look, we don t do these things in public. and honestly, the nation learned how dangerous it is when they do things in public, in 2016, when james comey put on the james comey show about an fbi investigation into one of the candidates, to enormous consequences. what do you think about timeline and the public facing nature, if any, that there should be from doj? and danya, i will ask the same question, after in. lawfare this week, explaining that the timeline looks relatively standard for a case of this complexity and reminds us that in 1974, when the first big three of nixon s aides were put on trial, those two years after the break in, and ultimately the decision about what to do with nixon in terms of his legal faced, came two years later as well and as they were preparing the piece for the new york review of books, we look deeply into the watergate special prosecutor s considers patients then. and not only did the founders
take the view that the attorney general s job was limited and that it wasn t his job to decide about grace. but that was the view of the special watergate prosecutors as well. if this situation, if facts are sufficient to indict, then the attorney general has only one option and that is to indict. what do you think, danya? i think, the timeline i take ian s point. i think that s probably exactly right, in the normal course. but as embedded in your earlier question, this case is a unicorn in some ways and the doj cannot proceed in a way, as it normally does, which is a bottom up approach, pick off the low hanging fruit, cooperate up, take its time. there is a timeline here. there is an emergence here, because of the upcoming elections and because of doj guidelines, which also do not allow for prosecutions and overt investigations when there
as well. if this situation, if facts are sufficient to indict, then the attorney general has only one option and that is to indict. what do you think, danya? i think, the timeline i take ian s point. i think that s probably exactly right, in the normal course. but as embedded in your earlier question, this case is a unicorn in some ways and the doj cannot proceed in a way, as it normally does, which is a bottom up approach, pick off the low hanging fruit, cooperate up, take its time. there is a timeline here. there is an emergence here, because of the upcoming elections and because of doj guidelines, which also do not allow for prosecutions and overt investigations when there is a pending campaign or election. all right, ian bassin and danya perry, that was really illuminating, thank you both, enjoy your weekend. coming up, the political effect of the january 6th hearings. is the evidence actually getting to trump voters? resonating with them? some evidence it is.
up against the u.s. government. washington gets back on his horse and rides into town to put down a bunch of them got pardons, if i m not mistaken, for their role as a sort of, you know, we need to heal the nation kind of decision. but it s a decision after the normal processes. but on the processes, danya, i think there s an interesting dynamic where the committees clearly frustrated. [laughs] they clearly think doj is not doing enough. here is laureate today on morning joe on msnbc, giving her comments and thoughts. take a listen. i sure as hell hope that merrick garland has an open criminal investigation into donald trump. what we have laid out their yeah. no one needs to wait for some formality from our committee to have that motion. danya, clearly merrick garland is, in his own way, kind of frustrated. like, you guys get to put on your show, you don t have the insurance system, you don t have the rules of federal criminal procedure, evidentiary thresholds. and we have
nature, if any, that there should be from doj? and danya, i will ask the same question, after in. lawfare this week, explaining that the timeline looks relatively standard for a case of this complexity and reminds us that in 1974, when the first big three of nixon s aides were put on trial, those two years after the break in, and ultimately the decision about what to do with nixon in terms of his legal faced, came two years later as well and as they were preparing the piece for the new york review of books, we look deeply into the watergate special prosecutor s considers patients then. and not only did the founders take the view that the attorney general s job was limited and that it wasn t his job to decide about grace. but that was the view of the special watergate prosecutors