I have heard that a short rant is a good conversation starter for an open thread, is that true?
Alison Gill is not the only who is getting tired of people who continue that say that Merrick Garland is a coward, or a wimp, or a boot-licker, or an ineffectual Attorney General.
Here’s a rant dedicated to the seeming willfulness of some folks to believe those things in the face of evidence that says otherwise.
Garland may be mild-mannered. But me, personally? I think Garland has balls of steel. And when all is said and done, our soft-spoken, mild-mannered Attorney General might just be seen as Superman, along with Jack Smith. I mean, just look at who the man chose as Special Counsel?
To me, the name of the game is deterrence. Consequences. Even if the end result of the dance with the justice department is acquittal, at the very least we have proven that no one is above the law just based on their position. We surely wouldn’t be where we are now if there had been consequences for Reagan and Nixon and Iran- Contra and more.
Anyway, to everyone who thinks Garland has done nothing, or thinks the DOJ did nothing until Garland put Jack Smith in place, please consider reading the lists below with an open mind. Who knows what could happen?
If you can read that and make the argument that Garland is still worthless, go for it.
Rant over, totally open thread.
Got Kash Patel's testimony
Subpoenaed the fraudulent electors
Subpoenaed 7 state's election officials
Subpoenaed Sidney's PAC
Opened IG probe into Clark
Opened IG probe into DoJ response to 1/6
Negotiated subpoena for Meadows 2/
— Mueller, She Wrote (@MuellerSheWrote) April 15, 2023
Subpoenaed the organizers of 1/6
Secured seditious conspiracy convictions
Subpoenaed records for any member of congress involved in 1/6
Subpoenaed info on Jenna Ellis
Secured testimony from Mark Short
Secured testimony from Jacob Engel
Secured testimony from Philbin 4/
— Mueller, She Wrote (@MuellerSheWrote) April 15, 2023
Secured testimony from Cippollone
Subpoenaed info on trump's PACs
Won privilege battles for Short, Engel, and the Pats
Negotiated for Pence's subpoena
Seized the phone records of Meadows
Secured the 1/6 committee transcripts
Subpoenaed 7 secretaries of state 5/
— Mueller, She Wrote (@MuellerSheWrote) April 15, 2023
There's a lot more. This is just what I could remember off the top of my head. So please stop saying nothing happened before Jack Smith was appointed. END/
— Mueller, She Wrote (@MuellerSheWrote) April 15, 2023
I put this together a week ago, but never posted it. Hence the date on the tweets. Better late than never, right?
I agree with you 100%, WaterGirl.
Clearly Biden’s worst Attorney General! ;)
You just received a lifetime ban at LGM :-)
All we need are results–stylepoints are a distraction.
Yep. I think people have forgotten that the DOJ isn’t supposed to be in the business of showing their cards and telegraphing punches. Things are happening, just not always out in the open.
i don’t have enough legal knowledge to have formed any sort of opinion about Garland’s performance here. I generally trust Uncle Joe and don’t have any reason to feel differently in this instance.
In general, I think that the people who are expressing frustration with Garland are impatient with the pace at which legal maneuverings are happening against Trump, and I am sympathetic to that. I mean, the dude is old, and may very well die before experiencing any consequences for his actions. That may just be baked into how our system works, and nothing for which Garland can be responsible. But it sucks and I get it.
I usually prefer never. Don’t leave me hanging.
I come from a family of lawyers–father, husband, and son. In my experience, legal stuff moves slowly due to their insistence on getting everything exactly right. The people trying to overturn the election moved swiftly, and look how that turned out for them.
I agree 100%. Rushing leads to bad outcomes. I understand the desire for a TFG trial and conviction, but would rather have a solid case than the satisfaction of seeing him arrested right now. I have no patience for the Garland bashers.
On another note, can anyone explain to me how addressing women as “ladies” could be seen as so offensive that one would have to withdraw from consideration for a job? That’s a new one for me. Read about it in reference to a superintendent job searcbathers. Sounds crazy to me. It was called a micro aggression in the story.
For those too young to remember, the timeline with Watergate wasn’t much quicker. Watergate was a both a less complicated and less politically fraught investigation, carried out in a media climate that was more forgiving and which required true balance instead of our current right wing free for all.
Totally agree, WaterGirl.
Now back to work.
I am amused by people who thought MAGA crowds chanting “Lock her up” were beyond the pale and now spend their time chanting “Lock him up!”
The rule of law is the rule of law. Trump may the worst human on earth, but he has to be charged and convicted in a court of law.
Some things to consider…not all actions are under DOJ control. E.g. seizure of Scott Perry’s phone was done long ago, but the DOJ has yet to see what that phone contains. The matter is going through the court system. Other matters are similarly constrained. I would not go forward on prosecution without anything from those sources feeding into any cases that may be brought.
@Wag: Watergate also shocked the conscience of the nation and the MSM. At the time, the understanding of most was that the executive branch wouldn’t do brazenly illegal deeds. So when Nixon’s dirty little secrets started coming out, even Republicans were pissed. Nowdays, or ever since Newt insisted the opposition wasn’t loyal but instead traitors, calling out your opponents as crooked is a given. Especially with the Fox News types.
I recall Election Night 2016 far too vividly. I figured Hell would freeze over and/or Laker Girl Twins would show up at my door needing my tutoring help with their Algebra before Trump was elected President.
i have that same feeling again … but there’s this awful feeling in my gut, too (could be last nights Taco Bell). Not saying Trump is gonna win because it’s practically fucking impossible … but then I go back to Election Night 2016.
I know Trump’s cratering with independents but I think the Dumb Fuckers (the list is long) want to default or at least blow up the economy and then who knows?
A Good Woman
Water Girl 💯with you!
I agree with you, WG, and Hildebrand. Quietly, quietly they’re laying a strong foundation. Leave it to the GQP to be raucous and disorganized. I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one online—I figure the professionals will profess when they have everything locked down. And I certainly hope that’s literal.
Dorothy A. Winsor
@trollhattan: Goodness. I’m impressed. What did you do?
@Soprano2: I have no clue what situation you are referring to. Might you have a link, or more details?
I understand “people” want Garland to “do SOMETHING”, it’s baked into the American psyche generationally from the Boomers on up. Every generation seems to be becoming more impatient and I’m going to use the local news framing of the 3 W’s to explain my point.
What you should be angry, upset about or scared of: Everyone wants something done NOW.
Where it is happening: All over the country, but specifically Georgia, New York and DC.
Who you should be pissed at: Merrick Garland, Fanni Willis, Jack Smith and Alvin Bragg. I would also add Cyrus Vance Jr, but that is baked in the genetics with him he’s a political toady just like his daddy.
For myself, I blame TV, Swanson TV dinners, and Amana for the Radarange.
@Soprano2: Changing mores I guess. There are still many people around who were brought up to think “ladies” is merely polite. I 1) use the word sometimes myself and 2) am one, so hardly see it as an insult per se, but gather that there are those who disagree. Caution to job applicants.
@gwangung: I agree, but with one caveat. As I understand it, it’s possible that the DOJ has been given permission to look at the contents of the phone – if the permission to do so is under seal we would not know about it.
@Dorothy A. Winsor: Oh, maybe I misunderstood. I thought he was saying that I would receive a lifetime ban at LGM for the heresy of what I wrote in the post up top.
Someone will have to tell us which interpretation is correct. Or perhaps there is a third one! :-)
@Doc Sardonic: I am confused. You seem to be saying one thing and then it appears that you are saying just the opposite. Help!
@Wag: Also longer news cycle. To follow it even if you were a political junky, until the hearings started, you had to wait until 6pm each evening for Walter, Chet, David, Frank and Howard K to give you the rundown.
It’s not complicated. Garland is soft-spoken but not so mild-mannered.
People remember Trump ordering shit done right and left. They don’t remember that 90% of those orders failed, most because his own judges overturned them for not following the system. Who did he successfully prosecute?
Now, blocking stuff is a lot easier than doing stuff. That he did okay on.
@WaterGirl: A thing tgat does exasperate me is that so many who should know better ignore your possibility, even though it was demonstrably the case with many items on the list. Quite a few only became public weeks or more after DOJ initiated them, and/or only after the target of the actions revealed them.
