I'm reading this long NYT article by Glenn Thrush and Adam Goldman, "Inside Garland’s Effort to Prosecute Trump/In trying to avoid even the smallest mistakes, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland might have made one big one: ending up in a race against the clock."
That's a free-access link. I only get 10 of them a month, and I'm selecting this one so you can do your own reading and help me answer the questions I had when I saw this as the top news article on the front page of the Times today. What are they trying to do with this article and why now? It feels like a pre-post-mortem to me.
"Ms. Monaco" is "Mr. Garland’s... powerful deputy, Lisa O. Monaco... a former national security official in the Obama White House, was confirmed in April 2021." We're told that "she embraced her boss’s cautious, stepwise approach," but "she also had a keener awareness of political optics and was so trusted by Mr. Biden’s transition team she was chosen for her job weeks before Mr. Garland was selected for his." I don't see any notation of who characterized her that way to the NYT reporters. Does that mean I need to assume the source is Monaco herself? In other places in the article, we see notations like "According to people familiar with the situation."
The Supreme Court’s decision to review Mr. Trump’s claims of presidential immunity in the case has now threatened to push the trial deep into the campaign season or beyond, raising the possibility that voters will make their choice between Mr. Trump and President Biden in November without Mr. Trump’s guilt or innocence being established.
The dream of "establishing" Trump's guilt or innocence through a jury verdict is ridiculous. Who thinks voters are going to adopt the position a jury decides? Even if you accept the legal consequences of a jury verdict, it's only one set of human beings' decision about whether the prosecution met its burden of proof of the elements of what happens to be defined as a crime, and it's subject to appeal. What is the crime? Guilty of what? And there's no way to "establish" innocence. If a jury acquits, Trump antagonists will still think he's guilty. And if a jury finds him guilty, Trump supporters will think it was a travesty of justice. This idea that we the people have a desperate need for a verdict is actually quite flimsy. It's far more important to provide due process and to crush suspicion that this is a political ordeal.
Posts
70 comments:
Of course it’s only. “race against the clock” if you accept that there’s a timetable of getting a conviction in time for the election.
Ok NYT I’ll buy that.
I'm curious whatever happened to the lawsuit challenging the mere existence of Jack Smith on this case? From what I read it was a pretty cut and dried finding that his appointment is illegitimate.
Smith's appointment was not lawful?
Brief of Professor Seth Barrett Tillman and Landmark Legal Foundation as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendant Trump’s Motion to Dismiss the Indictment
Substantively, the regulations vest the Special Counsel with "the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney." 28 C.F.R. § 600.6. A United States attorney is considered an inferior "Officer of the United States." United States v. Hilario, 218 F.3d 19, 25 (1st Cir. 2000). However, a mere "employee" cannot exercise the broad prosecutorial powers of a United States attorney.
Both procedurally and substantively, the prosecutorial actions taken by Special Counsel Smith are ultra vires with respect to the Special Counsel Regulation. Likewise, Smith's exercising the powers of an "Officer of the United States" in his capacity as an employee of the United States violates the Supreme Court's Appointments Clause jurisprudence. While Smith's and his subordinate's past actions may be salvageable by the De Facto Officer Doctrine, his future actions can continue under the current regulations, if at all, only under the normal supervision of the politically accountable United States attorney for the Southern District of Florida.
There is no "race against the clock" because there are no legal deadlines beyond any applicable statutes of limitations, which aren't all that close. The only deadline is political, which makes sense because the prosecutions are political.
charges against Mr. Trump for mishandling classified documents
I still don't understand the legal basis for this charge. As President, Trump is the ONLY person with legal authority to say what is and what is not classified. If he takes it home WHILE President, it is his. While President if he shares it with a wino laying in the street, it is OK too. It all belongs to HIM. Unlike Congressman Biden or civilian Biden who had no authority to do shit with classified documents. But the government now says he is too senile to be rightfully charged (but still OK as POTUS) whereas non-crime committing Trump will have this crap pinned on him.
So Lisa Monaco, Russia hoax enabler, worked with Jay Bratt's National Security committee, to fashion another fraud, cutting through the ambient noise,
Garland & Monaco & Smith have done more to help Trump’s campaign than Fanny Willis and Leticia James.
The Best & The Brightest
Just from the summary one must assume that Garland is completely unaware of Jack Smith's history and reputation, or that he cares not a whit about "mistakes." One or the other. They are mutually exclusive, entirely mutually exclusive.
"ending up in a race against the clock."
