I'm listening to today's episode of the NYT podcast, "The Daily": "Trump Faces a New Special Counsel/In a moment of political déjà vu, the Justice Department’s criminal investigations into Donald J. Trump have taken a familiar turn."
The host, Michael Barbaro, is talking to NYT Washington correspondent Michael S. Schmidt. I've transcribed their discussion that begins at 22:51:
Barbaro: So one way to look at the special counsel that Garland just appointed is that it's designed to insulate him — and, by extension, the Biden administration — from blowback if and when they do decide to prosecute Trump — Biden's former and now current rival — but another way it could insulate Garland, you're saying, is if they decide not to prosecute Trump and there's inevitably blowback from Democrats and from the left.
Schmidt: "Yes, but the more we go through this, the more that I realize that Garland is probably screwed...
Barbaro: Hmmph.
Schmidt: ... because no matter what is decided, whether Trump is charged or not, a large segment of the population will think it's wrong and politically motivated.
Barbaro: Mm-hmm.
Schmidt: And if special counsel can't solve the problem at the heart of the moment — which is that you have the Justice Department, under a sitting President, investigating his rival for the presidency — by nature, that looks and feels political.
Posts
93 comments:
Isn't the whole point of a special counsel that they aren't beholden to the President?
I'm going to take door #3, Monty. Garland knows they don't have jack $#!t for evidence to charge Trump, much less convict him, so they are just going to keep stringing this farce along to harass Trump supporters and as stray voltage whenever they need to a distraction from one of Biden's malapropisms.
They keep using past tense language to describe what they claim is a future event.
"Isn't the whole point of a special counsel that they aren't beholden to the President?" at 8:09 am
I truly hope you're being facetious.
The most obvious political pawn in the US today is Garland. After being stopped from Supreme Court entry, the rabid left has put him out as some sort of mythical attack dog.
But, Garland's deer-in-the-headlights bunny rabbit face gives the game away. Find out who feeds Biden's Teleprompter and you'll also find out how feeds Garland's lines too. Calling Mr. Schiiff. Mr. Schiiff? Ms. Pelosi? Mr. Schumer? What say you?
Heart of the moment?
Watch Scott Adam’s livestream from yesterday. Start at the 31 minute mark.
Adams reads Twitters’ justification for banning Trump.
Trump called specifically for peaceful demonstration on J6, and pleaded for no violence. The case that Trump did something to incite violence on J6 is entirely fabricated. Twitters “content moderation” staff made it all up. Out of nothing.
Why on earth would anyone think this is politically motivated?
Link to the text of the order appointing smith
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1552896/download
About 1 page long. Easy reading.
John Henry
"...looks and feels political." Do tell.
I am savoring the idiocy of that comment, because it rests on the pretension that such a prosecution under such conditions against such a target could ever NOT "look and feel political." It is NOTHING BUT political: not just on the well-worn facts of Trump's case (where he has been investigated over and over to less than no effect, but usefully terrorizing and pauperizing those around him; and where he has been subjected, not once but twice, to a hellish and purely partisan flagellation laughably called "impeachment") but on almost any facts one could imagine.
This is the stuff of banana republics, but compared to where we have fallen, banana republic status would now be aspirational.
Isn’t the whole point of the DOJ that they’re not beholden to the President?
File this under “no shit, Sherlock”…
Garland is the sacrificial lamb here. Moving the J6 evidence from the Dems in Congress to his IC before the Republicans could get their hands on it was purely political. And setting an IC on Trump was purely political. He picked a hyper partisan IC, and by law, is the one person who can fire them, for any reason. The IC wasn’t picked because he was the best. He was picked because he was hyper partisan and appears to be close to LawFare, who were behind (among others) the MAL raid.
It looks and feels that way because it is.
Weren’t we told, when Obama nominated Garland for the Scalia seat, that he was a very middle of the road person/judge? I mean, I knew it was BS at the time because that’s just the way Obama was, but that was the shit he was peddling.
It should be crystal clear to all that Obama was full of shit and that Garland is FAR from middle of the road. He’s a political crony, Uber lefty, beholden. A lot like the AG Clinton met with on the plane…
"Investigating a Presidential rival" . . . wasn't that what Trump was impeached for, with that Ukrainian prosecutor issue? Or maybe not. How are people supposed to keep all the prosecutions / investigations / impeachments of Trump distinct? I'm giving up.
