Garland appointing special counsel

[rdrr]

Dollars to donuts there were champagne corks popped in the offices of his current attorneys. A promise not to partake means half a chance they might get their client off on some technicality. Every time Trump opens his mouth regarding a case where he's the target, he gets in deeper or provides the foundation for another investigation.

Oh he will partake, but not in a legal sense. He won't comply with any investigation or court order, but he will be flapping his gums.

 

[AG_PhamD]

I would think the case of the Mar-a-Lago documents will be pretty straightforward especially considering much investigating has already been done. It’s seems pretty clear Trump was in possession of documents he was not supposed to have and took actions prevent them from being returned. Trumps comments defending himself have drastically changed multiple times which doesn’t help his case. This seems pretty cut and dry assuming the documents had legitimate value, which it sounds like is the case. It’s too bad we don’t know the details of the documents, as then there could be better speculation on his motive.

As for the January 6th stuff- this seems like a much more difficult case to pursue, but definitely worth getting to the bottom of it. The January 6th Commission was really just a horse and pony show, a biased investigation and biased presentation of information by its very nature. That’s not say their findings can’t be significant. All the more reason for a legitimate DOJ investigation.

I think it’s critical for these investigations to be conducted with absolute integrity and without an appearance of impropriety… as should be the case with any investigation. Any slip ups will just give fuel to Trump and his supporters. And frankly, charges cannot come down to just minor process crimes. Otherwise it makes the process look vindictive.

But if (when) Trump is charged they better be sure to have a slam dunk case. Because if Trump beats a case, it will most definitely result in rallying his base, will be used as proof of unfair treatment, and to diminish the validity of other potential cases.

Between all the ongoing cases against Trump, I have to imagine he will be nailed with something.

 

[Cmaier]

Oh he will partake, but not in a legal sense. He won't comply with any investigation or court order, but he will be flapping his gums.

No, he will certainly comply. This isn’t a congressional investigation - if there’s a court order he has to obey it, or he is held in contempt. He doesn’t have to testify (he has rights under the fifth amendment), but he has no choice but to do whatever a court tells him to do. (He can always appeal, but if there’s a standing court order he has to obey it).

 

[fooferdoggie]

Dollars to donuts there were champagne corks popped in the offices of his current attorneys. A promise not to partake means half a chance they might get their client off on some technicality. Every time Trump opens his mouth regarding a case where he's the target, he gets in deeper or provides the foundation for another investigation.

hell he has confessed to everything at onetime or another.

 

[GermanSuplex]

I’m fine with this. It is what it is. I don’t think it will help or hurt Trump, and I still think an indictment is coming sooner rather than later.

 

[lizkat]

Nauseated by a WSJ opinion piece offering "it's political" and "it's a mistake" about the Special Counsel appointment and a raft of comments agreeing. Not that I expected anything else from that newspaper's editorial side even if Murdoch is tired of Trump now. The WSJ never tires of being on the far right in its editorial pages.

Of course it's political: it's about the US government finally rejecting the notion that Donald Trump can successfully exempt himself from American rule of law.

Appointment of a special counsel is entirely appropriate since Biden had appointed Garland and the appointment means to eliminate conflict of interest in arriving at any recommendations to indict. The DoJ still has to make the indictments, if recommended, and otherwise explain why not to Congress.

The cases are political because the target is a political figure. That doesn't mean the decision to indict would be based on anything but law and evidence.

I'd remind the f'g WSJ that what was distinctly political were two asinine assessments by the then GOP-controlled US Senate that Trump was not guilty of two sets of articles of impeachment. One may be sure that there are members of that body who regret their not-guilty votes, even if they would take them again today the same way in lockstep with their fatally benighted party.

If Trump were not such a flaming narcissist, he might well end up regretting he did not resign after his first impeachment. But he is what he is, and so he went on to put himself in far worse legal jeopardy in the process of becoming once again a private citizen. In Georgia he pressured state officials to "find" enough votes to swing the state's electoral votes his way, and then on a federal level he plotted to remain in office against the freely, fairly expressed will of the people, and then took sensitive government documents that he was not entitled to have or hold upon leaving office... and then tried to obstruct ensuing investigations of those obvious crimes.

