Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "smoking gun" reveal in the WaPo story about Merrick Garland was

[brooklynite]

…that some DOJ staff and prosecutors FELT that he was reluctant to go after Trump and higher ups.

Beyond that, the story states that Garland was determined to be cautious and methodical about Jan 6 prosecutions…which was something he publicly stated two years ago.

Personally, I feel that Garland’s “cautious and methodical” approach to the documents case has resulted in a close to ironclad indictment; exactly what I’d want for a Jan ) prosecution when it’s ready.

[marble falls]

1. It's gotten us here with no bumps. I trust Garland.

[dem4decades]

2. I don't know, my feelings are that Garland should have said on day one, do your job or resign.

I'm sick of Democrats bringing a water pistol to a gun fight.

[brooklynite]

4. Perhaps we differ in our definition of "doing your job"

Court cases are won with irrefutable evidence, not guns.

[dem4decades]

7. And wouldn't we have to begin an investigation in order to get "irrefutable evidence"? Remember

Sargeant Shultz, "I see nothing"? That's fine with a TV comedy but for the United States DOJ it's just not acceptable.

[Igel]

31. Two years ago DU overall tended to support Garland.

My perception; perhaps it as 40-60 and not 60-40.

Part 1 of this post is just to point out the utter shock and novelty of this extreme revelation requires forgetting mid-2021. Perhaps something ingested interfered with some long-term memory formation?

But the underlying practice claimed to be employed was to hit low-level folk and work their way up. Get peons to flip and turn on those immediately above them. Then get them to flip ... rinse, repeat.

The alternative is to go after the top dog, in which case everybody below tends to circle the wagons and lets those in the lower echelons know that they're later--time to purge the record *before* you're officially suspected.

It's a judgement call that was deemed firmly rooted in prosecutorial experience. Or so it was claimed. And it was claimed explicitly--they weren't looking at Trump. Why? Because they wanted to build a base of prosecutions on which to rest the next level.


I have no prosecutorial experience. I yield to a fictional character's evaluation of how a large-scale prosecutorial 'offensive' should be waged.

[brooklynite]

58. How do you assert "they weren't looking at Trump"?

You can build cases incrementally up the food chain while collecting and storing away evidence to be applied to the boss at the top.

[panader0]

48. yes

[republianmushroom]

15. agree

[Bev54]

37. Perhaps because this story was so misleading to begin with. The fake electors were being

investigated in Sept '21 which they failed to even mention. This piece left out a lot of the actual timeline and got dates wrong. Very poorly done and disappointing in their lack of perspective. It was a hit piece and underserved. Write the story on those who were putting up the roadblocks but it was not Garland. Wray is the one who should be fired.

[dem4decades]

42. Who's the boss? I guess the buck doesn't stop at Garland's desk.

Call me a Truman Democrat, I'm good with that.

[Bev54]

56. Well when you find out a story has misleading and missing information in it, I will give the

benefit of the doubt to the man who started the investigation into the fake electors plot in Sept 2021 and hired Jack Smith

[soldierant]

67. Wray is definnitely the one who should be fired

and probably should have been soon after Jan6, IIRC - correct me if I am wrong but I believe he was one of those who endangered lives by failing ti pass on information with suffiicient gravity to ensure there would have been security appropriate to the expisure.

[Bev54]

77. Him and his man in charge of the DC field office. There definitely needs to be a cleanup

on the FBI aisle.

[summer_in_TX]

89. The Durham investigation had the FBI in its crosshairs. Years under a

microscope, trying to find evidence of partisanship.

It really is no wonder the FBI was overly cautious. That was likely an intended effect.

[reACTIONary]

47. That isn't the way political appointees talk to....

... civil servants at DOJ. Unless, maybe you are TFG.

[Stuart G]

3. Just 2 words say it all......".ironclad indictment." There is ..." 0NE MORE IDEA ."

ONE FURTHER iDEA, "HOW DOES TRUMP EXPLAIN WHY HE STOLE THE DOCUMENTS IN THE FIRST PLACE?"

THAT ONE WILL BE A TOUGH LIE TO GET ACROSS TO THE JURY. (IN MY OPINION

[Fiendish Thingy]

20. "Why" is completely irrelevant in this case

Prosecution only needs to establish intent to illegally retain documents, which Garland has done on summer 2022, setting the stage for Smith’s indictments.

