The Long & Winding Rote

[H2O Man]

" ..... I respect his frankness for the same reasons a ship's captain has the moral obligation to his passengers to avoid a ship-wreck, if he can, and a civilized person has the same moral obligation to not only themselves to be skeptical and demand proof of any and all statements that claim to be one of fact! Because in the final analysis all tyranny rests in frfraud and deceit, in convincing people to accept a false assumption on face-value, and any people or person who for one moment abandons or suspends that questioning spirit has, at that very moment, actually betrayed all of humanity. ...."
-- Rubin "Hurricane" Carter; letter to me; Tuesday, February 20, 1979.


I respect Attorney General Merrick Garland. Earlier on this very day, on an OP/thread by a community member I also respect who does not share my opinion, I said that, " I think (Garland) is doing a good job." Not perfect, but good. And I said that I consider some -- but not all -- of the negative things people were saying were worthy of consideration.

Indeed, the more I thought about it, the more certain I was to open this with a quote from one of Rubin's letters to me 44 years ago. I think that those who have a very different opinion than I might point out that A. G. Garland is, if Rubin was correct, a ship's captain. And they would be absolutely correct.

More, the quote still holds true for me in the context of citizens needing to question exactly why things have taken the path that they have. There are valid questions that need answers. And this demands an understanding of the Department of Justice, which means understanding that the DOJ isn't going to respond to your questions. Thus, the ball is in our court, and that requires a level of study that goes deeper than media reports, however alarming they may be.

The A.G. oversees a bureaucracy that employs more than 115,000 employees in more than 40 departments. Certainly, the attempt to overthrow the government -- and that is exactly what January 6 et al was -- should have been an immediate concern. Though bureaucracies in Washington, DC, are infrequently noted for rapid responses, this had to be an exception. And it is clear that the FBI (37,000+ employees) did begin to investigate J6 participants. And the DOJ tried and convicted many of those thugs.

I read a few comments expressing the belief that a pyramid strategy was a gross error, that the defendent should have been an immediate person of interest. I agree with the defendent being of interest, but recognize that there were reasons why that apparently did not happen officially. I'll skip examining the political issues, which while real, should not handcuff the DOJ/ FBI. Let's consider a few others.

Let's start with Peter Strzok. Had he been actively employed by the DOJ, I dare say he would have made a convincing case that the defendent's behaviors and words leading up to J6 needed close examination. But he was let go in an attempt to punish him for saying mean things about the defendent during the 2016 election. But keep in mind that the defendent had not been a person of interest in the FBI's investigation of Russian influence in the campaign until he fired James Comey.

People point out the defendent's very public speech on J6. I would suggest listening to the full speech, for the defendent did utter the word "peacefully" at one point, as an insurance card. Thus, any charge requires more evidence, which translates to connecting the defendent's direct interactions with those at the level just below him. Now, I try to keep an open mind, recognizing that some here may actually know more about the proper way to investigate a former president than do seasoned DOJ investigators. But I doubt it like hell.

Bureaucracies, by nature, identify the best methods for doing tasks, including investigating organized crime and political corruption. This includes using the pyramid approach on crimes such as Watergate, Iran-Contra, the Plame scandal, etc. One could correctly hold that the DOJ should have interviewed Cassidy Hutchinson, for example, before the J6 Committee did. For it was her testimony that put the spotlight on Mark Meadows.

Yet one must remember that before her change in legal representation, her initial J6 testimony was not the same as we later witnessed. Ms. Hutchinson's testimony provided the crumbling of the pyramid above her. Mark Meadows has since recognized that he needed to come clean. He certainly was not likely to do so had Cassidy not.

Within the DOJ, exactly like within every bureaucracy, there will be a range of opinions on how to handle an unusual case. That tends to include both a good and bad potential. Until the results of Mr. Smith's J6 investigation becomes known to the public, all we can do is hurry up and wait.

