It does seem that Garland is unredeemable, and that is unfortunate. I will call Nancy’s office later today. Thanks for explaining a very complex set of circumstances re the delay in indictments and for keeping us, as always, focussed on positive actions readers can take to relieve the pressure of Congressional drama. Speaking of which, the Clinton/Louise Penny mystery thriller “State of Terror” is terrific: read those blues away!
A local political commentator in Boston suggested that Sununu’s decision was prompted in part by the realization of how much the infrastructure bill will do for New Hampshire. The guy is almost always wrong, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Kelly Ayotte a formerly undistinguished senator from NH, and Scott Brown, a formerly undistinguished senator from Massachusetts who moved north, also said no yesterday. (In addition to the infrastructure bill, they all must have taken note that I gave Hassan some money last week.). So Hassan is looking a lot stronger today, and Democrats’ chances of holding the Senate are measurably better. But we need to increase the number of Democratic senators, not just stand pat.
As for the House, if you need more incentive, realize that if the Republicans take over, the first thing they do will be to junk the joint committee and all its contempt citations.
“Is it the government’s view that the members of the mob that engaged in the Capitol attack on January 6 were simply trespassers? Is general deterrence going to be served by letting rioters who broke into the Capitol, overran the police . . . broke into the building through windows and doors . . . resolve their criminal liability through petty offense pleas?” Chief US District Judge Beryl A. Howell
Robert, I hope Joyce Vance is right. But based on the prosecutions thus far, Merrill Garland has not generated any confidence. Every day that slips by is another day we get closer to the mid-terms and, if Republicans win control of the House, the end of the Select Committee and its potential findings.
I know - Protesting without a permit?? It's ridiculous that people who participated in an insurrection and at the very least a breaking and entering government property are getting charges like that. It makes their actions the equivalent of standing on a corner with a sign and then discovering the organizers failed to get a permit before the event. None of these people thought someone surely got a permit to shatter windows and throw bike racks at police.
On Merrick Garland, I enjoyed reading the article by Greg Olear "Merrick, Miscast (with Jennifer Taub)" and his reduction - which he in turn credits to Lincoln's Bible in the footnotes - that Garland "thinks like a judge, not a prosecutor".
I'm going to add to the above recommendation that Garland's inaction so far, even if (which may just be wishful thinking) it simply reflects slow cautious over-preparation, along with the type of charges and sentences handed down thus far to the insurrectionists, is all simply another aspect of the often quite valid complaint that Democrats "bring a knife to a gun fight". I'd settle for at least a scalpel. I am fairly certain that Mr. Hubbell is likely to have already examined the Mueller Report in a long prior newsletter so I don't really expect an answer here, but an easy direction to the relevant newsletter would be appreciated. I continually hear that Mr. Mueller accomplished nothing... great disappointment, etc., yet when I read it my impression was that it said the charges that were not proven were not disproven either and there were things that could be looked into further later. I assumed the between the lines reading was that since it appeared a sitting President was going to be considered above the law in terms of being charged, investigation leading to charges should wait until he was out of office. I thought that had some bit to do with the Former's (ahem) severe reluctance to leave office. Then... a big silence. Just nothing. I then expected Mueller to start a bit of nudging or hinting along the lines of "right There guys c'mon". But there was nothing except continued dismissal of the report as having contributed nothing. What am I missing? Pointers to the relevant newsletter please?
It does seem that Garland is unredeemable, and that is unfortunate. I will call Nancy’s office later today. Thanks for explaining a very complex set of circumstances re the delay in indictments and for keeping us, as always, focussed on positive actions readers can take to relieve the pressure of Congressional drama. Speaking of which, the Clinton/Louise Penny mystery thriller “State of Terror” is terrific: read those blues away!
A local political commentator in Boston suggested that Sununu’s decision was prompted in part by the realization of how much the infrastructure bill will do for New Hampshire. The guy is almost always wrong, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Kelly Ayotte a formerly undistinguished senator from NH, and Scott Brown, a formerly undistinguished senator from Massachusetts who moved north, also said no yesterday. (In addition to the infrastructure bill, they all must have taken note that I gave Hassan some money last week.). So Hassan is looking a lot stronger today, and Democrats’ chances of holding the Senate are measurably better. But we need to increase the number of Democratic senators, not just stand pat.
As for the House, if you need more incentive, realize that if the Republicans take over, the first thing they do will be to junk the joint committee and all its contempt citations.
“Is it the government’s view that the members of the mob that engaged in the Capitol attack on January 6 were simply trespassers? Is general deterrence going to be served by letting rioters who broke into the Capitol, overran the police . . . broke into the building through windows and doors . . . resolve their criminal liability through petty offense pleas?” Chief US District Judge Beryl A. Howell
Robert, I hope Joyce Vance is right. But based on the prosecutions thus far, Merrill Garland has not generated any confidence. Every day that slips by is another day we get closer to the mid-terms and, if Republicans win control of the House, the end of the Select Committee and its potential findings.
I know - Protesting without a permit?? It's ridiculous that people who participated in an insurrection and at the very least a breaking and entering government property are getting charges like that. It makes their actions the equivalent of standing on a corner with a sign and then discovering the organizers failed to get a permit before the event. None of these people thought someone surely got a permit to shatter windows and throw bike racks at police.
Sigh.... Why does it always have to be the Texas loonies who pull this sh**. :(
Jessica's newsletter is great and gives us all things to DO NOW! Let's make those calls!
Thanks for including the link to Chop Wood, Carry Water. The call scripts make taking important actions easy. Let's go!
On Merrick Garland, I enjoyed reading the article by Greg Olear "Merrick, Miscast (with Jennifer Taub)" and his reduction - which he in turn credits to Lincoln's Bible in the footnotes - that Garland "thinks like a judge, not a prosecutor".
https://gregolear.substack.com/p/merrick-miscast-with-jennifer-taub?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo1Nzc4MTM4LCJwb3N0X2lkIjo0MzU0ODk4NSwiXyI6IngwalhHIiwiaWF0IjoxNjM2NTYwNDAwLCJleHAiOjE2MzY1NjQwMDAsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0yMDY5NSIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.R6PrfcnQDnchc8Ac8FzMlDmBN4fJwKhRckvnbzZn9qc
I'm going to add to the above recommendation that Garland's inaction so far, even if (which may just be wishful thinking) it simply reflects slow cautious over-preparation, along with the type of charges and sentences handed down thus far to the insurrectionists, is all simply another aspect of the often quite valid complaint that Democrats "bring a knife to a gun fight". I'd settle for at least a scalpel. I am fairly certain that Mr. Hubbell is likely to have already examined the Mueller Report in a long prior newsletter so I don't really expect an answer here, but an easy direction to the relevant newsletter would be appreciated. I continually hear that Mr. Mueller accomplished nothing... great disappointment, etc., yet when I read it my impression was that it said the charges that were not proven were not disproven either and there were things that could be looked into further later. I assumed the between the lines reading was that since it appeared a sitting President was going to be considered above the law in terms of being charged, investigation leading to charges should wait until he was out of office. I thought that had some bit to do with the Former's (ahem) severe reluctance to leave office. Then... a big silence. Just nothing. I then expected Mueller to start a bit of nudging or hinting along the lines of "right There guys c'mon". But there was nothing except continued dismissal of the report as having contributed nothing. What am I missing? Pointers to the relevant newsletter please?