Hello There, Guest! Registered users see far less ads! Register today and join our virtual tailgate. (Login — Register)

Post Reply 
The fix is in
Author Message
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 62,558
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 901
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #101
RE: The fix is in
(08-28-2023 09:32 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  his fawning believers.

Who are they?

#1 is "retired".
(This post was last modified: 08-28-2023 10:13 AM by OptimisticOwl.)
08-28-2023 10:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 41,249
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1310
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #102
RE: The fix is in
(08-28-2023 09:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, Numbers, I ask you as somebody unbiased,

1. what is the purpose of a mugshot?
2. Are they required for all arrest, or all felony arrests?
3. Who has the authority to waive mug shots?
4. Are they kept confidential or immediately released to the public?

You didn't ask me... but I have no problem with mugshots... nor with Trump's being out there quickly.

I don't buy the 'Paul isn't important enough' line though... considering what passes for news these days, the spouse of someone who was what... 2nd only to the VP in the succession list for much of the last few decades?? is a pretty big deal. SOMEONE filed the proper paperwork to get it.

I suspect most of these laws are made by the jurisdiction, meaning county if county laws, state if state, federal if federal etc.... including what it takes to have them made public.

It does seem to me though that such pictures can be wildly negative and given the presumption of innocence until adjudication, they can be prejudicial.

Like I think you... I don't care either way, as long as they do it the same for everyone
08-28-2023 10:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 62,558
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 901
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #103
RE: The fix is in
(08-28-2023 10:33 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I don't care either way, as long as they do it the same for everyone

THIS is the part I wonder about.

I agree, though, do it the same for everybody. If the normal policy is to mug shot everybody and make the shots available immediately to the press, then I have no objection.

I doubt anybody here is for especially good or especially bad treatment for any individual based on their politics.
08-28-2023 10:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 82,008
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3446
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #104
RE: The fix is in
I think the general policy is to mug shot everyone, at least for every felony arrest, but not to release mug shots to the press routinely.
08-28-2023 12:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,678
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 1149
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #105
RE: The fix is in
(08-28-2023 12:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the general policy is to mug shot everyone, at least for every felony arrest, but not to release mug shots to the press routinely.

Mug shots are very typically a public record.

In those places, nothing in the slightest prevents anyone, including and most likely enterprising journalists, from typing in a name in a record search and getting that shot.
08-28-2023 12:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 82,008
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3446
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #106
RE: The fix is in
(08-28-2023 12:18 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(08-28-2023 12:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the general policy is to mug shot everyone, at least for every felony arrest, but not to release mug shots to the press routinely.
Mug shots are very typically a public record.
In those places, nothing in the slightest prevents anyone, including and most likely enterprising journalists, from typing in a name in a record search and getting that shot.

Sure you can get them, but they aren't usually badied about.
08-28-2023 12:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,342
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #107
RE: The fix is in
(08-28-2023 12:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(08-28-2023 12:18 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(08-28-2023 12:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the general policy is to mug shot everyone, at least for every felony arrest, but not to release mug shots to the press routinely.
Mug shots are very typically a public record.
In those places, nothing in the slightest prevents anyone, including and most likely enterprising journalists, from typing in a name in a record search and getting that shot.

Sure you can get them, but they aren't usually badied about.

And the person being photographed isn’t usually a former POTUS.
08-28-2023 12:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,678
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 1149
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #108
RE: The fix is in
(08-28-2023 12:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-28-2023 12:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(08-28-2023 12:18 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(08-28-2023 12:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the general policy is to mug shot everyone, at least for every felony arrest, but not to release mug shots to the press routinely.
Mug shots are very typically a public record.
In those places, nothing in the slightest prevents anyone, including and most likely enterprising journalists, from typing in a name in a record search and getting that shot.

Sure you can get them, but they aren't usually badied about.

And the person being photographed isn’t usually a former POTUS.

Or several high profile attorneys, and a high ranking (4th in line, iirc) member of the DOJ, and a Presidential Chief of Staff.

Im old enough I can count two of Presidential Chiefs of Staff facing indictment on corruption style charges in my cognizant lifetime.

This is far from a group of nameless street gang bangers.

And, yes, how dare the Fulton Co. save the press any time to look them up.
08-28-2023 12:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rice93 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,424
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 48
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #109
RE: The fix is in
(08-28-2023 12:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(08-28-2023 12:18 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(08-28-2023 12:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the general policy is to mug shot everyone, at least for every felony arrest, but not to release mug shots to the press routinely.
Mug shots are very typically a public record.
In those places, nothing in the slightest prevents anyone, including and most likely enterprising journalists, from typing in a name in a record search and getting that shot.

