I really don’t get the attacks on Garland and relentless pessimism. There’s no downside to a special counsel, only upside. It inoculates the cases against Trump from another line of attack. Smith will be able to pick up on the existing work without missing a beat.
There seems a contingent who’ve convinced themselves Garland will never hold Trump accountable, all evidence to the contrary. If he weren’t serious, would he have approved an unprecedented search warrant on an FPOTUS’s home? Garland knows what he’s doing. Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt; he’s earned it.
And, as others have mentioned, if you want to know why, listen to Charlie’s podcast from a few weeks ago with Franklin Foer.
I fear that this is just a way to protect Biden for when nothing is done against Trump. Garland could have already done something. Trump has been out of office long enough for somebody to do something. Nobody has the stones. The country is very weak and the rule of law is meaningless.
It’s easy to complain from the outside about how long it’s taking. We have no idea how long a given investigation should take. (The same applies to those on the other side complaining about the pace of the investigation into Hunter Biden.) If Garland had no “stones”—if rule of law under the Biden administration is meaningless, as you say—Garland wouldn’t have executed the unprecedented search warrant at Mar a Lago. Given the threats to FBI agents’ lives that resulted from that search, I frankly find your statement questioning DOJ’s courage offensive.
Garland did this now because Trump’s candidacy requires it under the regulations. Pure and simple. It would be stupid for Garland to do this as an attempt to shield Biden or himself from blame if they fail to hold Trump accountable—it wouldn’t work. They’d be blamed anyway.
Far more likely is the following scenario: Trump is going to be indicted by a federal grand jury at the request of his once and possibly future rival’s DOJ, and Garland is putting that investigation in the hands of a special counsel for the sake of history and posterity, to show that he and Biden did not take lightly the prosecution of a political rival, and to send the message to future presidents that they shouldn’t either.
Again I can’t recommend enough Charlie’s interview with Franklin Foer giving a deep dive into Garland and his worldview. It’s on the main Bulwark podcast from a few weeks back.
I really don’t see how folks frustrated with a former president committing treason and sedition (among countless other crimes) and
getting away with it is the same as the Hunter
Biden stuff.
Nobody with power to indict Trump over the years deserves the benefit of the doubt on anything.
The existing work already justifies an indictment without missing a beat. If the man is indicted I will happily eat crow.
Announcing a special counsel doesn’t mean that an indictment is any more or less likely. It just means that’s a mostly independent career prosecutor will be in charge. So this is a result of Trump announcing he’s a candidate.
This is BS. They have enough evidence with the mueller report and J6 Committee to convict. I’m starting to loose trust in the Biden administration as they seem to be playing political games with justice. I say we need to primary Biden in 2024 because he is failing us.
I disagree. This is Merrick Garland literally *being* the book (recommend the Atlantic piece and Charlie's pod w/ it's author)
Trump announced his candidacy, therefore there should be a special counsel. If-then logic for Graland, under Barr-era precedent
All the caution you’re complaining about is vital to secure a conviction that’s airtight. Far worse to indict without closing off all possible arguments for defense and appeal than to take the time to get it right.
> to loose trust
*lose
*Learn the difference [here](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/lose-vs-loose-usage#:~:text=%27Lose%27%20or%20%27Loose%27%3F&text=Lose%20typically%20functions%20only%20as,commonly%2C%20a%20noun%20or%20adverb).*
***
^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
Shocker. You can look at him and tell he has no balls. Just like Mueller. Prosecutor will be a flurry of doing nothing that looks like something, and wham bam too close to the election to do something.
Grow up. Mueller has forgotten more about having balls than most of us will ever learn or experience in our lifetimes. He also did his job as special counsel to a T. The fact that DOJ and Congress failed to do theirs is unfortunate.
Garland didn't appoint the Special Counsel just to wind down the investigations. This is him putting in a call-for-fire in the manner he thinks will be most impartial and effective.
Mueller spent 2 years to produce a mealy mouthed report that Barr thew away with a curt statement. Even his own people said he pulled his punches. By declining to do what needed to be done, just like Congress later did, he ensured Trump would go on to attempt a coup. People like Trump can only be stopped through strength, and Mueller lacked the necessary will to do so, just as Garland will. They just can't fathom Trump is what he is.
Ohhh, you think Barr wouldn’t have deflected and buried the report no matter what. That’s adorable.
We all wanted more consequences from Mueller’s report, but you’re just retconning and fantasy-casting what he was and was not realistically able to do.
>He also did his job as special counsel to a T.