The man basically started punching Trump trash in their fucking fascist faces from his first day on the job for their attempted overthrow of the US government because their fat, orange, fascist manbaby god was a LOSER!
Dorothy A. Winsor
@WaterGirl: You’re probably right.
As Scott would say, you made me look. Here’s what the google tells me.
I would say that Merrick Garland is gentle, kind and polite.
But the google also tells me that it means:
And I don’t think that fits Garland at all. I think he feels very strongly about things. When he is emotional, he doesn’t shout, but his voice checks and you care hear that he very much cares about whatever it is and feels very strongly about it.
@WaterGirl: OK……Let me Mansplain……No, it is too much, let me sum up. Each generation seems to become more impatient (actually, I don’t like the term impatient but it’s what I’ve got at the moment) for things to happen NOW. Even those of us that are older are becoming this way. I used TV because when I became Television aware at about 3, we still had shows that continued a story for weeks, months, maybe a year. You had to wait for the ending. As things progressed you shows wrapped up neat and tidy in one episode. Now you can binge watch an entire season in 1 night. Swanson tv dinners brought a quick, easy, no fuss no mess meal for the family, everybody could get what they wanted in about 30 minutes with no cleanup(if you used disposable utensils). The microwave oven made the meal process even faster. So with the increased speed and convenience in our daily lives comes the increased demand for our issues and problems to be wrapped up a with a nice bow and card right fucking now, just like I can order from 1800 flowers.
I get it — intellectually — but it is a bit of a foreign mindset to those of us who work in deadline-driven scenarios. The idea of taking as long as you need to take is…. well, it feels like a luxury. I understand that it is better to take longer and do it right, but it doesn’t feel good, you know?
@prostratedragon: Yes! I don’t care which side you are on. Facts matter.
@Doc Sardonic: Absolutely true about the news cycle. Uncle Walter was a moderating influence in America. I blame the death of the Fairness Doctrine under Reagan for the beginning of the downfall of the media, with some effect from Ted Turner and CNN and the need to fill the air for 24/7.
Come on, Law and Order TV solves this stuff in one hour! With commercials! \s.
People who do the “Garland is doing nothing” dance get automatically removed from my list of who I pay attention to. I thank them mentally for making it easy to see who is just ranting.
It is the first gorgeous sunny WARM day in weeks, time to get a good garden frenzy going!
@Doc Sardonic: Yeah, I was with you on all that, totally get it, and I agree.
This is the part that seems the opposite of what you had been saying before that:
Why should I be pissed at Merrick Garland, Fanni Willis, Jack Smith and Alvin Bragg???
@Wag: Ted had a great idea and it was working until the demise of the Fairness Doctrine and the perversion of the meaning of news by one Rupert Murdoch. I wonder if Rupert understands how much Seth Macfarlane is punking him on Family Guy.
@WaterGirl: For not doing it NOW. Sorry it seems I left the connector phrase in my head.
Re: In Alito’s dissent, he claimed that because the 5th Circuit’s order had the effect of leaving the FDA rules in the abortion pill the same as they were in 2016 – hence no harm in leaving the 5th Circuit’s order in effect pending expedited hearing before tje full panel and then pending SCOTUS review.
What Alito dishonestly glossed over was that the situation post-Dobbs is radically different than 2016 when individual states could not outlaw its use within those states. Not exactly the same at all when criminal liability hangs over its use in some states vs none in 2016.
To be fair to the doubters, the scale of the AG’s task is unprecedented in U.S. history given that the former POTUS led an attempted coup, convinced about a third of Americans the current POTUS didn’t win the election, and is still out there lying about it as he makes another run at destroying U.S. democracy.
Stopping that fucker and holding him accountable is an extraordinary job that requires an extraordinary person to handle it.
IMO, the jury is out on whether Garland is up to it or not, and I don’t think we folks in the cheap seats will know how effective Garland’s prosecution of the case is until we see more evidence and charges. Therefore, arguing about it is utterly pointless.
Well, TBH, I’m more in the LGM camp myself. Also with Elie Mystal and others. I am sure that Garland is a person of strong character and intellect, but his temperament is more suited to judgeship than to AG’ ship. There’s no real fire in his belly…. which is what being the US Attorney General sometimes requires, particularly in times such as these.
And, honestly, it’s not only LGM that believes he’s going too slow, I’ve heard lots of pundits and popular historian types across the whole left, progressive, and Democratic front who have said and continue to say that into the third year of Biden’s presidency is way way too slow to hold Trump and his close supporters accountable for something! One could almost surmise that there are other factors in play here….a continuing Trump bias inside the Justice Department as well as the FBI, or simply an unwillingness to take the so very obvious wrongdoing that occurred during the previous administration to a place the country has likely never been before.
I am personally sick to death of the caveat “but this has never happened before” when discussing these legal matters. Every sentient American knows that we’ve never had a President like Trump before and we will have to go to places we’ve never been before to hold him and his enablers accountable. My mostly middle of the road spouse, whenever walking by the TV and hearing the name “Trump” cynically asks, if he’s in jail yet.
And, there is the undeniable fact that this slowness has ceded the public spaces to the voices on the far right and has allowed them to grow in volume and primacy specifically because the important players and decision makers, not just Trump, have NOT been held to account.
Too soon to tell.
When the decision is made, (hopefully within the next 30 days at least as to the documents case) on whether to proceed against Trump, the tale will be told.
@Doc Sardonic: But you’re still saying we should be pissed at them for not doing it now. But they are doing it now, it’s just that the process takes time.
I think it’s kind of a douchey term to use in a professional context — it has undertones of chivalry and propriety/chastity that aren’t really appropriate with colleagues — but it also doesn’t seem like a big enough deal to lose an opportunity over it. But, as always, YMMV.
@cmorenc: Alito also left out the part about making it 100x harder to get – and impossible for some women to get – is a big fucking deal.
@Betty Cracker: Yes, and there’s also a question of whether DOJ is up to the job. I don’t get a strong sense of DOJ’s institutional culture, besides ‘they’re all lawyers’— and it’s quite possible that’s not enough to fix the rot. We shall see.
@suzanne: What is this about? Who had to withdraw for consideration for what job?
Are you people BLIND? Can you not see that the DOJ actually DOING things is just a clever smokescreen for not doing ANYTHING? It’s so obvious
@StringOnAStick: I keep meaning to track the dates in a few L&O episodes. Even in the old Perry Mason shows though they don’t often display a timeline, it’s sometimes made clear that months have passed. And that was “a simpler time.”
Just recently drumpf tried to stir up the crazies to disrupt his arraignment and it failed miserably. I think that it is reasonable to think that the arrests and convictions the DOJ has obtained so far in the Jan 6 cases has taken out a significant chunk of the crazies willing to travel and prepare for violent confrontations in service of the orange fart cloud, and probably deterred another chunk from stepping up to take their place. Those arrests and convictions may not be the the biggest fish, but reducing drumpf’s ability to call up a mob is still an important part of fighting the fascists.
@WaterGirl: Not us…….Those on Apartheid Clyde’s toy and anyone else who is running around with their hair on fire because Trump is not in ADX Florence right now.
@dww44: Your comment went into moderation because your nym appeared as “to”.
So I searched previous comments for your email address, fixed your nym and approved your comment.
Also, too, it’s disingenuous to say that going back in time is not a harm. A loss of access is a loss of access.
strange visitor (from another planet)
the fascist gop certainly thinks garland is doing something. they’re screaming about defunding the DOJ and the FBI for a reason.
@Doc Sardonic: And whatever caused the huge scaleback in international reporting from full time correspondents. As I recall, that wave had happened sooner with the networks and big papers, but finally hit CNN maybe soon after Turner was eased out.
@trollhattan: That’s a frightening prospect. However, for $8 per month you can buy a blue checkmark at LGM, and thereby un-do the ban.
@WaterGirl: Thanks. I had figured that out. Guess i could have edited during that time that window was openeing.
Doc is saying (see list) that the Instant Gratification Culture “forces” people barely aware and propagandized by the FTFNYT*, et al and various “Do Something” lefty blog* to be pissed at said list, because *They said so.