The "beauty" of a special counsel is that it can be continued and expanded without limit. Even if there is no immediate determination, it can easily extend into a hypothetical second Trump administration, causing no end of mischief. Just part of the continuing "General Warrant" against Trump which has been effect since the last days of the Obama administration.
Witness said...
Isn't the whole point of a special counsel that they aren't beholden to the President?
Until you appoint a Democrat hack activist who is a long time democrat toady as the special counsel.
Yeah it looks feels smells tastes and sounds political. BECAUSE IT IS POLITICAL. It is the very first charge in Trump’s first impeachment over the phone call to Zelensky in which Democrats allege Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Biden. Somehow that unspecified “request” was so heinous it warranted impeachment but Biden blatantly saying Trump NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED is ignored by the media and Congress. Dem Privilege trumps White Privilege any day of the week.
“Isn't the whole point of a special counsel that they aren't beholden to the President?”
Not when the President is a Democrat.
It IS politically motivated. WHAT hasn't been, when it comes from their insistence that they have to GET TRUMP, NO MATTER WHAT?? Fake Russian Collusion, two fake impeachments, the RAID of his house, when the Clintons actually destroyed Classified stuff they were subpoenaed for?? The day he was inaugurated, the Washington Post said it was time to impeach him. Obama got a Noble Peace prize for getting elected by being black...so there is that. I don't trust ANY of them.
Mueller "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller was a former FBI Director who staffed his Special Counsel staff largely with active-duty FBI officials. Essentially, the Special Counsel investigation was conducted by the FBI itself.
The supposed purpose of this investigation was to determine whether members of Donald Trump campaign-staff had colluded with Russian Intelligence to help Trump defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential election. To some extent, the staff of the Special Counsel was the staff of the Crossfire Hurricane staff, which had been investigating the alleged collusion.
In fact, one of the real issues in the controversy was whether the FBI's conduct before the election was proper and honest. Of course, that issue never was going to be studied by the Special Counsel and his staff.
=======
The Crossfire Hurricane staff's "theory of the crime" was that Russian Intelligence intended to use e-mails and computer files, hacked from the Democratic National Committee and from Clinton, to conduct an October Surprise. A few days before the elections, Russian Intelligence would release many such files (some of them falsely altered) to embarrass Clinton and thus cause her defeat.
No such October Surprise happened. The FBI's "theory of the crime" was mistaken.
In the days following the election, the FBI should have terminated its Hurricane Crossfire investigation. On the contrary, the FBI persisted.
=======
My new blog article:
The FBI's Abuse of Michael Cohen -- Part 1
I expect to publish Part 2 later today.
"if they decide not to prosecute Trump and there's inevitably blowback from Democrats and from the left." They didn't listen to Mueller and they won't listen to this one.
But if someone does a special investigation, and can't find any real results, the conclusion should be that the investigation was purely political. What should you call an investigation where the starting point is, We know we can find something on him, anything!
you have the Justice Department, under a sitting President, investigating his rival for the presidency — by nature, that looks and feels political.
And...
Isn't the whole point of a special counsel that they aren't beholden to the President?
Even when the Justice Department is headed up by a man who - it "looks and feels" - was denied a seat on the Supreme Court by the guy he's now had to appoint a special counsel to investigate? (Yes, it was McConnell - but we all know everything that happened in the Era of Trump gets laid at Trump's feet.)
This is the problem Garland faces. No matter what he does, his prior involvement with the Trump administration and all that that entails make him seem like a political actor.
Plus there's the fact that Trump has been under some kind of investigation for decades now and nothing has been sticky enough to bring him down. Who knows, maybe one of the things back when he was a Democrat and going to the right parties would indeed have stuck, if he hasn't been a Democrat and going to all the right parties.
I think because it looks so political no matter what they do, Garland had no choice but to farm it out to a subcontractor. Although it sets a different (dangerous) precedent in that Trump is a private citizen. SFAIK, that's new and a new line will have to be drawn somewhere to deal with it.
5his prosecutor was rebuked by the SC in the case he brought involving the IRS. Then the prosecutor should have known ultimately he would fail even though Dem friendly judges at the district and appellate levels made the wrong decisions. This is a guy who will follow orders and prosecute a case for which he has no evidence, just innuendo.