It just astonishes me that we're two years down the road from all that, and this mope is still even out on the street, never mind now causing the GOP to fracture over his announced intention to run again for President of the USA.

But hey. Never get in the way of political opponents dividing their house against themselves. The GOP deserves the oblivion to which they're headed, if they cannot rid themselves of both Trump and the extremists who have been trying to use him to advance their own agendas in the House of Representatives.

In the meantime this Special Counsel will take whatever tack he takes. In a way, Trump --by his announcement to run again-- has half-swung the axe against himself anyway, and the party that put him on the path to the White House now struggles to ditch theirTrump baggage without losing his base as well.

 

[mac_in_tosh]

The January 6th Commission was really just a horse and pony show, a biased investigation and biased presentation of information by its very nature. That’s not say their findings can’t be significant. All the more reason for a legitimate DOJ investigation.

Biased because there were no pro-insurrection GOP members?

 

[Citysnaps]

The January 6th Commission was really just a horse and pony show, a biased investigation and biased presentation of information by its very nature.

I don't understand.

Is that because people who believed Jan6th was really about "legitimate political discourse" were not able to present evidence supporting that claim?

 

[AG_PhamD]

Biased because there were no pro-insurrection GOP members?

Biased because there’s no opportunity for any formal pushback or debate, calling of witnesses that would be favorable to Trump, they can suppress anything that doesn’t support their case, etc. Even though there are two republicans on the committee, they clearly do not like Trump.

That’s not to say their findings cannot be legitimate, meaningful, or relevant. This is akin to having a trial except you’re not allowed to put up a defense and the prosecutor can choose which evidence to suppress. Sure, this committee isn’t a trial, but in effect it is intended to be the court of public opinion, which is why they went to such great lengths in producing the televised presentations. I’m not sure how you would argue how a committee investigation like Jan 6th is not biased. It is by the nature of what it is.

Polling suggests that the Jan 6th hearings only swayed like 1% of people. Most people had their minds made up already. And those who somehow believe Trump was innocent of any wrongdoing already see the committee another partisan “witch hunt”.

Don’t get me wrong, I think Trump should have been impeached 100% over January 6th. It would have saved the country a ton of time, money, energy, and drama. Better yet he should have resigned himself if he had any shred of dignity.

 

[Hrafn]

I don't understand.

Is that because people who believed Jan6th was really about "legitimate political discourse" were not able to present evidence supporting that claim?

I'm not a Drumpster, while being the ultimate drumpster

 

[Citysnaps]

Biased because there’s no opportunity for any formal pushback or debate, calling of witnesses that would be favorable to Trump, they can suppress anything that doesn’t support their case, etc. Even though there are two republicans on the committee, they clearly do not like Trump.

But this wasn't a trial. Rather, an investigation. trump himself was subpoenaed to provide information - but chose to decline.

 

[Roller]

I would think the case of the Mar-a-Lago documents will be pretty straightforward especially considering much investigating has already been done. It’s seems pretty clear Trump was in possession of documents he was not supposed to have and took actions prevent them from being returned. Trumps comments defending himself have drastically changed multiple times which doesn’t help his case. This seems pretty cut and dry assuming the documents had legitimate value, which it sounds like is the case. It’s too bad we don’t know the details of the documents, as then there could be better speculation on his motive.

As for the January 6th stuff- this seems like a much more difficult case to pursue, but definitely worth getting to the bottom of it. The January 6th Commission was really just a horse and pony show, a biased investigation and biased presentation of information by its very nature. That’s not say their findings can’t be significant. All the more reason for a legitimate DOJ investigation.

I think it’s critical for these investigations to be conducted with absolute integrity and without an appearance of impropriety… as should be the case with any investigation. Any slip ups will just give fuel to Trump and his supporters. And frankly, charges cannot come down to just minor process crimes. Otherwise it makes the process look vindictive.

But if (when) Trump is charged they better be sure to have a slam dunk case. Because if Trump beats a case, it will most definitely result in rallying his base, will be used as proof of unfair treatment, and to diminish the validity of other potential cases.

Between all the ongoing cases against Trump, I have to imagine he will be nailed with something.

Oh, come on. The GOP was given the opportunity to participate in a 9/11-style commission and refused. Then, they proposed that Jim Jordan and others who voted to overturn results of the 2020 election serve on the Select Committee. Yeah, I'm sure that would have gone well. And, for a horse and any show (as opposed to a dog and pony show), the committee produced a great deal of damning testimony.