@Benw: I think (hope) you forgot this – \s
@dww44: There was enough fire in his belly to get the needle for Timothy McVeigh and if the jury hadn’t deadlocked on the death sentence his partner Terry Nichols would have joined him. When you are dealing with a very high profile person or member of that person’s family or high profile crimes you better take your time make sure all the T’s are crossed and I’s are dotted and the documentation is without flaw. Because if you fuck something up you will not get another shot.
With respect, WG, that’s not how “justice” works (esp. for a rich man who can fund his lawyers out of the money his Fascist hordes send him). “justice” consists in a man who tried to overturn our government actually *paying* for his crimes. Prison. If he dies before he goes to prison, that is justice denied. If he never goes to prison, that is justice (again) denied. Saying “the system worked” because some prosecutor made him sweat a little, isn’t “justice”.
His screeds are getting more fascist every iteration. And yes, while laws and procedures did constrain him to some extent, he turned many of them upside down. For all intents and purposes, do you really think a future president will be held accountable for violating (for example) the emoluments clause or the Hatch Act after letting Trump slide?
While I’m happy to hang my hopes on Jack Smith, I then recall he was appointed only after Trump declared his candidacy. Ex-president, private citizen, candidate…it’s the same person, same crimes. IMHO, the urgency was always there.
@PAM Dirac: And the still are about 1000 more in the queue.
@Soprano2: Thank you. From the article, it sounds to me like they didn’t like his attitude as he was trying to negotiate for some non-standard stuff before he signed on the dotted line. Perhaps they thought the guy was asking for too much and the “ladies” thing set them off.
When I was in high school, I went on a couple of dates with the brother of my sister’s boyfriend. I didn’t want to say I thought he was a jerk, so I broke it off saying that he had “dirty fingernails.”
I suspect this guy didn’t come off as respectful enough in the negotiations, so “ladies” set off alarm bells.
The second person who withdrew… from the article, that sounds like a smart move since it seemed like there were posts in his past that would not reflect well on him?
@Wag: I like it to be slightly vague if my comments are stupid, or gleefully stupid
@Doc Sardonic: Oh. I see what you are saying.
@dww44: Your “to” is still there, so you will have to change that to your nym and post yet another comment – that way your device will remember the correct nym instead of the wrong one.
edit: I fixed it in the comment I am replying to, also.
@WaterGirl: If SCOTUS ultimately upholds the FDA process whereby the pill is classified as an OTC drug – Alito’s dissent is going to require some tortuous gymnastics to distinguish how every FDA approval of any kind of drug cannot similarly be challenged via some federal district court’s de novo reconsideration using the challenger’s alleged “experts”. It’s obvious that Alito is trying to nudge US constitutional law toward de facto recognition of a fertilized egg as having fully vested rights as of moment of conception – I have no doubt Alito would vote to uphold the full scope of the Texas District Judge’s order prohibiting the pill’s sale nationwide.
@Jay: Thanks…As I look at a lot of this instant gratification stuff through the cinematic lens in my head, I realize Queen wrote the soundtrack.
@Doc Sardonic: In hindsight, I’m not sure making news infotainment was a great idea. And CNN devolved into the sewer it is today, though I guess Ted is not to blame for that.
@cmorenc: This Supreme Court is terrifying. THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE RULE OF LAW.
The Meidas Touch podcasters pointed out the other day that we are right now seeing some really huge benefits of Garland/DOJ’s steady approach because we are actually getting testimony from people at the highest levels, even Trump’s own attorneys because DOJ was patient enough to wait for crucial rulings that pierce the attorney-client privilege, or executive privilege and now those people have to testify and provide documents. Andrew McCabe spoke about subpoenas the other day and noted that investigators don’t start by issuing them for the head of a criminal conspiracy (contrary to what Do Something Twitter believes). They start at the lower levels, let them play out, see what they get and then move up to the next level. Each successive step builds on the last because investigators have a better idea of the overall story and can craft their questions and actions better and better until the person at the top is basically surrounded by incriminating evidence/testimony. Building a case is an art. Garland, Jack Smith and Fani Willis all have serious experience doing just that in conspiracy and RICO cases. Bragg also has experience and expertise at prosecuting financial crimes. These people understand how to play the long game and I’ve heard several podcast episodes with really knowledgable people from US Attorneys/FBI/DOJ remarking that it looks like some of the decisions that many of us questioned early on (like not bringing the indictment in Manhattan) were really good chess moves in hindsight that actually make it more likely that Trump will end up convicted of crimes.
To my mind, Garland is steady and thorough. My hope is that he’s meticulously prepping, so Trump won’t be lawfully able to run. Especially as he’s being charged with election interference for 2020, during the time he was president!
Perhaps many others have this in mind as well and don’t many if not most expect shenanigans and chaos by rightwingers will could delay DoJ and judicial movement until it’s too late or stuck in a legal morass.
“Dumpty-Trumpty” is sitting on his self-made rickety-ass wall and he’s gonna fall.
I’ve been saying this forever. I am exhausted by having to say it again and again. When something happens that is part of the process, the cynics and doomers say it wasn’t enough or it won’t mean anything unless such and such happens. So I am more or less done with this discussion. No matter how hard my head is it won’t put a hole in that brick wall not matter how many times I run into it.
“… I then recall he was appointed only after Trump declared his candidacy. ”
Well, after, anyway.
@Soprano2: IDK if this is the article you saw; it has a useful (to me) discussion:
Is ‘ladies’ a microaggression? Diversity experts explain after superintendent candidate loses job offer.
My general attitude is that I’m happy to comply in small matters even if they puzzle me. A Korean drama we’ve been watching on Netflix featured the soccer metaphor “yellow card before red card”. I’d hope that would apply here; it seems like forgivable ignorance.
@Wag: Yes, that was snark.
@WaterGirl: He also was told that he might be offered the job before the meeting and then didn’t answer the phone that night when they tried to call him.
@Omnes Omnibus: I would say the majority of people replying on this thread have a view of the DOJ that is similar to your view and mine.
Not all, but a clear majority.
@strange visitor (from another planet): Yup. And Trump is shitting his pants, which should be all we need to know about the effectiveness of DOJ’s approach.
@snoey: I sometimes miss a call because i have walked to the mailbox to get the mail or I have taken something out to the recycle bin.
Of course, if I were waiting for a job offer I think I would check my phone when I came back into the house.
My guess is that this guy came off as disrespectful to the women in positions of power who were part of the hiring process, and “ladies” was the last straw.
When Cole referred to “the ladies” during his trip to Florida, I was surprised but we all know Cole so if it bothered anyone we just shrugged it off. But if I heard that from some guy I had just met, I might wonder if he thought it was still the 1950s.
@WaterGirl: I think Doc Sardonic is saying that “Do it NOW!” is a part of the zeitgeist that affects us all.
@Wag: I am less inclined to blame Ted Turner who seemed to feel that CNN should be operated as a public trust, at least to some degree. Then, he sold it to a bean-counting corporation for a shit-ton of money and the slide into mediocrity and worse started.
I don’t have any particular opinion about Garland he seems fine, but I was put off by the appointment initially because it felt like playing into the politics-as-soap-opera mode that I hate. (ie: that it was somehow revenge or restitution for the blocking of his SCOTUS appointment)
Let’s remember also that Obama appointed him for Scalia’s seat because he was considered very moderate and difficult for republicans to oppose. That’s not necessarily the guy I want in this job. But People seem to think that Smith was a good pick, and at this point it doesn’t matter much whether Garland is aggressive enough does it?
One aspect to what the Smith/Garland team is doing is that they’re wading through all of the privilege claims before getting evidence or testimony, which means if/when there are indictments, there will be much less ability to slow things down with those claims. I hope that it’s going to be slowly, then all at once. Another aspect is that it seems that they are, in fact, going where the evidence leads, and just tying up as many possible loose ends as possible.
I have to say, I really like Elie Mystal on many, many topics, but I disagree with him deeply and profoundly on this one.
Dorothy A. Winsor
@WaterGirl: They sure don’t care about precedent
@WaterGirl: That’s clearly it. They made more than one call. Local paper came close to saying drunk on the couch.
@Soprano2: I don’t know how others feel, but I tend to take exception to the term “lady” since for me it it carries with it a historical burden of expected (lady-like) behavior.
@RedDirtGirl: Yes, let’s grab our clutch purses and go off to the bathroom together so we can talk “girl talk”.