Witness: "Isn't the whole point of a special counsel that they aren't beholden to the President?"
The Special Counsel is conducting a criminal investigation. All criminal investigations and potential prosecutions are completely under the authority of the executive branch of government.
Plus, despite what anyone might think about the Special Counsel Smith, he still reports to Garland, who reports to Biden.
The New Soviet Democraticals are living up to their true nature. This was inevitable given the left's inevitable push for total authoritarian control over the lives of anyone who is so unfortunate as to fall under their jurisdiction.
And the New Soviet Democraticals have successfully constructed their very own centralized Star Chamber/Kafkaesque/Kangaroo Court in DC and can now automatically guarantee anyone who gets dragged thru the entrance portal for the New Soviet Democratical Gulag Archipelago will be going away for a long time.
Note: Smith's first attempt to prosecute Trump came in the 1970's....so our New Soviet Democratical Inquisitor has been targeting Trump for 50 years.
Investigating your rival? Isn’t that impeachable?
The political blowback is secondary to hiding the truth about J6 and the Mar-a-lago raid behind a special counsel’s “can’t comment on in-going investigation” curtain.
It looks and feels political because it is.
Garland should be screwed. He is re-running the faux dossier investigation, using Jan 6 and classfied documents pretexts, both of which have no criminal activity involved by Trump. Just like the Russian collusion hoax was investigated.
It's about sequestering the evidence, mostly the video, of J6, gathered by the House. It's intended to kneecap any new look at J6 by the new House.
They would much rather face accusations of political shenanigans, which the press will manage for them, than the actual evidence on those videos.
...the Justice Department’s criminal investigations into Donald J. Trump have taken a familiar turn.
Not exactly. There's an asymmetry between appointing a special counsel when the target is otherwise expected to receive favorable versus unfavorable treatment from the administration.
Often, the process is the punishment. So, there's a self-limiting downside to appointing a special counsel to investigate a friendly (e.g., Trump, Mueller) versus an enemy (e.g., Trump, Smith).
Josh Blackman in Volokh:
But there is one huge difference between the orders. Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's order put a limit on Mueller's prosecutorial authority:
If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
Prosecution must be both "necessary and and appropriate." Really "necessary" is a higher bar than "appropriate," so the former is the controlling term.
Attorney General Barr's order appointing John Durham also included the "necessary and appropriate" language... The prosecution need not be "necessary." Smith has a green light to indict Trump.
Justice Scalia's admonition in Morrison v. Olson about the independent counsel aptly describes our present moment:
As I observed earlier, in the nature of things, this has to be done by finding lawyers who are willing to lay aside their current careers for an indeterminate amount of time, to take on a job that has no prospect of permanence and little prospect for promotion. One thing is certain, however: it involves investigating and perhaps prosecuting a particular individual. Can one imagine a less equitable manner of fulfilling the Executive responsibility to investigate and prosecute? What would be the reaction if, in an area not covered by this statute, the Justice Department posted a public notice inviting applicants to assist in an investigation and possible prosecution of a certain prominent person? Does this not invite what Justice Jackson described as "picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him"?
It is painfully clear that Garland appointed Smith for one reason, and one reason alone: "prosecuting a particular individual" named Donald J. Trump.
"Isn't the whole point of a special counsel that they aren't beholden to the President?"
A problem is that seeking insulation is a political thing to do, and there's no way, at this point, to get everyone to believe that what the special counsel does happened apart from politics.
But it may be the best you can do... or it may be effective to buy a lot of time. Notice how Barbaro frames the question, isolating the end result, either to prosecute or not to prosecute Trump. But there's still a huge chunk of time where there's uncertainty about what the special counsel might do. If we know buying time is another thing that can be done for political advantage, it might limit the advantage.
"Weren’t we told, when Obama nominated Garland for the Scalia seat, that he was a very middle of the road person/judge? I mean, I knew it was BS at the time because that’s just the way Obama was, but that was the shit he was peddling. It should be crystal clear to all that Obama was full of shit and that Garland is FAR from middle of the road. He’s a political crony, Uber lefty, beholden. A lot like the AG Clinton met with on the plane…"
In the podcast, they talk about how Biden is said to be disappointed in Garland, because he is too much of a "judge" type person, balanced and slow and not aggressive.
