“The big WaPo story over the weekend about the early delays in investigating the higher-ups in the conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election has set off a new round of invective and backbiting in a public debate that I ultimately find a bit dispiriting and unenlightening.”
Mr. Kurtz must’ve been perusing The Hive yesterday.
I love Josh’s words here (paraphrasing for brevity:)
If the case against Trump had been, say, financial fraud, then the normal DOJ playbook of slow, careful, working of its way from small fish up to bigger fish would make sense. But the big case against Trump involved the threat to democracy itself, specifically elections.
There is a real chance that Trump would use re-election to entrench himself in power in extra-constitutional ways, that top officials at the Justice Department, have been slow to figure that out.
“I say: Isn’t the FBI supposed to be able things out quicker than 2 years after the fact?”
You’re accusing him of being meek because, according to the article that’s produced the accusation, DOJ had no pre-existing framework or institutional preparedness to deal with something like this.
The DOJ also has no pre-existing framework or institutional preparedness for aliens assassinating the President to change the course of history. Are you going to say that’s a failing of the AG that comes into office afterwards, too? These things take time to construct.
As for the briefing schedule… you have no idea what the actual briefing agenda item was. If Garland was asking for an overview, ie: ‘I don’t need details, just tell me the bare bones I need to make decisions on these 5 action items’, then there’s no reason it needs to take more than half an hour.
You are getting on Garland’s case for Sherwin’s failure to be concise.
Very cool story on Enceladus. I really want to see us confirm life has developed independent of earth before I’m gone (so they’d better get cracking because I’m not getting any younger, lol).
txlawyer: on what is an incredibly civil site in the current era, you are one of the few major commenters that seems to revel in personally attacking people you disagree with. You might indeed be the ‘smartest guy in the room’, but I don’t see the need (or decorum…) for personally attacking people whose opinions differ from yours. It’s just their opinion and you are free to ignore their comments. I also think AG Garland is a big boy who can take care of himself and doesn’t need your protection…
You’ve clearly never given a briefing. You tailor your briefing to the time the boss sets aside.
All Garland allocated was half an hour. Three minutes per slide; rule of thumb.
Male moderator vs female moderator … no audience vs Trump supporting audience … no break vs break with Miller encouraging audience … interview vs town hall setting. Too many differences for me to make comparisons.
I’m now rooting for the boat busting killer whales, rampaging rogue elephants, large toothy reptiles of all kinds, and roving packs of man-eating rabid coyotes.