New York magazine’s Olivia Nuzzi describes El Blobbo del Mar A Lardo thus: “Donald Trump was impeached twice, lost the 2020 election by 7,052,770 votes, is entangled in investigations by federal prosecutors (over the Capitol insurrection and over the mishandling of classified White House documents and over election interference) and the District of Columbia attorney general (over financial fraud at the Presidential Inaugural Committee) and the Manhattan district attorney (over financial fraud at the Trump Organization) and the New York State attorney general (over financial fraud at the Trump Organization) and the Westchester County district attorney (over financial fraud at the Trump Organization) and the Fulton County, Georgia, district attorney (over criminal election interference in Georgia) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (over rules violations in plans to take his social-media company public through a SPAC) and the House Select Committee on January 6 (whose hearings are the runaway TV-ratings hit of the summer), yet on Monday, July 11, he was in a fantastic mood.”
Time is not on our side. It’s obvious that DOJ has come late to the party and doesn’t yet have a complete case against Trump, let alone deciding whether to indict him for sedition or to lump him into a conspiracy with Giuliani, Stone, Mr. Overstock and/or the neo-Nazi leaders of Proud Babies and Oath Breakers. The DOJ, Pre-Trump, was always a by-the-book group and I’m sure they are now resorting to the comfort of proper procedure. They just will not take a flyer and indict with the hope that the 1/6 Committee has or will find the goods on Trump before a Rule 12 motion to dismiss is filed. I know we all think the evidence is there already, but it requires inferences and that’s a bit nerve wracking for a lawyer. (Of course, they work on inferences in Mafia cases, and this is shaping up with lots of parallels to Mafia prosecutions.) And I’m sure Garland thinks he has learned a lesson from Comey and will not announce “that something smells might suspicious around here” just to try to prove his bona fides with his tribe.
I think we have to plan on any indictment or information being handed down long after Trump announces a 2024 run. We have to keep the pressure on Congress and the press. The press especially. They need backbone. I think the greatest service the 1/6 Committee can do is teach the press that this is no time for bothsiderism. And we need to buttress the Georgia and NY prosecutors. They will need to be especially brave to follow the evidence to where it is inevitably leading, and act on that evidence.
The one thing that still gives me hope (I am an optimist in the long run) is that even if Trump declares he is running, the next presidential election is in 2024, not 2022..... There is no reason for Garland to avoid indicting Trump with sufficient evidence just because he has declared for an election two years away. Lets hope Garland sees it that way also..... It would be instructive for Garland to realize that when Trump took office in early 2017, he immediately set up his reelection campaign for the 2020 election, still years off.
Deputy AG Lisa Monaco announced yesterday afternoon that Trump's declaration of candidacy would have no effect on DOJ's continuing investigation, so that's good news.
And the corollary good news is that means all of Trump's cronies and fellow travelers will be open to investigation and indictment if the evidence leads that way..... Ya know, IF we can hold the House (iffy) and expend our seats in the Senate (better than 50-50, actually), we just may pull this thing off..... Then all we need are Democratic leaders with the guts to say "We're passing everything, and not just the watered-down stuff - back to the original bills....."
When the committee is done, perhaps Pelosi should request another round of impeachment charges, convict him, send it to the Senate, and let's see if they have the guts to uphold their oaths, convict him, and prohibit him from running for office again--which they can do.
None of this will happen. But it should.
I also have said often that we wouldn't be in this situation if Merrick Garland were alive. But a little reminder about Garland: He prosecuted the Oklahoma City bombers. And when he did, it took him a while. There were no leaks. And when he went to court, the only way to avoid convicting them was if you were from the Planet Zort. So maybe, just maybe, he wants all of his ducks in a row.
A reminder from the Civil War of how that can be effective. Ulysses Grant was fed up with waiting for General George Thomas to attack John Hood's army in Tennessee. He kept telling him to attack, and Thomas was known for refusing to move until he felt he was ready. Grant finally decided to relieve Thomas of command. Lincoln told him that, in fairness to Thomas for the great work he had previously done, he would go along only if Grant went and relieved him in person. Grant was about to go when word came that Thomas had attacked Hood's army, and destroyed it.