All of the other investigations seemed political. Who was hurt by any of them, besides Trump? They have no reason to think they will be hurt by this one. And, who knows, Wile E. Coyote might just win this time.
Remember How the seat Garland was supposed to get opened up? Scalia met some new buddies, who just so happened to belong to an "Eyes Wide Shut" style "secret society" who invited him on a hunting trip. He did not have his security detail. He was found dead in bed on that trip, "apparently of natural causes" in one of the most remote areas of American and his body was cremated the next day without autopsy.
Epstein didn't kill himself, Seth Rich was not a botched robbery, and Scalia's death should have been investigated, given its national importance, but it wasn't
https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/18/opinions/justice-scalia-no-autopsy-melinek/index.html
Now Garland is overseeing the FBI. If you want to keep faith in your government, don't do what I did, which is to watch the movie JFK and then fact check the important details. Disappearing of the security detail is a recurring theme, from Dallas, to Scalia's death in Texas, to J6.
"Biden is said to be disappointed in Garland, because he is too much of a "judge" type person, balanced and slow and not aggressive."
That's called "taking him to the woodshed," and it obviously worked.
Trump will be indicted and convicted by a DC jury. The Dems want that photo op of Trump in chains in a perp walk. They want that mug shot. It is deeply personal for them.
But here's what happens. Ron the Second runs on the promise of pardoning Trump. He wins and then pardons Trump.
DeSantis then cleans out the FBI and DOJ. Swamp defeated.
This is so obviously political that no one believes Garland. The Democrats don't care because Trump is a boogie man they scare their kids with. Republicans are slowly coming to the realization that we are approaching Soviet Union levels of corruption. Stalin said it doesn't matter who votes. It's who counts the votes that matters. Wise man.
Isn't the whole point of a special counsel that they aren't beholden to the President?
Only when it’s a Republican administration. And in the case of this special prosecutor, there is ample evidence that he bears a personal animus towards Trump’s Deplorables in general, and a massive personal animus towards Donald Trump in particular.
Didn't Trump get impeached for trying to do a hit job on Biden via Zelensky? Isn't Biden doing a hit job on Trump via Garland?
Sheesh.
Hello? No mention that setting up a special counsel to investigate a former POTUS, who's been out of office for two years, AND will be running again in 2024 is INSANE, UNHEARD of and UNETHICAL!
Nobody with a brain thought "Mueller The man of Honor" was in fact a man of honor. And nobody with a brain thinks this "Special Counsel" is anything more than a Partisan hack out to destroy Trump.
Why poor mr. garland. He sends the FBI Gestapo to raid Trump's mansion. He prosecutes every member of Trump inner circle, he acts like Joe Biden "Wingman" and when he assigns a liberal Demcorat to destroy Trump people think he's biased.
How tragic!
More of the same old same old. This is just setting up the infrastructure to undermine Trump for 2024. It’s the same strategy Democrats have deployed for the last 6 plus years. If Trump somehow wins again, this investigation will just continue at least until the 2026 midterms and will be used to spawn off other investigations as needed.
What’s hilarious is that they can instantaneously rev up this special counsel while somehow ignoring the investigation into Joe’s family business that’s been going on for years. It would seem Garland’s rationale for Trump’s SC would apply equally to Joe if all things were really equal, no?
DeSantis then cleans out the FBI and DOJ. Swamp defeated.
Yeah, just use his magic wand. I don't think you and a lot of others here realize what a Herculean task that is. The course of a lot of rivers will have to be changed to clean out those stables.
Garland screwed himself for being the Partisan asshole he is. Karma is coming for him....
DeSantis then cleans out the FBI and DOJ. Swamp defeated.
11/21/22, 9:18 AM
You are pretty naive if you think DeSantis is going to have an easier time.
"Garland is probably screwed".
Good. Now let's work on blued and tattooed.
Garland is bent, but he will not be screwed. Democrats are shameless about corruption and graft. So long as he and his crooked underlings further the interests of the left, there will be no repercussions.
The media applauds. The base is amoral or stupid or both.
Dave Begley: "DeSantis then cleans out the FBI and DOJ. Swamp defeated."
Ron DeSantis has said nothing about reforming the DOJ/FBI nor the national security state.
DeSantis has said nothing about confronting the ChiComs, tariffs or reshoring of American jobs particularly for critical materials.
