Fogbow

And here we go...

If only Barr had the power to indict ....

All these people pretending they didn’t know who tfg was until J6 slay me.

Phoenix520 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 8:10 pm All these people pretending they didn’t know who tfg was until J6 slay me.

Barr was underbussed prior to J6, but I get your point.

We haz a reaction

The clip really highlights how good SNL's Johnson's impersonation is.

Kendra wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 7:47 pm And here we go...

my understanding is that he is a "Registered Independent"

Tell you what, Fox talking heads and Congressional Republicans: Have any one Republican/Conservative Supreme Court Justice *step down* to take over as appointed special counsel in this matter so President Biden can appoint their replacement, and you'll get a Special Counsel more to Trump's liking and yours. Still no guarantee he won't be prosecuted, but I think you can feel a lot safer and the country gets a bargain.

I thought this was interesting -

MN-Skeptic wrote: ↑Sat Nov 19, 2022 2:23 am I thought this was interesting -

So, is she calling Jack a PINhead?

One thing I heard Elie Mystal saying on Ari Melber's show today is that if they're just getting the Special Councel investigation started NOW, there's virtually no way it can lead to a trial before 2024 and Trump being re-elected.

Mystal was extremely angry and pointed out out that nothing is different with the J6 situation now than it was 18 months ago, when he believes Garland should have appointed a Special Counsel if he was going to. Neither Trump not Biden had officially announced their candidacy, but everyone pretty well knew it was a safe bet they'd both run, so the fact that we know have an official announcement from one of them shouldn't have been needed to justify a Special Counsel.

I think he makes a good point. While the J6 committee has brought forth a lot of new information and evidence, the justification for their existence would also have justified a Special Counsel at that same time, and presumably a Special Counsel could have uncovered a lot of the same information. Since the House committee would likely have gone ahead anyway, the Special Counsel could have followed their lead if he wasn't able to get the info himself.

It's been pointed out here that a Special Counsel would survive a change in administration, but if Trump gets re-elected, it won't matter because of the DOJ rule against prosecuting a sitting president. In addition, even if they hurry and complete the investigation before the election, the DOJ policy of not doing anything too close to an election will likely keep them from prosecuting Trump.

While I'm glad *something* is happening in the DOJ, I think this is just too late of a move to be useful in holding Trump accountable. We needed an announcement of indictments not another likely long-term investigation.

My thoughts in general:

Though anything that involves Ripley gets a Yeah That from me.

I don't think adding a special counsel now will cause much delay for the Mar-a-Lago caper, especially because Cannon already has seen to that.

There also are reasons why the J6 committee and a criminal prosecutor shouldn't work closely together, the main one being a prosecutor would be held accountable for the committee's sins. In other words, the courts in a criminal proceeding would expect a prosecutor to be managing the committee's work. And that's not going to happen for political reasons.

The much more reasonable criticism is that a special counsel should have been appointed on January 21, 2021.

Mueller was able to start indicting the smaller fish in a matter of months. I expect the same here. Especially because we know grand jury proceedings already are under way.

And I have no doubt the OLC is bizzy drafting memos to justify trying a presidential candidate during election season.

bob wrote: ↑Sat Nov 19, 2022 10:51 am I don't think adding a special counsel now will cause much delay for the Mar-a-Lago caper, especially because Cannon already has seen to that.

There also are reasons why the J6 committee and a criminal prosecutor shouldn't work closely together, the main one being a prosecutor would be held accountable for the committee's sins. In other words, the courts in a criminal proceeding would expect a prosecutor to be managing the committee's work. And that's not going to happen for political reasons.

The much more reasonable criticism is that a special counsel should have been appointed on January 21, 2021.

Mueller was able to start indicting the smaller fish in a matter of months. I expect the same here. Especially because we know grand jury proceedings already are under way.

And I have no doubt the OLC is bizzy drafting memos to justify trying a presidential candidate during election season.

This is my criticism. Plus the fact that this was the announcement of the week, rather than the indictment. Every day we slip further into a hole from which there is no return to the rule of law.

Still waiting for those who are fine with Garland's schedule to tell me when they will say it's been "too long." End of the year? End of Jan? April? Dec 2023?

History echos, and this echo of inaction is very, very loud.

Interesting theory that Garland may have appointed a Special Counsel because some of the targets of the investigation are in Congress:
Emptywheel Theory

jcolvin2 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 19, 2022 12:36 pm Interesting theory that Garland may have appointed a Special Counsel because some of the targets of the investigation are in Congress:
Emptywheel Theory

I guess I don't get why the need for an SC is greater to investigate congresscritters than TFG. What am I missing?

Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Sat Nov 19, 2022 2:22 pm

jcolvin2 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 19, 2022 12:36 pm Interesting theory that Garland may have appointed a Special Counsel because some of the targets of the investigation are in Congress:
Emptywheel Theory

I guess I don't get why the need for an SC is greater to investigate congresscritters than TFG. What am I missing?

I have no knowledge of the legal side of this question, but I'll assume there is one.

I can add that Emptywheel is getting some push-back from those who disagree with her approval of Garland's move vis a vis Jack Smith. Which is fine (though she has a hard time discriminating between those she call "rage tweeters" and those who are trying to engage with reasonable argument)*. I got the sense that she was looking around to find the "other reasons" that Garland hinted at. Clever ones that mere mortals don't understand. And landed on this.

She is very much in the Trust the Plan camp when it comes to Garland.

*And no, I am not one of those who engaged. I am pretty much in a rage, so I respected her dislike of such posts and abstained.

Emptywheel has reason to not always believe people are who they say they are or are saying what they mean. She’s been seriously burned by Greenwald, among others, though I don’t know exactly what happened, and she’s among the most careful when it comes to researching before speaking.

Saw Harry Littman on CNN last hour, he says the Mar A Lago document case seems pretty wrapped up and his best guess is charges within six weeks or so, the J6 investigation and grand jury hearings will take longer. Mark your calendars!

Double jeopardy

Of course - he is doubly impeached - no further actions may be taken against #45

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 19, 2022 7:42 pm Of course - he is doubly impeached - no further actions may be taken against #45

Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Sat Nov 19, 2022 2:22 pm I guess I don't get why the need for an SC is greater to investigate congresscritters than TFG. What am I missing?

Members of Congress are elected officials in a co-equal branch of government. The executive branch asserting its power over the legislative has concerns, i.e., banana republic.

Prosecuting a former president and current candidate has political implications, but not constitutional ones.

bob wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 12:08 pm

Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Sat Nov 19, 2022 2:22 pm I guess I don't get why the need for an SC is greater to investigate congresscritters than TFG. What am I missing?

Members of Congress are elected officials in a co-equal branch of government. The executive branch asserting its power over the legislative has concerns, i.e., banana republic.

Prosecuting a former president and current candidate has political implications, but not constitutional ones.

Okay, so it's a pure politics/optics thing, then. Since I would think congressfolk have been prosecuted before directly by DoJ. It's a sensibility issue.