Impatience with the seemingly slow pace of DOJ indictments

[Pantagruel]

may be explained by both practical and POLITICAL considerations. On the practical side, staffing issues, filing protocols and the sheer volumes of evidence are self explanatory regarding the appearance of indictments.

Politically, the timing of indictments may play into a progressive advantage in the midterms and beyond. A lot of GOP criminals are involved in primaries and for our purposes, the best times for them to be indicted would be AFTER they secure their nominations and are on the ballot v. Dem. candidates. For example, picture Ron Johnson indicted for sedition or obstruction as he campaigns for the Senate?

IOW, what seems to be legal foot dragging might end up being political savvy.

[Ocelot II]

1. There is more going on than the wailing TV lawyers are wailing about:

While TV lawyers have been wailing impotently that DOJ has been doing nothing to investigate Donald Trump, DOJ and the National Archives have been acquiring the communications behind some of the most damning events leading up to January 6. DOJ has been doing so even as the TV lawyers guaranteed us they would know if DOJ were doing such things, yet insisting that DOJ was not.

Consider just the events leading up to the December 18, 2020 series of meetings at the White House, involving Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, and Mark Meadows, which some of the same reporters that reported it in real time are reporting as if it were new news.

Much more here: https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/02/02/while-tv-lawyers-wailed-impotently-doj-was-acquiring-sidney-powell-and-rudy-giuliani-and-probably-mark-meadowss-communications/

[lagomorph777]

2. DOJ will bend over backward to avoid the appearance of political interference.

Or at least will spin a story to that effect, as Comey did.

That means they definitely will NOT indict after the primaries. And at this pace, not before the primaries, either. In other words, probably never. There's always another election coming...

[MineralMan]

3. You know, it's funny to see you continue to say what the DOJ will do

or will not do. The reality is that you have no actual idea, and no information that comes from the DOJ, either.

Neither do I, which is why I'm not predicting anything. My guess is that the DOJ is busy investigating and making decisions on how to proceed, but I don't know what the substance of either thing is. However, we do have AG Garland's general statements about the ongoing investigations.

You are investing a great deal of credibility capital in your doomish predictions of inaction. What will you do if you are wrong, I wonder?

[boston bean]

4. Other people can pronounce their opinions. whether you do or not is

entirely your prerogative.

[MineralMan]

5. OK, I'm thoroughly chidden now.

Actually, though, I did provide my opinion in the post to which you are replying. You just don't like my opinion.

[lagomorph777]

6. If I'm wrong, I'll dance in the street and gleefully proclaim my wrongness.

I am allowed to have an opinion, based on my own observations of the past 50 years of politics.

So are you.

[MineralMan]

7. Well, I'll watch for that.

Of course you are allowed to have an opinion. However, if you share that opinion in a DU thread, you're likely to get responses, where others share their opinions of your opinion.

[lagomorph777]

8. I'll send you pictures.

[Pantagruel]

9. "they definitely will NOT indict after the primaries."

Don't think that's the DOJ rule. It's not a sitting POTUS we're talking about indicting, it's congresscritters.