DeSantis has said nothing about completing the Wall or taking on the cartels and shutting off the fentanyl pipelines.
DeSantis has said nothing about Fair Trade policies or holding the Europeans to account for their failure to meet obligations.
DeSantis has said nothing about breaking up Big Tech.
I could go on.
Note: None of DeSantis' biggest financial bsckers nor his GOPe backers nor current GOPe party leadership want any of the above...yet somehow DeSantis is going to deliver any of that?
Explain how that happens.
The podcast is a variant of the "Republicans pounce" meme. Republicans will pounce.
Yeah, just use his magic wand. I don't think you and a lot of others here realize what a Herculean task that is. The course of a lot of rivers will have to be changed to clean out those stables.
If they can convict and imprison Trump, then there's no way that the GOP establishment will permit reform of the FBI. Trump may get a pardon, after DeSantis leaves office, but the system will ensure that he sits in prison for as long as possible, as a message to anyone else who might dare challenge it.
In the podcast, they talk about how Biden is said to be disappointed in Garland, because he is too much of a "judge" type person, balanced and slow and not aggressive.
That could just be a stylistic difference. Garland is "slow" and deliberative and mealy-mouthed. Biden, to the extent that he's involved at all, is petulant and impatient. But somehow, Garland ends up where the White House wants him to. It's just his way not to jump into action immediately.
I do wonder a bit about the extent to which "Biden" as reflected in the leaks is real or virtual and simulated. "Biden" is angry because one would expect that of Joe, but maybe the real Joe is just eating his pudding and taking naps. Something similar may be true of other presidents: the leakers may just imagine what the president probably was and did and felt.
The swamp ye shall always have with ye.
When DeSantis starts to make appointments, he'll get so much blowback about "purges" and "breaking norms" that he'll soon have to back down. And, it's quite unbelievable if you know the history, but for today's progressives in Congress, the FBI and CIA are getting to be almost as sacrosanct as Social Security, the EPA, and the Department of Education.
Anyone who believes Jack Smith is an independent actor in this play is retarded and/or full shit. This appointment was intended only to present a facade of impartiality, not actual impartiality itself. Few are fooled by this, though many want to be or claim to be.
Read that at DoJ under Obama Smith made the call to end the Tom Delay investigation without charges. Sounds like he's the right choice.
Also read in NYT that Manhattan DA taking second look at Stormy Daniels charge against 45 now that Weisselberg has plead guilty and testified once for the Office. But his predecessor had ruled out charge way back based on legal isufficiency.
“The Democrats, after all, have shown over the last six years that they have mastered the art of increasing the misery of the American people while simultaneously hounding and persecuting their political opponents; they don’t have to choose one or the other. So why should the Republicans have to choose between trying to rein in the skyrocketing inflation the Biden regime has unleashed, and looking into the manifestly corrupt dealings of the president’s crackhead son who somehow magically landed a hyper-lucrative job with a Ukrainian oil company while his father happened to be vice president of the United States?”
—- Robert Spencer
This was an incredible error by the Biden administration, having Garland agitate for prosecution rather than putting a pin in the entire endeavor. "Won't politicize" the DOJ, my balls.
How much did McConnell pay Garland to do this and thereby burnish Mitch's reputation/legacy for having kept the hack off the USSC, one has to wonder.
Since so much was politically motivated, this is no different. You blew your wad and nobody cares any longer.
Trump never cleaned house. Why would we trust him to do it?
"... that looks political."
Hahahahaha. Looks.
Allow me to use a different word than "looks": IS.
Seems pretty obvious that whoever is AG will be hated by a large percentage of the population whatever he does. So he should just do his job to the best of his ability and not worry about that.
Garland was, is and will always be the front-man for Lisa Monaco and the fall guy for anything that goes wrong at DOJ. Garland's a chump. What looks politically-motivated, is in fact so.
Blogger Darkisland said...
Link to the text of the order appointing smith
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1552896/download
About 1 page long. Easy reading.
==================
I am curious how USA system of laws and juridisfimacation works:
does Smith get to refuse or is this marching orders?
is there anything akin to prosecutorial discretion as far as this goes/stinks?
Hilarious, people talking about THE most politicized DOJ ever somehow being somewhat honest, it’s a farce.
Trump never cleaned house. Why would we trust him to do it?