I have to disagree...this is a completely understandable pushback at our five-year experience of that Overton Window (a concept I learned about only AFTER living through those years with the rest of us). there's a huge difference between what all of us KNOW should happen and what would constitute an airtight prosecution, and the Feds have a remarkably high conviction rate they would obviously hate to fuck up...can you imagine how even TFF could outdo himself in disgusting shit if the charges failed to stick? my mind won't even go there....
I'm not sure there really is an Overton Window any more when you consider political divisions and social media. But I may be over-wrong on the Overton Window!
Does it make any sense to provide Trump with the attention, let alone given our division to go through a 3rd impeachment trial, even if it were to be constitutional?
'It is an open question as to whether a former president can face a Senate impeachment trial. In a recent post on the legal blog Just Security, UNC Law professor Michael J. Gerhardt points out one argument against the trial of a former president — that Donald J. Trump would become a private citizen after leaving office and the Constitution only applies to civil officers. Gerhardt also acknowledges the counterpoint: “The problem with this argument, however, is that presidents and the other officials who are subject to impeachment are not like the rest of us. Once they leave office and return to their private lives, they are still ex-presidents and former officials who may have committed impeachable offenses in office,” Gerhardt writes, and “litigation or prosecutions might not be able to get at the misconduct, since the scope of impeachable offenses extends to misconduct that is not an actual crime.” (NationalConstitutionalCenter)
Nice summation of this clusterfuck. I hope Tangerine Nightmare comes down another escalator and bellows his, not a fucking secret to anybody intention.. Nobody gives a fuck. The rthugs know asshole has burned his bridges. They are scrambling while still trying to suck his dick. Those conservatives who wrote that 72 page report saying he lost; nobody gives a fuck. The important shit is local. City councils, state legislators, HR and a strong fucking senate will be the reward on the final 1/6 hearing on Thursday in prime time ( check your local listings!). That will move Orange cunt, " below the fold". Fuck his MAGAts, it's the state shit we need to watch. Voter suppression, fucking Proud Boys and nazis, cowardly Republicans ( redundancy).
Thursday is our storming the Bastille. Now if we can get the DOJ on board.
As for the rwnj whining about picking on a private citizen, ha, fucking ha! Not gonna fly even with the msm sucking his dick.
Both sideism not this week, assholes. Have a great day.
wow, Judy. god-DAMNED wonderful how much you sound like me! I got CANCELED for "misogyny" on HCR's Substack, just for calling Susan Collins a "stupid cunt." the vitriol was extraordinary...I was told by MANY people that I "hated women." so now I don't comment and manage to save, like, seven bucks a month. obviously, I like it here a hell of a lot more. and I am still not repentant on the Susan Collins issue. I see the Peanuts parallels all the time these days, applied to everything. but Susan Collins IS Lucy with the football.
David, shall I call you Peanuts from now on? Okay, you're happier here where expletives can rule the way for some, nevertheless, I was sorry to hear your tale. The quality of HCR's letters in their clarity, consideration of the issues and conciseness are not comparable. I have grown to greatly appreciate TAFM as well. The two are different in nature. I don't know how long I waited to read one of TC's comments on the forum, it was probably more than a year as they radiated with fury in my mind's eye. So, I may wince occassionally at your use of words but, in sum, feel appreciative of your thoughts and humor.
well, thank you for that, Fern. really...thank you. I have to admit (possibly with a little guilt) that "cunt" is my favorite word, for the simple reason that it's so POWERFUL. in this country, it'll empty a room. or get me canceled. or have the rest of the world consider me a vile misogynist. or--and I'm not being facetious when I say "worst of all"--make you wince. according to John McWhorter (who is actually sometimes dead-on, often not), it is one of three currently unacceptable words. I have no occasion to use the N-word and "faggot" gets a lot of play, but only with my gay friends. across the pond, it's completely different. in Ireland (AND the UK), for example, everybody is a "cunt" all the time, and the word can be applied to ANYTHING one doesn't especially like at the moment, regardless not only of gender but state of being. I've heard it applied to animals. I've heard it applied to inanimate objects on which one's toe has been stubbed. I've heard it applied to bad weather, which is abundant over there.