Sure you can get them, but they aren't usually badied about.

When celebrities get arrested their mug shots typically are plastered all over the Internet.
08-28-2023 12:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 41,249
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1310
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #110
RE: The fix is in
The mug shot photos are a distraction. People want to see them so they are out there. The media is profiting from it, so is Trump... so are many people on the internet. It changes nothing imo
08-28-2023 01:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 62,558
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 901
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #111
RE: The fix is in
Quote:Im old enough I can count two of Presidential Chiefs of Staff facing indictment on corruption style charges in my cognizant lifetime.

Probably all of the CoS’s in my lifetime and yours together could have been/could be indicted for something, especially corruption charges.
08-28-2023 05:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 62,558
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 901
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #112
RE: The fix is in
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...0598&ei=12

“What a spectacular mess,” the Journal wrote. “Mr. Trump made himself legally vulnerable with his terrible behavior, but the timing of the 2020 election case is the Justice Department’s doing. Special counsel Jack Smith finally moved to secure an indictment two and a half years after the alleged conduct and less than six months before the 2024 primaries begin.”

A federal judge this week set Trump’s trial date in the case for March 4. That falls one day before Super Tuesday, when hundreds of delegates will be up for grabs in the GOP presidential primary.
08-29-2023 10:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,678
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 1149
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #113
RE: The fix is in
(08-29-2023 10:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...0598&ei=12

“What a spectacular mess,” the Journal wrote. “Mr. Trump made himself legally vulnerable with his terrible behavior, but the timing of the 2020 election case is the Justice Department’s doing. Special counsel Jack Smith finally moved to secure an indictment two and a half years after the alleged conduct and less than six months before the 2024 primaries begin.”

A federal judge this week set Trump’s trial date in the case for March 4. That falls one day before Super Tuesday, when hundreds of delegates will be up for grabs in the GOP presidential primary.

Actually it is Trumps doing. Smith got appointed only after Trumps record early announcement to run. My bet is if Trump hadn’t announced early, DOJ couldn’t have moved quick enough to where there own internal guidelines on prosecutions in a political season wouldn’t have kiboshed it.

How terrible and sad the special prosecutor had the focus he did. The temerity.
08-29-2023 11:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,678
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 1149
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #114
RE: The fix is in
(08-28-2023 05:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
Quote:Im old enough I can count two of Presidential Chiefs of Staff facing indictment on corruption style charges in my cognizant lifetime.

Probably all of the CoS’s in my lifetime and yours together could have been/could be indicted for something, especially corruption charges.

Those 2 must royally suck at their job to be the only 2 among probably maybe a hundred to be hit where all the others skipped free.
08-29-2023 11:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 41,249
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1310
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #115
RE: The fix is in
(08-29-2023 11:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually it is Trumps doing. Smith got appointed only after Trumps record early announcement to run. My bet is if Trump hadn’t announced early, DOJ couldn’t have moved quick enough to where there own internal guidelines on prosecutions in a political season wouldn’t have kiboshed it.

How terrible and sad the special prosecutor had the focus he did. The temerity.

Serious question... What rules are different if he is an announced, vs just a presumed candidate? How would his announcement change the timing of the 'political season' such that more delay was somehow going to be less intrusive?

I'd also note this...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/report...ver-a-year

Report says DOJ resisted investigating Trump’s role in Jan. 6 for over a year

New reporting from The Washington Post reveals that in the days and weeks following the Jan. 6 attack, senior officials at the Justice Department and the FBI made critical decisions that might have compromised its investigation of former President Trump and his associates' possible involvement in the historic event.


Jack Smith was appointed special counsel 3 days AFTER Trump announced he was a candidate, and it took him another 18 months to actually move forward.

While I can understand 'forgiving' Smith and even a case can be made for the DOJ to tread carefully given their history.... these are not right-wing news sources making these comments I quote here. This is PBS, interviewing a Washington Post reporter... and PBS's editor making that headline
(This post was last modified: 08-29-2023 12:18 PM by Hambone10.)
08-29-2023 12:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,678
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 1149
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #116
RE: The fix is in
(08-29-2023 12:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(08-29-2023 11:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually it is Trumps doing. Smith got appointed only after Trumps record early announcement to run. My bet is if Trump hadn’t announced early, DOJ couldn’t have moved quick enough to where there own internal guidelines on prosecutions in a political season wouldn’t have kiboshed it.

How terrible and sad the special prosecutor had the focus he did. The temerity.

Serious question... What rules are different if he is an announced, vs just a presumed candidate? How would his announcement change the timing of the 'political season' such that more delay was somehow going to be less intrusive?