[bluesbassman]

21. That's why he'll never take the stand.

There is no plausible excuse for it, and any if he attempts to give any it will just get him started talking which never ends well for him these days. He can't help but incriminate himself.

[Captain Zero]

23. He said he was busy while trying to pack to leave on 4 yr vacation

I think he deserves a vacation.

Now we should convince him he is just going on another vacation before he comes back to this vacation.

He might offer to brand that idea.

[LW1977]

44. How about a much longer vacation..

At an iron bar resort..

[Igel]

33. They were packed when he was president.

*Why* he had them has a lot of excuses. We've accepted some justifications already from others.

The issue isn't possessing them, or trying to prove that retaining them after expiration of public office and classification status was intentional. "Oops" seems to have often worked well enough over the decades.

The issue is not turning them over. That's not theft; that's willful retention.

And that's the charge.

[CentralMass]

5. January 6th is still the major issue.

[Stuart G]

6. YES IT IS, HOW DOES HE GET AROUND THAT ONE?

[Frasier Balzov]

13. Barr says the First Amendment makes that one shaky.

I guess because of how broadly political speech is supposed to be tolerated.

And as far as I know the fake elector certifications can't be personally tied to Trump.

[karynnj]

19. In addition to the speech, he refused to call in the national guard etc to help defend the capital

Between telling the proad boys etc to be ready, the words he spoke on j6, his near glee watching the events that sickened and terrified us, that negligent in doing what he should have could make him part of the conspiracy/sedition that the PBS and oathkeepers were convicted of.

Barr minimizes what he did by limiting it to his speech.

[Sgent]

30. Failing to call out the national guard was

the impeachable offense IMHO. I doubt it is a crime.

[brooklynite]

62. Name the statute that...

"his near glee watching the events that sickened and terrified us" violates.

[karynnj]

83. Not a lawyer, but I agree it by itself violates nothing

It might help define his motivation in not doing his basic duty to defend the country.

[brooklynite]

86. Its not enough to define motivation; you have to present proof.

[karynnj]

91. I am aware of that

I trust that if Jack Smith, who has more information and proof than any of us has, has proof that he did violate the law, he will charge him.

[Eyeball_Kid]

52. Trump led an insurrection.

Section 3, 14th Amendment. Disqualified for office. End of story.

[brooklynite]

63. Again, you can prove that to a jury?

That's why I'll wait for Garland and Smith to decide a case is ready.

[KPN]

32. And the point of the WaPost story, no?

[Beastly Boy]

8. That's the problem I have with all the hoopla surrounding the WP article.

It describes nothing that any reasonably competent AG wouldn't do. It also describes DOJ's top brass being consistently in agreement with each other, while sensationalizing rare instances of disagreement.

Shocking, isn't it?

[Cha]

22. Yes BUT.. As Charles Pierce Wrote..

Why Did the FBI Take So Long to Investigate Trump's Role in January 6?

*Snip*

So pinning this all on Attorney General Merrick Garland, while certainly satisfying the armchair gumshoes in all of us, is to ignore history which tells us that, usually, the only AGs who directly involve themselves in investigating presidents — Meese, John Mitchell, Richard Kleindienst, William Barr — do so to sabotage any real progress regarding the crimes of their bosses in the White House.

Calls to fire Garland and other DOJ officials are simply stupid; decapitating the DOJ at this point would be disastrous. Smith seems to be advancing on every front, and Garland doesn't seem to mind that at all

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=18023455

Yes, shocking.. also how many fell for it.

[Beastly Boy]

73. Pierce offers a lot more hindsight than I could ever muster.

While I found the sensationalizing of an occasional hiccup within a smoothly running department merely unremarkable, Pierce points out the built-in malignancy in the approach taken by WP. Not just lacking journalistic merit, but actually dangerous. Didn't see that.

Still, not surprised by how many are falling for it.

Mahalo for bringing Pierce to my attention, Cha!

[Cha]

76. You're So Welcome, Beastly Boy..

Yeah, the WaPo.. more than a few did call it out yesterday as a "shit stirrer".. they saw right through it.