today it was over a hundred degrees in London, which is terrible weather, but entirely the wrong kind. I had the thought that the end of the world might be upon us.
how was that for a sudden change of subject? I apologize, but that's how my ridiculous mind works. and I really do apologize for making you wince...try to think of me as a really nice guy whose normally filthy mouth has been rendered even filthier by...well, you can certainly finish the thought.
David, Thank you for responding. I felt safe with you and TC, so shared how I feel about reading ugly words charged with violence. We both feel fury, determination and care for people. In our anger and contempt words fly out. Cursing is a release of frustration and fear. The destruction of language, the facts and reality, however, is the authoritarian -- fascist means of control and the murder of memory. I like you no matter what you write, David, and I will briefly just finish my point.
Remember how women have been treated almost always throughout history. 'On Friday, by a 4-to-1 margin, delegates to the Republican Party convention in Idaho rejected an amendment to their platform that would have permitted an abortion to save the life of the mother.' (Letter)
Look at the meaning of the word cunt. Why do some people take that word directed at women in the most contemptuous way and apply it to everything or say it at all.
Definition of cunt
obscene : the female genital organs
also : sexual intercourse with a woman
usually disparaging + obscene : WOMAN
So, that's my spiel. No more on this subject from me, unless you want to talk some more.
oh I totally get it, Fern. my point was that I like the word because of the associations people have with it, which renders it sort of magical. since every other word of my mouth is likely to be "fuck" (especially when I can't find my glasses, or the last thing I was reading or pretty much anything frustrating) it naturally loses a lot of the potency it used to have. and sometimes, I sorta want people to pay attention.
It doesn’t sound edible, TIME TO FISH OR CUT BAIT, does it? Oh, but it is. TC opens with a delectable menu of items from which to choose cases for the criminal prosecution of former president, Donald J. Trump.
So, what’s up? It’s been 557 days since the violent attack on The Capitol.
TC quotes Andrew Weissmann, a former chief of the fraud section in the DOJ’s criminal division and Mueller prosecutor, “We’re in a very unusual situation where you see Congress doing a really, really good job and being out in front of, by all accounts, the federal government in many ways in terms of understanding and investigating what happened in terms of trying to undermine the last presidential election.” (TC)
Weissmann had more to say in his essay ‘Merrick Garland Should Investigate Trump’s 2020 Election Schemes as a ‘Hub and Spoke’ Conspiracy’
‘Before the hearings, federal agents and prosecutors were performing a classic “bottom up” criminal investigation of the Jan. 6 rioters, which means prosecuting the lowest-ranking members of a conspiracy, flipping people as it proceeds and following the evidence as high as it goes.’
‘But that is actually the wrong approach for investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection. That approach sees the attack on the Capitol as a single event — an isolated riot, separate from other efforts by Donald Trump and his allies to overturn the election.’
‘The evidence gathered in the hearings describes a multiprong conspiracy — what prosecutors term a hub and spoke conspiracy — in which the Ellipse speech by President Trump and the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol were just one “spoke” of a grander scheme.’ (NYTimes) Link below. Sorry that my gifting for the month has expired.
What will it take to for Merrick Garland to apply the Rule of Law to Donald J. Trump? According to recent focus groups ‘…voters said Trump should be prosecuted for trying to overturn the 2020 election and his role in the attack on the Capitol.’
