1. Rather than embedding the tweets as I've been doing, I've inserted them as text--it's more work, but I try to please as many as I can. :-)
2. I'm not much of a fan of McCarthy's political judgments, but on purely prosecutorial matters I think he's sound and balanced.
1. An important point @AndrewCMcCarthy made tonight was that regarding the lack of arrests in the attempted coup is that it's better to do all the arrests at the same time.Obviously, neither I nor McCarthy know that this is the explanation, but it is a very reasonable explanation. Part of that calculation is a related consideration that I've touched on in the past--once an arrest is made the pressure to be prepared for trial and to go to trial is on. Every defendant is entitled to a speedy trial--or at least an expeditious commencement barring all the pre-trial maneuvering. The point remains the same. Premature arrest of subjects in related cases, and especially in the case of a conspiracy, can be very detrimental to the case as a whole. This is especially the case since investigations typically work from the bottom up, working up the ladder as the expression goes, so that premature arrests can leave you with convictions of none but "low hanging fruit." That's not what we want in this most momentous of political scandals. Barr has openly stated that he expects major developments by late spring or early summer, and I think we should be patient and take him at his word. There is no reason to doubt him at this point.
9:23 PM · Feb 7, 20202. Once an arrest is made, then the defense gets discovery--i.e. they get to see all the case evidence. If you start arresting the low hanging fruit, then the bigger fish may get tipped off to the detriment of the ongoing investigation.
3. In my experience, when we had complex cases with a lot of defendants, we would do sealed indictments and then conduct a big, simultaneous takedown of all the players.
On the other hand, it's conceivable, as I've suggested in a hopeful vein, that there could be action regarding Deep State activity leading to the Impeachment Theater. One complicating factor in that regard is that we have learned that some of the same major players figured into both the Russia Hoax as well as the Impeachment Theater/Ukraine Hoax.
On a more discouraging note, three tweets from Paul Sperry that illustrate how hard it is to do something about the entrenched civil service bureaucracy. And the citizenry were told by progressives of the day that civil service would lead to "good government" as opposed to political cronyism:
BREAKING: Gabriel Sanz-Rexach is Obama official who was the FISA gatekeeper at DOJ in 2016 when the illegal warrant to spy on Trump campaign was authorized. Sanz-Rexach also happens to be the same official who just certified to the FISA court that DOJ & FBI would reform their ways.
BREAKING: Dana Boente was the hi-ranking DOJ official held over from the Obama admin who signed off on the now-invalid 3rd FISA warrant to spy on Trump aide Carter Page. Boente is now the FBI's GC who just certified to the FISA court the FBI would reform its FISA abusing.
BREAKING: FBI Director Wray is initiating FISA-reform training but only at FBI field offices -- even though the illegal FISA abuses took place primarily at FBI headquarters.
Wouldn't it be refreshing if the FISC refused to accept certifications from Boente and Sanz-Rexach? It wouldn't be a judgment of guilt--just a judicial expression of no-confidence in their competence that would be well deserved. As it is, what reason does any informed citizen have for trusting the FBI, DoJ, or the Federal judiciary. I understand that all these officials are protected by law from summary dismissal, but the judiciary is not obliged to play make believe in such cases.