So unless Trump gets convicted by a certain date, injustice will prevail? Or might this be a Kinsley gaffe--acknowledging that this is lawfare aiming to derail his election and therefore needs speed to be politically useful?
Garland and Smith are a couple of humps soon to be exposed as chumps.
they hired him, precisely because they know he's a pirate,
>> What are they trying to do with this article and why now? It feels like a pre-post-mortem to me.
They are trying to present DOJ as if it was pursuing an investigation without a set conclusion in mind -- and it does seem to anticipate a measure of failure.
Several of the quotations are set forth with a suggested benign context, when the quotes could just as easily (and perhaps more believably) be set forth in the context of a direction to ‘get Trump’
For example
Mr. Garland said he would place no restrictions on their work, even if the “evidence leads to Trump,” according to people with knowledge of several conversations held over his first months in office.
Vs
He said you will have no restrictions in your work to establish that “evidence leads to Trump”
ALSO, the article states: “Mr. Garland, a quintessential rule follower”
Well, he was integral in the investigation and prosecution of Marion Barry on drug charges. And Barry was entrapped, which isn’t rule following.
Agree with Althouse's implication that this is a piece planted by, and designed to point the finger away from, Ms. Monaco. She even figures prominently in the main photo. But the whole premise (that Garland's foot-dragging delayed the timing of the prosecutions) seems questionable, in light of the fact that the supposed balls to the wall approach of the Georgia prosecutor didn't get to a trial any quicker.
For my money, I would bet the Dem prosecutors' plan in GA, NY and DC was always to have an election-year trial. They were just too incompetent to realize that the pre-trial complications of the novel legal theories being used (much less those introduced by Dani's love life) could blow up in their face.
So Biden hand picked a “powerful deputy” to prosecute his main political rival? Sounds like big news.
Are we supposed to have a pity party for Garland?
‘Mr. Garland and his team appear to have underestimated Mr. Trump’s capacity for reinvention and disruption, in this case through delay....“
Perhaps if Garland didn’t deploy a unique theory re Presidential documents he wouldn’t have to suffer these consequences. Poor man. Was he not here through the 2016 election? Trump’s ability to disrupt is a key component of his brand!
The dream of "establishing" Trump's guilt or innocence through a jury verdict is ridiculous.
"No one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence." -- Nancy Pelosi
"Pre-post-mortem."
Classic Althouse.
The late Rush Limbaugh would pick and use that phrase of Ann's.
The dream of "establishing" Trump's guilt or innocence through a jury verdict is ridiculous. Who thinks voters are going to adopt the position a jury decides?
Some juries are great. At least the type in "Twelve Angry Men". Not because the are all white guys...but, they fought to obtain the truth. Those of us who are old enough remember the OJ Jury. Sometimes American juries are just twelve useful idiots. Those are our peers.
For the left, they do not accept the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict. Those of us on the right know that George Floyd really died of a fentanyl overdose. But Minneapolis is full of shitheads. Derick Chauvin was sacrificed...and now Minneapolis is like Portland.
For Trump supporters we know that this is all multi angled lawfare to cover for the 2020 Voter fraud. Get a NYC or DC jury/or judge and the outcome is already known.
We also know that liberals, leftists, Rich, Mark, Gadfly, Teabag and the rest know it is lawfare as well...they just hope it works. Not just to persuade voters...but to actually put Trump in jail. That's just nuts.
In this reenactment of the trial, Trump is played by Daniel Craig and Garland is played by Javier Bardem.
As to the question, it seems obvious that the plan is failing, so now someone has to get the blame and they want it to be Garland and/or Monaco. As for Garland, his future in politics is over when Biden leaves office. His fortune is unchanged if blamed for this or that. And I think that is the reason for the hit piece. Adam Schiff is mentioned, which is a big tip off, but Garland didn't act prior to 2022, because Congress was investigating. What did Congress come up with? Nothing, so in 2023, Garland appointed Smith. Smith has nothing either except charges that the DoJ could and is not bringing against Biden (Joe or Hunter).
The rest of the article is the typical news media piece that just assumes Trump is guilty, to make it clear that others should just acknowledge Trump is guilty. It isn't whether Trump is possibly innocent, but that Trump's gets that benefit until the clock runs out for the election.
So it is too late, but who is going to have the power next? Well, Schiff will be the next powerful Senator in the safe California seat. Doesn't matter that New York has done more than California to stop Trump, but Schumer represents the old, and like Garland, has been to restrained in using political power to destroy the GOP. Schiff doesn't have that restraint, as we saw during the Steele Dossier hoax. We should be talking about Schiff's prison time for his attempts to overthrow the 2016 election by lying to Congress.