Smith is known as a quick moving prosecutor. The appointment of Smith didnt change the 'political season' timing. He changed the pace of the investigation. In two ways.

What it did do is change the slow pace into a quick one. And it vested Smith *solely* with the responsibility.

The special prosecutor was only an option once Trump announced, creating the potential issue. Trump's announcement literally forced the appointment of Smith.

That probably shaved a huge amount of time off the prosecution schedule.

Quote:Jack Smith was appointed special counsel 3 days AFTER Trump announced he was a candidate, and it took him another 18 months to actually move forward.

He moved forward from day one. He made very liberal use of his investigative powers. And your facts are just dead incorrect.

Jack Smith was appointed November 18, 2022.

Smith dropped his indictment of Trump for MAL on June 8. By my count less than 6 mos. Not 18.

He dropped the indictment on overturning the 2020 elsection on August 18. Just at nine months. Not 18.

Quote:While I can understand 'forgiving' Smith and even a case can be made for the DOJ to tread carefully given their history.... these are not right-wing news sources making these comments I quote here. This is PBS, interviewing a Washington Post reporter... and PBS's editor making that headline

And backs what I say when you read it. Trump announcing at a record early date forced the DOJ into a special counsel at that time. Smith ran quick, and threw out his indictments pretty quickly.

If Trump had announced at a normal time (typically Labor Day the year before, that Thanksgiving just a shade shy of two years before), when you add six months to Labor Day 2023, that puts having an indictment out in March 2024, that is smack in the period when the DOJ guidelines tell them they cant. When you add none months to Labor Day 2023, that brings you to June/July 2024 -- again in a period where the DOJ should back off because of elections.

Trump ****** himself by announcing early, and drawing a Special Prosecutor that tends to operate fast.
08-29-2023 07:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 62,558
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 901
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #117
RE: The fix is in
(08-29-2023 11:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(08-28-2023 05:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
Quote:Im old enough I can count two of Presidential Chiefs of Staff facing indictment on corruption style charges in my cognizant lifetime.

Probably all of the CoS’s in my lifetime and yours together could have been/could be indicted for something, especially corruption charges.

Those 2 must royally suck at their job to be the only 2 among probably maybe a hundred to be hit where all the others skipped free.

You may be exactly right. I don't think any lily-pure angels get that far in politics. Odd you would think only the guilty get caught.
(This post was last modified: 08-29-2023 08:34 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
08-29-2023 08:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,678
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 1149
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #118
RE: The fix is in
(08-29-2023 08:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(08-29-2023 11:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(08-28-2023 05:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
Quote:Im old enough I can count two of Presidential Chiefs of Staff facing indictment on corruption style charges in my cognizant lifetime.

Probably all of the CoS’s in my lifetime and yours together could have been/could be indicted for something, especially corruption charges.

Those 2 must royally suck at their job to be the only 2 among probably maybe a hundred to be hit where all the others skipped free.

You may be exactly right. I don't think any lily-pure angels get that far in politics. Odd you would think only the guilty get caught.

Well, Haldeman did seem to go quite a bit further than most. Im actually on the bubble as to whether I think the charge going down against Meadows passes the 'Tanq smell test'.

The biggest action he did, aside from playing meeting organizer and message conduit, looks to be the infamous Raffensberger phone call. And I am one of the geeks that has actually listened to the full hour and three minutes of that. I cant say that what Meadows said in the conversation was really something that was urging Raffensberger to commit an act he could not legally perform.

I dont know if I can come up with actions from others that seemed criminal, as opposed to playing hardball, in nature.
08-29-2023 09:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 41,249
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1310
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #119
RE: The fix is in
(08-29-2023 07:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(08-29-2023 12:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Serious question... What rules are different if he is an announced, vs just a presumed candidate? How would his announcement change the timing of the 'political season' such that more delay was somehow going to be less intrusive?

Smith is known as a quick moving prosecutor. The appointment of Smith didnt change the 'political season' timing. He changed the pace of the investigation. In two ways.

What it did do is change the slow pace into a quick one. And it vested Smith *solely* with the responsibility.

The special prosecutor was only an option once Trump announced, creating the potential issue. Trump's announcement literally forced the appointment of Smith.

That probably shaved a huge amount of time off the prosecution schedule.

While you may think you've answered my question, you didn't at all.


Let me say it differently in context of your comments here...

We are currently almost IN 'primary season'... which you said they want to try and avoid... If Trump waits to announce until say 6 months ago, then we're already IN primary season before they can do anything... which means we're past the election before any outcome is determined. It creates the potential for the very Constitutional questions that we are saying they want to avoid If they really wanted to avoid such questions, they should have started immediately.