Apparently not invested in being "right about AG Garland"..

[BeyondGeography]

9. The documents case dropped in his lap

A self-inflicted wound by Trump. Without it we probably wouldn’t have a special prosecutor and we certainly wouldn’t have any indictments.

As for Jan. 6, we’ll never know how much evidence was lost due to his inaction in 2021. What we do know is Garland’s stated goal to restore DOJ’s image as non-partisan and apolitical was always a chimera in a world that has Donald Trump in a starring political role and officially dead now that he has kicked the can into a Republican presidential primary.

[Chakaconcarne]

12. We'll also never know how much evidence was uncovered since 2021 by their taking time.

[BeyondGeography]

14. Have to admit

Waiting 15 months to open an investigation on the fake electors scheme is starting to look like a stroke of genius.

:sarcasm thingy:

[Recycle_Guru]

24. what irrefutable proof do you have they waited 15 months to investigate

the fake electors scheme

[BeyondGeography]

26. It's in the WaPo article

In the weeks before Jan. 6, Trump supporters boasted publicly that they had submitted fake electors on his behalf, but the Justice Department declined to investigate the matter in February 2021, The Post found. The department did not actively probe the effort for nearly a year, and the FBI did not open an investigation of the electors scheme until April 2022, about 15 months after the attack.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/06/19/fbi-resisted-opening-probe-into-trumps-role-jan-6-more-than-year/

[inthewind21]

101. WOW

So the WAPO article is proof? Well, Fox says this is a witch hunt. I guess that's proof as well

[BeyondGeography]

106. The excerpt contains simple facts

Responding to them with an irrelevant characterization doesn’t do anything to refute them.

[brush]

25. Yep, IMO trump could've been tried and convicted on the...

slam dunk documents case. The docs were stolen and found in storage at his Florida resort.

Boom. SC Smith has gotten us here but it could've happen sooner with a more assertive AG.

[inthewind21]

102. Huh

Do tell us all how many "slam dunks" you have prosecuted and what makes THIS case a slam dunk?

[brush]

103. The stolen docs were found at his Florida resort. DUH!

[brer cat]

10. K&R

[Alexander Of Assyria]

27. +1...then once again reason puts its pants on and catches up to yesterdays outrage.

[iemanja]

11. Making this about Garland alone trivializes the issue

The so-called smoking gun is that DOJ and the FBI did nothing in regard to the involvement of Trump and his associates in the first year of the Jan 6 investigation. That's not perception. It's a fact. This is not just about Garland. It's about truth, democracy, the rule of law, and whether the powerful will be held accountable for their role in an attempted coup.

The article is very clear that it's not about opinions about Garland but reality:

Whether a decision about Trump’s culpability for Jan. 6 could have come any earlier is unclear. The delays in examining that question began before Garland was even confirmed. Sherwin, senior Justice Department officials and Paul Abbate, the top deputy to FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, quashed a plan by prosecutors in the U.S. attorney’s office to directly investigate Trump associates for any links to the riot, deeming it premature, according to five individuals familiar with the decision. Instead, they insisted on a methodical approach — focusing first on rioters and going up the ladder.

The strategy was embraced by Garland, Monaco and Wray. They remained committed to it even as evidence emerged of an organized, weeks-long effort by Trump and his advisers before Jan. 6 to pressure state leaders, Justice officials and Vice President Mike Pence to block the certification of Biden’s victory.

In the weeks before Jan. 6, Trump supporters boasted publicly that they had submitted fake electors on his behalf, but the Justice Department declined to investigate the matter in February 2021, The Post found. The department did not actively probe the effort for nearly a year, and the FBI did not open an investigation of the electors scheme until April 2022, about 15 months after the attack.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/06/19/fbi-resisted-opening-probe-into-trumps-role-jan-6-more-than-year/

We are seeing a tendency here for those who have falsely claimed DOJ was acting behind the scenes toward Trump's role in Jan 6 to make the entire revelation about defending Garland, as though it were about nothing else but the righteousness or flaws of one man. It's clearly far more important than that, and involved the entire federal justice system, both before and after Garland was confirmed.