As for Trump's guilt or innocent; a conviction on felony charges could be sufficient in some states to question his qualification. Sure, the US Constitution doesn't have such a disqualification, and SCOTUS has already ruled that the poor reading of the 14th Amendment doesn't count. This is just like what we saw on a smaller scale in Harris County. When there wasn't enough ballots in conservative precincts to allow everyone to vote, that's was just a mistake and nobody was held responsible for it. Too late to drop Trump from the ballot, but not too late to just throw out his votes because he has a felony. What are you going to do? Contest the election results during the Congressional Certification?
wasn't that joe digenova,
garland as well as mueller reminds me of certain characters in the 3rd season of the blacklist,
This essay is an admission of guilt- the entire goal wasn't ever the dispensing of justice but rather to prevent Trump from winning the election. Indeed, I think the delay in filing the charges is also a tell- knowing they would be a committing a crime themselves if they went forward with these nonsense cases, Trump's persecutors thought Trump was finished politically and saw no reason to act until it became clear last Summer that Trump might well win the Republican nomination- when that perception hit, they decided to go for broke and crossed the Rubicon
Trump will either win or lose the election in November, but the hard truth is that the persecution of him has strengthened him rather than weaken him. A conviction on any of these cases will simply make his election more likely, not less. Even if they put him in prison before November, it will only backfire on his persecutors.
yes it's called a modified limited hangout, thrush can be trusted to bring them out of the cave without night blindness,
This is what you do when the company you work for, the Biden admin, is going down in flames and you want a CYA for your future. It's interesting that they genuinely didn't think Trump would be the nominee. Their misjudgment -- naiveté? -- is quite delicious.
I don’t disagree with the analysis though there is the alternative theory of the bluff- the mere existence of the suits would crater his popularity. He was supposed to be gone before it went this far…
…but the decision tree on the crazy wall has many branches. Not to worry…
>Ann Althouse said...
The dream of "establishing" Trump's guilt or innocence through a jury verdict is ridiculous. Who thinks voters are going to adopt the position a jury decides?
This idea that we the people have a desperate need for a verdict is actually quite flimsy.<
I, for one, think that. And no, that idea is not flimsy. If last month's Reuters/Ipsos poll is to be believed, that is.
That survey revealed that 51 percent of Republican voters said they would not vote for Trump if he becomes a convicted felon, with a further 25 percent saying they weren't sure! That's mostly out of the something like 90% of Republicans who are shown by other polls as planning to vote for Trump in November.
I find that sentiment to be absolutely dismaying, given the obvious hollowness of the charges against Trump. But there's the facts in answer to your statements.
I note that Trump is accused by his opponents of being both a complete brainless dunce AND the slyest trickster and most cleaver operator they've ever seen. Sometimes these dual assertions are made in the same paragraph or sentence.
"But like many before them, Mr. Garland and his team appear to have underestimated Mr. Trump’s capacity for reinvention and disruption, in this case through delay....""
Because, how dare he defend himself using legal tactics to win a case? And it would appear as if the legal battle was engaged before they had quite thought it all the way through - because an election is coming.
“Those of us who are old enough remember the OJ Jury. Sometimes American juries are just twelve useful idiots.”
Probably rare for a white guy, but I think that the jury got it right in the OJ criminal case. I read the book by several of the jurors, and the prosecution left several critical issues open. Moreover, the police screwed up. Mark Furhman going over the fence into OJ’s yard was obviously pretextual. He shouldn’t have done it. There were similar problems with a lot of the forensics evidence too. A good judge should have thrown out much of the evidence against OJ, because it was either Illegally obtained, or lacked a legitimate audit trail. The prosecution was Deep Pocketed by the Dream Team. In the civil trial, the power positions were reversed, with the plaintiffs having the better team.
The LAPD had long cut corners. In the beginning of the Closer, Brenda Johnson is brought into the LAPD to clean it up in high profile murder cases. In, I believe, the first episode, she removes the police searching the garage of a suspect, on the grounds that it was detached. The police in charge of the searching were claiming exigent circumstances. Not good enough. They could do it the right way, secure the building, go to a judge for a search warrant. She was brought in to make bullet proof high profile murder cases, and that was the sort of cutting of corners that loses cases with well financed defendants. Yes, it was (very enjoyable) TV, but based on facts.