With respect, Garland still comes across as too milquetoast for the position. More importantly, Justice delayed IS Justice denied.
It’s like Garland has been handing off this task to less powerful DA’s and others to shoulder the burden of holding the former President accountable for something…anything. It’s almost as if he just might be using them for cover!. And, why did he take so long to appoint a Special Counsel? There is likely an interesting backstory there, but for now, a bit of very visible accountability would be preferable.
@WaterGirl: Agree the current lineup of SCOTUS has little respect for precedents laid down by prior more moderately composed arrays of justices. However, I do think there is a split within the 6-member RW block between a 4-member block out to remake US con law more consistent with Federalist conservative ideology and a more radical 2-member block comprised of Alito and Thomas, out to fundamentally regress American society to pre-New Deal norms. Many times, the net result may be the same, but not always – but this split is why the vote for a stay was 7-2 to grant the stay rather than 6-3 to refuse it, with only Thomas joining Alito in dissent.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying the 4 less extreme extremists aren’t often partisan hacks whose views on voting rights favor suppressing potential D voters.
@Wag: *and* you only had the three channels to chose from, anyhoo…
I’m not worried about Garland or anyone. Instead, I made some tortillas which I rolled into a breakfast burrito with egg, Irish cheddar, goat cheese, mushrooms and onions. The butter is just about soft enough for part two: a raspberry Bakewell cake. Nom!
I am baffled by the article about the use of the word “ladies,” especially when one “diversity expert” suggested “y’all” as an acceptable alternative. As a Southerner on the cusp of moving to California, that is one of the words I am desperately trying to cull from my vocabulary so I don’t sound like a hillbilly.
@WaterGirl: I’m one of the readers in agreement with you and Omnes. I won’t say I don’t care how long it takes but I want it to be absolutely ironclad when the indictments come down.
@snoey: So, there’s much more to the story than one small verbal dissonance …
Genuinely confused here. If I walk into a room of women, I thought the proper salutation was supposed to be: “Hello ladies”. Similar to walking into a room of men and saying: “Hello gentlemen”. When walking into a room of both, I thought that the address should be: “Hello everyone.” What have I missed?
@karen marie: Yummm-mmmee! Actually I’m at least half listening to Idomeneo myself.
@WaterGirl: yes, this. but also: 2nd candidate may have decided current school committee was too much to deal with (seeing as hiring a good superintendent is no easy matter).
I say this as a local elected official in said Commonwealth, with waaaay too much familiarity with the types of personalities involved. On both sides…
@StringOnAStick: There are former prosecutors like Harry Litman, Karen Friedman Agnifilo, Jill Wine Banks and Andrew Weissman etc., who were critical of the pace/strategy of DOJ, but in the past 8 months they have all adjusted their stances based on everything we’ve seen trickling out. The holdouts now are just people who really aren’t worth engaging. People like Elie Mystal, Brian Beutler, Nicole Wallace and Mehdi Hassan have never seemed to have been operating in good faith and unfortunately helped stoke really ridiculous expectations among their marks. Even when indictments of Trump, Giuliani, Eastman, Clark, Powell, etc. drop, they’ll just move the goalposts once again.
The richer, more powerful, better connected someone is the harder it is to bring them to justice. In an authoritarian state the perps of a failed coup would be unlikely to live out a month cf Indonesia in 1965. Luckily we don’t live in one of those.
Garland and his colleagues have to work their way through a Maginot Line of legal defenses with no room for error. It’s not quick, doesn’t make for exciting TV. But we are seeing cracks, foot soldiers are sent to prison, and now creatures like Meadows are being hauled in.
I want to see not just TFG go down, but all his enablers, all those weasels in Congress, in the administration who were ready and willing to overthrow this country. With our system that can’t be quick but it can be done. So far I see no reason to think that Garland is going to let TFG off the hook
I did that. Tried to do it simultaneously with the last message but it wouldn’t take both. Thanks.
@Dorothy A. Winsor: They surely do not.
@dww44: Okay, this one looks right! I will go fix the one that is still wrong at #92.
@WaterGirl: I think this may be one of those “it’s not what you said, it’s the way that you said it” things. Need a lot more (literally)context, plus there seems to be a history
That’s a large part of it, but I believe the decision to make the news divisions pay their way is also a part of it. They changed from being proud of their integrity and breaking meaningful stories to essentially being entertainment, getting eyes (and later, clicks), by any means necessary.
@WaterGirl: They love the “rule” of law. The “rule’ is “whatever we want we get”.
@TooTallTom: I recommend “chicks” and “babes” for the women. //
@narya: Mystal is charming and likable. I really do like him, in general. But he’s also one of the Purity Progressives who thinks daring to criticize Dems is the ultimate expression of his superiority to the rest of us. Garland is a mainstream Dem (and very much linked to Obama) and so he gets the same bad faith assumption that he simply must be doing something wrong, just like they assumed about Biden and Hillary. The tone these people have for Garland now is identical to the tone they had for Biden in the 2020 Primary and I don’t think that’s a total coincidence. Even now, getting them to admit the good things Biden has done is like pulling teeth. And they will only begrudgingly do so while sneaking in something about Immigration or Student Loans or some other way he has failed to be as good as Johnny Unbeatable would’ve surely been. Like Biden, Garland will never be as good as Johnny Unbeatable would’ve been as Attorney General and that’s all that really matters to them.
@Betty Cracker: if we had a normal functioning democracy, Trump and enablers would have been arrested the day of the coup. And Fox News would be taken off air. Our tolerance for intolerance will be our downfall as a nation.
@kalakal: I think it’s interesting that part of the “well connected” part of the Trump gang is that they’re making use of the conventional, Republican political machine. And it’s not always obvious which parts are cooperative and which parts need to push against considerable headwinds.
It’s nearly half past four on a grey, cold, late April Saturday. I should… (vote for one):
[ ] Start drinking gin
[ ] Not start drinking gin
@UncleEbeneezer: I think your take is wrong which maybe explains why I’m in their camp. I’m curious, though, why you say that Nicolle Wallace and Elie Mystal and Mehdi Hassan are not acting in good faith? That’s a serious charge against these folks that I don’t perceive as fair or deserved.
@StringOnAStick: I pretty much gave up on Asha Rangappa because of this.
The problem is that moving slower and having them out there unconvicted vs. moving faster and having them already held to account aren’t the only outcomes. Moving faster and ending up with an acquittal would arguably be worse for accountability and the discussion in the public sphere than having them remain un-indicted for this long.
I suspect all those people were used to being on the inside and knowing what was up, so it took some time for them to adjust to being on the outside where all they have is a good background and educated guesses.
Boy, was this a timely thread! Just yesterday I had a huge controversy with a friend, who isn’t just frustrated at Garland’s slowness, but convinced, utterly convinced, that he hasn’t yet brought Trump to indictment because he simply doesn’t want to. I pointed out that if he didn’t want Trump indicted, he would have appointed a special prosecutor a lot less aggressive than Smith, and that DOJ had done a lot before Smith was even appointed, but I didn’t have this nicely detailed list. And so much of this stuff is the result of lengthy LENGTHY court wrangling – there is a huge pool of suspects, all of them with high-powered legal talent, and many are lawyers themselves, not a bunch of street thugs with a court-appointed counsel.
Her ‘proof’ that Garland doesn’t really want to go after Trump is that he didn’t fire Durham. Only later I thought, what’s the point of that? Durham is chasing after something that doesn’t exist, the ‘proof’ that the investigation into the Trumps campaign’s ties to Russia was actually fabricated by the Obama administration and the Deep State. He can’t prove something that doesn’t exist, and firing him would just spawn a thousand conspiracies – ‘they had to Get Rid of him, he was on the trail of Something Big!’ Just leave him alone until he finally gives up and goes away.
Anyway, I’m going to cut and paste the above list and use it as needed…
@Citizen Alan: “Y’all is a brilliant invention, as we don’t have a plural or formal “you.” I think it should be codified; “youse,” as in “youse guys can do the work,” popular in the NYC area, should also be codified.
As one who remembers Watergate quite well, that’s not true. Right now, it’s two years, three and a half months since 1/6/2021. Two years, three and a half months after 6/17/1972 puts us at the beginning of October 1974, when Nixon had been an ex-President for nearly two months.
