Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Fitzmas avoidance does not require multiple wet blanket cannons [View all]MustLoveBeagles
(11,628 posts)54. K&R
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
72 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Fitzmas avoidance does not require multiple wet blanket cannons [View all]
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
OP
Pierce deserves respect, but I think Garland was required to appoint a Special Counsel.
Hermit-The-Prog
Nov 2022
#8
It can be inferred by the DOJ policy that requires the appointment of an SC in such circumsances.
Just A Box Of Rain
Nov 2022
#37
The "circumstances" have changed due to announcements by TBL and indications
Just A Box Of Rain
Nov 2022
#52
Garland undoubtedly has determined, but would not say if he has. He has not said tRump is cleared
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
#53
Sure. Emphasis on "seems". But I think it is other than "shielding from Fox and hysterics"
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
#9
Barr barred Mueller from indicting tRump then Congress (Republicans) didn't do their job
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
#22
Obviously you and I see very different things. Appearing before the Jan 6 committee
Autumn
Nov 2022
#59
Yes, there is much more than the J6 committee; J6 committee has nothing to do with this thread
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
#64
Bill Barr was too smart to do anything illegal. Remember, he resigned BEFORE Jan 6
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
#65
Nothing has changed about that SOB since IC. He got away with his shit then and it looks to me
Autumn
Nov 2022
#66
The leading hypothesis is that it contains info about ongoing investigations
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
#48
Yes. Hence my reasoning that it is not about evading shrieks of 'partisan witch-hunt'. . . .nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
#46
We have no other option but waiting. Garland is immune to social media / talking head noise
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
#50
keep in mind he is likely fighting a rear guard battle against the left behind.
mopinko
Nov 2022
#12
Whatever Garland is doing to keep a clean, tight, house is working. We hear nothing
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
#15
There is a small contingent of those who partake in this kind of behavior here:
demmiblue
Nov 2022
#18
What are you referring to? There is no issue of control in this thread. . . . nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
#23
Sure. I'm not responsible for other threads, nor do I have any "control". . . . nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
#31
After the Robert Mueller experience, I do not have faith that our justice system will ever prosecute
Yavin4
Nov 2022
#21
That is not what prompted this thread. Fitzmas was a lack of indictment. Speakership is different.nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
#28
I'm not mad. Wasn't the OP clear enough for you that I was advising an even keel?
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
#30
Slapping hands for not believing in a ridiculous cloud castle isn't an even keel
Sympthsical
Nov 2022
#38
This thread is not about that thread. I don't know why I have to repeat that. . . . nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
#42
You made me laugh -- I guess I deserved that, whatever it was. Thank you very much....
Hekate
Nov 2022
#39
Thanks. Positivists live longer and (or because) they enjoy life more
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
#61
From the "gift" of indictments that prosecutor Fitzgerald was highly anticipated to deliver
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
#68