My skepticism was partly a result of what my Crim Law prof had said about murder - that they tended to be either crimes of passion or immediacy, and had blood all over the place, or were premeditated, with minimal blood. You don’t use a knife for premeditated murder (except maybe by professionals) because blood goes everywhere. In the OJ murders, blood was everywhere, and a knife had been used. That suggests passion or immediacy. But the timing was tight for OJ to have gotten away with it. And that would have required a lot of planning, which translates into premeditation. Which was it? Premeditated? Or crime of passion/immediacy?
Smith is merely a Putin-like lawfare hatchet man for the corrupt left.
lamech,
ALSO, the article states: “Mr. Garland, a quintessential rule follower”
Well, he was integral in the investigation and prosecution of Marion Barry on drug charges. And Barry was entrapped, which isn’t rule following.
Marion "Bitch set me up!" Barry? That wasn't entrapment; that was the mayor of D.C. in a hotel room with a hooker and some crack. The hooker may have given the evidence and thus prompted the cops to bust in, but there's no showing that Barry was lured into doing anything that he wasn't going to do anyway.
We have a local fruit called the "Marionberry" (named after Marion County, where I live), and I find myself still reflexively explaining to people in other places that this isn't the Marion "Bitch set me up!" Barry, but just a sort of slightly-mutated blackberry. Tasty.
it's IMPORTANT for people to Understand..
That they DO NOT have the right to chose who their leaders will be.
People Like Trump, sure; but That does NOT change The FACT, that you are Only ALLOWED to vote for authorized (DNC acceptable) candidates. If we allow "The People" to vote for who ever they want;
Next Thing You Know; "The People" will be wanting a say in who comes over our borders, or into our schools.
OBEY!!
Smith’s mistake was to pursue charges against Trump for the taking of the documents. Given that it will be difficult to determine which documents can actually be used as evidence there was never a chance that the case could be tried before the election. In addition, the failure to hold Biden to account for more egregious behavior is a bad look (Biden was not President. The documents from his Senate days only be viewed in a SKIFF so the only way he could have them would have been to smuggle them out Sandy Berger style).
Smith just should have focused on the obstruction charge which is fairly it and dry. Trump was not President when he committed the alleged crimes so things like Presidential immunity would not apply.
He got greedy.
The word "insurrection" does not appear in the article.
Quayle said...
“I note that Trump is accused by his opponents of being both a complete brainless dunce AND the slyest trickster and most cleaver operator they've ever seen. Sometimes these dual assertions are made in the same paragraph or sentence.”
I remember the Bush fils era where W was simultaneously a neocon mastermind and a clueless pupppet of Cheney and Haliburton.
The comments there lean toward blaming Garland for the possible failure of the prosecution and calling for his replacement.
It's a fair guess that if that is the popular reader reaction to the article then that was the purpose of the article. Setting up Garland as a scapegoat when the case eventually falls apart.
Some speculation here and elsewhere that the various prosecutors/persecutors misjudged the complexity of their cases and/or Trump's ability to to outfox them.
I don't think so.
It's all part of the By Any Means Necessary strategy.
Throw everything at him (has any American ever been in this much legal trouble from so many jurisdictions as Trump is?). Quantity has a quality all its own. The more cases filed, the better chance that one will succeed, and the more he has to deal with, the more likely it is that he will make a mistake. The only reason that a prosecutor might be reluctant to go after Trump is danger to his or her own career; that is unlikely in any of the current cases (unless Fani gets spanked by the GA bar). Any one that is successful will be a hero in the circles that they travel in, and lack of success is no big deal if you're trying to save the country from the worst thing ever.
It's all good, until the Americans begin to hate.
Lisa Monaco has always been a POS. No surprise Obama inserted her back into the WH. She is usually the confidential source of all news quotes about Deputy AG Lisa O. Monaco.
Thus continues the NYT long history of slobbering love affairs with Deep State fellators, although this one does have the wistful air of an elegiac look back at what might have been but alas is not to be. Some artificial deadlines apparently are deader than others.
The article is a red herring. Trump and his people did not want the Jan 6 riot. The plan was to use the Congressional debate to argue for Pence to delay the certification and send the electors back to the six state legislatures for review. The ended the dabate just as it was starting (did they even make it to Arizona). When Congress reconvened Pelosi and Schumer had new rules of order to go straight to the certification w/o debate.
Peter Navarro called the plan the “Greenbay Sweep”.
Trump did not benefit from the riot — Biden benefitted.
