Robert Hubbell is a blogger who always has interesting things to say. In this post, he excoriates Joe Manchin for destroying Biden’s ambitious domestic agenda. And he urges Biden to fire Merrick Garland for his unwillingness to open a case against Trump for attempting a coup.
A site to discuss better education for all
Categories Accountability, Biden, Environment, Failure, Funding, Hypocrisy
208 Comments Post your own
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Search All Posts
Previous posts
- January 2023 (114)
- December 2022 (111)
- November 2022 (97)
- October 2022 (100)
- September 2022 (103)
- August 2022 (120)
- July 2022 (111)
- June 2022 (112)
- May 2022 (120)
- April 2022 (105)
- March 2022 (120)
- February 2022 (96)
- January 2022 (94)
- December 2021 (98)
- November 2021 (77)
- October 2021 (79)
- September 2021 (78)
- August 2021 (74)
- July 2021 (82)
- June 2021 (69)
- May 2021 (66)
- April 2021 (72)
- March 2021 (103)
- February 2021 (140)
- January 2021 (169)
- December 2020 (142)
- November 2020 (160)
- October 2020 (169)
- September 2020 (170)
- August 2020 (175)
- July 2020 (191)
- June 2020 (195)
- May 2020 (205)
- April 2020 (203)
- March 2020 (197)
- February 2020 (165)
- January 2020 (180)
- December 2019 (194)
- November 2019 (185)
- October 2019 (199)
- September 2019 (169)
- August 2019 (172)
- July 2019 (169)
- June 2019 (193)
- May 2019 (203)
- April 2019 (195)
- March 2019 (187)
- February 2019 (160)
- January 2019 (201)
- December 2018 (204)
- November 2018 (213)
- October 2018 (213)
- September 2018 (186)
- August 2018 (190)
- July 2018 (196)
- June 2018 (190)
- May 2018 (225)
- April 2018 (221)
- March 2018 (242)
- February 2018 (182)
- January 2018 (212)
- December 2017 (224)
- November 2017 (188)
- October 2017 (240)
- September 2017 (239)
- August 2017 (237)
- July 2017 (235)
- June 2017 (224)
- May 2017 (267)
- April 2017 (265)
- March 2017 (284)
- February 2017 (262)
- January 2017 (355)
- December 2016 (239)
- November 2016 (274)
- October 2016 (219)
- September 2016 (218)
- August 2016 (211)
- July 2016 (217)
- June 2016 (219)
- May 2016 (233)
- April 2016 (229)
- March 2016 (242)
- February 2016 (244)
- January 2016 (247)
- December 2015 (230)
- November 2015 (233)
- October 2015 (292)
- September 2015 (262)
- August 2015 (268)
- July 2015 (252)
- June 2015 (254)
- May 2015 (277)
- April 2015 (290)
- March 2015 (322)
- February 2015 (281)
- January 2015 (247)
- December 2014 (225)
- November 2014 (226)
- October 2014 (287)
- September 2014 (283)
- August 2014 (271)
- July 2014 (258)
- June 2014 (281)
- May 2014 (284)
- April 2014 (330)
- March 2014 (358)
- February 2014 (308)
- January 2014 (282)
- December 2013 (260)
- November 2013 (270)
- October 2013 (342)
- September 2013 (358)
- August 2013 (373)
- July 2013 (336)
- June 2013 (347)
- May 2013 (348)
- April 2013 (369)
- March 2013 (379)
- February 2013 (296)
- January 2013 (342)
- December 2012 (328)
- November 2012 (270)
- October 2012 (366)
- September 2012 (475)
- August 2012 (463)
- July 2012 (372)
- June 2012 (209)
- May 2012 (120)
- April 2012 (17)
-
Recent posts
- DeSantis Plans to Shake Up Higher Education, Exclude Anything That is “Woke”
- Texas: Republicans File Multiple Bills to Suppress the Vote
- Education Week: Red States Rush to Pass Voucher Laws
- John Thompson: Will Oklahoma Shove “Choice” Down the Throats of Unwilling Schools and Parents?
- Jan Resseger: Why Are Teachers Being Demonized by Legislators?
Blog Topics
Accountability Betsy DeVos Billionaires Budget Cuts California Charter Schools Chicago Common Core Corporate Reform Corporate Reformers Democracy Duncan, Arne Education Industry Education Reform Failure Florida For-Profit Fraud Funding Gates Foundation, Bill Gates International Los Angeles New York New York City Ohio Parents Privatization Race to the Top Resistance School Choice Standardized Testing Students Teacher Evaluations Teachers Teachers and Teaching Testing Texas Trump Unions Vouchers
Top posts
- An Online Site Where Homeschoolers Teach Their Children to Be Nazis
- NPE: STOP PUBLIC FUNDING OF UNACCOUNTABLE EXTREMIST NETWORKS!
- Librarians Under Fire from Rightwing Parent Groups
- Florida Wants Girls to Report When They Menstruate!
- Keith Benson: Black History, White Backlash, and CRT
- Jan Resseger: Why Are Teachers Being Demonized by Legislators?
- Here is the AP African-American Studies Course That Florida Wants to Ban
- Should an Ed.D. or Ph.D. Be Called “Doctor?”
- Ed Tibbetts: The Iowa Voucher Plan Will Help Kids Already in Private Schools
- Utah: Voucher Lobbyist Admits She Wants to “Destroy Public Education”
-
Follow blog via RSS reader
-
Diane Ravitch's Blog by Diane Ravitch is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at dianeravitch.net. Blog Stats
- 40,286,438 hits
Diane Ravitch's blog 
LOL. Joe Manchin is the one carrying out the Democrats’ agenda. Why do you think he still has his committee assignments? Why do you think his wife got such a plum job from Biden? Why do you think they don’t threaten to investigate any of his obvious and known corruption? Why do you think they supported him over his primary challenger?
Dienne,
If Joe Manchin switched parties, Republicans would control the Senate. Mitch McConnell would be majority leader.
I know you scoff at me and anyone else who supports Democrats. You ridiculed and berated Hillary in 2016, and look what happened.
What party should we support?
If 2024 is a choice between DeSantis and a flawed Democrat, will you urge voting for a third party/not voting?
Like it or not, we have a two-party system. One of them will win the presidency and control the federal government.
I prefer Biden to Trump. Do you?
Dienne77 makes ZERO sense. I’ve come to believe that it’s an utter waste of time to try to respond to her. The stuff she posts is totally wacko.
Progressives must look beyond the next election cycle and begin building a viable third party. The Democratic Party’s thoroughly corrupt ‘leadership’ plays this game every election cycle, holding its most progressive members hostage. In 2016, Clinton/Schumer said they could win without progressive votes. Then, after losing to Trump, they claimed that it was the progressives fault for voting third party or not voting at all. My politics are to the left of yours, Diane, but I will not vote for any Democrats in 2022 or 2024.