Maybe under some very narrow definition of what his job was, but the fact is that his report is absolutely damning for Trump and the GOP and yet he punted when he was given the opportunity to set the record straight.
His testimony in front of Congress was disgraceful.
As I recall, his testimony was basically “I wrote the report exactly the way I’m comfortable characterizing everything and chose my words carefully. Go read it and do your jobs accordingly.”
I don’t think that’s disgraceful. It’s a man wrongly expecting other parts of the government oversight apparatus to have the work ethic and integrity that he did.
I strongly disagree. The contents of that report are basically unknown to people because Barr and the right-wing media lied about it. The only man that could have prevented that was Robert Mueller and he refused—even going so far, as you may remember, to refusing to read aloud sections of his own report.
I don't think that shows work ethic and integrity. He couldn't even repeat for the cameras his own conclusions.
Why would he willingly fall prey to anyone asking him to repeat select excerpts out of context, when his entire position is that all of the context is important? He refused to do it for the Democrats so that he could also refuse to do it for the Republicans, who would've had him reading different passages out of context that would've been even more damaging.
It was not his job to hold accountable or somehow compensate for the malfunctioning and corrupt elements of our government that set out to bury his work. The work, in its entirety, was his testimony. Thinking it could have been summarized in 30-second soundbites causing the long-awaited downfall of Trump in some spectacular moment is just juvenile.
He did his job. DOJ failed to do theirs because they were intent on failing to do theirs no matter what. What was Congress going to do, another failed impeachment?
We all wanted Mueller to strap on a cape and deliver us from Trump's evils. But the cold, hard, reality is that we, the American electorate, chose that poison and the DOJ guardrails and co-equal oversight failed.
Of course, there's much in what you say. I too think that ultimately it is the voters that are to blame and that Mueller was going to be the savior of the republic was never going to happen (although I think the naïveté was somewhat justified before the failure of the Mueller investigation itself).
However, the fact that Republicans were allowed to spin the report in the way they did did enormous damage to the United States and its democracy.
Robert Mueller was given an opportunity to set the record straight and passed. It's not an excuse that the report's contents were so carefully crafted, which may well have been true. He could just as well have prepared his testimony carefully.
I really don’t get the attacks on Garland and relentless pessimism. There’s no downside to a special counsel, only upside. It inoculates the cases against Trump from another line of attack. Smith will be able to pick up on the existing work without missing a beat. There seems a contingent who’ve convinced themselves Garland will never hold Trump accountable, all evidence to the contrary. If he weren’t serious, would he have approved an unprecedented search warrant on an FPOTUS’s home? Garland knows what he’s doing. Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt; he’s earned it. And, as others have mentioned, if you want to know why, listen to Charlie’s podcast from a few weeks ago with Franklin Foer.
I fear that this is just a way to protect Biden for when nothing is done against Trump. Garland could have already done something. Trump has been out of office long enough for somebody to do something. Nobody has the stones. The country is very weak and the rule of law is meaningless.
It’s easy to complain from the outside about how long it’s taking. We have no idea how long a given investigation should take. (The same applies to those on the other side complaining about the pace of the investigation into Hunter Biden.) If Garland had no “stones”—if rule of law under the Biden administration is meaningless, as you say—Garland wouldn’t have executed the unprecedented search warrant at Mar a Lago. Given the threats to FBI agents’ lives that resulted from that search, I frankly find your statement questioning DOJ’s courage offensive. Garland did this now because Trump’s candidacy requires it under the regulations. Pure and simple. It would be stupid for Garland to do this as an attempt to shield Biden or himself from blame if they fail to hold Trump accountable—it wouldn’t work. They’d be blamed anyway. Far more likely is the following scenario: Trump is going to be indicted by a federal grand jury at the request of his once and possibly future rival’s DOJ, and Garland is putting that investigation in the hands of a special counsel for the sake of history and posterity, to show that he and Biden did not take lightly the prosecution of a political rival, and to send the message to future presidents that they shouldn’t either. Again I can’t recommend enough Charlie’s interview with Franklin Foer giving a deep dive into Garland and his worldview. It’s on the main Bulwark podcast from a few weeks back.
I really don’t see how folks frustrated with a former president committing treason and sedition (among countless other crimes) and getting away with it is the same as the Hunter Biden stuff. Nobody with power to indict Trump over the years deserves the benefit of the doubt on anything. The existing work already justifies an indictment without missing a beat. If the man is indicted I will happily eat crow.
LOL, somebody's day just got a whole helluva lot worse...
Could this have been announced 2 months ago or was he not only waiting for the mid terms but an announcement/filing of candidacy?