[RockRaven]

16. +1

[Hermit-The-Prog]

18. Thank you

It's an attitude problem, mainly within the FBI. There are too many MAGAts in the organization and, apparently, there are too many who are afraid to take on anyone with political power.

Garland doesn't fit in either group. I have not lost confidence in his dedication or ability. Can't say that about Wray and some of his underlings.

[brush]

28. Well stated. trump could've been tried already on the slam dunk docs case.

J6 is more complex but investigation by the DOJ was slow in getting started.

Ya kinda shouldn't delay investigations of AN ATTEMPTED COUP AGAINST YOUR DEMOCRRACY. THAT YA SHOULD GET ON RIGHT AWAY.

[yardwork]

46. The FBI is biased toward Republicans and some are even worse.

Not a surprise. J. Edgar Hoover was a bad man. A key person in the NY FBI office was on the Russian payroll, probably helped throw the election to Trump in 2016. Not a surprise.

[uponit7771]

110. "A key person in the NY FBI office was on the Russian payroll," Jus ... there's LAYERS of this crap

... with Benedict Donald and its rational to have a healthy skepticism about the alphabet crews prosecuting him.

There better be some triple inside shit happening at the FBI etc, the story of a lead FBI agent taking money from a Russian oligarch should be still a top story.

[yardwork]

111. It was never a story at all, which is a disgrace.

Should have been front page for weeks, months. Instead, crickets.

[Celerity]

60. good post

[Scrivener7]

98. What she said.

[uponit7771]

108. THANK YOU !!! "declined to investigate the matter in February 2021" is the root of the issue with

... DOJ and FBI.

This isn't just about Garland, its about the fact the article claims the information Benedict Donald was involved was kept from Garland even after the fake elector names were given to alphabet crews by NARA.

[Autumn]

17. They work with him, know him. I'm inclined to believe their opinion.

Jack Smith has done an excellent job.

[mzmolly]

29. Exactly. Garland said 'we have to get this right'

and I'd rather he get it right, than embolden Trump with a sloppy indictment in which he's not prosecuted.

[xmas74]

69. I've always been in favor of getting it done right

Instead of being sloppy.
I viewed it as how long it takes to investigate things like RICO or high dollar tax evasion. Those cases can take years.
This case is a first and if not done with exacting, exhausting detail it could fail. To have this fail will be the final nail in the coffin of our almost 250 year experiment in governance.

[mzmolly]

71. I agree.

Frightening to consider the consequences of failing to indict that pig.

[xmas74]

72. Exactly.

If waiting offers a better chance of getting him then I'll wait til the cows come home.

[mzmolly]

81. Right!

[mcar]

34. I agree

Plus, it appears that the FBI has a lot of hard right leaners in its mix. Not a problem it they do their jobs but the NY southern district is, IIRC, why Comey announced the reopening of HRC investigation in Oct 2016. They were planning to leak a worse take.

[mysteryowl]

35. When I read it, I was sure it said there was at least a year delay in investigations by FBI.

[agingdem]

36. The WP Garland/FBI delay "smoking gun"

Last edited Tue Jun 20, 2023, 09:16 PM - Edit history (1)

was a hit piece..disgruntled agents taking a swipe at their bosses...I like Carol Leonnig..she's a very good reporter but her big reveal was a swing and a miss..

I have every confidence in Merrick Garland..when (not if) Garland/Smith are ready to indict Trump for treason/sedition/conspiracy/inciting an insurrection, the evidence has to be irrefutable and unambiguous...until them we wait..

[Joinfortmill]

38. You know, I thought Carol Leonning was a bit uncomfortable with this story. Just a feeling

[emulatorloo]

40. She's a great reporter. My guess is she'll do a follow up at some point.

[emulatorloo]

39. My reading as well, plus we learned an FBI agent tried to slow walk stuff but was ultimately over

rided.

Personally, I feel that Garland’s “cautious and methodical” approach to the documents case has resulted in a close to ironclad indictment; exactly what I’d want for a Jan ) prosecution when it’s ready.

100% agreed.

[nakocal]

41. I believe that Garland was hoping that everyone would forget

about Trump leading the insurrection so that he would not have to do anything. He wants to be a judge again and does not want to piss off traitorous republicans.

[emulatorloo]

45. And yet Trump was just indicted, which doesn't really support your beliefs.

He was a prosecutor before he was a judge, took down Tim McVeigh among others.

