I get that Barr got his message out re the Mueller investigation and that this molded the public perception. What I don't understand is why the current DoJ didn't act upon Mueller's findings but instead buried the report. This only provides more ammunition for Trump and his cronies to further the “NO COLLUSION NO OBSTRUCTION!” narrative.
This is a good question. I can’t help but to think the abundance of classified material stashed at Mar-a-Lago provided an easier target that would be more difficult to claim was rehashing Mueller’s work. It may just be a matter of opportunity and optics. Plus, Mueller’s work is still out there and can still be addressed.
Yes. It would be perceived as political if one attorney general saw cause to indict and another did not. As I recall, Barr, interestingly, has said on TV that Trump probably committed a crime by his actions around the classified documents.
The last sentence: "It’s time to recognize that the legitimacy of the administration of justice is shaped not only in the court of law, but also in the court of public opinion." is a perfect summation of many of the issues we face when an information vacuum is filled with guesses and attempts to supply a preferential narrative.
It seems like Jack Smith isn’t going to tolerate lies and gaslighting from the trump legal team. The letter he released Thanksgiving day rebutting trusty’s bullshit filing gives me hope that he’ll go after trump aggressively from the get go. I don’t think he’s going to allow written responses to questioning either like Mueller did where trump lied his ass off in his responses and there was little pushback on those lies. Appointing a special counsel will allow him to be laser focused on all of trump’s criminal activity. It doesn’t matter who does the investigating at this point trump and rep🇷🇺blicans will all scream witch-hunt and political persecution (look at trump’s truth social post about Smith’s wife). Plus, when the investigation is done, I want to see the report. I did read all of the Mueller report and even as a non lawyer found it fascinating (and frustrating with all the redactions).
I am hopeful that the Special Counsel will provide an enhanced focus on the rule of law with less concern about the political consequences of applying the rule of law.
I believe it’s a good thing, but only after reading explanations from some of the “experts” (like you) that I follow. I’ll be the first to admit that I’m a victim of the information asymetry of the whole Mueller investigation and report. My first reaction was simply, “Here we go again! <insert eye roll>“, but after reading and listening to reasonable explanations from others whose opinions and perspectives I trust, I was persuaded to understand that this Special Counsel will be operating under very different circumstances. I just pray there will be some accountability this time around because, more than ever, our democracy depends on that happening.
Initially I did not think a Special Counsel was a good idea, mainly because I thought it would really slow everything down and honestly, it felt as if AG Garland was passing the buck and the heat. After listening to you & Renato Marriotti and others, I shifted my stance. When Jack Smith responded to Trump's lawyers on Thanksgiving day, I was encouraged. I'm still concerned about the timing, considering Trump's brilliance at delay and distraction. If Trump or anyone is indicted soon, will the trial occur before the 2024 election cycle? How will that move forward considering Trump's candidacy?
Reading this, I'm reminded of Comey's biography and his struggles over how to refute obvious lies uttered by Trump which so offended his sense of ethics and loyalty to the rule of law. In the end, he mostly kept silent following the code laid out by his predecessors and FBI policy while also keeping a detailed journal of every private meeting Trump demanded. Has history yet made a determination of whether Comey should have been more forthcoming while in office? When he did come out publicly on the Clinton email investigation (which resulted in a bunch of nothing by his own admission), he chose a different path. To this day he says it makes him feel ill to know he may have played a part in Trump's election. No, it's not always clear-cut which path should be chosen at a level where every decision has a political consequence.
Despite your excellent writing, I am not persuaded that violating the Theory of Silence helps Mr.Smith in accomplishing his probable objective: to indict, and to prosecute a felony. You are correct on the asymmetry, no doubt. Silence creates a vacuum for the perpetuity that is his target's mouth and Smith's reporting line far differs than Mueller's "Silence is a true friend that never betrays," Confucius said.
As we look at Smith's bio, which he wears well on his demeanor, does he look like he is going to be the man who manages the public's perceptions? Or, is he a drone on a mission?
There seem to be two factors: one is how effective prebunking is and whether Mr. Smith will utilize is; the second being will he recommend indictment and how cogent a prosecution will it be. Mueller neither prebunked or recommended indictment.