As for the criminal investigations, what the heck more do you need to see to convince you Trump should spend the rest of his days in prison? If what is known publicly is the tip of the toxic iceberg, there's enough to convict him many times over.

 

[Cmaier]

Biased because there’s no opportunity for any formal pushback or debate, calling of witnesses that would be favorable to Trump, they can suppress anything that doesn’t support their case, etc. Even though there are two republicans on the committee, they clearly do not like Trump.

That’s not to say their findings cannot be legitimate, meaningful, or relevant. This is akin to having a trial except you’re not allowed to put up a defense and the prosecutor can choose which evidence to suppress. Sure, this committee isn’t a trial, but in effect it is intended to be the court of public opinion, which is why they went to such great lengths in producing the televised presentations. I’m not sure how you would argue how a committee investigation like Jan 6th is not biased. It is by the nature of what it is.

Polling suggests that the Jan 6th hearings only swayed like 1% of people. Most people had their minds made up already. And those who somehow believe Trump was innocent of any wrongdoing already see the committee another partisan “witch hunt”.

Don’t get me wrong, I think Trump should have been impeached 100% over January 6th. It would have saved the country a ton of time, money, energy, and drama. Better yet he should have resigned himself if he had any shred of dignity.

This is nonsense. There was plenty of OPPORTUNITY for witnesses to provide evidence that exculpated trump. But trump and his minions chose not to cooperate or to testify.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Republicans passed on an independent investigation. Tells you all you need to know.

 

[AG_PhamD]

Oh, come on. The GOP was given the opportunity to participate in a 9/11-style commission and refused. Then, they proposed that Jim Jordan and others who voted to overturn results of the 2020 election serve on the Select Committee. Yeah, I'm sure that would have gone well. And, for a horse and any show (as opposed to a dog and pony show), the committee produced a great deal of damning testimony.

As for the criminal investigations, what the heck more do you need to see to convince you Trump should spend the rest of his days in prison? If what is known publicly is the tip of the toxic iceberg, there's enough to convict him many times over.

Seriously, did you even read my post? Or the one before that. I’m not sure why you’re under the impression that I think is an innocent actor. Just because I think the commission is biased doesn’t mean their conclusions are necessarily wrong.

It’s the exact same reason Jim Jordan shouldn’t be running the committee that having a group of Democrats is not going to give an unbiased assessment. Which is exactly why this is going to a special prosecutor.

Let me put it this way, would you expect an unbiased investigation performed by a group of people who already previously voted impeach Trump for and for the very same incident? Any reasonable person would consider this biased.

It’s like if you had a Republican-only committee running the Benghazi hearings.

Considering how little attention was paid to the other component of this awful stain on US history, like why the security of the Capital failed so horrifically, I would argue this falls short of a 9/11-style commission, which was actually bipartisan in nature.

But this wasn't a trial. Rather, an investigation. trump himself was subpoenaed to provide information - but chose to decline.

This is nonsense. There was plenty of OPPORTUNITY for witnesses to provide evidence that exculpated trump. But trump and his minions chose not to cooperate or to testify.

And why would they if they don’t think they have to when they’re under the threat of being indicted, charged, and put on trial in an actual court.

(Obviously there’s some debate as to who has the right to defy the subpoenas. It didn’t work out so well for Navarro, but several others were not pursued by the DOJ)

I really don’t understand why this is such a controversial opinion.

 

[AG_PhamD]

I don't understand.

Is that because people who believed Jan6th was really about "legitimate political discourse" were not able to present evidence supporting that claim?

Let me give you an example. Trump’s aide, Cassidy Hutchinson, testified about Trump grabbing control of the Secret Service agent’s steering wheel. She was quickly thrown on TV in an “emergency hearing”. Considering this account was told to her or overhead, a reasonable investigator would follow up with whomever told this story to Hutchinson and certainly the agents involved. Allegedly, the agents denied this account… but I don’t believe we ever heard their testimony publicly. Nor whoever told this story to Hutchinson in the first place.