If the case is cleared before the primaries or if the case doesn't take place until afterwards, you have much less of an issue. That takes the issue of Trump's timing out of the equation. That seems to me to be the gist of the article...again, supported by liberal media. The DOJ was entirely in charge of that... Trump's issues best I can see (because you didn't mention any actual differences regarding his announcement) remain the same either way.


Quote:Jack Smith was appointed special counsel 3 days AFTER Trump announced he was a candidate, and it took him another 18 months to actually move forward.

He moved forward from day one. He made very liberal use of his investigative powers. And your facts are just dead incorrect.

Jack Smith was appointed November 18, 2022.

[/quote]

You're right.. I misread a date.. but my issue if you read the context was 'forgiving' smith and although I didn't say it trying to be brief, it seems obvious that this would be because he can't do anything until he is appointed and once he is appointed, it takes SOME time to do things... but with the DOJ of which he is at least technically 'a part', whom according to the article, sat on this for a year.

The issue is (per the article) that we're 2.5 years into this and charges have only recently been filed.... despite Smith's expediency. I had originally typed (and may have left in) that he can't do anything until he is told to... so I didn't put much if any blame on him...

** ETA, the issue is the 2.5 total years.... and that is at the feet of the DOJ, and Jack Smith is just a part of it. He may well be the fastest part of it, but it is still 2.5 years.

Smith really has no CHOICE but to move as quickly as you suggest, unless he wants to be smack dab in the middle of the 2024 election.... or wait until AFTER the election... which is hugely problematic unless we are assured that he won't win.


Quote:
Quote:While I can understand 'forgiving' Smith and even a case can be made for the DOJ to tread carefully given their history.... these are not right-wing news sources making these comments I quote here. This is PBS, interviewing a Washington Post reporter... and PBS's editor making that headline

And backs what I say when you read it. Trump announcing at a record early date forced the DOJ into a special counsel at that time. Smith ran quick, and threw out his indictments pretty quickly.

If Trump had announced at a normal time (typically Labor Day the year before, that Thanksgiving just a shade shy of two years before), when you add six months to Labor Day 2023, that puts having an indictment out in March 2024, that is smack in the period when the DOJ guidelines tell them they cant. When you add none months to Labor Day 2023, that brings you to June/July 2024 -- again in a period where the DOJ should back off because of elections.

Trump ****** himself by announcing early, and drawing a Special Prosecutor that tends to operate fast.

Why/How?

First, Why not appoint Smith in May of 2021, move just as fast and indict Trump in November 2021 (or even May 2022) and then have a trial (or at least be way down the line) by now so that voters in 2024 can make a VERY informed decision and potentially avoid any Constitutional question?

I truly don't see how his announcing himself as a candidate 'forced' the DOJ to do anything they wouldn't/shouldn't already be doing.

It seems you're suggesting that had he not announced when he did, that they would have continued the slow walk and thus make this an 'after the election' issue... but IMO, that just makes it more likely that its a huge cloud over the election with the possibility that the possible winner shortly thereafter gets convicted and can't serve his term. IDK, maybe Trump wanted to get this over with... if he's convicted, he's a martyr... and if he's acquitted, he's a shoe-in. IDK, but I don't see why/how the DOJ, given their desire to NOT impact the 2024 election is not rightly criticized for moving slowly up front and then somehow 'forced' to change simply because the leading candidate for the office from the right (by large margins in part because of so many candidates) announces formally what everyone suspected anyway.
(This post was last modified: 08-30-2023 04:03 PM by Hambone10.)
08-30-2023 03:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,678
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 1149
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #120
RE: The fix is in
(08-30-2023 03:57 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(08-29-2023 07:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(08-29-2023 12:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Serious question... What rules are different if he is an announced, vs just a presumed candidate? How would his announcement change the timing of the 'political season' such that more delay was somehow going to be less intrusive?

Smith is known as a quick moving prosecutor. The appointment of Smith didnt change the 'political season' timing. He changed the pace of the investigation. In two ways.

What it did do is change the slow pace into a quick one. And it vested Smith *solely* with the responsibility.

The special prosecutor was only an option once Trump announced, creating the potential issue. Trump's announcement literally forced the appointment of Smith.

That probably shaved a huge amount of time off the prosecution schedule.

While you may think you've answered my question, you didn't at all.

Your question on 'presumed v announced' was fairly shallow.

Presumed is *not* announced. Once Trump announced, there was a clear conflict that had to be dealt with via the special prosecutor method.

Doesnt come into play with presumed. Presumed is not announced.

