Of course they’ll shut it down if they win in the midterms. But why are you assuming the Committee isn’t sending over copies of the evidence for safekeeping as they go along? And how is it better safeguarded if there are parallel investigations? It’s just a duplication of effort – meaning slower to finish all the way around.
I’m at a loss to understand how it’s different if the DOJ/FBI does the investigation v. the Committee. Do you believe the DOJ isn’t being read in to all this?
Just as Tish James’ New York State civil investigation is dovetailed with Cy Vance’s Manhattan DA’s Office criminal investigation, all this stuff gets passed along to the relevant agencies. DOJ/FBI and January 6 Committee are working together the same way. There’s just not much yet for DOJ to do.
Believe it or not, they’re moving along at a pretty fast clip. It’s hard to build a big case, especially when you’re being actively stymied from every direction by those being investigated.
I don’t know if it will be enough fast enough, but I don’t fault the process. A lot of thought appears to have gone into the approach.
Controversial was probably the wrong phrase to use, since you are right that the facts are all on one side. All that I meant was that both sides accept that Trump was trying to overturn the election they just disagree whether that was a traitorous or meritorious thing to do.
Oh, I dunno. Perhaps the same reason the evidence Mueller released 32 months ago has so far come to naught. “The mills of the gods grind exceedingly slowly,” but yeesh, they deliver eventually. So far we have nothing.
I can’t stress enough the difference between a DOJ under a corrupt administration with a corrupt AG (Barr) and a DOJ under a clean administration with a clean AG (Garland).
This is a normal DOJ. It will run in a normal way, following normal practices and procedures.
The level of protection that TrumpCo received from the Barr DOJ is incalculable. (It was also criminal, IMO, and should have been prosecuted. But I doubt we’ll get that lucky.)
Thankfully, this is no longer the case – although residual pockets of rot remain, as the prior cabal spread their corruption as far and wide as they could within every department they could reach. A problem, but one that I think is being solved as expeditiously and directly as possible.
They’ve gotten a lot done in 9 months. But it’s only been 9 months. I’m counting from the time Garland was confirmed as AG and was able to take the reins, meaning mid-March 2021. His DOJ will not be as Barr’s DOJ in handling these matters.
Again, do you have any practical model of such a system? Specifically, who would put the people you want into positions of power, and in what way would they be freed to legislate rationally?
And I can’t stress enough how members of this very board were saying things like, “Well, Mueller did the things he was expected to and charged with doing. Of course Barr and the current DOJ aren’t going to do anything but the information is there. Once we get Trump and his cronies out of office, then the hammer will fall.”
I’m at the point now when I’ll believe the hammer will fall only after it has squashed someone. 'Til then it’s nothing but words.
Really, any non-democracy has the ingredients necessary to play Trump perfectly.
Start by assembling crowds to cheer his arrival. Crack down on anyone who wants to protest. Layer on the flattery. Tell him something “new” to him about the situation you’re facing, something he’s been warned about in the briefing books he was too lazy to read. Swallow your pride as he casually insults your country and people, and suppress any media reports of these. If you’ve got kompromat, don’t use it to threaten, only allude to its existence. Wait for him to make a mistake and give you what you want - you won’t have to wait long.
Are you suggesting that if the House/Senate swing, the DOJ will consider Biden a lame duck and cower in anticipation of Trump being their boss? For the next two years? Or is this a morale thing?
Yes, I recall personal optimism about mystery “sealed” Mueller indictments that would kick in the doors once Trump was out of office. May have as well been crickets “sealed” in a box and making noise.
Yes. And Garland apologists really have not come up with effective arguments as to why any actual sealed indictments are still being kept under wraps.
The indictments would presumably concern events and actions already well-investigated by Mueller (centering on obstruction of justice or on cooperation with the Kremlin), so it’s tough to see how ‘a need for further investigation’ could be a good reason to sit on them.
“Timidity” and “a desire not to rock the boat” remain in play as explanations for inaction on those hypothetical indictments, it seems to me.
And if Mueller and his team created NO sealed indictments, then…why not? If the issue was that Trump was still President and thus theoretically immune, then why not make preparations to indict once he was no longer President?
You say that like this is some impossible or difficult chore? I promise you that it’s not. Think of what seems rational and, likely, that’s a reasonable strategy - or at least one to throw into the mix.
The electoral college is full of partisan hacks. No idea how to change that to be better, so that it’s a proper and respectable job to headhunt and choose a good person as President - as the framers had intended it?
The voting districts are set by the parties, shuffling things around to ensure that rubes are given an edge and competitive elections are scarce. No ideas on improving that?
A politician cannot vote his conscience - no matter how much detailed and rigorous testimony he has heard from experts and the potential victims of a policy - without being punished for going against the will of his voters and his campaign contributors. If only there were some way that he could legislate without a leash…
Fighting voting fraud, the ability to gimmick elections, etc. are all steps towards achieving a state where we have more representative government and where that government is populated with people whom we trust and who we allow to legislate freely.
Sorry if I was oversensitive. And it was a dumb mistake on my part.