‘These focus group results track with national polling showing more than half of Americans believe Trump should face criminal charges.’ (TC)
‘…Trump represented the continuation and culmination of trends that had been operating in Republican politics for decades. Yet his outrageousness, shamelessness, and disregard for conventional practice allowed him to go further than anyone had gone before—and when he got away with it, the political landscape was transformed. La Rochefoucauld said that “Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue.” No hypocrite, Trump refused the homage and brought vice out into the open. And once he captured his party, he remade it in his image. With each transgression he forced his followers to accept, he corrupted them further.’ (cfr)
So, what’s up? Is it TIME TO FISH OR CUT BAIT, otherwise, will the American people allow the country to be remade in Trump’s image?
Will he, won’t he, … his primary focus is to stay in the news. During the height of the anti-Vietnam War protests, including draft card burning, I remember hearing a saying going around: “What if they had a war and nobody came?” Our new version should be: “What if tfg speaks and nobody listens?” I’m talking to you, msm!
I say make sure it’s the correct angler and hook-line-sinker for catch today. The poisonous blowfish Bannon.
I often feel fury towards him. What besides sociopathic, egoistic indifference fuels his fire? I say also to reduce that fire to a wet sludge of ash and sodden wood. And then salt It.
Bannon is behind all of this. I have often wondered why he is so rarely mentioned. Watched CNN's documentary on Bannon, Divided We Fall. Reinforced everything I've known about him.
I have to admit that I also can't watch Bannon for more than five seconds. then I start wishing that the big wart on his temple is a melanoma, and I'm superstitious about shit like that. I really am.
I've been defending Garland for a long time. I subscribe to Preet Bharara's Insider podcast, in which he discusses the week's big legal stories with Joyce Vance, who is more unbuttoned in it than she tends to be on MSNBC. she has maintained for a long time--and still maintains--that, despite appearances, the actual prosecutorial case against TFF is still shaky and conviction is by no means a done deal (she maintained this even after the last day of testimony). but both of them are kinda surprised that DOJ hasn't proceeded anything like as quickly as it might have (no known grand juries, etc.). I've also read that Garland is very methodical, eschews "headlines" and doesn't like pressure. but that memo is very, very discouraging. it's true that he is facing an unprecedented dilemma in an unprecedented situation the Framers (in the infinite wisdom attributed to them just about every fifteen minutes to a nauseating degree) didn't foresee because of their assumptions about the kind of people who'd be going into politics. if this sounds like I'm trashing them for not being able to foresee what would be happening in 2022, I'm really not. god knows if they knew what a disaster this particular two-party system would turn out to be, they would have allowed for it. they were some very smart guys, and they would be repelled by the stupid "originalism" that SCOTUS has embraced.
BUT if Garland is continuing Barr's ugly, partisan and completely cynical "policy" (which, being a few years old, is hardly a "tradition") because he wants to reify the DOJ's "independence," I'm gonna have to agree that he just might need to polish his resume and send it around, since a bunch of high-priced law firms would certainly be happy to have him. it actually HURTS me to say this, because he seems to be a profoundly decent guy in a horrifying dilemma. but if he's going to continue the tradition of letting TFF slide, that's just plain fucked up.
since the coming testimony on Thursday is going to focus on TFF's actions (and lack thereof) on 1/6, what we find out might just be enough to sway Garland. I wish, I wish, I wish....
You've pretty much said what I think. When I sat there and listened to Rachel report that, I wanted to start screaming. I wanted to throw something when she got to the part about the Barr memo being reinforced.
I see this as evidence of things going exactly according to plan. The DOJ traditionally has worked via "bottom up, convict and cooperate, flip the witness." Congress traditionally has appointed special committees to investigate from top down. The Court of Public Opinion awaits the news at 6. It is all converging now, and the pace of revelations and convictions has begun to increase exponentially. Fasten your seat belts.
You mean to say that we’re hoping that focus groups staged by a marketing company called Engagious are what’s going to get the Attorney General of the United States to start investigating sedition 19 months after the evidence started piling up?? HOPING?