Someone should ask Garland if any evidence leads to Joe. Alas, my fellow reporters don’t want to do their jobs and would be fired if they tried
War by Abuse of Process is being re-branded as Prosecutors Gone Wild . That’s Just another wrinkle.
What we are watching is a flow of unlimited lawyer fees appropriated by the US Government being used for campaign purposes against private pay lawyer fees meant to bankrupt any party stupid enough to run against the One Party.u
.
I did read the article, but only because you asked nicely. I do appreciate your making this blog available for commenting, so I am honoring the favor you asked. I will be putting in my comments as I proceed.
First, the level of writing here is embarrassing. And, no, I haven't finished at this point. I may be 8 paragraphs in or so. This is the sort of thing I would write ironically, re-read it, and then throw it away because I wouldn't want to be associated with it. Whoever wrote this sounds like a failed novelist for which we and a small sprig of trees are all grateful for the well-deserved failure. (Having completed it at this point, the writing gets no better. This is awful.)
Second, given what we have seen Garland do to pervert justice on a number of issues, not to mention that he works for an incredibly corrupt administration, framing Garland as incorruptible is laughable if not infuriating. The authors are either incredibly naive or incredibly dishonest, and it shows because this reads like propaganda for children. There have been hagiographies for saints that are more reserved. After reading this, you get the impression that Garland is perfect, and his greatest flaw is he cares too much.
Third, we have the typical "sources say" or "unidentified official" nonsense. I just tune that out. It is literally useless without corroborating evidence, which is never presented. You might as well tell me you overheard it in a bar, which honestly in D.C. would be more believable. And it is "inconceivable" that Trump would be back for another round? Really? I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Fourth, "prosecutorial muscle memory." Yes, these authors have no self-respect. Or writing skills. Or self-respect about writing.
(cont)
(cont)
Fifth:
"But like many before them, Mr. Garland and his team appear to have underestimated Mr. Trump’s capacity for reinvention and disruption, in this case through delay."
Um, delaying cases is pretty standard for trials, both for perfectly legitimate reasons and for nuisance reasons. Not expecting delays is malpractice. Not expecting delays when making novel legal theories against the former President of the United States when all sorts of issues that have never been previously addressed are at play is so baffling stupid that anyone who did not expect it should resign from the bar out of embarrassment. To think that Trump, the master of improvisation, would be easy to nail down is moronic.
Sixth:
"The rule of law is “the very foundation of our democracy,” said Mr. Garland"
Oh, BS. It is obvious that we currently do not have rule of law, with Democrats allowed to get away with things that Republicans would have been convicted of without any problem whatsoever and then given maximum sentences. See BLM riots vs. the January 6 riot. Or Hunter Biden, who Garland has been desperately trying to protect. This is so dishonest that it hurts my soul.
Seventh, the fact that they laud L. Rush Atkinson for being part of the Mueller investigation, which was a disaster for this country, pretty much tells you all you need to know about the authors' biases. I mean, seriously, the Mueller Report? The nothingburger that was intentionally extended for an inordinate amount of time to try to undermine Trump in an obvious political move, and still couldn’t find squat? That's a recommendation?
Eighth, we get the lauding of Jack Smith. Jack Smith is best known for his prosecution of Robert F. McDonnell, for which he got a conviction and then a 9-0 slap down by the Supreme Court. He also flubbed the Edwards trial and the Menendez trail and the Silver trial. He has less a reputation for competence and more a reputation of being willing to do anything regardless if it is a good idea or ethical, which is probably why he was selected for this case. If you wanted someone who was untouchable and unbiased, it is hard to think of a worse choice that Smith without selecting a mob lawyer. Yet, he gets a pass.
Finally, the story seems to just end without much of a point to why. Am I reading a truncated version? Mine ends with “Mr. Smith watched from a nearby bench, occasionally peeking at the clock on the wall.” It is just a sudden ending, all this meandering bad writing and bootlicking simply ceasing, all sound and fury signifying nothing.
If you want my opinion, this very much feels like a placed story by Garland, or at least someone in Justice (sic), in a CYA move. It is hard to get an MSNBC gig when everyone hates you, some because you think you are corrupt and some because you failed, and this very much reads like “this cruel world didn’t deserve the goodness and light that was Garland and his angels.” Then again, it may be a failed novel where all the characters were swapped with real people using REPLACE ALL functionality.
Also, Stalin would have found such an article so embarrassing that everyone involved would be on their way to Siberia by the next day.
It's far more important to provide due process and to crush suspicion that this is a political ordeal.