Would love to see Smith be more direct in confronting disinfo from the trump sycophantosphere. I really enjoyed reading more about how the Biden admin got out in front of Putin's disinformation campaign (I suspect history will see Biden's Ukraine policy as perhaps his most important accomplishment). I do wonder if it isn't inherently easier to prebunk an external threat than it is a domestic one because the purveyors of the domestic threat will always cry about partisanship.
I don't care who gets there first as long as sir lies-a-lot is indicted and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and can never again hold public office in the US.
Most people respond to things best when they're personalized and put into the hands of a hero. It's why a novel is a better medium for communicating ideas than a philosophical tract. This takes the investigation out of DOJ, which while dedicated and capable, is also largely faceless, and gives the nation a caped crusader named Smith - an Everyman with superpowers who will see to it that the rule of law is respected and accountability has real consequences. This investigation needed to rise to the level of a crusade. Big target? Big weapon. I'm hopeful that Jack Smith is about to give the entire country a much-needed civics lesson.
I do believe appointing a Special Counsel was appropriate. I Mueller’s silence during and after his investigation wasn’t beneficial because it allowed Trump, Barr and others to control the narrative amplifying Trump’s favorites, hoax and witch hunt. Mr. Smith has prosecuted both democrat and republican but that alone will not stop the attacks from Trump, republicans and Trump’s followers. My hope is that Smith will not be swayed by that rhetoric and will recommend indictments when cases can be won.
While my initial reaction to the appointment of a Special Counsel was negative I have come to believe it was he right thing to do. I would have preferred indictments now rather than later. But, with the cautionary suggestions made by Weismann in the NYTimes, this is probably the best way to proceed. Smith will have a freer hand and an ability to communicate than Mueller did and that Garland has, by nature of their personalities, and through the lessons of the Mueller investigation.
I get that Barr got his message out re the Mueller investigation and that this molded the public perception. What I don't understand is why the current DoJ didn't act upon Mueller's findings but instead buried the report. This only provides more ammunition for Trump and his cronies to further the “NO COLLUSION NO OBSTRUCTION!” narrative.
This! I can’t help but wonder the same thing.
This is a good question. I can’t help but to think the abundance of classified material stashed at Mar-a-Lago provided an easier target that would be more difficult to claim was rehashing Mueller’s work. It may just be a matter of opportunity and optics. Plus, Mueller’s work is still out there and can still be addressed.
Yes. It would be perceived as political if one attorney general saw cause to indict and another did not. As I recall, Barr, interestingly, has said on TV that Trump probably committed a crime by his actions around the classified documents.
Good question!
The last sentence: "It’s time to recognize that the legitimacy of the administration of justice is shaped not only in the court of law, but also in the court of public opinion." is a perfect summation of many of the issues we face when an information vacuum is filled with guesses and attempts to supply a preferential narrative.
Love the concept of prebunking.
It seems like Jack Smith isn’t going to tolerate lies and gaslighting from the trump legal team. The letter he released Thanksgiving day rebutting trusty’s bullshit filing gives me hope that he’ll go after trump aggressively from the get go. I don’t think he’s going to allow written responses to questioning either like Mueller did where trump lied his ass off in his responses and there was little pushback on those lies. Appointing a special counsel will allow him to be laser focused on all of trump’s criminal activity. It doesn’t matter who does the investigating at this point trump and rep🇷🇺blicans will all scream witch-hunt and political persecution (look at trump’s truth social post about Smith’s wife). Plus, when the investigation is done, I want to see the report. I did read all of the Mueller report and even as a non lawyer found it fascinating (and frustrating with all the redactions).
I like how you don’t capitalize trump’s ’ name.
Yeah. I make it a point to not capitalize. He’s human scum and doesn’t deserve the recognition.
You’ve got THAT right. Even calling him human is a stretch.🤮
I am hopeful that the Special Counsel will provide an enhanced focus on the rule of law with less concern about the political consequences of applying the rule of law.