Also, for obvious reasons, there wasn’t much in the way of a Federal investigation into Watergate until the spring of 1973, given that John Mitchell was Nixon’s Attorney General. The timeline really starts with the appointment of Archibald Cox as Special Prosecutor. (Remember the “Impeach the Cox Sacker!” bumper stickers?) That was what, April or May of 1973? And the indictments of the major players (Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell, etc., and Nixon named as unindicted co-conspirator) got handed down on March 1, 1974.
Even counting from 6/17/1972, that’s just one year, eight and a half months. One year, eight and a half months after 1/6/2021 was late August of last year.
I agree that Watergate was fundamentally much simpler, and of course it moved a good deal faster than the DoJ investigation into Trump. But it DID move a good deal faster; that’s a point of fact.
@WaterGirl: The second candidate (she, not he, btw) had posted on social media and in a letter-to-the-editor, suggesting that allowing transgirls and transwomen to participate in women’s athletics was the death knell of Title IX. (And I think other TERFy comments but I can’t find my links.) High-school school students in that school district were the ones who raised the issue publicly, noting that transphobia was particularly dangerous in the current atmosphere. I respect the students’ concern.
I’m less sure about the “ladies” wording—or rather, before reading this thread I thought maybe the committee had gone overboard. But the additional info about the other disrespect tilts the balance against the candidate IMO.
@kalakal: If DOJ was only investigating 1/6, but not the Stolen Documents and Fake Electors I think it would be perfectly justified to feel like they weren’t really all in on accountability. But they’re not. They are investigating the Insurrection AND the Stolen Documents AND possible Obstruction AND the Fake Electors. And to top it off, they are also investigating FRAUD (Big Lie Fundraising) which is the EASIEST and MOST LIKELY crime to get a conviction!! The fact that they are aiming at charges that are the most likely succeed, imo, absolutely obliterates the idea that they don’t want to hold Trump accountable. They are investigating ALL THE CRIMES and prioritizing the ones with the greatest potential for success. How on Earth is that an indication that they are reluctant or disinterested? Make that make sense, as the saying goes.
@kalakal: Yep, totally blind, never having met anyone involved, I am guessing that it became clear that this guy was not going to be a good choice.
When I hired people at the university, I could tell in the first meeting whether someone was even a possibility.
I always met 3 times with anyone I was seriously considering. Some people do not “wear well” and some were nervous at the first meeting and maybe didn’t stand out.
By the third meeting, the choice was always clear.
So my educated guess is that this guy did not wear well during negotiations.
That may just be baked into how our system works, and nothing for which Garland can be responsible.
It is baked in. Our system does check and balances, it takes time rather than sending out the hitmen of the day or maladministration.
It may (and does!) seem like it takes forever to bring justice but the fact that we can and do bring justice is because we have a system that doesn’t just jump in and follow the ass de jure and has checks and balances. It was designed, built by and run by humans so there will be mistakes but as painful as the jury system can be and that of course it isn’t faultless because well, humans, it works pretty damn good, if slowly, to bring actual justice the vast majority of the time.
It can also just be so slow as to be infuriating to say the least.
@JoyceH: Garland didn’t fire Durham precisely because Trump appointed and tasked him to search for something that did not exist in the reality sphere but existed in Trump’s narcissistic reality. If he would have fired Durham the howling and conspiracy theories from the right would be thicker than a cloud of mosquitoes in a Florida summer. Same reason the guy investigating Hunter Biden is still on the payroll. Unfortunately, it looks like Hunter is going to get some charges out of the deal, just so the FBI can save face.
@TooTallTom: A more serious answer is that in these times it’s safest not to make assumptions (out loud) about gender.
Just like even if you think someone might be pregnant, you don’t speak your assumptions out loud.
@lollipopguild: “Rules for thee but not for me.”
I saw a cute meme the other day – another way to say mansplain is correctile dysfunction.
Concur strongly. And Rush Limbaugh’s career almost immediately took off as a result. If he’d had to give occasional air time to opposing viewpoints, he’d have never gotten off the ground.
And of course, Rush’s success paved the way for Faux News.
@zhena gogolia: Yep, I bailed halfway through the first podcast of theirs that I watched.
@UncleEbeneezer: Can’t disagree . . . The thing is, I really liked the interviews that Mystal did when his book came out (I have the audio version, but haven’t listened to the whole thing), and I think he has some interesting perspectives that otherwise wouldn’t get covered. I occasionally read his Nation columns, too. The biggest issue, as I think you are alluding to, is that they don’t necessarily have a better candidate who can actually win. Biden has surprised me, but I got on board when Clyburn supported him; I figured that Clyburn had seen something I had not.
It’s also important to remember that if our goal is to uphold and strengthen democracy we have to follow the law even if it is slow or doesn’t bring us the results we want.
@MomSense: Ok…..fair warning, I am so stealing that one 😀
@JoyceH: Yep. If you’ve got $$ to burn and lawyers, it seems like you get about 10 bites of the apple before you can be called in for a deposition.
I’m not sure the desired result is to blow up the economy, but to twist the economy to their favor. I mean I’m sure there is someone who thinks it would be a grand idea, at least one I can think of is vlad. But unless one is on his side in life I can’t see may thinking blowing up the economy is a good idea. I am sure that there are those that think stealing the economy for themselves would be fine. Those assholes we can cut off their genitalia and let them bleed out.
Joseph Patrick Lurker
I never believed Merrick Garland was a coward, wimp, or boot-licker, but this is a perfect description of Fani Willis. She’s proven herself to be absolutely fucking worthless.
A friend of mine in law school made the error regarding pregnancy with our legal writing professor. Afterwards, he said unless a woman tells him she is expecting or he actually sees a baby coming out of her, he would just keep his mouth shut. I learned from his mistake.
@MomSense: Correctile Dysfunction might be a sympton of XCDD: X Chromosome Deficiency Disorder
There’s a lot of that going around.
@AWOL: Youse guys is also a Chicago thing.
Late to the thread, but I agree entirely with the OP and have commented repeatedly to that effect, even in such places as [gulp] LGM.
And of course in addition to the tweet thread (“tweed”? “threet”?), there IS the appointment of Jack “You Can’t Pronounce The Original Klingon” Smith, and all that he has done, and not only is TFG genuinely scared of him (and rightly so), but even his amen chorus in the House hasn’t been able to do much but call him names and are reduced to trying to go after Alvin Bragg (and look how that’s going). And …
Garland and Smith have almost two more years to indict.
It won’t matter if there is no verdict: indictments and trial testimony will be quite enough. The rule of law will be reinforced, the drip-drip-drip will be damning, and the media coverage will be little short of suffocating. And remember, they have only one shot at it.
Revenge is a dish best served cold. And who would know better than someone who’s part Klingon?
@LiminalOwl: Well with that record I wouldn’t care if an applicant for an educational position tried to seem formally polite, I just wouldn’t consider them suitable.
Fully agree. Now that it’s pretty clear that the consequence of being in a mob trying to overthrow the government is likely to be a nontrivial prison sentence, a lot fewer potential mobbers are going to love Trump that much.
That ain’t nothin’.
@lowtechcyclist: Keep in mind, though, that reasonable republicans went to Nixon and said either you resign or we impeach.
There are no reasonable republicans anymore. So the process has to be followed all the way to the end.
I think you’re right that the guy did not wear well during negotiations. Local papers said he asked for way way WAY more money than they were offering, and for some outlandish number of vacation days, something like the equivalent of getting summers off. Sounds like he came off as not a serious candidate.
@Joseph Patrick Lurker: Come back and say that once the process plays out, or after she doesn’t file charges.
@WaterGirl: Yeach, the second person sounded like they had other problems, I just wondered about the idea that using the word “ladies” was a microaggression. That seems silly to me. It’s a job negotiation, say what you’re unhappy about directly.
@Omnes Omnibus: Yep. Absolutely.
Getting that wrong is a bell that cannot be un-rung.
@UncleEbeneezer: I was just thinking about that list (the opera is over) in the context of the available resources of the DOJ which, though large, can’t be infinite, as is TFG’s malfeasance. Folks got to pace and prioritize.
@Joseph Patrick Lurker: I don’t think you are really paying attention to Ms. Willis’s work. I have a good friend, an attorney, who lives in Fulton County and stays current on this matter. He hates Trump as much as anyone here, and he’s fine with what the District Attorney is doing.