========
wondering if picking up a broom to clean house is
step 1/charge 1 = obstruction of justice/law etc??!!
But here's what happens. Ron the Second runs on the promise of pardoning Trump. He wins and then pardons Trump.
==========
only if Trump does not kill himself
“You are pretty naive if you think DeSantis is going to have an easier time.”
Of course not. But DeSantis has a couple advantages. He’s a lawyer who worked in the DOJ. and I believe that he brutally vicious, when the conditions call for it.
The starting place is that both the DOJ and the FBI are completely corrupt at the top. Which means that a decapitation strike is in order. As close to the first day as possible, (former by then) AG Garland, his DAG and some of his AAGs, along with FBI Director Wray and some of his assistants, should be publicly arrested, and perp walked. Their offices and esp their houses, along with their electronic devices, seized, and for the latter, cloned. Those still working for the USG would be simultaneously fired. I would also have locked out of their offices and fired a select list of DOJ and FBI employees, starting with this SC (depending on what he does, I might arrest him too). I would include in the list any of them who worked on Crossfire Hurricane, the Mueller investigation, the J6 investigation, the MAL raid, or for this SC. I might exclude some of the low level FBI agents involved.
This would be the centerpiece of the case:
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, 18 U.S.C. § 242
Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law - Section 242 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, including acts done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, as well as acts done beyond that authority, if they are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his or her official duties.
Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim
As DOJ and FBI employees, they would have, at all times, have been operating under color of law. Moreover, as prima facia evidence they knew about this statute - I copied that from the DOJ website. I would also throw in 45 USC § 1983, plus the other Civil Rights statutes into the firings, as well as their favorite - Obstruction Of Justice (at least for Crossfire Hurricane, Mueller investigation, and this SC investigation).
Maybe only publicly arrest and perp walk Garland, Wray, and maybe this SC. The reason to fire the rest of the crew first, and let them fight their firings, is that they would have to fight to be reinstated, and the lower down ones can be flipped to give up their bosses. No doubt, many of them have insurance polices just for this contingency.
"So he should just do his job to the best of his ability and not worry about that."
As long as he doesn't piss off Joe Biden again for not going after Trump aggressively enough.
One advantage that DeSantis would have is that he has now seen how they play the game, Trump got taken by complete surprise by the viciousness of the effort to undermine his presidency, after Hillary Clinton commanded #RESIST. For instance, tying Trump up with impeachment while a deadly pandemic was hitting.
Trump never cleaned house. Why would we trust him to do it?
Trump did make an attempt with EO schedule F, which would have made it much easier to fire federal employees. Biden cancelled it immediately after taking office. As I keep saying Trump and team have been working on a plan to 'clean house' and Trump has said it's item 1 on the agenda. I don't know all the details but one of them is reinstating the EO by law. Another is to dismantle certain agencies entirely. Drago says DeSantis hasn't addressed the issue yet, but it's still early.
Example: The DOJ has 115k employees. They have a donation rate of 88% to Dem, 12% to Rep. Assuming parity of individual donation amounts you have to fire 40K Dem employees and replace with 100% Repubs just to get to 50/50. What are the odds of that happening? Some agencies have a 99% Dem contribution rate. Probably easier just to dismantle the entire agency.
From what I know of Trump's plan it has a major flaw. Even if carried out and he gets results the next Admin can just tip it the other way. It would make a total hash of federal agencies and we wouldn't just look like a Banana Republic, we'd be one. Hopefully his plan is more extensive than I've read about and has some safeguards in it. Trump or DeSantis will get major pushback from the unions if they try to "drain the swamp".
Everyone can decide for themselves who would be better at the task, but for now Trump has the lead on planning it, and his motivation to achieve it is high. I wouldn't put it past him to get partial success, but the endeavor may be impossible to begin with.
I don't think DeSantis needs to address this issue right now, but if it isn't high on his platform I can't back him.
Augean Stables. Eric Holder.
Read that at DoJ under Obama Smith made the call to end the Tom Delay investigation without charges. Sounds like he's the right choice.
Worked to destroy Delay if that's what you mean. Got the job done. No need to follow through once you get the results you want.
As if Garland has a reputation to uphold.
I picture him sniffing Barron's underwear confiscated in the raid.
Either everyone in the Democratic Party is stupid, or they have reason to believe they will never lose control of the executive branch again.