I believe it’s a good thing, but only after reading explanations from some of the “experts” (like you) that I follow. I’ll be the first to admit that I’m a victim of the information asymetry of the whole Mueller investigation and report. My first reaction was simply, “Here we go again! <insert eye roll>“, but after reading and listening to reasonable explanations from others whose opinions and perspectives I trust, I was persuaded to understand that this Special Counsel will be operating under very different circumstances. I just pray there will be some accountability this time around because, more than ever, our democracy depends on that happening.
Initially I did not think a Special Counsel was a good idea, mainly because I thought it would really slow everything down and honestly, it felt as if AG Garland was passing the buck and the heat. After listening to you & Renato Marriotti and others, I shifted my stance. When Jack Smith responded to Trump's lawyers on Thanksgiving day, I was encouraged. I'm still concerned about the timing, considering Trump's brilliance at delay and distraction. If Trump or anyone is indicted soon, will the trial occur before the 2024 election cycle? How will that move forward considering Trump's candidacy?
Reading this, I'm reminded of Comey's biography and his struggles over how to refute obvious lies uttered by Trump which so offended his sense of ethics and loyalty to the rule of law. In the end, he mostly kept silent following the code laid out by his predecessors and FBI policy while also keeping a detailed journal of every private meeting Trump demanded. Has history yet made a determination of whether Comey should have been more forthcoming while in office? When he did come out publicly on the Clinton email investigation (which resulted in a bunch of nothing by his own admission), he chose a different path. To this day he says it makes him feel ill to know he may have played a part in Trump's election. No, it's not always clear-cut which path should be chosen at a level where every decision has a political consequence.
I would say yes but only if Smith does not leave the same information vacuum that Mueller and Garland both have.
Despite your excellent writing, I am not persuaded that violating the Theory of Silence helps Mr.Smith in accomplishing his probable objective: to indict, and to prosecute a felony. You are correct on the asymmetry, no doubt. Silence creates a vacuum for the perpetuity that is his target's mouth and Smith's reporting line far differs than Mueller's "Silence is a true friend that never betrays," Confucius said.
As we look at Smith's bio, which he wears well on his demeanor, does he look like he is going to be the man who manages the public's perceptions? Or, is he a drone on a mission?
There seem to be two factors: one is how effective prebunking is and whether Mr. Smith will utilize is; the second being will he recommend indictment and how cogent a prosecution will it be. Mueller neither prebunked or recommended indictment.
Would love to see Smith be more direct in confronting disinfo from the trump sycophantosphere. I really enjoyed reading more about how the Biden admin got out in front of Putin's disinformation campaign (I suspect history will see Biden's Ukraine policy as perhaps his most important accomplishment). I do wonder if it isn't inherently easier to prebunk an external threat than it is a domestic one because the purveyors of the domestic threat will always cry about partisanship.
I would love to hear from the 3% in the poll, what their reasoning is.
re: Garland vs Smith vs Willis vs James vs Bragg
I don't care who gets there first as long as sir lies-a-lot is indicted and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and can never again hold public office in the US.
Most people respond to things best when they're personalized and put into the hands of a hero. It's why a novel is a better medium for communicating ideas than a philosophical tract. This takes the investigation out of DOJ, which while dedicated and capable, is also largely faceless, and gives the nation a caped crusader named Smith - an Everyman with superpowers who will see to it that the rule of law is respected and accountability has real consequences. This investigation needed to rise to the level of a crusade. Big target? Big weapon. I'm hopeful that Jack Smith is about to give the entire country a much-needed civics lesson.
I do believe appointing a Special Counsel was appropriate. I Mueller’s silence during and after his investigation wasn’t beneficial because it allowed Trump, Barr and others to control the narrative amplifying Trump’s favorites, hoax and witch hunt. Mr. Smith has prosecuted both democrat and republican but that alone will not stop the attacks from Trump, republicans and Trump’s followers. My hope is that Smith will not be swayed by that rhetoric and will recommend indictments when cases can be won.
While my initial reaction to the appointment of a Special Counsel was negative I have come to believe it was he right thing to do. I would have preferred indictments now rather than later. But, with the cautionary suggestions made by Weismann in the NYTimes, this is probably the best way to proceed. Smith will have a freer hand and an ability to communicate than Mueller did and that Garland has, by nature of their personalities, and through the lessons of the Mueller investigation.