@Soprano2: It’s kind of hard to say to the candidate, “you know, on second thought, you are coming off like a sexist pig.”
I think there’s plenty to criticize about how DOJ handled this in the first year or so, by not immediately seeking testimony from the high-level people while it was still fresh and they hadn’t had time to coordinate. (I don’t think it’s possible that was done and has remained secret, since the targets can’t be legally prevented from screeching about it on wingnut media.) That may have been a misjudgment or there may have been good reasons that we’ll never find out about, but I certainly think there are valid criticisms worth discussing. But a lot of the blame-Garland criticism has been ridiculous in its absolute certainty and black-and-white thinking, and I don’t have much use for that.
I’ve also found very useful Teri Kanefeld’s explanations of how the criminal justice system isn’t going to solve these problems for us. (Not that people who’ve committed crimes shouldn’t be held accountable, but that we shouldn’t expect prosecutions to be the end of this any more than voting TFG out was the end of it.)
@Wag: Another aspect of the Evening News cycle, as opposed to the 24/7 news cycle, is that the reporters and anchors themselves had the time to sift through the information and tease out the gold from the dross.
(Not to mention, all those old-time anchors had themselves been reporters, and knew what they were talking about. The derogatory term “news reader” did NOT apply to Huntley/Brinkley, Cronkite, et al.)
@different-church-lady: Let me know how that one comes out for you. My choice would be Option #2. Now, surveying the cupboards, I see that I have gin but no vermouth, tonic water, or anything to mix it with. However, I do have olives…hmm, Churchillian mini-tini might be just the thing for a snowy afternoon pick-me-up…
@apocalipstick: ah, there is a difference. Hillary had not broken the law. The whole lock her up was unjust and a fantasy, not just that it was without a trial, it was based on deranged slander going back decades and was shocking in a goddam, propaganda works on the mob.
Trump really has broken laws and incited law breaking right out in the open. He on television tried to rile up other people to kill people who were denying him everything ala Henry VIII “will no one rid me of this troublesome priest”.
We have to go through courts and argue intent and laws. I worry we might not have written the right laws because Trump is so far out, however I saw it and I have no doubt what history will say without all the shilly-shallying. He tried to overthrow the Constitution.
So I can have to be impatient for locking him up and I don’t want him to die first.
@Miss Bianca: Do you have herbal tea? You could put some zing into your Lemon Zinger.
@WaterGirl: Much better than “the girls”, though. It would never occur to me that someone would be offended by the use of the word ladies. Perhaps you have to see the context. I read the article that was supposed to explain it; I bet not one in 100 people would ever think of any of those things as a reason to be upset. I think there were other reasons they didn’t want him but they used this instead for some reason.
Do you have bitters? If so, consider a pink gin.
@Omnes Omnibus: Oh, yes, I actually *do* have bitters. Hey-o!
@Geminid: ha ha, I have some chamomile-lavender here, but that combo would probably send me straight to sleep!
@RedDirtGirl: Maybe it’s a Southern thing. Much better than girls, which I still hear a lot around here.
Sorry if this point has been made already. I tried to read to the end, but then the end moved further away.
I’ve made peace with the “Moar now!” brigade. We’ve just come from the worst AG of my lifetime who would carry out absolutely corrupt partisan abuses at the order of TFG with a snappy jawohl! He was there after the one before (or was there another one in there too? I forget) was run out of the job for not being corrupt enough.
So now, I like the reality of many voices complaining that Garland is not moving fast enough, just for the political theater of it. Like he’s being dragged reluctantly where the facts lead. I even suspect that providing this kind of cover may be part of Schiff’s intention, though that may be a bit rosy-eyed of me.
So complain away.
Think about it as it refers to gender and the meaning I learned about “ladies.” What I was taught was there are males, men and gentlemen, females, women and ladies. Then take today with sex change and how many people are called gentleman or ladies, who really should be called fucking assholes. I use male, female and even those can be a bit of a problem because of sex change being somewhat common. On wednesday I stood on the train next to a person who I have no idea of their sex. I’d say if forced this person was a gay man. Skin was as we say, black, eyebrows were died green, nails had polish and no 2 the same colors, and on and on. And on. We didn’t talk but he (see even after standing next to this person I can’t tell) seemed to be happy looking like this. And really what the hell difference does it make? What business is it of mine or anyone else if someone is different than the cookie cutter approach of conservative assholes? How many of them want to be Ted Cruz? Or anyone with the last name trump? (If my last name was trump it would have been changed decades ago.)
@different-church-lady: Do you have good tonic and fresh limes? Then #1. I’d avoid shots.
Now… my corporal being has been cluttering up this planet for close to six decades. And in that time I have witnessed a fair amount of people engaging in an activity I shall call “opinion-having”.
And since I am of the number-of-spins-around-our-star that I am, I feel that I am entitled to drawing the following conclusion without fear of any repercussion that will further damage my psyche beyond its current state of decay:
Everyone has opinions. But hardly anyone needs to have opinions.
I suggest we all apply this to the question at hand and move on with our lives.
I didn’t know until I just now looked it up that “youse” originates with Irish speakers who had to learn English (from being ruled by England, I assume, though I didn’t check specifically.) Since Irish had a you-plural, they felt they should be able to express that in English and made up “yous/youse”.
I’ve been enjoying drinking Polar lemon bitters on ice. No alcohol.
@different-church-lady: I have opinions on my gin!
@Redshift: I had no idea where that came from. I just thought it was a Chicago thing.
@different-church-lady: C’mon, there’s only one right answer to a question like that!
@Miss Bianca: Saying I should subscribe to your newsletter, what opinions would it offer regarding your sentiments about gin?
What?! Are you trying to shut this place down? If we weren’t expressing opinions on things we don’t need to have opinions on, and that won’t affect the outcome of anything, threads here would be about ten comments long!
Arizona’s Head Stepford Wife is taking her show on the road.
I don’t think comparisons to Watergate are very helpful. First, if you go by time in office, drumpf was gone two weeks after Jan 6 and it took Nixon over a year to resign. He resigned because the Republican party at the time wasn’t willing to blindly support Nixon to the bitter end. He was told there were enough votes to convict. If the R senators had refused to convict and Nixon had completely refused to give in, would it have even been possible to get him out of office? When he resigned he was pardoned, so there was no question of indicting him on anything. If he hadn’t been pardoned how long would that have taken? Any answer is just a guess. The bottom line is that Nixon didn’t have the support of his party to dig in and resist at all costs, so the situations are too different to get any useful comparisons.
@lowtechcyclist: Iran-Contra took six years. So on average, major crime scandals involving Presidents and their top advisers take anywhere from 2-6 years before indictments drop. Which is, well, right about where we will likely see indictments (Jack Smith says he aims to wrap up his work and make charging decisions by Summer). Watergate had the benefit of having a John Dean who was willing to cooperate with the prosecution less than one year after the crimes. Trump’s cronies have been much less interested in cooperating and fighting subpoenas at every turn, so far. That alone makes a big difference. Also, our Justice System and grand juries, like everything else, were severely hindered for almost a year by Covid. Then there’s the slow process of legally seizing and accessing digital records from peoples’ phones (which didn’t exist for Watergate or Iran-Contra), which in and of itself can take up to a year even after a warrant is served before DOJ can even see what’s in there. There are many, obvious and legitimate reasons for the slower pace that have absolutely nothing to do with Garland or DOJ’s heart/courage.
@Redshift: Trying? No. But life’s rich pageant is filled with unintended consequences.
Hold out until 5:00:01.
Reagan’s been dead for close to 19 years and he’s still not in prison!
@different-church-lady: To begin with: That Tanqueray, (which I remember being described, back in the days of The Preppy Handbook, as “yummy if a bit nouveau”), and which I used to consider quite tolerable, tastes like juniper-scented gasoline compared to some of the smaller craft houses coming out.
(Right now sipping on one from Western Son, which is apparently best known for a bewildering variety of vodkas. However their gin is my new fave rave if I’m on a budget. Which I am. Constantly.)
(That’s just for starters!)