But they hate due process, and it IS a "political ordeal" with no judicial legitimacy.
If you value due process, you need to vote straight ticket GOP, and keep on doing so until the Dems end all their lawfare
Taking the matter to court is not asking the court to tell you that enough is enough; taking the matter to court is itself saying enough is enough.
That enough is enough statement is itself taken as TDS and mental illness by half the population.
A fellow who talks "street" might say that these chumps running the Dimocrat lawfare campaign against the Bad Orange Man misunderestimated the Don's ability to kick ass and take names.
Or you wanna talk like Obama, "Never underestimate the Biden posse's ability to f#ck things up."
Still, although these clowns are dimly beginning to perceive that they might "lose a few" in their lawfare campaign, they continue to hope that they will win one or two, and that will be the secret sauce that shoves Old Joe over the line in November--and inflicts another four years of pain on the natin.
"What are they trying to do with this article and why now?"
Wrong question. Who are "they"?
And no, I'm not going to follow a "free-access" link to a long collation of lies to try to figure it out. "trying to avoid even the smallest of mistakes" my ass. Glenn Thrush and Adam Goldman are Enemy. Let's hope someone pushes them in front of a subway soon.
But like many before them, Mr. Garland and his team appear to have underestimated Mr. Trump’s capacity for reinvention and disruption, in this case through delay.
Oh fer fucks sake.
The finest lawfare minds in human history, outwitted by a puffy orange wrestling villain. The “crime” occurred six days into 2021. You easily could have brought the case to trial a year earlier. Instead you chose to bring it in an election year.
Failure theater.
Shorter. That "rule of law" shit sure makes it hard to railroad Trump.
Merrick Garland was Janet Reno’s man on the scene in the Oklahoma City Bombing. He made John Doe II disappear. Was it to make the conviction easier? Or was it to hide deep state foreknowledge of the bombing? Lisa Monaco is performing the same job here, doing the work of the deep state.
Seeing as how this IS a political ordeal for Trump, that suspicion is uncrushable.
Wow, reading commnents at the NYTimes makes me even more adamant that I want a DIVORCE. I have nothing in common with those people.
"Probably rare for a white guy, but I think that the jury got it right in the OJ criminal case."
You are not alone, Bruce. Were I on the jury, I probably would have acquitted him, too. I think that glove was moved from the scene of the crime by Furman or someone else in the investigation that night. Now, I think Simpson committed the murder- I am 99% confident of it, but that belief that the glove was moved would have forced me to acquit.
“Those of us who are old enough remember the OJ Jury. Sometimes American juries are just twelve useful idiots.”
It looked to me that after being sequestered for eight months the jury in the OJ trial just didn't give a damn anymore, so the immediate vote to acquit was their ticket to get back home and resume their lives.
The article is prepping for the loss of the election in November for Biden.
What I fount curious was that the DOJ presumed that Trump and Co colluded with the Americans who went to the Stop the Steal rally. They did not realized that Americans who supported Trump really are grassroots. I found that amazing considering he large number of people that go to his rallies. I guess it is projection because that is what Democrats do.
Most Trump voters were convinced the election was stolen by watching what happened on the election night and still believe it was stolen.
The article seems to be saying that everyone began the attack on Trump via J6 with great enthusiasm and everyone tried to get a piece of the pie via the lead on their own, their very own, investigation. "My precious", they'd cry. Then each little group tried to follow the money or, alternatively, the guns to the lair of the beast but, alas, there was no money to follow and no guns. The Trump people paid for themselves to attend J6 and, curiously for an insurrection, left their guns at home. As those well known investigative tracks kept petering out, each little team of investigators reached realizations which led them to ooze away. But the process kept renewing. "The money must be there," new enthusiasts would say basing themselves firmly in CNN reports by Donnie Limoine about how obvious it all was. Or, the guns must be there, Must, must. They'd sit around reviewing the evidence / non-evidence trends every Thursday, like the author of the old poem:
Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish he'd go away...
When I came home last night at three
The man was waiting there for me
But when I looked around the hall
I couldn't see him there at all!
For whatever reason they were sure that nothing was done except in exchange for money in good, fat, traceable dollops. But they couldn't find it. "Yesterday upon the stair/ I met some evidence that wasn't there." So, like the Dreyfus case, The Investigation sought new victims, that is to say, newer, less jaded investigators who displayed an eager but somewhat dim-witted willingness to use novel theories about sedition. These theories explained why there was no money trail - the peasants wanted no money because they were fanatics spending their own money on a cause they believed in. Obvious sedition. So far, so good but ... why had they left their guns at home? Really novel theories were needed to explain that. Or a NYC or a DC jury which needed no evidence beyond the evident fact that someone was daring to be a Republican candidate and calling for restoration of the Constitution.