Trump is close to getting indicted for J6 as well.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/merrick-garland-oklahoma-city-bombing/2021/02/19/a9e6adde-67f2-11eb-8468-21bc48f07fe5_story.html

How the Oklahoma City bombing case prepared Merrick Garland to take on domestic terrorism
By Matt Zapotosky and Ann E. Marimow
February 19, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. EST

[brooklynite]

64. No, no...all those DU complaints became too much to resist.

[emulatorloo]

84. I know, I am an truly an idiot to get sucked in to replying.

[yardwork]

43. Everybody has said for years that Merrick Garland is cautious and meticulous.

None of this is a surprise. I don't see anything nefarious in it. Is he slower and more cautious than I would like? Yes. Is my opinion informed? Not remotely.

[ShazzieB]

53. I second this comment.

[xmas74]

70. I'm a mostly cautious person

And I appreciate how cautious he has been with this case. I want all "i"s dotted and "t"s crossed before even alluding to anything out of the ordinary.
I'm a person who believes in revenge being a dish best served cold. I want someone to get overly confident, to think they got away with everything before the hammer drops out of nowhere.

[Sneederbunk]

49. No Jan 6 investigation of higher ups, then probably

no DOJ investigation. The very existence of the Jan 6 Committee put immense pressure upon the DOJ.

[bucolic_frolic]

50. The pace has been nothing but beneficial

There was time to understand and investigate what went on (J6 Committee), time to gauge the political winds (Touristy or insurrection), time to divine the patriots vs the cult, and time for other investigations to play out. Now we have several possible indictments all in the same window. They can't all be wrong.

[betsuni]

51. Funny to me that after years of the WaPo being called a right-wing source, Jeff Bezos

Last edited Tue Jun 20, 2023, 09:32 PM - Edit history (1)

standing over every journalist as they write articles forcing them to only use right-wing words or else, nefarious corporate media conglomeration plots, suddenly the same people insist we must all believe this particular WaPo article. Ha! No. Make up your minds.

[treestar]

54. +1

[inthewind21]

104. Because

It's fits a personal narrative/belief. What all the "AH-HA, I was right Garland should be fired" nonsense has shown me is that there are WAY more than just the MAGA's who will believe any and everything they are told no matter WHO is doing the telling as long as it fits their own personal belief.

[JoeOtterbein]

55. You are wrong! Everyday *rump is free, he his a danger to the...

...safety of our great nation!

Lock him up! Today!

[BeyondGeography]

57. Can't have enough of that

Boob that he is, Trump is a mortal threat to our democracy.

The one thing he gets is that Americans have a huge appetite for two things: fights and Tinkerbelle. He always plays offense and he always puts the best spin on himself.

Whatever the question, he’ll say, “We had the greatest economy in the history of our country” eg. You don’t kill him with passivity; he kill you. It amazes me how many otherwise smart people soft-pedal that truth. Especially after Jan. 6th.

[brooklynite]

65. "Lock him up! Today!".... Thanks for proving my point.

We don't "lock up" people because we "know" they're guilty. We lock them up AFTER they've been convicted by a Jury which happens AFTER a convincing case is presented by the prosecution. And the average juror (who doesn't hang out on political discussion Boards) surprisingly doesn't "know" all the evidence you apparently do.

[JoeOtterbein]

68. Anyone else, indicted on the charges *rump is accused of...

...would already be locked up.

Justice delayed is not only denied, it is just plain dangerous!

[Rhiannon12866]

78. Like Reality Winner who served 4 years for stealing/copying ONE classified document.

Applying the same standards to TFG who stole approximately 300, that would mean 1200 years.

DOJ's 'fantastic' red carpet: The Trump case vs. the Reality Winner case - All In - MSNBC
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017836953

Reality Winner was the first person prosecuted by the Trump administration under the Espionage Act. Her attorney Alison Grinter Allen joins Chris Hayes to discuss the differences between her case and her treatment vs. that of Donald Trump: “That is a stark contrast to what Reality Winner faced.” - Aired on - 6/14/2023.

[JoeOtterbein]

79. Exactly!

Yep just one! And they wasted no time locking her up.