Time is not on our side. It’s obvious that DOJ has come late to the party and doesn’t yet have a complete case against Trump, let alone deciding whether to indict him for sedition or to lump him into a conspiracy with Giuliani, Stone, Mr. Overstock and/or the neo-Nazi leaders of Proud Babies and Oath Breakers. The DOJ, Pre-Trump, was always a by-the-book group and I’m sure they are now resorting to the comfort of proper procedure. They just will not take a flyer and indict with the hope that the 1/6 Committee has or will find the goods on Trump before a Rule 12 motion to dismiss is filed. I know we all think the evidence is there already, but it requires inferences and that’s a bit nerve wracking for a lawyer. (Of course, they work on inferences in Mafia cases, and this is shaping up with lots of parallels to Mafia prosecutions.) And I’m sure Garland thinks he has learned a lesson from Comey and will not announce “that something smells might suspicious around here” just to try to prove his bona fides with his tribe.
I think we have to plan on any indictment or information being handed down long after Trump announces a 2024 run. We have to keep the pressure on Congress and the press. The press especially. They need backbone. I think the greatest service the 1/6 Committee can do is teach the press that this is no time for bothsiderism. And we need to buttress the Georgia and NY prosecutors. They will need to be especially brave to follow the evidence to where it is inevitably leading, and act on that evidence.
Yes indeed to all.
The one thing that still gives me hope (I am an optimist in the long run) is that even if Trump declares he is running, the next presidential election is in 2024, not 2022..... There is no reason for Garland to avoid indicting Trump with sufficient evidence just because he has declared for an election two years away. Lets hope Garland sees it that way also..... It would be instructive for Garland to realize that when Trump took office in early 2017, he immediately set up his reelection campaign for the 2020 election, still years off.
Deputy AG Lisa Monaco announced yesterday afternoon that Trump's declaration of candidacy would have no effect on DOJ's continuing investigation, so that's good news.
And the corollary good news is that means all of Trump's cronies and fellow travelers will be open to investigation and indictment if the evidence leads that way..... Ya know, IF we can hold the House (iffy) and expend our seats in the Senate (better than 50-50, actually), we just may pull this thing off..... Then all we need are Democratic leaders with the guts to say "We're passing everything, and not just the watered-down stuff - back to the original bills....."
thanks, Gary...we entirely agree, but you stated the case a lot better than I did.
Thank you, David. Very kind of you.
When the committee is done, perhaps Pelosi should request another round of impeachment charges, convict him, send it to the Senate, and let's see if they have the guts to uphold their oaths, convict him, and prohibit him from running for office again--which they can do.
None of this will happen. But it should.
I also have said often that we wouldn't be in this situation if Merrick Garland were alive. But a little reminder about Garland: He prosecuted the Oklahoma City bombers. And when he did, it took him a while. There were no leaks. And when he went to court, the only way to avoid convicting them was if you were from the Planet Zort. So maybe, just maybe, he wants all of his ducks in a row.
A reminder from the Civil War of how that can be effective. Ulysses Grant was fed up with waiting for General George Thomas to attack John Hood's army in Tennessee. He kept telling him to attack, and Thomas was known for refusing to move until he felt he was ready. Grant finally decided to relieve Thomas of command. Lincoln told him that, in fairness to Thomas for the great work he had previously done, he would go along only if Grant went and relieved him in person. Grant was about to go when word came that Thomas had attacked Hood's army, and destroyed it.
Yes, good reminders all around that we really don't know what is what.
Granting that I think Garland could have issued indictments the day he took office and done just fine!
I have to disagree...this is a completely understandable pushback at our five-year experience of that Overton Window (a concept I learned about only AFTER living through those years with the rest of us). there's a huge difference between what all of us KNOW should happen and what would constitute an airtight prosecution, and the Feds have a remarkably high conviction rate they would obviously hate to fuck up...can you imagine how even TFF could outdo himself in disgusting shit if the charges failed to stick? my mind won't even go there....
I'm not sure there really is an Overton Window any more when you consider political divisions and social media. But I may be over-wrong on the Overton Window!
Does it make any sense to provide Trump with the attention, let alone given our division to go through a 3rd impeachment trial, even if it were to be constitutional?