[malaise]

1. K & R

Great OP

[H2O Man]

6. Thank you!

[Kid Berwyn]

2. Like a moon landing.

It’s beginning to look a lot like treason.



Everywhere Smith goes.

Great job, H2O Man! Thank you for putting it in words.

[H2O Man]

7. Thanks!

I was talking with a friend today. He mentioned that he heard the defendent has said it might not be him on the recordings that Mr. Smith has. I reminded him that shortly after the infamous "grab them by ...." recording was released, the defendent tried floating "that wasn't me." He lacks the capacity to come up with new lies, hence the re-tread "the FBI planted documents" bit.

[Saoirse9]

3. If I let myself think about how deep the treason goes

it really scares me. And scares me more that people can get away with it still.

Legal twitter has been saying for more than a year that Garland was going easy on trump until prosecuting him was unavoidable. Richard Signorelli, former AUSA SDNY was particularly vocal about it. He blamed Garland and Lisa Monaco for the reelection of seditionists to Congress and lots of other things. Lisa Rubin, who is Rachel Maddow's legal analyst, also spoke up about it recently.

I don't like the notion that Garland sat on the J6 prosecution of trump. But I think he did make the decision early on not to prosecute. And that is not cool in my book. It scares me.

[H2O Man]

8. Right.

It seems clear that "politics" was involved in the thinking of some in the DOJ. While I do not think politics should ever play a role in the legal system, it obviously and often does. It would be hard to avoid in this case, as the crimes that resulted in January 6 are all rooted in the outcome of an election.

There is also a possibility that there were concerns about the chances of increased violence had the defendent been identified as a person of interest from the giddy-up. I'll note that could have been a mighty good reason to investigate the defendent's role immediately, since he continued to stir the pot. I think I could make a pretty fair case either way, though I admit that I have no idea what information the DOJ had at the time. But I can say that the tensions have reduced, especially with the arrests and prosecution of so many of those involved that day.

A bureaucracy will not, by definition, come up with a new way to deal with a problem that is distinct from that which it usually deals with. This holds as true for the DOJ as the DMV. Thus, it seems most likely that the DOJ did focus on the levels between, say, the proud boys and the defendent. That would likely have included shit-smears like Bannon and Stone. It obviously should have included Meadows.

It isn't possible -- at least for me -- to know if AG Garland would have rejected any attemp to indict and prosecute the defendent, had Meadows have flipped early on. Thank goodness for the J6 Committee. I do not hesitate to call them the most important congressional committee I've ever seen. And yet, a potential prosecution of the defendent for the violence on January 6 would be much, much harder to get a conviction that would not be overturned on appeal, than the document case.

[Saoirse9]

11. I'll admit that documents case is slam dunk

And I stand by my theory that trump wants to be caught and stopped. The constant chaos and all the near misses he's had are finally catching up with him and unconsciously, he's bringing about his own destruction. It is a weird way to commit suicide but I believe he is in the process of doing so.

I think if Garland didn't have the docs case he may never have assigned special counsel. That was the tipping point after the J6 committee held their hearings. J6 had him moving in that direction and the docs sealed the deal.

I also believe that DOJ dragged their feet in the docs case. 18 months before they executed a search warrant. That's way too long and it gave the defendant time to share and/or sell the docs he had.

Something, or a series of somethings, triggered Garland enough to finally bring Jack Smith on board.

This whole thing is scarier than any spy novel author could have invented. Think of all the spy movies you've ever watched and this is ten times worse. It almost seems farcical. But ithis is all too real and we are living it. I am sick to death of being scared to death. This isn't like the movies where the bad guys always lose. Sometimes the bad guys win.

I think I will go make a drink and then go to bed.

See you tomorrow!

[Elessar Zappa]

4. Great post.

[H2O Man]

9. Thank you!

[spanone]

5. ...K&R...

[H2O Man]

10. Thanks!

[Easterncedar]

12. Your perspective always improves my outlook and my mood

Thanks.