I think her response was feathers.
I agree with Diane, not voting or voting for some third party that polls in the single digits is tantamount to voting for the GOP candidate. This is the system we have, for better or worse, so I will vote for the Democratic candidates for president and Congress. If Biden runs again in 2024, he gets my vote. If you want to vote for the Green Party, do so on a local level, such as for mayor or town council not the big stakes elections that have national implications.
If Garland does not indict Trump on multiple counts of seditious conspiracy, defrauding the United States, obstruction of an official proceeding, and terrorism (threatening the life of a public official), then put a fork in democracy here, it’s done.
He could also add to those charges treason, for Trump aided and abetted people who were trying to overthrow the government of the United States.
I support Democrats even when they frustrate me. I am not going to waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate and contribute to putting the radical right wing in power. I am also encouraged by the increasing numbers of members in Progressive Caucus. I do wish we had better options, but this is our reality for now. This is an interesting article. https://jacobin.com/2022/07/gop-democratic-party-failure-defend-rights-supreme-court
I have a sinking feeling that Republicans will win both the House and the Senate in November. And when that happens, it will be because Manchin and, to a lesser extent, Sinema, rendered Biden relatively ineffectual–managed to throw monkey wrenches into almost every Biden proposal. In other words, these two @#^#@@%#^#^253&$@&@s will be responsible for giving the Repugnicans the power to bring about the end of the democratic experiement in the United States.
Heckuvajob, Joe.
You may be right. Biden’s current approval ratings are at about 40% with his economic ratings at about 30%. Considering that Biden will turn 80 in November, the Democratic party may want to look at other options, but I doubt it. I would like to see a Newsome teamed up with Fetterman of Pennsylvania, if Fetterman beats Dr. Oz in the Senate race. Harris would be fine as well, but I doubt Democrats would want to run two people from California. Newsome, while not my favorite, is smart and a fighter. He is already sparring with DeSantis, and he can duke it out with Trump or DeSantis. This ticket could be a winner, but I doubt that the Democrats will do anything other than what is expected. Biden is a decent guy and president, but I fear the handwriting seems to be on the wall. i just hope there is an unexpected rally from Democrats in the midterms. These comments are simply my own musings.
Harris’s approval ratings are even worse than Biden’s. And her early flameout in the 2020 primary race doesn’t bode well.
Yup! If Abrams wins if Georgia, a possible ticket could be Newsome/Abrams, although Pennsylvania is a bigger prize. The right has gained more support in rural Pennsylvania, but the Democrats tend to go with the status quo instead of strategizing.
Some things I do now better than ever before, but there are some that I don’t. I notice, for example, that it takes me longer to do math and logic problems than when I was in my 20s, but I know a LOT more than I did then, and things make sense to me that, because of that, did not when I was younger. I think that people still have a LOT to offer in their 80s, obviously. As advisors and consultants, for example. But I would not have the energy for this office now, and I’m not even in my 70s yet.
It doesn’t get easier, trust me.
Same with me, Diane. Blue no matter who.
I’m looking at Gavin Newsom. Gretchen Whitmer. Roy Cooper (NC). Will vote straight blue no matter who.
I agree there are robust 80+ year olds like the owner of this blog and Bernie Sanders. He is still fighting the good fight while calling out Manchin for torpedoing Biden’s policies, but six more potential years of service for someone approaching 80 are far more uncertain than for a younger candidate.
Dear Mr. Garland:
THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.
History will judge you for what you do or do not do right now, Mr. Garland, with the power and authority entrusted to you. If you fail to act, the consequences will be grievous, disastrous. The wreck of democracy that will result will be on you. History will remember this. You will be a kind of hero to the fascists who take over here because you enabled them through inaction.
I hear that Trump will announce his 2024 candidacy soon. He will do this because he thinks it will prevent prosecution by the DOJ.
The DOJ isn’t supposed to get involved in a way that will sway elections. Like Comey didn’t announce two weeks before the 2016 election that he was reopening the investigation of Hillary’s emails. Or did he? Thanks for Trump, Comey.
Hubbell says that Garland just doubled down within the DOJ on the Barr rule that a candidate can’t be prosecuted. Hubbell is correct. Biden needs to fire this guy, who makes an utter joke of the idea of achieving “justice.”
It is addressed to the midterms. It is the same policy Eric Holder issued.
Well said, Diane.
Does one declare their Presidential run before they rob a bank or just wait till after they are caught
It’s preferable to be born into money and the right name, Joel. That’s the most tried and tested route. Robbing a bank is just for the deluded ambitious ones.
As bank fraud expert William Black has pointed out “The best way to rob a bank is to own one”
One must choose one’s parents carefully.
You need a DeLoren for that
And a flux capacitor.
DeLorean
Sophia DeLoren
I know she used to have a flux capacitor.
Does she still have it?
And is it charged up?
SomeDAM Poet
Especially when the bank is the American worker .
Hubbell is awesome. Always a great read.
Re Mr. Hubbell: I don’t think Mr. Hubbell has the slightest idea what Merrick Garland and DOJ are doing. Which is kind of inexcusable, since both Teri Kanefield and Marcy Wheeler (Empty Wheel) have done excellent on the various threads of investigation being pursued and grand jury activity. He also doesn’t grasp the fact that DOJ would be foolish to be acting substantively, via indictments, while Congress is putting on the very witnesses that may be necessary for any prosecution, under oath, in public hearings. No competent prosecutor would do that.
I don’t know what DOJ is planning any more than Mr. Hubbell does. But I have seen how DOJ works, which is to keep their own counsel and not announce anything until the indictments come down. Which is precisely what prosecutorial ethics dictate.
Did you read Hubbell’s piece? Did you see what he said about Garland’s recent instructions to DOJ staff? Chilling.
How disturbing. The trend started by Reagan, accelerated by Gingrich, and neatly packaged by the Idiot was the erosion and loss of the understood line between politics and governing. Yes, I know we can point to episodes before that, but the systemic implementation of this is undeniable if one takes a fair look at the public record.
This memo represents the complete capitulation to that lack of principle. It codifies it. That alone is grounds for dismissal. Someone needs to understand that one can legally chew gum and walk.
Garland is analogous to Pope Francis to me. High hopes, wonderful rhetoric, grounded in ethics, and…nothing.
A very high Barr
Setting the Barr
Garland sets the Barr
On criminal indictment
To very very far
Above the Trump incitement
Well done, SomeDAM!
The Garland Barr
Any charge must be OKed
By me, before infictment’s made
And Barr has made it crystal clear
That Trump is not a target here
Q: How are Merrick and Christmas Garland alike?
A: Both hang around doing nothing through the end of the season.
Agree, Greg! And this would be even funnier if it weren’t true and tragic.
Of Garlands and Leis
A Garland’s like a lei
It hangs around the neck
And beautifies the day
But has no real effect
lol, SomeDAM. Priceless.