'It is an open question as to whether a former president can face a Senate impeachment trial. In a recent post on the legal blog Just Security, UNC Law professor Michael J. Gerhardt points out one argument against the trial of a former president — that Donald J. Trump would become a private citizen after leaving office and the Constitution only applies to civil officers. Gerhardt also acknowledges the counterpoint: “The problem with this argument, however, is that presidents and the other officials who are subject to impeachment are not like the rest of us. Once they leave office and return to their private lives, they are still ex-presidents and former officials who may have committed impeachable offenses in office,” Gerhardt writes, and “litigation or prosecutions might not be able to get at the misconduct, since the scope of impeachable offenses extends to misconduct that is not an actual crime.” (NationalConstitutionalCenter)
Nice summation of this clusterfuck. I hope Tangerine Nightmare comes down another escalator and bellows his, not a fucking secret to anybody intention.. Nobody gives a fuck. The rthugs know asshole has burned his bridges. They are scrambling while still trying to suck his dick. Those conservatives who wrote that 72 page report saying he lost; nobody gives a fuck. The important shit is local. City councils, state legislators, HR and a strong fucking senate will be the reward on the final 1/6 hearing on Thursday in prime time ( check your local listings!). That will move Orange cunt, " below the fold". Fuck his MAGAts, it's the state shit we need to watch. Voter suppression, fucking Proud Boys and nazis, cowardly Republicans ( redundancy).
Thursday is our storming the Bastille. Now if we can get the DOJ on board.
As for the rwnj whining about picking on a private citizen, ha, fucking ha! Not gonna fly even with the msm sucking his dick.
Both sideism not this week, assholes. Have a great day.
Yessirreeee!
wow, Judy. god-DAMNED wonderful how much you sound like me! I got CANCELED for "misogyny" on HCR's Substack, just for calling Susan Collins a "stupid cunt." the vitriol was extraordinary...I was told by MANY people that I "hated women." so now I don't comment and manage to save, like, seven bucks a month. obviously, I like it here a hell of a lot more. and I am still not repentant on the Susan Collins issue. I see the Peanuts parallels all the time these days, applied to everything. but Susan Collins IS Lucy with the football.
David, shall I call you Peanuts from now on? Okay, you're happier here where expletives can rule the way for some, nevertheless, I was sorry to hear your tale. The quality of HCR's letters in their clarity, consideration of the issues and conciseness are not comparable. I have grown to greatly appreciate TAFM as well. The two are different in nature. I don't know how long I waited to read one of TC's comments on the forum, it was probably more than a year as they radiated with fury in my mind's eye. So, I may wince occassionally at your use of words but, in sum, feel appreciative of your thoughts and humor.
"Radiating with fury" is a good description of how I feel about the traitors we face.
Edit
Hello TC. Have you come to know my rage, recognition and realization of the impact their cruelty is having on the country?
Yep.
well, thank you for that, Fern. really...thank you. I have to admit (possibly with a little guilt) that "cunt" is my favorite word, for the simple reason that it's so POWERFUL. in this country, it'll empty a room. or get me canceled. or have the rest of the world consider me a vile misogynist. or--and I'm not being facetious when I say "worst of all"--make you wince. according to John McWhorter (who is actually sometimes dead-on, often not), it is one of three currently unacceptable words. I have no occasion to use the N-word and "faggot" gets a lot of play, but only with my gay friends. across the pond, it's completely different. in Ireland (AND the UK), for example, everybody is a "cunt" all the time, and the word can be applied to ANYTHING one doesn't especially like at the moment, regardless not only of gender but state of being. I've heard it applied to animals. I've heard it applied to inanimate objects on which one's toe has been stubbed. I've heard it applied to bad weather, which is abundant over there.
today it was over a hundred degrees in London, which is terrible weather, but entirely the wrong kind. I had the thought that the end of the world might be upon us.
how was that for a sudden change of subject? I apologize, but that's how my ridiculous mind works. and I really do apologize for making you wince...try to think of me as a really nice guy whose normally filthy mouth has been rendered even filthier by...well, you can certainly finish the thought.