@Redshift: Andrew McCabe explained recently why seeking the testimony from the higher-ups before the people at the bottom is just not how cases are built, because it actually makes it harder to nail the people at the top. Especially when the people at the bottom (who can help you paint the leaders into a corner with their testimony) can be heavily influenced by or feel loyalty to protect their leader. You want the lower-downs on record first to trap the higher-ups. It doesn’t really work the other way around.
@different-church-lady: I blame Edwin Meese…oh, well actually…, lol
It is a source of occasional confusion that English no longer differentiates 2nd person singular and plural.
Commenting at Balloon Juice since 1937
Convict Bannon is still walking and talking as a free man. Did any of those list of subpoenas result in anything?
@WaterGirl: And “Hey you guuuuuuuuys!” is a The Goonies thing.
@Miss Bianca: Oddly I am less than 24 hours removed from the purchase of a jug-handle of Tanq, feeling that I was wasting my Bombay on mixed gin cocktails I’ve been spending time with. (I am attempting to, slowly — very slowly — drink my way through the entirety of Mr. Boston Platinum Edition.)
However, a friend recently shared some Uncle Val’s, and… wow.
Thought it was an Electric Company thing, no?
Current #1 is Hendrick’s, second place goes to Boodles.
MANY more choices than back in the day, and now each top brand has several sub-varieties to fiddle with. All a bit much TBH.
Quasi-obligatories: #1 – #2.
The Quasi-Obligatories… isn’t that the name the Rolling Stones were using when they played small club dates in the 90s?
And, unfortunately, we are in a deadline situation. If Garland get’s it right, wonderful. If not, then we could have a disaster on our hands (not that we aren’t dealing with disaster already).
I hope he gets it right, but time is not on his or our side.
@AWOL: English has a plural/formal; it’s “you.” The singular form is “thou,” and I wish it were possible to bring that back.
Yabbut I think the key date is the indictments of the inner circle. (Speaking of which, I miscounted: that’d have been late September of last year, not August.)
But that’s just correcting the factual record. These are very different cases, and I’m perfectly OK with the pace Garland and Smith are taking.
I know I was nervous last year because it seems we’ve gotten into a rut of rich, powerful, and well-connected people never suffering any consequences of the crimes that you have to be one or more of those things to commit. I think the story’s gonna work out differently this time.
@LiminalOwl: The kids are into vinyl records, so anything could happen…
@Doc Sardonic: I don’t even care about prison etc. I want him not to be able to pollute our political system anymore because he’s a menace to it as is his supporters. That would be justice.
@TooTallTom: Why not just “Hello, everyone” in all cases?
Today you’re just supposed to apologize for being insensitive right off the bat.
I like to go with “Greetings, Earthlings!”
Those of us born before TV really existed likely have a completely different outlook than the younger generations. I look now at the schedule of TV and see news on almost every channel and 24 hr news and when I started working a 50 or even 60 hr work week was normal and it seems some things were better and some worse. I don’t watch cable or broadcast TV because of the fucking constant sales pitches for crap I don’t need, don’t want and don’t want to pay for even with just my time. I get Netflix and the internet. And life is calmer and far less annoying.
@JoyceH: Your friend should see dockets in common criminal and civil cases. It’s vanishingly rare that anything gets to trial in under a year. It’s usually two to four, especially during/since the pandemic but certainly true in the before times as well.
Gonna name my next band Quasimojo.
The thing that makes me think Garland is slow, plodding and ineffectual are the public statements of virtually everyone else trying to hold Trump to account.
The Manhattan DA said the NY grand jury process started so late because they expected there to be a superseding Federal investigation and charges which never materialized.
The Jan 6 committee managed to compile hundreds of witness statements that the DOJ didn’t have. They were out there and available, DOJ didn’t go get them until after Congress did it for them. The 1/6 committee complained loudly, at the time, that DOJ wasn’t moving.
Even Bob Mueller said Trump was chargeable when he was no longer President based on the information he uncovered in his report on Russian interference. There was evidence that Bob Muller already got tied up in a nice bow for him. Garland looked at it and went “No thanks”
Trump is obviously culpable for 1/6 AND the document stealing cases. He did 1/6 on live on National television for chrissakes. As for the documents, I’m trying to think of a case where a bank robber was found with oodles of cash in his house in big bags with the banks name on it and any rational investigator sits there and says “I need more evidence to charge this man.” No, you really don’t.
If I envision the Platonic ideal of “stringing people along while not intending to act until your hand is forced” it looks like Merrick Garland.
The Pale Scot
You run a restaurant, you’re conditioned.
The story gave me a giggle thinking of the French places I worked at and the staff’s likely reaction to being told that.
Do you know Garland?
Just because brash is not his style does not mean that he isn’t going as hard and as fast as possible. He has to play in the system or he’s one of THEM. And you do not want him to be one of them. This is an unprecedented situation in our entire countries history. I’d be pissed off beyond belief if he was rushing and not crossing every t and dotting every i. You want him to do this without bullshit or bravado. He is a professional, not just in his work but in his manner and given what the price of fucking up here is, he is a very good person for what needs to be done and what shouldn’t be done.
That there are after effects from this is to be expected. It would be unimaginably worse if he rushed and fucked this up. This will be far worse than blowing up a billion dollar rocket if it isn’t done right.
And yes I’d love to see every responsible person, including SFB in prison NOW rather than later, but that isn’t how this works. It takes time, it takes effort, it takes more time, it takes as long as it takes to put every last asshole in jail, including the ring leader. And as long as it’s happening, and it is, he is doing his job and getting convictions and prison time for them, AND THAT IS THE JOB.
am finishing my last imperial pint of samuel smith winter welcome along wirh a shot of
of sherry cask glen morangie.
@different-church-lady: Or, “Klaatu barada nikto”.
I appreciate being careful, but contrary to what seems to be the majority here, I think this could have moved faster and done just as well. Both the House J6 committee and Fulton County prosecutor Fani Willis have beaten Garland’s Justice Department to the punch several times. Cassidy Hutchinson, the assistant to Mark Meadows, had not been interviewed by anyone at Justice before her J6 testimony nearly a year after the insurrection. Justice was, from what I have read, surprised by some of her testimony. And interviewing an assistant rather than Meadows himself is consistent with the “bottom-up” investigation strategy called for by most here. The time was too long and the testimony too important for her not to have been interviewed before then. And she was not alone, there were White House staffers who were first interviewed by the J6 committee. Several J6 Senators, particularly Adam Schiff, have voiced their frustration with Garland.
As reported by CNN, Fulton County prosecutor Fani Willis has also beat Justice on several fronts, including the latest — text messages that implicate Trump lawyers in illegally accessing voting data in potentially more than one state after an Oval Office meeting with Trump in an effort to overturn the Arizona and Michigan elections in addition to Georgia’s and for the Georgia Senatorial runoff election as well.
I am not thrilled with Garland’s hands-off approach to Bill Barr either, both in continuing some questionable decisions regarding using Justice to support Trump’s legal problems and other questionable and potentially illegal activities while AG, particularly his appointment of and illicit support for an IG in a witch hunt against his own FBI to support Trump’s allegation of illegal spying on his campaign against all known facts. Not to mention the attempted blackmail of Michael Cohen’s authorship of a Trump Book backed by the threat of a return to an, at the time, Covid infested jail.
And I am not just some LGM commentator crying alone in the woods. There have been prominent and knowledgeable critics of Garland several J6 Senators, particularly Adam Schiff, have voiced frustration with Garland. Andrew Weissman, a prominent former prosecutor, among others, has criticized both the lack of aggression and the pace of Garland’s investigation.
So, this leaves us in a spot with the possibility of Trump not yet having gone to trial by the time next year’s presidential election is held. What will we do if he wins?
Thank goodness for Fani Willis I guess.
James E Powell
I completely agree with the main point that Garland is a professional who is doing his job under difficult circumstances. I don’t know who would be doing better. And the DOJ has a lot more to do than bring Trump & his horde to justice. I mean, it’s a very large department of a very large government.
That said, I’m more charitable toward Garland kvetchers than most people here seem to be. Since the complaints are vague “do something!” or “do more!” type claims without specifics, I take them to be expressions of frustration rather than criticisms of the DOJ’s work. Who else can they complain about? It’s like people complaining about the mayor when the streets fill with snow. And Garland surely knows that he will be the target of unjustified complaints. It comes with the territory.