A Garland’s like a cool
It’s dainty and it’s quaint
But when the things are oily
An oil pan it aint
Doily
Autocorrect is not cool
Trump or get off the pot
Garland should nust Trump
And finally take a dump
Or exit off the pot
Evacuate his spot
I wish I could say,
in an obvious way,
that most any day,
Trump will pay.
If you loved the sweetheart deal that Acosta gave Epstein, you gotta love this letting the Teflon Don 2.0 slide yet again, not matter how egregious and obvious his crimes. But hey, ours is not to reason why. It’s to do and think as our Glorious Leaders demand. That’s why God created courts and lawyers–to enforce the will of the few.
Trump continues to get away with doing this stuff right out in the open–“in the middle of 5th Avenue,” as he infamously put it. “Russia, if you are listening, . . .”
And people continue making up reasons why they can’t do anything about this.
It’s sickening.
Garland should just Trump
SomeDAM, yes, I read the Constitution (and edited textbooks on American government) before Mueller and Garland drove me out of my mind by NOT doing anything about Trump. But hey, don’t you love being lectured by lawyers who seem to feel that people not of their exceptionally high bar should be silent on political matters given that this isn’t even a republic, much less a democracy, except in fanciful name?
Don’t you mean exceptionally high Barr?
Sometimes, when it comes to DOJ “investigation and prosecution”, there is just no there there.
The Obama DOJ ‘s non-prosecution of individual bankers who committed billions of dollars in fraud in the lead up to the financial meltdown of 07/08 is z perfect example.
I linked to the FRONTLINE piece , The Untouchables below.
Are we supposed to just assume that Garland will investigate and prosecute Trump?
What reason do we have to make such an assumption?
Don’t get me started on Obama and the bankers. How completely a tool of the wealthy and powerful Obama was! He could easily have structured his bailout so that it passed THROUGH the individual borrowers, and they retained their homes. But he had ZERO interest in protecting or helping them. It was all about saving the fat cats from their own stupidity.
What reason? I don’t see any.
Trump must have been quite pleased by Maddow’s report, after someone explained it to him over and over.
Just a month ago, Garland was instructing his staff to watch the Congressional hearings and he said he himself was also doing so, presumably to learn about what Trump and his people had been up to.
If this is what Garland considers an investigation –Watching what the rest of us are watching on TV — I think we are in very deep doodoo.
You know it’s kind of funny. I too have had a layer suggest to me here that I must have lost my mind.
Maybe that’s a rhetorical strategy people!e learn in law school, to suggest that hour debating opponent has lost his or her mind.
Maybe lawyers use that strategy in court to make witnesses look bad:
Have you lost your mind?
How are you even supposed to answer that?
Yes. As a matter if fact, I have list my mind. Thanks for asking”?
I have come to wonder whether Trump’s Teflon Don status is related to his being thick with Russian mobsters and intelligence services that have kompromat on key people.
This stuff operates so very crudely. There’s barely any attempt to make it seem legitimate. Consider this: When Epstein was arrested, there were press reports about how his properties were full of surveillance cameras and computer rooms for monitoring and storage, but NONE of the photos or video of those whom Epstein was blackmailing have ever surfaced. It’s all conveniently disappeared. Then, Epstein was jailed, but shortly thereafter, an attempt was made on his life, and shortly after that, he conveniently hanged himself while his guards were conveniently not paying attention. And then his pimp Maxwell was arrested and brought to trial. Now, the thing with Epstein, of course, is that there were a bunch of young women whom he was using to compromise a clientele that consisted of many of the wealthiest and most power and influential people–royalty, politicians, entertainers, academics, business tycoons. But when Maxwell came to trial, not a single one of the people invited to testify was someone who could name a single one of Epstein’s clients. Like Trump’s criminality, it’s practically completely out in the open. It’s all there for anyone to see, and we are all supposed to pretend that we don’t see it. Nothing to see here, folks. The professionals are taking care of this.
I am not, emphatically not, suggesting that the inaction by Garland is due to such kompromat. There’s no reason to think that. But looking back over Trump’s long criminal and treasonous career, there sure have been a lot of times when the trouble he was in simply went away.
Bob
There is no need to explain yourself if you are out of your mind.
Therein lies the beauty.
Haaaaa!!! Thank you, SomeDAM. What a relief!!!
That is what I have found, at any rate.
That is actually something that Einstein pointed out.
Everyone is familiar with Einstein’s quip that “insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results each time”
But most people don’t know that he also said (on the same theme)
“Being out of your mind means never have to explain yourself”
Einstein said that on his death bed in regret over the many times that he had to explain his theories. He was essentially expressing the fact that it would have been far easier for him if people had just thought he was out of his mind.
Homophonalogies
If Garland’s memo
Is Garland’s MO
Then Garland’s Barr
Is Garland’s bar
Sadly, yes!
More fun with Homophonalogies
If Garland’s memo
Is Garland’s MO
Then Garland’s Barr
Is Garland’s bar
And Garland’s Barr
In Garland’s memo
Is Garland’s bar
In Garland’s MO
To Barr? Or to Barr?
That is the question.
OK, that settles it: to Barr
Agree! As to invoking Barr:
Hubbell is precisely right about this. Biden MUST fire Garland. His excuse that he can’t indict Trump if the guy announces his candidacy makes ZERO sense because it is basically a get-out-of-jail-free card for anyone. Sorry. Can’t indict Mr. Hannibal Lector because he just announced his candidacy. That’s just idiotic.
The memo I assume you are referring to concerns the upcoming midterms. It does not address the 2024 election, and is the same policy that Bill Barr and Eric Holder (indeed, it’s essentially the identical memo) before elections when they were in office.
Nowhere does it say that DOJ can’t indict Trump if he announces for 2024.
Well, you and Trump and Rachel Maddow are reading this memo differently. And Bill Barr took this concept further, as you will learn if you listen to the Maddow segment.
Look, if the memo said what you seem to think it does, IT WOULD BE THE HEADLINE OF EVERY MAJOR NEWSPAPER IN THE U.S. and likely the world.
It isn’t. I get emails from many U.S. newspapers every day, including Wapo and the Chicago Tribune, and this is not a story they’re highlighting, which they would if this memo is what people are claiming.
Chill. It’s bad enough that the Right’s media distorts and lies every day. Let’s not panic over something you’re misreading.
I’m not misreading it. I simply don’t trust Garland, and he reiterated Barr’s instruction that such prosecutions have to get the AG’s approval.
Are you out of your mind? If you’re going to indict a former president, you damned well BETTER have the AG’s approval.
Have you ever worked in law enforcement? For a prosecutor’s office?
He’s a FORMER president. Citizen Trump. He is not a king.