Or did the the even the Donnie Lemoine level dimmies at their Thursday meetings begin to realize that they might need more than a jury? They wondered: Did We the people accept what the NYT had made so clear, so crystal clear, that a Republican was running and must be stopped? would We The People people believe that a DC jury or NYC jury has weighed evidence or weighed a career move? would We The People want to hear about some evidence? some evidence - money or a lot of guns? There must be trial but.
Something began to feel like someone else's fault.
I ho with Althouse, this is a "pre-post-mortem". It's a bit clotted in case the Jenga stops swaying but a lot of blocks have been pulled out and the shaky hands of the players have been evident for some time.
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...
Marion "Bitch set me up!" Barry? That wasn't entrapment; that was the mayor of D.C. in a hotel room with a hooker and some crack.
I’ll allow that there was never any LEGAL finding of entrapment, because Barry essentially won that issue at trial.
Barry was never convicted for any crime from the events during the infamous FBI set up in the Vista International Hotel in 1990.
He put forward an entrapment defense at trial, and the jury did not convict him of anything occurring at the Vista International Hotel in 1990.
“After a 10-week trial, Barry was convicted of a single charge of possessing cocaine, for having used cocaine with a friend, Doris Crenshaw, at Washington's Mayflower Hotel in fall 1989”!
Barry was acquitted of a second drug possession charge, and jurors were unable to reach a verdict on the remaining 12 charges, including three felony counts alleging that he lied to a federal grand jury.
Federal prosecutors dropped the 12 remaining charges.
Do you have any persuasive evidence that Rashida Moore was a hooker?
Mz. Moore was someone that the FBI squeezed and leveraged against Barry.
Barry was at the Vista International Hotel for sex, and through entrapment activity at the direction of the FBI was offered drugs – again not convicted for anything in the Vista International Hotel.
The sequence of events, including the lack of conviction from the set-up in the Vista International Hotel in 1990, supports my point:
The article states: “Mr. Garland, a quintessential rule follower”
Well, he [Garland] was integral in the investigation and prosecution of Marion Barry on drug charges. And Barry was entrapped, which isn’t rule following.
>> I am 99% confident of it, but that belief that the glove was moved would have forced me to acquit.
So, in your opinion, tampering with evidence is worse than murdering two people?
>>Get a NYC or DC jury/or judge and the outcome is already known.
Exactly right.
DC is THE most Democratic Party city in the US. By far. There are about 400,000 registered voters in DC. The split is something like 75% D, 7% R, and 18% other. San Francisco is next at 55%.
In the recent DC Republican primary, Donald Trump got... 676 votes.
Given those numbers, it would be impossible to seat a fair and impartial jury for Donald Trump in Washington DC.
Which is exactly the way they want it.
Earnest Prole said...
But like many before them, Mr. Garland and his team appear to have underestimated Mr. Trump’s capacity for reinvention and disruption, in this case through delay.
Oh fer fucks sake.
The finest lawfare minds in human history, outwitted by a puffy orange wrestling villain. The “crime” occurred six days into 2021. You easily could have brought the case to trial a year earlier. Instead you chose to bring it in an election year.
Failure theater.
So close, and yet so far.
The charges are complete and utter crap. The people pushing the charges KNOW that they are complete and utter crap, and that if they had filed them in 2021, then by now the entire case would have been completely nuked.
They waited until this year / late last year to file things in the hopes they could get the "convictions" before the election, and have them cause people to change their votes to the Democrat. With the aftermath of everything being tossed for teh crap it is happening after the election.
Just like the "Mueller team" spent 18 months fucking around after they KNEW the "Russian collusion" claims were all total BS, in order to affect the outcome of the 2018 elections.
Prole, are you trying to say that your'e really so stupid as to believe the charges have some validity?
Damn, that's dumb
Dude1394: "Wow, reading commnents at the NYTimes makes me even more adamant that I want a DIVORCE. I have nothing in common with those people."
Its not just NYTimes commenters. Take a look at wannabe "DeSantis Online Influencer" AMDG who is so desperate to side with The New Soviet Democraticals to Lawfare Trump out of the race he is pushing the moronic "obstruction" charge against Trump as "cut and dried" and legitimate!