We have no idea what else was said and not said and contradicted. As you may recall of the testimony was done behind closed doors. For the most part, we only see what is allowed to be seen. Earlier this year the DOJ requested all the transcripts and were denied. Maybe that’s for the best. That way they can do their own thing.

Again, I will reiterate for the umpteenth time, I believe Trump’s behavior warrants being nailed to the wall with whatever they can get him on. His actions around the election results and Jan 6th were truly horrific. But I’m not going to pretend the Jan 6th committee members are an unbiased, non-partisan group, just because I think Trump should be charged. Shouldn’t we hear it straight from the horses mouth?

And frankly whether they’re biased or not is irrelevant as they don’t have prosecutorial power. That’s what the DOJ is for and I trust they will take the necessary moves to ensure Trump is appropriately charged.

 

[Citysnaps]

And why would they if they don’t think they have to when they’re under the threat of being indicted, charged, and put on trial in an actual court.

Well, there you go.

My response was in reply to your: "Biased because there’s no opportunity for any formal pushback or debate, calling of witnesses that would be favorable to Trump, they can suppress anything that doesn’t support their case, etc."

There was certainly opportunity for formal pushback by simply asking the people directly involved in the insurrection to come in and explain that they were merely involved in "legitimate political discourse" and not there to obstruct the peaceful transition of power, and were not there to trash the capitol, or assault law enforcement. And if not asked by Committee members, I'm sure if the Jan6th participants wanted to come in and set the record straight, there would be no objections by the Committee. Sadly, it seems no one wanted to do that.

I would much rather hear from them than say, Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, MTG, etc obfuscating and grandstanding the investigation.

Again...this was an investigation and not a trial.

 

[AG_PhamD]

Well, there you go.

My response was in reply to your: "Biased because there’s no opportunity for any formal pushback or debate, calling of witnesses that would be favorable to Trump, they can suppress anything that doesn’t support their case, etc."

There was certainly opportunity for formal pushback by simply asking the people directly involved in the insurrection to come in and explain that they were merely involved in "legitimate political discourse" and not there to obstruct the peaceful transition of power, and were not there to trash the capitol, or assault law enforcement. And if not asked by Committee members, I'm sure if the Jan6th participants wanted to come in and set the record straight, there would be no objections by the Committee. Sadly, it seems no one wanted to do that.

I would much rather hear from them than say, Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, MTG, etc obfuscating and grandstanding the investigation.

Again...this was an investigation and not a trial.

See my previous posts. I think all of these matters are addressed.

 

[Citysnaps]

Allegedly, the agents denied this account… but I don’t believe we ever heard their testimony publicly.

As the majority of Committee hearings were not televised, I suspect there was a lot of testimony the public was not aware of.

EDIT: The good news is I imagine every word from every Committee member and every witness was recorded in an official transcript. I'm just spitballing here, but I'm guessing transcripts have been, or will be, released to the public.

 

[AG_PhamD]

As the majority of Committee hearings were not televised, I suspect there was a lot of testimony the public was not aware of.

That’s exactly my point. They apparently interviewed almost 1000 people equaling god how many hours and 125,000 documents. Considering Hutchinson’s aforementioned story was not a first hand account, why is she telling it? The Secret Service put out a rare press statement insinuating their agents were participating with the committee. If the story is corroborated, why not hear it from the involved parties? If the story is not corroborated, doesn’t that call into question the legitimacy? The directly involved witnesses could certainly lie, but shouldn’t the public hear both sides of the story and draw their own conclusion?

The committee ultimately decides who is called, what questions are asked, what is made public, what is not made public, who appears on TV, etc. Such hearings, unrelated to 1/6, are routinely used for political purposes- like grandstanding.

Trump testifying would obviously make him look bad because he obviously did bad things. But let’s not make the argument “if he wasn’t guilty he would talk”. We all know that’s not how this works.

I’ll quote a PBS article re: investigative committees:

Political science research has also established that investigative hearings are very useful weapons in the partisan wars: Inquiries targeting the president and the executive branch can significantly diminish the president's public approval.

Thus, members on an investigative committee often find themselves facing contradictory options: They want the committee's work to appear legitimate to the American people, but they also don't want to pass up opportunities to burnish their own reputations and go viral on social media.

I think it’s fair to extrapolate, though this should already be obvious, that there is also the opportunity to signal a message to the public about whoever or whatever they are investigating.