There's a faction of DU that seems to delight in pointing and laughing at those of us who believed. . .

[Ilikepurple]

41. Obtuse? Silliness? "(like in the middle of a campaign)"

This article isn’t the Mike drop you think it is.
“Like Comey, Garland is a longtime personal friend—so maybe I’m just being defensive. But as with Comey, I find myself dissenting from what is fast becoming conventional wisdom.” “ It’s not that I think Garland’s caution was the correct posture.” “ But color me highly skeptical that this would have made any difference.”

First of all the author even states he dissents from what is fast becoming conventional wisdom. I’m not saying that those opinions are correct either, but they aren’t worthless.
What I get out of the article is that DOJ couldn’t have gotten Trump to trial before the election even if it acted with less caution. This may be true, but is ultimately not really a defense of DOJ’s choice of action rather its culpability in Trump’s subsequent election. The article does not attempt to analyze what may have happened if they went from the middle up rather than bottom up or top down. A few flips, or convictions of Trump’s “lieutenants” might have swung a few percentage points or at least served as a cautionary tale amongst his enablers. The problem with strongly held positions in absence of much fact is that we can conveniently ignore alternate scenarios to make our arguments strongest. We don’t really know now and it’s kinda pointless to talk about except we might find ourselves in this position again.
Also, I did discuss the point you made by saying continued pressure may get more info and that it’s not really unhelpful because I believe discussing Garland’s possible failings will not negatively impact future elections. I may have been wrong on both accounts, but I did discuss your points in a manner that I don’t think was obtuse or silly, although I’ve been known to be both.