There existed without fanfare for decades a quid pro quo between the Democrats and Republicans a tacit understanding that once an administration was out of office, there would be no retribution. No investigations, no publicity, it was enough that they were gone. PolySci thinkers used to posit this as one of the reasons that all but one of our transitions of power were peaceful affairs.
Want to bet we have another peaceful transition in 2024? Me, I am betting the fix is in, and that the revolution will follow. I sure hope I am wrong.
It would be great for Trump to be convicted in DC for something worthless and then be elected President. It would be the shit show that breaks the camels back.
Schmidt: "Yes, but the more we go through this, the more that I realize that Garland is probably screwed because no matter what is decided, whether Trump is charged or not, a large segment of the population will think it's wrong and politically motivated.
Schmidt: And if special counsel can't solve the problem at the heart of the moment — which is that you have the Justice Department, under a sitting President, investigating his rival for the presidency — by nature, that looks and feels political.
So we have the "large segment of the population" that inhabits reality. What do they see? "the Justice Department, under a sitting President, investigating his rival for the presidency". And we see them carrying it out in a corrupt manner
What's the other large segment? They're the people in "the walls are closing in on Trump" fantasy land.
Why is Garland "screwed"? Because his political masters have been feeding the fantasy people for the last 6+ years.
No sympathy
jim5301 said...
Seems pretty obvious that whoever is AG will be hated by a large percentage of the population whatever he does. So he should just do his job to the best of his ability and not worry about that.
Which "job" is that?
The job of corrupting the US Justice Department advance the Democrat Party political agenda? He's really good at that one
The job of equally and fairly enforcing the law?
He's never once done that, so why would we expect him to start now?
Or, wait, Jim's one of the corrupt monsters who really likes it when Garland does the former
The starting place is that both the DOJ and the FBI are completely corrupt at the top. Which means that a decapitation strike is in order. As close to the first day as possible, (former by then) AG Garland, his DAG and some of his AAGs, along with FBI Director Wray and some of his assistants, should be publicly arrested, and perp walked.
I have been reading some books by a guy named PT Dueterman. He spent 26 years in the Navy and his father was an admiral in WWII. Much of his service was in DC and the Pentagon. These books are novels and the Navy WWII books especially are very well researched. The last couple I have read are not about the Navy but about the FBI and CIA. They were written in the late 90s but are up to date with what is going on now. Interesting to see this has gone on for years.
Althouse Blog Commissar (self-appointed): "Trump never cleaned house. Why would we trust him to do it?"
Oh, is this the part where we all pretend it wasn't made clear to Trump, who was under constant threat of active and primed-to-go impeachment by the combined forces of the dems and GOPe, that if he did anything too dramatic in terms of personnel, that there were sufficient numbers of "republicans" in the Senate that would vote to impeach him?
That threat would not work the second time around, particularly now that we know even more details of how despicable the GOPe-ers have been. Although many republicans at Althouse blog seem to appreciate and approve of this GOPe alliance with the democraticals.
Drago at 10:29 AM:
Ron DeSantis has said nothing about reforming the DOJ/FBI ... about confronting the ChiComs, tariffs ... completing the Wall ... or taking on the cartels ... about Fair Trade policies ....
DeSantis is a state governor.
It seems to me that the House can defund a special counsel, or is there some kind of independent source of funds for a special counsel?
"Trump never cleaned house."
Invoking the MSM/NeverTrumper/Democrat rule No. 2. To Whit:
If Someone sabotages Trump or betrays him, its always Trump's fault.
BTW, Rule No. 1 is "Always, no matter what the subject, attack TRump"
If everybody (well, most of them, anyway) are blaming Trump for whatever it is today they're whining about, I'd be inclined to think that maybe, just maybe, it's not Trump that's the problem.
But then, that's just me...
Bruce Hayden.
Now you’re talking!
Mike Sylvester: "DeSantis is a state governor."
Yes, as has been mentioned many times....but all of DeSantis' funders and advisors are opposed to the policy positions that Trump took and/or advocated for.
So I will once again ask the question I ask every single day yet have never received a response to, which is this:
If Ron DeSantis is supposedly the political solution that can deliver Trump policies without Trump drama, how is it that the powerful funders and DC insiders who opposed ALL those Trump policies are the biggest backers of DeSantis?