Come November, a Repugnican House and Senate can pass its Presidential Executive Privileges and Immunities Act and its Independent State Legislature Voting Authority Act, and the current Extreme Court can refuse to hear any challenge to it.
They can do many things. They can’t order the AG around, and they can’t interfere with ongoing investigations (or new ones, for that matter).
But they can make it very difficult for a case to succeed AND they won’t have to if Garland simply never wants to bring a case because of his own personal political leanings.
I hope you are right, jsrtheta
good comments here.
It’s not that I don’t trust Garland, I just think he is out of his element. He might well have been a consensus-building justice, he’s obviously a nice, thoughtful guy, and he’s obviously a patriot. He’s just the wrong person in the wrong place at the wrong time. Which is tragic for him personally and for us as a nation.
That’s quite the comment, considering you have no idea what Garland’s doing, just that he’s not doing what you want done at this very moment. Even though you don’t even know that.
I may not know what Garland is doing, none of us do, but we have quite a long, rather tepid, record. We have seen his public appearances. We can read a calendar and fairly accurately tell time. If Republicans win the House in November, all investigations are off, at least legitimate ones. The House will become a political kangaroo chamber in which as many committees as possible will be investigating the investigators. Garland basically has three months to put up or allow the continued destruction of the American experiment.
Strangely, the Constitution does not put DOJ under Congress’ jurisdiction.
Sadly, like many liberals these days, you confuse the theory of the Constitution with the reality of today’s politics, which distances itself from the document every day.
But on the technical stuff, the Constitution provides the authority for the creation of DoJ. In Article II, section 2 states the Executive “…shall appoint…all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” Article I, section 8 vests the appropriating power of all executive departments, DoJ included, in Congress, only mandating that the process begin in the House. And the Senate provides advice and consent on the nomination of the Attorney General and does not roll over all the time. So yes, Congress has constitutional authority (at least until this Court gets rid of it) over DoJ. Existential authority.
Why thank you. I spent more 30 years of my life working in prosecutor’s offices and later defending people charged with criminal offenses. In other words, working with the Constitution every day for a living.
Why, how blind I was before you gave me this lecture!
Am I wrong? If so, please cite.
Bob
1) Are you out of your mind?
2) did you ever read the Constitution?
If you answered yes to both 1 and 2, did you read the Constitution before or after you went out of your mind?
Thanks on advance for the answers to these important questions
I’ll assume I’m not wrong. Here’s another clue, hidden in the text of the memo: “See Memorandum of Attorney General William Barr.” Can anyone out there show me one example of why any memoranda from William Barr should be precedent for anything at all?
Greg
Garland obviously is concerned that he is — or may be — losing control over his underlings at DOJ, some of whom may be just shaking their heads and wondering why the hell Trump is not already a target of a no holds barred DOJ investigation.
The Barr Rule ensures (or at least tries to ensure) that everything Garland’s underlings do has to first be Oked by him . The fact that it is something new that Garland has tacked on to the standard policy memo is not simply a meaningless gesture. It is meant to accomplish his goal of reigning in his people. When you have neither towering intellectual nor towering physical stature (Garland stands only 5’6″), the Barr Rule is the only means you have to keep people in line.
You obviously don’t know anything about how criminal prosecution works.
Excellent observation, SDP. You’re so much more lucid when you’re not hysterical!
Greg asks “Can anyone out there show me one example of why any memoranda from William Barr should be precedent for anything at all?”
Barr is a precedent for future presidents trying to avoid prosecution.
“That’s the way you do it. Money for nothin and your get out of jail free”
But that’s undoubtedly not what you were after.
Hysteria has different ways of manifesting itself.
It is not hysteria for the Attorney General to make the ultimate decision. His name is the first one on every prosecution filing. He is ultimately responsible for the department’s actions, good and bad.
Jsrtheta said “Every DOJ investigation I’ve seen was a shock to everyone when they came out” to get across the idea that DOJ investigations turn out to be more through and far reaching than most people expected.
Jsr is obviously not familiar with all DOJ investigations — and not even all high profile ones — and does not appreciate that NOT EVERY DOJ investigation is shocking after the fact because of how thorough and far reaching the resulting prosecutions were.
At least some of them turned out to be shocking for just the opposite reason.
The Untouchables, FRONTLINE’s look at why no Wall Street executives have been prosecuted for fraud in connection with the financial crisis.”
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/eric-holder-backtracks-remarks-on-too-big-to-jail/
And in response to the claim that “anyone who is shocked by the outcome of the Obama DOJ investigation and non-prosecution of Wall Street bankers simply does not know how prosecution works”, I would just point out that bank fraud expert William Black, who has far more experience and success investigating, prosecuting and jailing bankers for fraud than almost anyone, has vociferously disagreed with the claim that the Obama DOJ could not go after individual bankers and has demonstrated through his own actions and those of regulator colleagues in response to the Savings and Loan scandal that the claim is simply false.
The references to “Hysteria” and “hysterical” above were actually NOT in regard to Garland.
They were part of an inside joke that I doubt jsrtheta would appreciate.
Lawyers tend to be very literal so I won’t even try to explain.
It’s Animal Farm.
Hannibal farm
Maddox’s piece was misleading. It seems intended to rile up MSNBC’s audience for ratings and Twitter clicks. She knows better than her “analysis” implies, making no attempt to offer nuance or other possible interpretations. As jsrtheta writes above, see what some DOJ experts have to say about it. Here’s a thoughtful take on the memo by former AL Senator and US Atty Doug Jones.
Thanks. People should watch this.
I watched it. He didn’t explain why Comey interfered in the 2016 election. Apparently the policy is enforced only when Trump is running.
He did explain that this has been DOJ policy for many administrations.
Yes, the DOJ has a standard policy that it doesn’t interfere in elections. Except when James Comey torpedoed Hillary Clinton two weeks before the election by announcing that the FBI had new information and was reopening an investigation of her emails. After the election, the FBI announced that they closed the investigation because they found nothing.
If Trump announces his candidacy next week, Will Garland suspend any investigation of his role in the failed coup?
Thanks, Sally. I will read this right now. I respect Jones.
Well, Sally, I hope (but doubt) that he’s right. Clearly, Garland has really, really been dragging his feet. The Jan 6th committee is WAY ahead of him, and come November, all of this might well be moot. It really seems that Garland doesn’t intend to do a damned thing about Trump.
You don’t indict someone while Congress is holding public hearings about that person.
I didn’t say that. I never said that Garland should indict while Congress is holding its hearings. I implied, I hope, that Garland should be aggressively pursuing his own investigation, which, as soon as the current hearings are done (on Thursday), are followed up by an indictment. But as it is, the DOJ is signaling to the Congressional Committee that what that committee is turning up is stuff that the DOJ knows nothing about, which would mean that it doesn’t have a robust investigation going on.
Not particularly surprising. This is a case involving literally hundred, if not thousands, of potential defendants. Millions of exhibits.