Which should serve as a strong reminder that as soon as 1 more "respectable" GOPe-er announces their early retirement from Congress, after WI republican Mike Gallagher's announcement today that he is retiring on Apr 19, the GOPe-ers will hand the House to Hakeem Jeffries.
Which has been the combined GOPe/dem plan all along.
There will probably be another immediate summertime campaign post-presidency sham-peachment proceeding in the House to give all the GOPe Senators one more chance to vote with their New Soviet Democratical partners prior to November with the AMDG's of the world cheering them on all the way.
I hope Merrick Garland enjoyed his blowjob from the NYT. I must admit this "“Mr. Garland, a quintessential rule follower”" made me laugh out loud.
Earnest Prole said...
The “crime” occurred six days into 2021.
In case you missed it, the linked article isn't about Ashli Babbitt's murder.
Why believe that the DOJ wanted to knock Trump out of the presidential race quickly, when the standard wisdom for quite some time has been that Trump would be the easiest Republican to beat in 2024? The ideal result for Democrats was to have Trump on trial once he was assured of the GOP nomination (i.e., during the 2024 election campaign). But they wound up cutting it just a bit too close and the result is that Trump may be able to push his trials past Election Day and potentially even regain the presidency--which would likely end up aborting the two federal trials, and possibly even the two state trials .
I still would like to know, if Trump somehow gets enough electoral votes to claim victory, who will force the Bidens to leave the Whitehouse.
Merrick Garland and Lloyd Austin aren't gonna make it happen. The Supreme Court has no enforcement division. The Democrats may very well control both houses of Congress.
The WaPo and NY times will both argue that letting Trump take over would destroy "our democracy".
Seriously...how could Trump take office without the swamps cooperation? We've already seen the lengths they will go to keep him out.
Prole, are you trying to say that your'e really so stupid as to believe the charges have some validity?
Stupid is seeing quotation marks around the word crime and failing to catch the drift of what’s being said.
But in your defense, reading is hard.
The article is an attempt to print the DOJ under Garland and Monaco as fair and impartial despite objective reality. Democrats love lawfare when it serves their purpose, but hate it when it's used against them. The Democrat's legal priests want all to submit before them.
khematite said...
Why believe that the DOJ wanted to knock Trump out of the presidential race quickly, when the standard wisdom for quite some time has been that Trump would be the easiest Republican to beat in 2024?
I think you are absolutely right in this. What the Democrats have been jerking off to is the thought Trump's indictments would be catnip to win support in an otherwise bruising GOP primary season while at the same time making him radioactive to the general electorate, as well as tying him up in legal knots when he could be campaigning.
Basically none of that has been working out as they expected.
Trump clinched the nomination quickly with little intra-party opposition and the vast majority of his voters, including GOP support, from 2020 on board.
If polling is to be believed, Trump is at least on par with Biden in electability and no farther behind than any other Republican candidate would be.
Biden's approval ratings are still swirling in the bowl, well below comfortable reelection level, and his ability to improve them is limited by his evident physical and mental infirmity.
The various trials are now looking like they won't significantly impact Trump's ability to campaign, either due to delays or because the outcomes aren't having the expected impact.
About the only arrow left in the quiver is to criminally convict Trump or find him in contempt and physically put him in jail, a course that smarter Democrats are likely realizing has significant chances to backfire badly.
"So, in your opinion, tampering with evidence is worse than murdering two people?"
Tampering with evidence makes me doubt all of the evidence to a degree that I can't discount at a reasonable level, Dan- especially all of the physical evidence. A great deal of my 99% certainty came from evidence that was discovered after the trial and acquittal and was presented in the civil trial, most especially the discovery that Simpson owned those shoes.
Christopher B: "If polling is to be believed, Trump is at least on par with Biden in electability and no farther behind than any other Republican candidate would be."
Trump is well ahead in 2024 over where he was positioned in 2020 and in a stronger electoral position in 2024 than he was in 2016. Its not even close.
And this line is ridiculous: "and no farther behind than any other Republican candidate would be."
No other Republican candidate possibility is even close to Trump and would all deliver a Romney-like general election turnout which would be a shellacking. The blue wall would return to impenetrable status and Iowa and even possibly Ohio would be a coin flip or problematic.
Which is why we are witnessing such astonishing maneuvering by the combined GOPe/democratical/deep state/corrupted courts team to get Trump out of the race.
I remain convinced that team will be successful in that endeavor, one way or another.
There is simply too much at stake for the entrenched interests and all the masks are off now anyway.
Post a Comment