David, Thank you for responding. I felt safe with you and TC, so shared how I feel about reading ugly words charged with violence. We both feel fury, determination and care for people. In our anger and contempt words fly out. Cursing is a release of frustration and fear. The destruction of language, the facts and reality, however, is the authoritarian -- fascist means of control and the murder of memory. I like you no matter what you write, David, and I will briefly just finish my point.
Remember how women have been treated almost always throughout history. 'On Friday, by a 4-to-1 margin, delegates to the Republican Party convention in Idaho rejected an amendment to their platform that would have permitted an abortion to save the life of the mother.' (Letter)
Look at the meaning of the word cunt. Why do some people take that word directed at women in the most contemptuous way and apply it to everything or say it at all.
Definition of cunt
obscene : the female genital organs
also : sexual intercourse with a woman
usually disparaging + obscene : WOMAN
So, that's my spiel. No more on this subject from me, unless you want to talk some more.
In friendship.
Fern
oh I totally get it, Fern. my point was that I like the word because of the associations people have with it, which renders it sort of magical. since every other word of my mouth is likely to be "fuck" (especially when I can't find my glasses, or the last thing I was reading or pretty much anything frustrating) it naturally loses a lot of the potency it used to have. and sometimes, I sorta want people to pay attention.
but you get this already.
and thanks again.
👓😠 🕶️
It doesn’t sound edible, TIME TO FISH OR CUT BAIT, does it? Oh, but it is. TC opens with a delectable menu of items from which to choose cases for the criminal prosecution of former president, Donald J. Trump.
So, what’s up? It’s been 557 days since the violent attack on The Capitol.
TC quotes Andrew Weissmann, a former chief of the fraud section in the DOJ’s criminal division and Mueller prosecutor, “We’re in a very unusual situation where you see Congress doing a really, really good job and being out in front of, by all accounts, the federal government in many ways in terms of understanding and investigating what happened in terms of trying to undermine the last presidential election.” (TC)
Weissmann had more to say in his essay ‘Merrick Garland Should Investigate Trump’s 2020 Election Schemes as a ‘Hub and Spoke’ Conspiracy’
‘Before the hearings, federal agents and prosecutors were performing a classic “bottom up” criminal investigation of the Jan. 6 rioters, which means prosecuting the lowest-ranking members of a conspiracy, flipping people as it proceeds and following the evidence as high as it goes.’
‘But that is actually the wrong approach for investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection. That approach sees the attack on the Capitol as a single event — an isolated riot, separate from other efforts by Donald Trump and his allies to overturn the election.’
‘The evidence gathered in the hearings describes a multiprong conspiracy — what prosecutors term a hub and spoke conspiracy — in which the Ellipse speech by President Trump and the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol were just one “spoke” of a grander scheme.’ (NYTimes) Link below. Sorry that my gifting for the month has expired.
What will it take to for Merrick Garland to apply the Rule of Law to Donald J. Trump? According to recent focus groups ‘…voters said Trump should be prosecuted for trying to overturn the 2020 election and his role in the attack on the Capitol.’
‘These focus group results track with national polling showing more than half of Americans believe Trump should face criminal charges.’ (TC)
‘…Trump represented the continuation and culmination of trends that had been operating in Republican politics for decades. Yet his outrageousness, shamelessness, and disregard for conventional practice allowed him to go further than anyone had gone before—and when he got away with it, the political landscape was transformed. La Rochefoucauld said that “Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue.” No hypocrite, Trump refused the homage and brought vice out into the open. And once he captured his party, he remade it in his image. With each transgression he forced his followers to accept, he corrupted them further.’ (cfr)
So, what’s up? Is it TIME TO FISH OR CUT BAIT, otherwise, will the American people allow the country to be remade in Trump’s image?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/11/opinion/january-6-trump-merrick-garland.html
Will he, won’t he, … his primary focus is to stay in the news. During the height of the anti-Vietnam War protests, including draft card burning, I remember hearing a saying going around: “What if they had a war and nobody came?” Our new version should be: “What if tfg speaks and nobody listens?” I’m talking to you, msm!