Had you followed my advice and checked out Marcy Wheeler’s posts, you’d know this.
I read Wheeler. Underwhelmed here, as by Garland’s inaction against the prime conspirator.
She’s been at it for years. Her, I know. She exposed a lot of what happened with Durham’s prosecution of Sussman, but she’s been at it for over 15 years. Tell me your credentials, and I’ll let you know what I think.
And since you have no idea what Garland and DOJ are doing, you maybe shouldn’t criticize them as if you do. Every DOJ investigation I’ve seen was a shock to everyone when they came out. That’s by design. It’s also in keeping with prosecutorial ethics.
Not holding my breath. If I had been doing that, waiting for a Trump prosecution, I would have been dead years ago (in addition to having lost my mind and having failed to learn to read).
It’s looking to me like we are going to have the same disappointment with Garland that we had with Mueller. All this anticipation that the Teflon Don 2.0 was finally, finally, finally going to be brought to justice, then nothing. There’s urgency to doing something about Trump. They’ve gone after all the little guys, but the big fish, nope. Above the west entrance to the Supreme Court are the words Equal Justice Under Law. This DOJ is making a complete mockery of those words. This is Banana Republic stuff. The clock is ticking. And by November, it will have run out. There is no reason, no excuse, for the Jan 6th committee to be way, way ahead of the DOJ on this when the DOJ has the dedicated resources for criminal investigations.
Wrong. Most federal felony crimes have a five-year statute of limitations. There is plenty of time.
And this is NOT the time.
See my note about how the House and Senate and Extreme Court can act come November. The clock is ticking, and not because of a statute of limitations.
Did you ever read the Constitution? Understand about how the different branches work?
LOL. This is a ridiculous question, and it’s insulting. Why on earth would you ask such a thing?
So you don’t have to hunt for it, here’s what I said:
Come November, a Repugnican House and Senate can pass its Presidential Executive Privileges and Immunities Act and its Independent State Legislature Voting Authority Act, and the current Extreme Court can refuse to hear any challenge to it. In other words, the Repugnicans can take actions to make a DOJ case much harder.
And, frankly, I sincerely doubt that Garland has any interest in prosecuting Trump.
It’s no use talking to you. You simply refuse to listen.
Oh please, master, do instruct me.
And show me the law that says you can’t indict while Congress is investigating. Well, there isn’t any, and for obvious reasons.
I’m beginning to wonder if you can read.
I didn’t say there was a law against indicting while Congress is investigating. I said no prosecutor worth the title would do that.
Please don’t put your words in my mouth.
Must be that having lost my mind that makes me unable to read. It’s a wonder, really, that I am still functioning at all, given these extremities–never read the Constitution, lost my mind, can’t read. ROFLMAO.
Jsrtheta. I did not mean to imply that you claimed that this was illegal. I was using a common turn of speech (show me the law) meaning, in colloquial parlance, what’s wrong with that? And that was a mistake given that we are, evidently, doing close argument here. Nonetheless, that bringing an indictment while Congress has an open investigation is not illegal is telling and important. There are often good reasons to do so, as your Ms. Wheeler herself points out.
Now you approve of Ms. Wheeler?
There is almost no circumstance I can think of where prosecuting a case while there’s a congressional hearing on the same matter in progress would make sense. (By prosecuting, in this context, I mean going to trial while hearings are going on.)
I very much hope to be able to say a couple weeks from now, jsrtheta was right, and there was no reason to worry about Garland’s dragging his feet on investigating and indicting Trump himself.
After the mob attacked the Capitol, 147 Republican Senators and Representatives STILL voted not to certify the election results. That is, they sided with Trump and the other insurrectionists. This is how bad it has gotten. And come November, those people are likely to be in charge of both houses again.
OK, watched it in its entirety. Twice. Jones says little-to-nothing. He goes to great pains to emphasize that nothing has changed and this is standard operating procedure. To which I ask, if nothing has changed or is changing, why write and distribute the memo in the first place? Is it the practice of Garland to issue memos about making sure people are doing what they’re supposed to be doing? If so, I’ll give him the benefit of a doubt. I bet he doesn’t, though. Therefore, by the mere issuance of a policy–that, mind you, everyone is following and won’t be affected by the memo, if Jones is to be believed–has a chilling effect. Especially since it is about politics. Ergo, the memo by its very nature is political.
The little Jones said was actually by omission. Note he said he didn’t “think it will stop” investigations that are currently in motion. What he didn’t say, and this actually speaks volumes, was what about investigations and prosecutions that have not yet begun. As a young prosecutor, after getting that memo, might you not think twice about initiating a case for fear someone might characterize it as a witch-hunt?
This memo is sent out in every election year. Had you really listened to Jones, you’d know that.
“The Great and Powerful Doug Jones” has spoken.
Who are we — and Dorothy, the Tinman , the Scarecrow and Lion — and Toto (can’t forget Toto) — to question him?
jsrtheta-
I understand other commenters. They think Garland is a CYA bureaucrat like Mueller. At this time, the nation needs a proponent for democracy. What explains your motivation to defend Garland? Do you think he’s being picked on unfairly or do you think he’s going to take action at some point?
I understand the other commenters too.
They think because because Rachel Maddow misread the significance of an election-year memorandum, the sky is falling.
They think, I guess, that the entire rest of the news media are in the bag for Trump and ONLY Rachel Maddow saw through some bog standard election-year memorandum that has been DOJ policy since before Trump, or Obama, or Taft for all I know, had her epiphany.
They think that politics began in 2016, and election-year considerations never occurred to someone in a republic more than 200 years old.
And, I’ll bet none of them read the full memo.
jrs: define “every election year”. How far back? Did Janet Reno issue these? Alberto Gonzalez? When did “every election year” begin?
I can’t speak for other commenters , but I readily admit that I just hang on Rachel Maddow’s every word.
If there is a God, I’m pretty sure She is it.
Marcy Wheeler, at Empty Wheel, is a good perspective on this. She is always willing to dig into the weeds and look closely at evidence.
I recommend reading her blog.
Chauncey Garland: “I like to watch”
I’m watching and I will be watching all the hearings, although I may not be able to watch all of it live. But I’ll be sure that I’ll be watching all that”
That’s Chauncey Gardner from Being There, in case anyone didn’t see the movie
And the Merrick Chauncey Garland quote was real.
He really did say I’m watching and I will be watching all the hearings, …”
He might not have said I like to watch, but he may as well have.
Since jsr seems not to have the desire to answer a simple question, I’ll do it. “Every election year” turns out to be since Feb. 2020, which Garland specifically cites. It’s right there in the memo! Didn’t even have to do a lot of research. So the answer to the question, ladies and germs, is that “every election year” turns out to be less than 2 1/2 years total. Hmmm. I say, hmmm.
Every DOJ investigation I’ve seen was a shock to everyone when they came out.””