Guess I will just go with Wazzup Bitches? from now on. /s/
They do not care for OUR rule of law.
They do care about THEIR rule of law.
Two entirely different things.
@Gaardian: So you prefer to listen to statements of people who are OUTSIDE of the DOJ investigation?
Instead of the 30 or so specific actions taken by Merrick Garland – that are listed in the post up top?
Although I was critical of Garland in my earlier comment (206) I will add this mostly unmentioned problem Garland may have been dealing with — who can he trust at Justice and particularly the FBI? The agency is filled with Trump followers and some might even be implicated (if the spotlight were ever pointed back at themselves) in the events of J6. Justice Attorneys even had trouble getting the FBI to serve subpoenas on Mar a Lago to search for classified documents. Garland’s job is not an easy one.
What have I missed?
What is wrong if you walk into a room and say “Hello Everyone”?
It’s inclusive and it isn’t demeaning if you get someone’s presentation of their sexual ordination incorrect. Yes we used to use gentlemen and ladies but that was then, this is now and now is a lot different that it used to be. We all should adapt to the times, it’s just that times change a lot faster than they used to.
@LiminalOwl:”@AWOL: English has a plural/formal; it’s “you.” The singular form is “thou,” and I wish it were possible to bring that back.”
Thou canst make it thy default choice, whenever thou wishest: the option is thine. :-)
(There is also the old-style Society of Friends variant: “thee can decide”. I had a delightful elderly relative who would say things like “Thank thee!” when he was feeling particularly fond of us.)
@H.E.Wolf: I bet that was charming.
I remember once when the command where I was stationed was having an all hands social event. The Command Master Chief worded the invites in the way he was used to from long ago – “Officers and their ladies, enlisted men and their wives”. Boy, did that raise a stink, and that was back in the ’80s!
Another point I raised with my friend. Some veterans in the civil service could easily have fallen under the cultish infection that seems to have seized the GOP as a whole, and just think about who the new hires were. From 2017 to 2021, who with a genuine belief in good government, competence and science-based reason would opt for the federal civil service? Not just the DOJ and FBI – clearing out the Trumpist rot from the government is going to be the work of years or decades.
Y’all in the south; Youse on the Eastern Seaboard down to Philly, Yinz in Pittsburgh. Yinz???
@ WaterGirl: Thank you for this! Will catch up on the rant and comments later, but glad to see you/us having AG Garland’s back. None of this is as simple as some would have us believe. Have to get it right.
@WaterGirl: Did you try Obsession? We finished it last night. Not the greatest show, but Armitage is fantastic.
@zhena gogolia: Not yet. I am still working on the interim show i started before putting up that post.
The way I describe it is that Merrick Garland builds invisible cages. He builds them around his targets slowly, meticulously, and quietly. Because they are invisible, no one can see them while he works. But when he’s done, and the cage slams shut and locks, everyone can hear that, and everyone can hear the scream of the one who got trapped.
It just LOOKS like Garland isn’t doing anything while he’s building the cage. And that is intentional, both for us and for the one who will soon be trapped inside.
Early 70s for me and yes that would have pissed off a few humans that I know, even then.
@different-church-lady: All the cocktail recipe books my dear mixologist wife has bought state that you should use the best base you can afford, even for mixing. I’m not a big gin fan but she is and we’re buying some pretty good stuff from distilleries all over the country.
Not gin, but if you get to Key West, Bad Bitch Rum
OMG, tasty!!! And they ship, but not to my state. :-( But friends of mine live close, across the Mason-Dixon Line., where they do!
@Cluttered Mind: I love your imagery!
It’s far easier to choose if you don’t drink…..
Of course that leaves out all alcohol and for some that may be a bit off putting, drastic, insane, beyond all concept of life….
@Omnes Omnibus: a very good drink. I use Boodles Gin.
My favorite Gin drink is a “St. Charles.” It’s essentially a pink G&T. Peychauds Bitters.
I double the bitters and double the lime called for in most recipes.
Late to the thread. That is all.
@Ruckus: I do not know Garland and don’t think it’s relevant to this discussion. I still think he’s let too much grass grow under his feet. [email protected] above and Patrick II @206 speak for me in rebuttal.
Late to the thread. Does anyone know what pushed this chick😉 over the edge? I first thought most of it was performance art…she saw a lane and jumped into it. I realize now she’s a true believer and crazy as a loon.
How does someone who voted for Obama become THIS CRAZY?
Personally, I’m a Boodles Chick😉 but yet to find any in New Mexico (granted, I haven’t looked that hard). Costco’s Gin is pretty good for a good old G&T and my beloved aforementioned St. Charles. Just need to use high-end tonic with the Costco Gin.
@WaterGirl: me too
I do not think that Fani Willis developing important evidence on her own reflects poorly on the Justice Department. She is a capable prosecutor with Fulton County grand juries to help investigate and compel testimony on a discrete set of crimes. I’m not surprised that she would “beat” federal investigators to some evidence.
@Quinerly: Total Wine stocks it if there is one near you, or according to Boodles it can be had online at Caskers.com
@patrick II: I follow and listen to Andrew Weissman pretty closely and he no longer criticizes DOJ’s pace or approach and largely lauds their work. He is one of several attorneys who was critical but as more information has become known seems to have toned it down quite a bit. I’ve heard him as a guest on numerous podcasts over the last year and he really hasn’t griped about DOJ since Jack Smith was appointed. He’s definitely not in the Garland Must Resign camp anymore. Iirc, when Allison Gill had him on the Jack podcast and pushed back with a list similar to the one above of all the things we know DOJ has done, and even he acknowledged it was a lot and is impressive and encouraging. He’s also pretty careful to preface the things he says about DOJ by admitting that he doesn’t actually know what they have/haven’t done and that he is only speculating. He’s actually pretty good and honest about that. And he’s pretty clear that those speculative criticisms he still has are really more of the nit-picking variety. He’s pretty reasonable in his approach, but far from anything I would categorize as a Garland-Hater.
Schiff has his own issues to answer for. The 1/6 Committee was very slow to share their final report with DOJ, knowing full well that DOJ would never in a million years bring major indictments before going through the Terabytes of data, interview videos etc. that key witnesses provided to 1/6 Committee. So the complaints by Schiff about the speed of DOJ were a bit silly considering many of DOJ’s actions had to wait for his own Committee’s work to finish.
@WaterGirl: “trained prosecutors and investigators who are not afraid to go after Trump” seems like a pretty good indicator of how an investigation ought to be going. I’d love to be proved wrong, but at this point who isn’t talking that could provide lots of info? Meadows CoS is talking, Barr is talking, we know a lot more just in public information than is necessary to push an indictment, let alone a trial. I’d love to hear what the hold up is? After three years it seems like an explanation of that isn’t out of order.
@Gaardian: I don’t understand your point. You can’t keep the subjects of investigations from talking. I don’t even think you can keep witnesses from talking, if they want to talk.
So what does that have to do with the investigation itself?
INAL, but that sounds pretty damn good to me.
@Soprano2: I am offended from the get go by the use of the term “Ladies” because it is riddled with misogynistic intent. 63 year old cis female here.
That’s a pretty impressive list of subpoenas, seizures and testimony which has resulted in two outcomes for the instigators of the attempted destruction of our democracy. Namely, jack and squat. Bill Barr at least prosecuted Michael Cohen for his part. After six years of near daily crimes in the trump admin, Merrick the Timid just can’t seem to find enough evidence to indict anybody above a GS-9 pay grade. Please tell me again how everybody is equal before the law .
@KCSteve: You’ve been pregnant for 7 months already, and no baby!
Clearly this pregnancy isn’t working, and I know for a fact that there will be no baby!
@Gvg: THIS, and thanks for saying it so clearly.
one tiny point, if I may: Henry II, not VIII.
No One You Know
@Soprano2: Here’s an example. “Ladies” compacts contempt of women in general and a denial of the actual names of people in front of you. It’s a throwback to pre-civil rights form of address. And it’s often used as a sneer. Vocal inflection aside, it treats the addressed as people with lower social standing.
Microaggressions are damning because they demonstrate the power to demean without accountability. It’s the cowardice of cruelty practiced in the workplace.
And, yes, the man who used it to me and my colleague was indeed told that disrespect to female colleagues was not tolerated. Rightfully so.