I say make sure it’s the correct angler and hook-line-sinker for catch today. The poisonous blowfish Bannon.
I often feel fury towards him. What besides sociopathic, egoistic indifference fuels his fire? I say also to reduce that fire to a wet sludge of ash and sodden wood. And then salt It.
Salud. 🗽
Bannon is behind all of this. I have often wondered why he is so rarely mentioned. Watched CNN's documentary on Bannon, Divided We Fall. Reinforced everything I've known about him.
Couldn't bring myself to watch. Love the "poisonous blowfish" appellation.
I have to admit that I also can't watch Bannon for more than five seconds. then I start wishing that the big wart on his temple is a melanoma, and I'm superstitious about shit like that. I really am.
Very difficult to watch.
Unita, Karen. 🗽
and Stephen Miller. How is it his name never comes up?
I've been defending Garland for a long time. I subscribe to Preet Bharara's Insider podcast, in which he discusses the week's big legal stories with Joyce Vance, who is more unbuttoned in it than she tends to be on MSNBC. she has maintained for a long time--and still maintains--that, despite appearances, the actual prosecutorial case against TFF is still shaky and conviction is by no means a done deal (she maintained this even after the last day of testimony). but both of them are kinda surprised that DOJ hasn't proceeded anything like as quickly as it might have (no known grand juries, etc.). I've also read that Garland is very methodical, eschews "headlines" and doesn't like pressure. but that memo is very, very discouraging. it's true that he is facing an unprecedented dilemma in an unprecedented situation the Framers (in the infinite wisdom attributed to them just about every fifteen minutes to a nauseating degree) didn't foresee because of their assumptions about the kind of people who'd be going into politics. if this sounds like I'm trashing them for not being able to foresee what would be happening in 2022, I'm really not. god knows if they knew what a disaster this particular two-party system would turn out to be, they would have allowed for it. they were some very smart guys, and they would be repelled by the stupid "originalism" that SCOTUS has embraced.
BUT if Garland is continuing Barr's ugly, partisan and completely cynical "policy" (which, being a few years old, is hardly a "tradition") because he wants to reify the DOJ's "independence," I'm gonna have to agree that he just might need to polish his resume and send it around, since a bunch of high-priced law firms would certainly be happy to have him. it actually HURTS me to say this, because he seems to be a profoundly decent guy in a horrifying dilemma. but if he's going to continue the tradition of letting TFF slide, that's just plain fucked up.
since the coming testimony on Thursday is going to focus on TFF's actions (and lack thereof) on 1/6, what we find out might just be enough to sway Garland. I wish, I wish, I wish....
You've pretty much said what I think. When I sat there and listened to Rachel report that, I wanted to start screaming. I wanted to throw something when she got to the part about the Barr memo being reinforced.
you and me both...I picked up the habit of screaming at the television from my father, who was a master of it; lots of practice after 1952.
I see this as evidence of things going exactly according to plan. The DOJ traditionally has worked via "bottom up, convict and cooperate, flip the witness." Congress traditionally has appointed special committees to investigate from top down. The Court of Public Opinion awaits the news at 6. It is all converging now, and the pace of revelations and convictions has begun to increase exponentially. Fasten your seat belts.
Great title, TC, and a damn good piece of reporting. You are right on about the DOJ. Let’s hope they get their shit together!
You mean to say that we’re hoping that focus groups staged by a marketing company called Engagious are what’s going to get the Attorney General of the United States to start investigating sedition 19 months after the evidence started piling up?? HOPING?
You’re kidding.
Jeff, You know Bogus when you see it. Thanks for calling it out. Good name calling, too.
TCinLA's Thomas Cleaver describes Trump thus:
"El Blobbo del Mar A Lardo"
I'm wondering how focus groups in Wisconsin and Arizona could contain all of the swing voters from their respective states.