Yes, I was very shocked to learn that Obama’s DOJ investigation of Wall Street failed to prosecute individual bankers who perpetrated billions of dollars in fraud in the lead up to the 07/08 financial crisis
Front line did a piece in that , The Untouchables, FRONTLINE’s look at why no Wall Street executives have been prosecuted for fraud in connection with the financial crisis.”
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/eric-holder-backtracks-remarks-on-too-big-to-jail/
“lost my mind, can’t read.”
Bob, correct me if I am wrong, but I think if you have lost your mind, it goes without saying that you can’t read.
“Lost your mind” implies brain death, which would mean reading is simply out of the question, since even your eyes would not work, so reading — to say nothing of understanding — is a nonstarter.
So, we must simply assume that jsr was adding the “can’t read” part for dramatic effect, since it had already been implied that you have lost your mind.
Hope that helps clarify things (for others — not for you since you have lost your mind and can neither read nor understand this comment)
Or maybe jsr was using “out of your mind” not in the literal
sense of rain death, but in the colloquial sense of “crazy”, in which case I suppose you might still be able to read, making wondering whether you can read non-redundant.
Perhaps jsr would like to clarify this matter.
Even if the memo doesn’t mean what Maddow implies, do people really need to wait around to find out if that is actually the case before saying anything?
Is Garland somehow off limits for criticism until we know precisely what he intends to do,? ( at which point, it may actually be too late.)
Evidently, yes. As you have noted before, SomeDAM, there is justice and then there is “just us.”
There is actually history that should give folks reason for pause
https://apnews.com/article/congress-donald-trump-carolyn-maloney-merrick-garland-27ab1ef3e07b305e84f8eeef68460f0f
House panel: Justice Dept. ‘obstructing’ Trump records probe
That’s not my opinion. It was that of the House Panel
Personally, I think that only a sap would just trust that everything will turn out right in the end if we all just wait around and keep quiet.
“Thou shallt not criticize or even comment on an ongoing AG investigation — and Thou shallt never under any circumstances say ill words about or even impute mealy mouthed weasel motives to the AG to say nothing of suggest that said AG be fired””
That’s the Eleventh Commandment
Angry posts soothe the bubbling resentment, writing them and reading them is uplifting, and, I hate to say this, a cop out.
You bring about change by winning elections, (while we still have them), do you contribute to campaigns? Work for a candidate? Ring doorbells? If you drag three additional people to a poll, and we all get involved, maybe, just maybe, we’ll save the planet.
Five dollars to Stacy Abrams in Georgia or any of the “good gal/guy” candidates times all of Diane’s readers can save the nation
What you recommend is fair in a functional world of politicsl and government. However, it doesn’t matter how many votes you have if the people responsible for counting them do all they can to make sure they are either not counted or drive enough voters away from the polls because of frustration and disgust (see our friend up top). Under the new rules, Republicans can win even if they don’t have the votes. Democrats have to win overwhelming majorities just to be in position to claim it couldn’t have been fraud. I don’t mean to be argumentative, but your view assumes we live in a healthy polity. We don’t. Getting out the vote is only part of the battle, and for Republicans it’s the beginning of a new political cycle, not one focused on governing.
But Peter is right that getting out the vote is fundamental. Then fight to se that your vote is counted and keep fighting to overturn gerrymanders.
I was not clear, I agree with both of you, just added another big obstacle. It’s not either/or, it’s both consistently.
Anger and resentment about the DOJ having done nothing about Trump, expressed frequently in social media, puts pressure on the DOJ actually to do something. That’s what happens in a democracy, and we still have some fragments of democracy left in this country, though, if the DOJ does nothing about Trump’s cuckoo coup and the Repugnicans win the House and Senate in November and the Presidency in 2024, you can kiss the last of that goodbye. They will vastly curtail voting rights and endorse an extreme version of independent state legislature theory in order to lock in power, which the smarter of them (I know, that’s not saying much) know they must do now because the young people, those future voters, and POC, whose numbers are increasing, are both dramatically against them and if they don’t act now, they will soon go the way of the Know Nothings.
Criminal prosecution is not a decision to be made based on public opinion. Any AG who did so should turn in his law license.
No, no prosecutor was ever influenced in slightest bit by public opinion. No way, no how.
So when it comes to ethics, as far as your concerned, that would be a “No” for you?
Yes, that would be a no. The decision should, as you point out, be made based upon the law and the facts. You are absolutely right about that.
And, ofc, what most people in the United States want doesn’t matter in the least bit. All that matters is what our masters tell us that they want for us.
I understand that you have long experience working in a prosecutor’s office. I recognize that we don’t know what Garland plans to do. But, that said, isn’t there already sufficient evidence to charge him with seditious conspiracy or attempting to obstruct the legal count or inspiring a mob to sack the Capitol?
I don’t have access to the evidence. But I can’t think of a case that hasn’t been charged yet where the public evidence is a slam dunk.
I never practiced in federal court. But these offenses, IIRC, rely a LOT on “mental” elements: “intent”, “awareness”, “knowing”, etc. Those are the hardest cases to prove.
A prosecutor has to believe they have the evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. And when a defendant says “No, that’s wasn’t what I intended, I meant something else” juries listen. As they should.
But I don’t know what DOJ has.
But yes, Jsrtheta, you are, as a matter of general principle, correct about this. It is still nonetheless the case that news media throughout the US are saying that as a matter of public opinion, the pressure is on Garland to do something. Usually, those stories then cite polls favoring the indictment of Trump and go on to say that if this doesn’t happen, the public will lose all faith in the justice system in general and the DOJ in particular, something that Garland presumably cares about.
Yes, you’re quite right. And no one is immune to public pressure. But that’s the job. It’s also one reason we don’t elect the Attorney General.
Well said, jsrtheta.
Like it or not , Garland is a political appointee.
And political appointees certainly are — and should be — subject to outside pressure to carry out their job according to the law and Constitution.
And if it even appears that they are failing on that account, there is nothing at all wrong with pointing that out. That is true regardless of what the actual case may be precisely because of the high level of secrecy surrounding investigations.
If Garland and DOj are actually hard at work carrying out their own thorough investigation of Trump and his henchmen , then they have absolutely nothing to worry about from criticism or even from calls that Garland should be fired, since Garland will certainly have kept president Biden apprised of at least the general status of his investigation and if Biden is satisfied he is NOT going to fire Garland, no matter what the critics say.
It is only if Garland is not doing his job and not doing due diligence under law that he has something to worry about and in that case, outside pressure on him to actually do his job is not only not “out of bounds,” but is actually critical.
This is just basic common sense and one certainly does not need 30 years or even six weeks of prosecutorial experience to understand it.
I refuse to judge Garland until the January 6 committee finishes its investigation, but that waiting will change after the 2022 election if the fascist Repulibican party gains control of one or both houses of Congress.
