Barbara McQuade on MSNBC: You don't name a special counsel at this point to walk away from a case

[BeyondGeography]

Smith is there because DOJ sees strong reasons to indict.

[SheltieLover]

1. Excellent! 👏👏👏👏

Hopefully, SC isn't another qpuke like Mueller. 🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞

[fightforfreedom]

2. Thank you Barbara Mcquade.

[Sneederbunk]

10. Garland just doesn't want to be the one who prosecutes.

[wnylib]

20. True. He said as much in his announcement

of the special prosecutor appointment.

Garland gave his reason as the Trump announcement of being a candidate against Biden. Since Garland is a member of Biden's cabinet, he said it was in the public interest to have a special prosecutor take over.

[Fullduplexxx]

3. You do it to eat up time

[BeyondGeography]

4. She also said Smith will oversee the prosecutors who have been working on the case

He’s not there to reinvent the wheel and/or open new lines of inquiry. She’s optimistic; just passing it on.

[Fullduplexxx]

5. Oh that sounds better

[iluvtennis]

17. Yep, heard this from several talking heads today on CNN and MSNBC. Good stuff. nt

[hlthe2b]

6. As long as he is aggressive as hell, then fine.

I will reserve (final) judgement.

[Takket]

7. strong reasons which would exist with or without a SC.

[wnylib]

22. But the point of a special prosecutor

is that he is not a member of Biden's cabinet, like Garland is. It ensures that an indictment can proceed after Trump's announcement of running for 2024 against Biden in the hopes of escaping indictment.

[GreenWave]

8. In the meantime...

[SoCalDavidS]

11. Shhhh. You're Getting In The Way Of The Positive DU Spin nt

[BeyondGeography]

12. I understand the negative view

But at the very least, what’s the gist of today’s headline? Trump’s potential (at the very least) criminality. This the day before the alternatives to Trump troop to Las Vegas for a beauty contest before Jewish Republicans. The subtext of every speech? Btw, I’m not under investigation by the DOJ.

Bad day for Trump. Very bad.

This appointment doesn’t change a thing about the investigations and where they’re headed, IMO. It has the added bonus of keeping Trump’s crimes front-and-center, much more so than if the DOJ was quietly working toward indictments 90 or so days out.

[JCMach1]

13. Not all, DJT gets to run against witch hunts for 2 years while special

Prosecutor progress is held in secret.

This is a lose/lose decision for whole affair.

[TwilightZone]

15. As opposed to the incessant whining and complaining?

I'll take Lawrence Tribe's opinion over a bunch of self-professed experts posting anonymously on an internet forum.

"If a special counsel was to be appointed, I can think of no-one better suited than Jack Smith. Vast experience prosecuting public corruption cases, treacherous national security violations, and crimes against humanity. Absorbs complex facts instantly. Perfect for Donald Trump."

Link to tweet

[Silent3]

18. Notice the caveat "IF a special counsel was to be appointed"

Tribe isn't saying he thinks a special counsel is a good idea, just that, IF there is going to be one, Jack Smith is a good choice.

[onetexan]

23. Thank u for posting this. I trust Laurence Tribe.

[republianmushroom]

9. I like it

[mcar]

14. Excellent!

[tavernier]

16. Strong reasons?

You mean like the severed heads stuffed in the trunk of the car? I’m beginning to wonder if even that would do it.
Just kidding!! I know it takes time to wrestle a greased pig.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

19. Of course.

Garland is required to appoint a Special Prosecutor if the DOJ is going to move indictments and prosecutions under the current circumstances.

This is a clear signal that cases will move forward.

[cilla4progress]

21. Yesterday McQuade wrote in Time

that no SC should be appointed.

https://time.com/6234758/trump-2024-candidacy-doj-jan-6/

Snip:

An argument could be made that a special counsel should be appointed to take over the investigations now that Trump is a candidate. DOJ officials would have an incentive to keep Biden in office to preserve their own jobs. But I think the better argument is that no special counsel is needed, and indeed, would harm the investigation at this stage.

[Jarqui]

24. "You don't name a special counsel at this point to walk away from a case"

No one would like to see Trump nailed any more than I.

For the record, the name Mueller popped into my head ...

I would quickly concede Merrick Garland is not Bill Barr.

The way this goes on and on, it torments my confidence that they'll get this crook.

There does seem to be some solace if they let Trump alone long enough to damage DeSantis (who I think is worse and more dangerous than Trump).

I'm still digesting this ...