Chris Hayes with the worst take of the night

[Celerity]

36. Watergate Prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks Says Special Counsel for Trump 'Waste of Time' (November 2022)

Not one was around for Watergate

https://www.newsweek.com/watergate-prosecutor-says-special-counsel-trump-waste-time-1760758

snip

Garland's announcement was not met with widespread agreement or enthusiasm.

"I think it's a waste of time and money, insults the prosecutors at DOJ and gains nothing," tweeted Jill Wine-Banks, a former Watergate and federal prosecutor. "No Trump supporter will see anyone as independent or fair to Trump."

Filmmaker Rob Reiner said the American people don't need a special counsel "to determine that Donald Trump has committed a mountain of federal crimes."

"Merrick Garland: Stop trying to avoid looking political and INDICT!" Reiner tweeted.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

also:

Richard Ben-Veniste is an American lawyer. He first rose to prominence as a special prosecutor during the Watergate scandal.

Merrick Garland doesn’t have forever

By Richard Ben-Veniste
July 20, 2022

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/20/garland-trump-investigation-jan-6-timing/

https://archive.li/kwRw6

Let’s take Attorney General Merrick Garland at his word that he is vigorously investigating Donald Trump and the apparent conspiracy that led to the violent coup attempt at the U.S. Capitol 18 months ago. My guess is that Garland should be able to make the decision on whether there is enough evidence to indict the former president for the crime of conspiracy to defraud the United States and/or related felonies in six months’ time. That decision should be based solely on whether the evidence is sufficient to convince a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, of Trump’s guilt — not on political considerations.

He will have to be about his work. The Jan. 6 select committee will hold what might be its last public hearing on Thursday evening. The committee, led by its steadfast chair, Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.), and its implacable vice chair, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), has demonstrated a unity of purpose and willingness to put the nation’s interests above personal attention and reward, and produced a factual record that lays the foundational predicate for charging those responsible for organizing the assault on the Capitol. Understandably, some have called on Garland to produce immediate indictments and prosecutions of individuals. I believe a more patient approach will better serve the interests of justice.

There is some analogy in the timetable to the work of the Senate Watergate Committee some five decades ago. That committee’s investigation provided an evidentiary foundation upon which the Watergate Special Prosecutor’s Office built a series of successful prosecutions of individuals who held the highest positions of power in the Nixon administration. The testimony of Nixon White House counsel John Dean and the revelation of the secret White House taping system by Alexander Butterfield were critical to our ultimate success.

The toolbox of federal prosecutors is better equipped to ferret out testimony and documents from reluctant witnesses than the investigative powers of congressional committees. The special prosecutor successfully subpoenaed the Nixon tapes, while Congress failed to obtain them. Hostile and dissembling witnesses testified against their superiors under relentless pressure from the prosecutors. And it was the special prosecutor who presented evidence of Richard M. Nixon’s complicity in obstructing the Watergate investigation that convinced the grand jury to vote that he be named as an unindicted co-conspirator. But employing the prosecutor’s tradecraft takes time. Reluctant witnesses have to be confronted with evidence; culpable parties may be granted immunity to induce cooperation against higher-ups. Challenges to grand jury subpoenas must be litigated in the courts.

snip