If that happens, it may be too late for Garland to act.
Anyone that doesn’t vote for Democrats in 2022, will be supporting the rise fascism in the US, even if they don’t vote.
I was sickened when the Mueller Report came out and clearly outlined how Trump and his team obstructed the Russia probe but then concluded that the DOJ couldn’t act on this and that it was up to Congress. Then Bill Barr outright lied about the Mueller Report, saying that it completely exonerated Trump. It didn’t. What Mueller clearly said in the report was that if his investigative findings exonerated Trump, he would so state and that he was not so stating–this after outlining at least 10 instances of obstruction by Trump and his people.
And then Barr felt it necessary to append to the memo about not bringing charges that would interfere with elections a note that any indictments of high officials would have to be personally approved by Barr himself. A commenter above says that this was standard stuff and that such indictments would always be approved by the AG, but if that were the case, why would Barr break with tradition to explicitly state this? Clearly, this sends a chilling message. Wink, wink. I am not going to approve.
I think we can all agree, in hindsight, that every part of the Mueller investigation from its inception through Barr and the hearings was an it-shay o-shay. A net result of zero.
I dearly hope that I am wrong and that AG Garland will, in fact, bring indictments against Trump for a series of among the most significant crimes against our country that anyone has ever committed. But the pace of the investigations and the deafening silence give one a queasy feeling. Teflon Trump has spent a lifetime breaking the law right out in the open and then lying and threatening people and paying people off and throwing corrupt lawyers at the problems and delaying, delaying, delaying, delaying. It’s pretty clear that there are two legal systems in the United States, one for ordinary folks like you and me and another for privileged creeps like Trump.
The dumb Trumpanzees who responded to his call–these have been, are being prosecuted. No delay there. Because these are little people without the necessary resources to buy delay and muddy the waters until their cases get thrown out or they get a sweetheart deal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump#:~:text=Over%20150%20other%20cases%20were,end%20with%20some%20other%20outcome.
Why hasn’t the Democratic Party’s “leadership” removed Manchin from his committee assignments? (As the Democratic Party’s “designated villain,” Manchin is doing exactly what the Democratic Party’s major donors want him to do.)
Manchin has not been punished because the Democrats have only 50 votes in the Senate. If he switches to Republican, control of the Senate goes to Republicans, and McConnell becomes Majority Leader. Once in a while, Manchin supports his own party, especially on issues that don’t affect fossil fuels. He receives $500,000 a year from the coal industry. West Virginia voted overwhelmingly for Trump so he would suffer no consequences if he switched to the GOP.
Manchin has opposed Biden s primary policy objectives, which is probably going to cost Democrats the House and Senate in November.
So it’s really hard to see how allowing Manchin to pretend to be a democrat has really helped Biden and Democrats in Congress.
And if Republicans regain the majority in both houses, Manchin will most likely just caucus with the Republicans once he knows he no longer can wield so much power among Democrats.
If anything, allowing Manchin to disrupt the Democratic agenda the way a petulant child disrupts the class of a novice teacher has only set a pattern for others to follow in the future who want to get elected as Democrats and then subvert the Democratic policy initiatives.
Democratic leaders still don’t seem to have learned what any teacher learns in the first few weeks on the job. It is simply counterproductive to let one disruptive child control the classroom.
And the fact that Manchin opposed Bidens climate policy initiative is no small matter.
In fact, the damage that Manchin has done on that single issue will make everything else pale in comparison over the long term.
Any support he has given Democrats on other things will be a minor blip in comparison and will come nowhere near to “balancing” his negative effect on the climate issue.
Climate change is an existential threat and must be dealt with immediately. With the exception of the threat of nuclear war with Russia, nothing else even comes close.
If you get rid of Manchin, but cannot replace him to maintain the current balance, then the Democrats lose their majority, not just a vote. Which would be really bad.
Democrats should call Manchin’s bluff. Manchin plays the same role that Joe Lieberman performed in the 1990s. Recent history proves that the blue-no-matter-who crew pushes a losing strategy. In California, where I live, there’s a veto-proof supermajority in control of the legislature and governor’s mansion; alas, progressive reforms are NOT being implemented. Progressives should avoid following the Democratic Party’s failed “leadership” and, instead, work to build a viable third party.
If you liked the deal that Acosta gave Epstein, you’ll love the one that Mueller and Garland gave/are giving to Trump.
One “just us” system for the rich and powerful, no matter how corrupt, and another for everyone else.
Bob,
I fully understand your frustration with the apparent pace and scope of the DOJ investigation. How can anyone deeply worried about our democracy not be concerned? However, I strongly disagree this comment accusing Garland of obstructing justice a la Trump and Barr. That is grossly unfair to Garland. Trump/Barr actively obstructed justice by giving Acosta a sweetheart deal in exchange for letting Epstein off easy, and lying about the conclusions of the Mueller report. The worst that might be true of Garland is he is focusing too much on the lower hanging fruit (those arrested for breaching the capital) at the risk of letting those at the top run out the clock. What evidence or reason is there that Garland would want to protect Trump? I don’t get this accusation.
And, here’s another analysis on Garland’s memo. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/19/garland-memo-presidential-candidates-investigations/
Sally
Well, we shall see, won’t we? So far, nada. The Teflon Don slides again.
Sally, if you or I committed some minor offense, the law would deal with us swiftly and surely. If we were black or brown, forget it. The law would double down on us. But if you are rich and connected in the U.S., forget it. You are in the “just us” category, and “the law” is simply background noise.
Read some rap sheets sometime. Minor crimes are treated as less than that. I’ve seen sheets belonging to black and latino defendants, many with no permanent address (you quickly learn in that business that no one “lives” anywhere – they just “stay” there). Many of these guys had been arrested 20-30 times for “minor crimes” and had never been convicted once.
I had one guy who had a 10-page sheet. Arrest after arrest for shoplifting, and he had never been convicted. Because he never showed up to court. I argued with the judge that he should impose SOME bond, however slight, because he definitely wouldn’t appear on this new case, either. The judge gave him an individual recognizance bond anyway.
The arresting officer called me the next day: “Guess who didn’t show?”
So no, a black or latino defendant doesn’t always get “swift and sure justice”. Especially in a big city.
I was thinking along the lines of guys who get the death penalty, administered on the spot, for selling single cigarettes or bottles of water on the street or for walking around with a threatening cell phone in their hands.
Sorry. I thought you were talking about “justice”.
Fascinating experience and perspective. A certain window on the world. Tell me, do you think that there is systemic racial profiling and other systemic racism in the justice and penal systems?
Of course there is.
It’s worth remembering that Barr auditioned for his appointment as AG by Trump by writing a memo opposing the probe into Trump’s longstanding and nefarious relationship with Russia and Putin. Here’s what I wrote about that back when it happened:
Trump Attempts to Impede Mueller Investigation by Appointing Attorney General Who Wrote Memo Opposing That Investigation
Such synchronicity! Trump’s pick for Attorney General, Bill Barr, just “happens” to have written a memo suggesting that the Mueller investigation was an overreach.