Quote:If Trump waits to announce until say 6 months ago, then we're already IN primary season before they can do anything... which means we're past the election before any outcome is determined.

And that is why Trump screwed himself with his early announcement. He got a special prosecutor working way earlier than had he actually forebeared from a record early announcement.

Quote:It creates the potential for the very Constitutional questions that we are saying they want to avoid If they really wanted to avoid such questions, they should have started immediately.

And under the policy they would have be 'iced out' during that time for 'overt investigative steps'. That is until after the election season.

Because Trump declared *really early* (a record early announcement), the special prosecutor finished the major investigative work prior or near an election. Nothing in the policy prohibits 'charging actions' (that is doing the 'put up' step) during an election season, but the policy seeks to tamp down the 'ghost' of investigations during the election season (that is investigations that seemingly 'crop up' during the season, then magically disappear once over).

Quote:If the case is cleared before the primaries or if the case doesn't take place until afterwards, you have much less of an issue. That takes the issue of Trump's timing out of the equation. That seems to me to be the gist of the article...again, supported by liberal media. The DOJ was entirely in charge of that... Trump's issues best I can see (because you didn't mention any actual differences regarding his announcement) remain the same either way.

I think you might be conflating a lot of steps in the process above.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:Jack Smith was appointed special counsel 3 days AFTER Trump announced he was a candidate, and it took him another 18 months to actually move forward.

He moved forward from day one. He made very liberal use of his investigative powers. And your facts are just dead incorrect.

Jack Smith was appointed November 18, 2022.

You're right.. I misread a date.. but my issue if you read the context was 'forgiving' smith and although I didn't say it trying to be brief, it seems obvious that this would be because he can't do anything until he is appointed and once he is appointed, it takes SOME time to do things... but with the DOJ of which he is at least technically 'a part', whom according to the article, sat on this for a year.

I dont think you have a good grasp that the DOJ investigation and actions are not Special Prosecutor actions, and want to mix all of them up into one bowl.

The DOJ did wallow it for a good while. Jack Smith went to the races. Again, he was only appointed *because* of Trumps abnormally early announcement. And that timeframe gave him the room to do the investigation, roll it out, and get down to brass tacks in 9 mos for two major cases. All before the policy would have set in to kibosh any investigation.

Quote:Smith really has no CHOICE but to move as quickly as you suggest, unless he wants to be smack dab in the middle of the 2024 election.... or wait until AFTER the election... which is hugely problematic unless we are assured that he won't win.

You mistake the verb 'investigate' with the verb 'charge and try'. The policy isnt to shut down an ongoing trial schedule for an existing indictment. The policy is directed to investigative work prior to indictment -- that is to ice the possibility of a 'ghost investigation' that might influence an election.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:While I can understand 'forgiving' Smith and even a case can be made for the DOJ to tread carefully given their history.... these are not right-wing news sources making these comments I quote here. This is PBS, interviewing a Washington Post reporter... and PBS's editor making that headline

And backs what I say when you read it. Trump announcing at a record early date forced the DOJ into a special counsel at that time. Smith ran quick, and threw out his indictments pretty quickly.

If Trump had announced at a normal time (typically Labor Day the year before, that Thanksgiving just a shade shy of two years before), when you add six months to Labor Day 2023, that puts having an indictment out in March 2024, that is smack in the period when the DOJ guidelines tell them they cant. When you add none months to Labor Day 2023, that brings you to June/July 2024 -- again in a period where the DOJ should back off because of elections.

Trump ****** himself by announcing early, and drawing a Special Prosecutor that tends to operate fast.

Why/How?

Explained above. If the DOJ dawdled, there was the distinct possibility of the investigative effort being iced by the policy.

Trump announced really early, that announcement pretty much mandated the DOJ appoint a Special Prosecutor. That Special Prosecutor revved the **** out of the investigative process -- in fact it was his explicitly sole task.

Quote:First, Why not appoint Smith in May of 2021, move just as fast and indict Trump in November 2021 (or even May 2022) and then have a trial (or at least be way down the line) by now so that voters in 2024 can make a VERY informed decision and potentially avoid any Constitutional question?

No basis to appoint a special prosecutor simply to appoint a special prosecutor.

Quote:I truly don't see how his announcing himself as a candidate 'forced' the DOJ to do anything they wouldn't/shouldn't already be doing.

The DOJ Rules -- 28 CFR § 600.1 - Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.

As opposed to your 'lets just appoint a special prosecutor just because' -- there are actual guidelines in place in the Federal Register for that action to happen.
08-30-2023 04:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2026 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2026 MyBB Group.