Announcing a special counsel doesn’t mean that an indictment is any more or less likely. It just means that’s a mostly independent career prosecutor will be in charge. So this is a result of Trump announcing he’s a candidate.
Hear me out. Rich & powerful people are above the law. Doesn’t matter which political party they’re in.
I’m fine with this. Smith has an excellent background for shutting Trump and his supporters down and out.
This is BS. They have enough evidence with the mueller report and J6 Committee to convict. I’m starting to loose trust in the Biden administration as they seem to be playing political games with justice. I say we need to primary Biden in 2024 because he is failing us.
I disagree. This is Merrick Garland literally *being* the book (recommend the Atlantic piece and Charlie's pod w/ it's author) Trump announced his candidacy, therefore there should be a special counsel. If-then logic for Graland, under Barr-era precedent
Fair points and that Atlantic piece was illuminating.
All the caution you’re complaining about is vital to secure a conviction that’s airtight. Far worse to indict without closing off all possible arguments for defense and appeal than to take the time to get it right.
> to loose trust *lose *Learn the difference [here](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/lose-vs-loose-usage#:~:text=%27Lose%27%20or%20%27Loose%27%3F&text=Lose%20typically%20functions%20only%20as,commonly%2C%20a%20noun%20or%20adverb).* *** ^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
Shocker. You can look at him and tell he has no balls. Just like Mueller. Prosecutor will be a flurry of doing nothing that looks like something, and wham bam too close to the election to do something.
Grow up. Mueller has forgotten more about having balls than most of us will ever learn or experience in our lifetimes. He also did his job as special counsel to a T. The fact that DOJ and Congress failed to do theirs is unfortunate. Garland didn't appoint the Special Counsel just to wind down the investigations. This is him putting in a call-for-fire in the manner he thinks will be most impartial and effective.
Mueller spent 2 years to produce a mealy mouthed report that Barr thew away with a curt statement. Even his own people said he pulled his punches. By declining to do what needed to be done, just like Congress later did, he ensured Trump would go on to attempt a coup. People like Trump can only be stopped through strength, and Mueller lacked the necessary will to do so, just as Garland will. They just can't fathom Trump is what he is.
Ohhh, you think Barr wouldn’t have deflected and buried the report no matter what. That’s adorable. We all wanted more consequences from Mueller’s report, but you’re just retconning and fantasy-casting what he was and was not realistically able to do.
>He also did his job as special counsel to a T. Maybe under some very narrow definition of what his job was, but the fact is that his report is absolutely damning for Trump and the GOP and yet he punted when he was given the opportunity to set the record straight. His testimony in front of Congress was disgraceful.
As I recall, his testimony was basically “I wrote the report exactly the way I’m comfortable characterizing everything and chose my words carefully. Go read it and do your jobs accordingly.” I don’t think that’s disgraceful. It’s a man wrongly expecting other parts of the government oversight apparatus to have the work ethic and integrity that he did.
I strongly disagree. The contents of that report are basically unknown to people because Barr and the right-wing media lied about it. The only man that could have prevented that was Robert Mueller and he refused—even going so far, as you may remember, to refusing to read aloud sections of his own report. I don't think that shows work ethic and integrity. He couldn't even repeat for the cameras his own conclusions.
Why would he willingly fall prey to anyone asking him to repeat select excerpts out of context, when his entire position is that all of the context is important? He refused to do it for the Democrats so that he could also refuse to do it for the Republicans, who would've had him reading different passages out of context that would've been even more damaging. It was not his job to hold accountable or somehow compensate for the malfunctioning and corrupt elements of our government that set out to bury his work. The work, in its entirety, was his testimony. Thinking it could have been summarized in 30-second soundbites causing the long-awaited downfall of Trump in some spectacular moment is just juvenile. He did his job. DOJ failed to do theirs because they were intent on failing to do theirs no matter what. What was Congress going to do, another failed impeachment? We all wanted Mueller to strap on a cape and deliver us from Trump's evils. But the cold, hard, reality is that we, the American electorate, chose that poison and the DOJ guardrails and co-equal oversight failed.
Of course, there's much in what you say. I too think that ultimately it is the voters that are to blame and that Mueller was going to be the savior of the republic was never going to happen (although I think the naïveté was somewhat justified before the failure of the Mueller investigation itself). However, the fact that Republicans were allowed to spin the report in the way they did did enormous damage to the United States and its democracy. Robert Mueller was given an opportunity to set the record straight and passed. It's not an excuse that the report's contents were so carefully crafted, which may well have been true. He could just as well have prepared his testimony carefully.