Wow! What. a. Coincidence!
Barr wrote a 19-page memo arguing that the Mueller probe was not justified, legally, because the Justice Department is relying upon an expansion of the meaning of obstruction to include any act knowingly done to impede an investigation, beyond impairing evidence. I’m not a lawyer, but Barr’s reading seems, well, fanciful. It’s difficult to believe that the intent of the law was to allow people, with impunity, simply to fire anyone who might work on, assist, or bring a case against them until they got someone who wouldn’t do that. LOL.
The meaning of the law is, I think, quite clear. It reads, in part,
(c) Whoever corruptly—(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so [is guilty of the crime of obstruction].
Section (c)(2) seems pretty clear to me. Firing someone (Comey) who is assisting or working on an investigation of you to stop him from doing that is clearly “corruptly . . . imped[ing an] official proceeding.”
So is appointing someone (Barr) to shut down such an investigation.
Isn’t that obvious?
Clearly, the law doesn’t describe obstruction SOLELY as impairing evidence, which is the argument that Barr made. It’s so clear that that isn’t the case that this is a tell: Barr was practicing sophistry in that memo.
I will give Barr his due. Importantly, after first giving in to Trump and sending in Putinesque little green men against BLM protestors and authorizing the use of tear gas against those protestors, Barr refused to go all the way and do as Trump wished him to do, which was to use extreme violence against the BLM folks. And in the end, Barr refused to go along with, to join with, Trump’s various conspiracies to overturn the 2020 election. These refusals to follow Maximum Leader Trump were important, as were refusals by both Esper and Milley. We are fortunate that Trump is so incompetent. Unfortunately, the next guy won’t be. He will be as amoral as Trump but a LOT smarter and more knowledgeable. He will have his yes men, his Himmlers and Goerings and Frieslers, in place from the beginning.
“Pepper spray is not a chemical irritant.” –Attorney General William Barr, 6/7/20, Face the Nation
Capsaicin: C18H27NO3, a chemical substance isolated from peppers and other plants that causes burning when it comes into contact with skin, eyes, the nose, ears, etc.
I think I have an idea for the next extreme eating competition. Or a Hot Ones-kind of program with increasing levels of pepper spray.
We had a chance to establish a precedent for prosecution of a former president in 1074 when Ford pardoned Nixon before any prosecutions could occur. While I am just an intellectual peon, I believe Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Trump all committed crimes that deserved punishment. This punishment would have preserved the proper relationship between the executive and the legislative, and we would not be having this argument. The presidency has become imperial in modern times, largely due to congress and their unwillingness to accept the responsibility of making clear law and overseeing its application.
Barr was long a proponent of the imperial presidency. We are headed there big time. You ain’t seen nothing yet. We shall soon be entering the Glorious Leader phase of U.S. history. That democratic experiment thing was interesting while it lasted, but it was incompatible with the concentration of power in the hands of a few vastly wealthy overlords.
Prosecution is an executive function. It is not a role of the legislature.
Little-to-nothing you write above is not technically correct. What I, and I think others, am arguing is that that the technical definitions and assumptions you make have changed, are changing as we write this, and in danger of fundamentally obliterating all remnants of your technical correctness by January 2025. This statement is a great example. Nothing wrong with it in theory. Not close to reality in practice. The decision to prosecute is just as much a political decision as it is a legal one. And what those who make the decision is in many parts not constitutionally applicable after the final ten days of the last Court. This is a changing and different world. A constitutional law professor today is planning on teaching much more abstract theory this coming semester than they intended. Sorry if this comes across as a lecture. If you disagree, have at it.
In the last office I prosecuted for, I was the person who decided what felonies would be charged, and against whom. The elected prosecutor had the ultimate say, but it was never exercised with me. The closest thing was when a local semi-bigwig got arrested for something, I forget what, and my boss said “You know he’s kind of heavy hitter.” I said, “Yeah?” And that was all that was said. I handled the case the way I had planned, and i never heard anything about it again. I was never told to charge, or dismiss any case based on who the defendant was. If there was a case, and I could prove it, I charged it.
When I was not the charging prosecutor, but the trial prosecutor, I was never asked to do anything improper.
jsr
The public reads about the abuses of power e.g. Murdaugh country, S.C. To gain perspective, would you speculate (a percentage) how many cases involving the rich and/or powerful have outcomes materially better as a result of their privilege?
Linda,
Haven’t given it much thought, to be honest. I was a state-level prosecutor, never a federal prosecutor.
I WAS partnered, briefly, with Rod Blagojevich. But he was a (bad) Chicago pol who by the time of sentencing was loathed statewide, and he went to the pen. And that was a federal case.
When the rich and famous get charged with crimes, it’s usually federal.
But I have never paid too much attention to the follies of the rich and famous, so I’m probably not the person to ask.
jsr
Thanks for the reply. Many are curious about why the U.S. has the most incarcerated population in the world. Do you have any observations?
The penal systems have not been meaningfully rethought by the people in power.
Guns. It’s like using nails to pave our roads and then bitching about all the flat tires.
Simple economics. At bottom, gangs are economic engines, enforced through violence and the threat of violence. Drug crimes and, to a lesser extent, gun crimes.
Socialization has been neglected.
Off the top of my head.
jsr-
Thanks for your thoughts on the subject. Would a lessening of the increasing wealth concentration be of benefit, in your estimation?
From certain viewpoints, I can see how socialization can work toward restraint and achieve desired outcomes. Conservative religion has been used for the purpose, like in Ireland during the Great Hunger.
Like you, I don’t follow the follies of the rich and famous but, maybe you could update me about one person because of your Blagojevich connection. Did Trump pardon him and commute his sentence?
Trump commuted Rod’s sentence, but didn’t pardon him. He had served eight years by that point.
He was one of the most untrustworthy people I ever met. And a crap lawyer.
He was assigned at one point to the Domestic Violence Court, which was just south of downtown.
One day, the supervisor of First Municipal, of which DV Court was a part, a fearsome woman and no one I’d mess around with (she was a friend, too), took a drive to check in on a few branch courts. When she got to the Domestic Violence Court in the early afternoon, she found the courtroom closed and all the prosecutors and cops gone, judge gone, too. She ran down a clerk and asked where everyone was. The clerk told her Rod had dismissed every case on the afternoon call. He was nowhere to be found, and wasn’t answering his cell.
That was Rod. He never put in a full day of work in his life.
He dressed well, I’ll say that for him. God I hated that guy.
jrs
Thanks for the anecdote. Solely based on appearance, a friend looked at Blagojevich in a T.V. frame and concluded, “he’s an S.O.B.” My perception skills aren’t as attuned.