If she had half of the wealth *rump has, she would be free right now!

[Demsrule86]

59. That is not what the report said...nothing was done for two years...and I believe the only reason

that changed was because of the January 6th Congressional Hearings. They didn't want to prosecute a former president even though he attempted to overthrow the government...I particularly dislike Wray and think he needs to go. I am disappointed that Garland waited so long...it is going to be messy with the election coming up. It didn't have to happen.

[tavernier]

75. Agree.

Garland brought in Jack once the drumbeats for justice got so loud they could no longer be ignored. And now with so little time left and rump stretching it out at every turn, Jack will have to be a magician to get it done before the sands run out.

[lees1975]

90. Well said. It shouldn't have taken two years, especially not when Congress had already laid out the

evidence necessary for indictments. After that mountain of evidence, what else did they need?

I agree, Wray needs to go. As far as Garland is concerned, thankfully there is a competent special counsel in place. But it should not be taking this long and wouldn't have if they'd got on it like they are doing now, finally.

[Scrivener7]

99. You're absolutely right. The overriding theme

on this topic this week is that lots of people are commenting on these articles who seem to have forgotten to read the articles first.

[Demsrule86]

107. It appears to me as I said that the January 6th committee shamed Justice into doing something.

I don't think they had any intention of going after the insurrectionists or Trump either.

[jaxexpat]

61. An indictment, prosecuted successfully, would do a lot for the general confidence in Garland.

[emulatorloo]

85. There was just an indictment issued though.

Hope you got a chance to read it, because it is very strong w a shit ton of evidence of Trump’s wrong doing.

[jaxexpat]

96. Indeed, there was. Millions of others and I look forward to its successful prosecution.

It's also heartening to see that Fox is reneging on its role as cheerleader in chief for TFG, but it does leave a bit of uncertain dread as to what modern Nazi they will promote in his stead. Until Trump is in prison and off the front page, until Republicans reform as anti-fascist, until those things come to pass there will remain a great injustice weighing on the US. It's in the air, a bad metallic breath of mistrust and tension.

[Fiendish Thingy]

66. You're not wrong, so no correction needed. Nt

[hay rick]

74. I don't think enough information is available to have an informed opinion on the subject.

We don't have basic information, like how many people have been involved in considering, planning, and preparing for an investigation and how much time and effort they invested. The sparse data available supports assertions of careful, methodical preparation or claims of fearful hesitation to act equally well.

[emulatorloo]

82. DOJ only speaks when they indict or thru court filings. That is way it is supposed to be.

DOJ is not going to broadcast the details of an investigation to a criminal while the investigation is underway.

Did you get to read the indictment? Seem pretty clear there was careful investigation. I see nothing in the indictment that indicates “fear”.

I also read the court filings as they were filed over the last months. PDF’s of these were posted at the DOJ website.

Solid work and convincing arguments. No ‘hesitation’ nor ‘fear’ in those either.

[hay rick]

88. I read the indictment.

The criticism of some appears to be that a vigorous, and undelayed investigation could and should have delivered the same or equivalent indictment 6 months, a year or more earlier. WaPo alleges a 15 month delay. I'm agnostic on the issue, but I don't see the quality of the document as a sufficient defense of the gestation period.

[emulatorloo]

93. Y'all sensationalize a misstep and then go out of your way to minimize the actual achievement.

At least that’s my view today.

P.S. I never put much stock in ‘coulda woulda shoulda.’ The actual results mean more than that kind of speculation. The results are outstanding; an iron clad indictment on the docs case, as will be the upcoming J6 indictment.

Take care!

[betsuni]

95. +1

[iemanja]

97. You think WaPO made it all up?

That their research into court documents and sources was a fabrication? Because the article was very clear that there was a delay, not simply the opinion that one may have existed.

[Scrivener7]

100. Yes, some do. Because emptywheel did a blog

post after the Post article came out that those people apparently didn't read before they posted here that it refutes the Post.

Which, of course, it doesnt.

[iemanja]

105. Well, if it's in a blog . . .

that settles it.
lol

[uponit7771]

109. +1

[Progressive dog]

80. That is what I read, too.

[H2O Man]

87. Recommended.

[emulatorloo]

94. Recommended n/t