'm going to try to just back out of the room when they put out the carrots for the reindeer.

[Celerity]

87. I love your closing prose

Lots of people believe in Santa too. Going forward, I'm going to try to just back out of the room when they put out the carrots for the reindeer.

[Scrivener7]

88. A chance to use this smilie!!!

[inthewind21]

77. I'd prefer

people think for themselves and not just accept everything they hear or read as gospel just because it fits their preferred narrative. It's self defeating to rip to shreds the very people who just produced an indictment. Which, by the way, was predicted would never happen by those eagerly doing the ripping. So I guess there's got to be some kind of outrage huh? There IS an indictment, THAT is what should be the brass ring here. But clearly the goal posts have moved and now it wasn't done "good enough". And NO, it WOULD NOT have stopped Trump from announcing.

Bottom line, "we" have no idea and zero concrete evidence exactly what the DOJ, the FBI or anyone else involved has or has not done (which is how the DOJ and every other part of the judicial system has worked FOREVER) other than an article that "someone felt like this is what was happening" or some pundit who is all up in arms because "it's not how I would have done it" yet the declarations of absolutes are abound. I asked yesterday, I'll ask again, how is that any different than what the MAGAS, whom we are all so quick to slam for believing anything and everything they hear and read any different? I'll wait for an answer.

Life tip, there will be MANY things in this life that don't happen HOW we want them to in the time frame WE want them to. In this case, it DID happen. And I hate to break it to you, it may not all end like WE want it to. That's how life works. EVERYTHING is not a big conspiracy plot.

[Scrivener7]

79. You mean not just accept what they read as gospel like the way people are accepting

the emptywheel article as gospel? Or rather what other people are saying the emptywheel article says?

And you're giving me "life tips?" Really? Do you regard the creepy condescension in that to be a feature or a bug.

[inthewind21]

82. I mean any of it

but nice try at deflection. And I see no answer. Gee, wonder why.