How does that work? And write plainly so that I can follow the complex machinations here.
As Jeremy Irons said in "Margin Call" "Maybe you could tell me what you think is going on here. And please, speak as you might to a young child,or to a golden retriever. It wasnt brains that got me here, I can assure you of that."
So go right ahead.....
Mason G: "If everybody (well, most of them, anyway) are blaming Trump for whatever it is today they're whining about, I'd be inclined to think that maybe, just maybe, it's not Trump that's the problem.
But then, that's just me..."
Trump has become the official And Unlimited GOPe Get Out Of Jail Free Card.
Every backstabbing, underhanded GOPe ploy, every GOPe/establishment betrayal of the base, every bit of GOPe/establishment "Failure Theater" over the last 50 years is now laid at Trump's feet.
Worse, these same people continue to pull the same crap and are given an utter and complete pass by so many of the "right thinking" and "reasonable" republicans who just want Trump to go away....even as the GOPe-ers openly collude with the New Soviet Democraticals to attack not just Trump (did you catch Barr, Rosenstein and Andy McCarthy giving the thumbs up to Garland to indict Trump over the weekend?) but the entire republican base which has figured out the game.
These GOPe sellouts are already working with the dems to deliver Amnesty because thats what the dem aligned donor base and big tech and the Chamber of Commerce want.
Then, the GOPe-ers will deliver tens of billions more to the Ukraine democratical money-laundering operation.
Anything on tap for the working class? Not a chance in hell.
And I'll predict right now that every so called "investigation" by these corrupted and bought off republican leaders will yield precisely what the previous republication "investigations" delivered: nothing.
And that too will be blamed on Trump because its just too perfect for the Dc insiders....the same ones backing DeSantis...
.....hmmmmmmmm...
Mason G said...
If everybody (well, most of them, anyway) are blaming Trump for whatever it is today they're whining about, I'd be inclined to think that maybe, just maybe, it's not Trump that's the problem.
But then, that's just me...
11/21/22, 7:31 PM
THIS^^^^
I still want to know what the hell is behind all the "Let's get Trump!!!" in the media and the bureaucracy.
What, precisely, are they afraid of?
Trump could have easily been co-opted and worked with; dude was objectively a freakin' Democrat for years and years in New York. The NAACP and others used to love his ass.
What changed? Why the reaction to him? It's as if they... Fear him. Why? What are they afraid he'll do or reveal?
I mean, for the love of God... The Mueller team had almost his whole presidency to "get" him. They couldn't do it. This tells me that Trump has to be (nearly) as pure as the driven snow, which is mind-boggling. Everything they've gone after him for, they've come up with jack and spit, nothing actionable.
So... Why the reaction to him? What are they afraid of?
That's the question you need to be asking yourself, because it points towards there being something a lot darker than Trump lurking in the background. What? No idea, but there's got to be something pretty bad they don't want out in the open, that they were afraid he'd find and then let out. Nothing else makes sense in this situation, because nobody rational would have reacted the way they did to his election, which I suspect wasn't supposed to have happened. I still think that Trump was maneuvered into position so as to serve as an "easy win" for Hillary, and it backfired magnificently on her.
Drago said...
Yes, as has been mentioned many times....but all of DeSantis' funders and advisors are opposed to the policy positions that Trump took and/or advocated for.
DeSantis just ran an election campaign where the teachers' union in FL got utterly crushed
DeSantis took on Disney, and so far has won
DeSantis called bullshit on the lockdowns early, and showed what garbage they were
DeSantis shipped illegal aliens to Martha's Vineyards
Now, are those all "anti-Trump" positions? Or is your claim bullshit?
I don't give a shit WHO gives money to a politician, when I have that politician's track record.
What about DeSantis' track record is bad?
If you can't answer that, you've got nothing
If Ron DeSantis is supposedly the political solution that can deliver Trump policies without Trump drama, how is it that the powerful funders and DC insiders who opposed ALL those Trump policies are the biggest backers of DeSantis?
Gee, because they dont' hate Trump for his policies, they hate Trump for being Trump?
Take a good look at what Fauci got away with while Trump was President
Take a good look at what the Deep State got away with while Trump was President
Trump was a failure at personnel, which means he was a failure at DC.
Which of the people that DeSantis has hired have actually worked to sabotage his goals? And NOT been fired?
Post a Comment