Pretend you're a big shot prosecuting attorney. One who's in charge of a very large office with vast resources. You're in a position to initiate investigations / indictments / prosecutions. You're sitting in that big, overstuffed, comfy desk chair in your office, perusing the news of the day on the tube and in the news…
Pretend you're a big shot prosecuting attorney. One who's in charge of a very large office with vast resources. You're in a position to initiate investigations / indictments / prosecutions. You're sitting in that big, overstuffed, comfy desk chair in your office, perusing the news of the day on the tube and in the newspaper and on the screen on your desk, the same as you've done daily for more than a year. You even occasionally look through your in-box to see what might be happening within the organization you're in charge of.
There's a copious number of indicators in all of these sources of very serious crimes that have occurred within your jurisdiction, reaching all the way back to a time well before you even got your job. Not proof, now mind you. Not 'legal, courtroom-ready proof. But definitely substantial and confirmed evidence.
The boss to whom you answer has no legal or ethical authority to direct you to initiate actions such as those forenamed, so, being a fairly `competent and ethical boss, he hasn't called up and said, "Get your ass up out of that chair and get on with it."
What do you do? The work required to check out that evidence may be a bit touchy and sensitive, requiring some extra effort to ensure it's done correctly. And even if it is, it may cause some controversy in some quarters, and you're a pretty low-key kind of guy. So, it all might be a bit taxing.
Well, it's a pretty darned comfortable chair. So, I guess you just fall asleep.
Perhaps the wrong public servant got saddled with that "Sleepy" sobriquet. It may just be a crapshoot on whether or not he sees that judge's "memo", or if he will rouse himself long enough to read it, much less do anything about it.
Yes. Yes, it is. And, I hope, way over the top, since I'd very much like to see something...anything...that would change my view of Garland. Which isn't that he's a bad guy in any way. But I don't see him as being, well, I'm not sure what he is. But it doesn't appear to me that he's exerting a lot of leadership at DOJ. And from a lot of things I've read and listened to in many different places - credible places, not quasi-legal armchair analysts with axes to grind or reputations to polish - I'm nowhere near alone in that view. True enough, we now have some convictions and numerous pleas from Jan. 6. But, where's the rest of the story...the one beyond the feet on the ground committing crimes inside and outside of the Capitol building itself? And the instances of apparent criminal activity that stretch back even farther than that?
I get it in one sense. If you're going to take a shot at a king, you'd better not miss. Likewise with former presidents and their high level staff / advisers, etc., to some degree at least. I'd really like to think the guy's just very quietly getting all his ducks in a row and the sights lined up properly. And if we see some kind of serious movement on that front by, oh, say the end of this year at the latest, I might just be inclined to write the guy a letter of apology. Otherwise...
The language of what I wrote is that of frustration, but the underlying view would only be reinforced for me if another January rolls around and nothing of any significance has happened. It's just a fact that sometimes good people end up in jobs they really aren't suited for.
In your defense...I would have been WAY more animated in my response prior to 2016. After seeing the last 5 years play out...I have a ton of doubts about our ability to prosecute the real criminals in our politics.
I know. I feel much the same, and it's damned frustrating. I find myself wondering if part of the problem isn't that there may be some significant cases worked up and fleshed out and maybe ready to go, but they aren't being prosecuted because they aren't total slam dunks, and there are political considerations involved. I'm not saying that's true, I'm just sayin' when you look at the totality of what's happened in the justice system the past 6 years, your mind may start to wander, and end up somewhere along the lines of where mine is now. Yeah, the wheels of justice turn slowly, but sometimes I look at it all and just think...WTF?!
RE: Merrick Garland
Pretend you're a big shot prosecuting attorney. One who's in charge of a very large office with vast resources. You're in a position to initiate investigations / indictments / prosecutions. You're sitting in that big, overstuffed, comfy desk chair in your office, perusing the news of the day on the tube and in the newspaper and on the screen on your desk, the same as you've done daily for more than a year. You even occasionally look through your in-box to see what might be happening within the organization you're in charge of.
There's a copious number of indicators in all of these sources of very serious crimes that have occurred within your jurisdiction, reaching all the way back to a time well before you even got your job. Not proof, now mind you. Not 'legal, courtroom-ready proof. But definitely substantial and confirmed evidence.
The boss to whom you answer has no legal or ethical authority to direct you to initiate actions such as those forenamed, so, being a fairly `competent and ethical boss, he hasn't called up and said, "Get your ass up out of that chair and get on with it."
What do you do? The work required to check out that evidence may be a bit touchy and sensitive, requiring some extra effort to ensure it's done correctly. And even if it is, it may cause some controversy in some quarters, and you're a pretty low-key kind of guy. So, it all might be a bit taxing.
Well, it's a pretty darned comfortable chair. So, I guess you just fall asleep.
Perhaps the wrong public servant got saddled with that "Sleepy" sobriquet. It may just be a crapshoot on whether or not he sees that judge's "memo", or if he will rouse himself long enough to read it, much less do anything about it.
Wow...now that's a pretty darn cynical look at this situation.
Yes. Yes, it is. And, I hope, way over the top, since I'd very much like to see something...anything...that would change my view of Garland. Which isn't that he's a bad guy in any way. But I don't see him as being, well, I'm not sure what he is. But it doesn't appear to me that he's exerting a lot of leadership at DOJ. And from a lot of things I've read and listened to in many different places - credible places, not quasi-legal armchair analysts with axes to grind or reputations to polish - I'm nowhere near alone in that view. True enough, we now have some convictions and numerous pleas from Jan. 6. But, where's the rest of the story...the one beyond the feet on the ground committing crimes inside and outside of the Capitol building itself? And the instances of apparent criminal activity that stretch back even farther than that?
I get it in one sense. If you're going to take a shot at a king, you'd better not miss. Likewise with former presidents and their high level staff / advisers, etc., to some degree at least. I'd really like to think the guy's just very quietly getting all his ducks in a row and the sights lined up properly. And if we see some kind of serious movement on that front by, oh, say the end of this year at the latest, I might just be inclined to write the guy a letter of apology. Otherwise...
The language of what I wrote is that of frustration, but the underlying view would only be reinforced for me if another January rolls around and nothing of any significance has happened. It's just a fact that sometimes good people end up in jobs they really aren't suited for.
In your defense...I would have been WAY more animated in my response prior to 2016. After seeing the last 5 years play out...I have a ton of doubts about our ability to prosecute the real criminals in our politics.
I know. I feel much the same, and it's damned frustrating. I find myself wondering if part of the problem isn't that there may be some significant cases worked up and fleshed out and maybe ready to go, but they aren't being prosecuted because they aren't total slam dunks, and there are political considerations involved. I'm not saying that's true, I'm just sayin' when you look at the totality of what's happened in the justice system the past 6 years, your mind may start to wander, and end up somewhere along the lines of where mine is now. Yeah, the wheels of justice turn slowly, but sometimes I look at it all and just think...WTF?!