Tornado Alley (PROG)

[blackhawks]

The Good Fight

"The enlightened leader is heedful, and the good general full of caution." -- Sun Tzu

You've likely heard that Attorney General Merrick Garland has appointed Jack Smith to act as Special Counsel to oversee the investigations of January 6 and the stolen documents. There have been a few OP/threads discussing if this is a good or bad thing on DU: GD. I've even scattered a few comments on a few of them, and decided I might attempt to put some of them together.

The OPs and responses tend to fall into two groups: those who think it is a good thing, and those who think it is a bad thing. Those who think it is bad may have been disappointed by the outcomes of relatively recent investigations' failure to prosecute people they think were guilty as sin, that social status prevents indictments, and/or that AG Garland is weak. Or that this by definition means "delay" -- although the fact that the exact same group from the DOJ that was investigating is still investigating at the exact same pace indicates the opposite.

Situations such as this remind me of something Rubin "Hurricane" Carter told me in 1974, that "those with very little to compare, find very little to understand." To be clear, that does not imply that "those" people are other than intelligent -- it is information on a specific topic.

For example, how many DUers knew who Jack Smith was before the announcement? Might the majority agree that knowing him provides more to compare, and perhaps understand, in why this appointment might turn out to be a good thing? Isn't there a clear distinction between Robert Mueller's inability, due to DOJ policy, to prosecute a sitting president, and this investigation of an ex-president?

After the initial reactions on the media, at least one informed source noted that it was done in response to Trump's entering the republican nomination in the 2024 presidential primaries. And that President Joe Biden intends to run for re-election. Trump has already called the DOJ investigations "political." Obviously, he will continue to do so. And so will a number of republicans in DC. It had been a planned response for when Trump announced, rather than :just happening."

I mentioned this on another thread. A person noted that not only were they surprised that anyone could possibly believe that, but also surprised that anyone would say such a thing on DU:GD. In my mind, I heard Rubin laugh and say, "Told you so!"

After the Trump presidency, one can be forgiven for being unfamiliar with DOJ attempts to conduct business in a non-political manner. Indeed, the possibility of a former president is uncommon in our nation's history. The bringing in a prosecutor from the Hague to oversee these investigations is outside of any experience in our lifetimes.

On several other OP/threads, some of our good friends in the DU community correctly pointed out that a number of the experts we all respect had previously stated they were opposed to a Special Counsel. That is part of the meaningful discussion we should engage in on this forum. Brooklynite provided an important part of that needed discussion with Laurence Tribe's statement that he had at first thought a Special Counsel should be appointed, then later thought it was too late, but now thinks that AG Garland did exactly the right thing at the right time.

In other words, in these situations, you have to be flexible in both your thinking and strategy. For rigid things snap under pressure, and rigid behaviors are easily countered by an opponent.

The very best boxers -- those who stand at the highest level -- never enter the ring with just their A plan. No, they have B, C, and D, because dynamics change in tough fights, and one has to be flexible, and adjust strategy to win. And in that sense, AG Garland ranks high among the "ring technicians" of my long lifetime. Just my opinion -- worthy no more or less than anyone's.

A smattering of views....

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217392061

1. Given that Trump has stacked the courts with right-wingers

All the way to the SC, it’s important to get as much info as possible before arresting Trump. Because otherwise you run the risk of losing, in which case you’re just enabling the nutcases and convincing them that Trump was framed.

2. Right.

It is also in organizing that information in a way that provides the best opportunity to identify the exact areas where indictments lead to convictions -- and exactly as you note, convictions that withstand attempts to over-turn them. That might sound easy in theory, but it isn't in practice.

9. "those with very little to compare, find very little to understand."

Hurricane (must’ve) grokked Orwell. Without the words, without the the symbolic representations, we cannot even form the ideas. As Göthe put it: “The best slave is the one who thinks he’s free.”

Regarding Jack Smith: I had never heard of the guy, but my first reaction was: “Justice delayed is justice denied.” Upon reflection it came clear that it was a move to protect the investigations so far from the GQP. A former Fed talking head said Smith would not be starting over, but rather putting it all under one roof — the national security Top Secret nightmare investigation and the insurrectionist-in-chief treason of January 6 investigation. Reading DU today, it’s clear there may be several other (if not a millipede’s worth of) shoes to drop.

Trump and his Treason Circus have got to go. The guy has too many in his thrall as it is. After reading your take on the wisdom of keeping an open mind and applying our critical faculties, it’s clear the Special Prosecutor is exactly what the delousing of America requires.

31. Lawrence O'Donnell had a good show last night.

He detailed how many parts of the DOJ there are that are under Garland's supervision. Thousands, almost
100,000 people work for the department. O'Donnell said that alone keeps Garland busy and that Jack Smith's
only job will be the prosecution of TFG. He believes that will make the investigation much faster than if it
kept on w/o him. I can see that is probably so. Garland's decision to appoint a Special Investigator is not
'passing the buck' or 'punting'. It's an effort for more expediency.