Weekly Nicole Sandler Podcast Appearance

In one of our threads, someone said they had not seen my weekly podcast appearance with Nicole Sandler. Which made me realize that I should start posting them. Here is Friday’s.

44 replies
  1. Jordan Orlando says:

    Dr. Wheeler, I’m wondering how you would respond to people like Josh Marshall (linked here) who continue to blame Garland for “delay” in bringing Smith’s charges. I know you and your team are always incensed by this idea, since its based on (we’re told) a fundamental ignorance about jurisprudence that the general public shares…but what about the specific questions from people like Marshall who aren’t the usual mindless stenographers on television?

    Marshall writes, “[A] year or eighteen months isn’t remotely plausible as the amount of time it would take to generate evidence for indictments. Not even close. It may seem like an extreme example. But consider the time it took to bring major indictments tied to 9/11 or release the relevant findings, given that many of the key actors died in the attacks. More important to me there evidence that it took a long time for a serious investigation to get underway. We don’t need to infer it.”


      • Jordan Orlando says:

        I figured you’d complain, since I’ve seen it happen so many times here, gratuitously, although it’s never happened directly to me.

        1) I was NOT TALKING TO YOU (as should be clear): it was a polite and reasonable question for the author of this post based on something current — meaning, my question is within all bounds of civility and blog-comment behavior and doesn’t call for any “moderation.”

        2) It’s not my job or anyone’s job (except the personnel here) to keep track of everything that’s been written or said here. All of these topics are moving targets anyway — the answer to a speculative question may be different in January 2024 than in was in December 2023.

        3) I made clear that I’m aware of the positions of the Emptywheel writers on this topic; I acknowledged that immediately. My question still stands: what are the rebuttals to the more informed speculations (like this one from Marshall)?

        4) I have nothing against the bullying tone you usually employ and even your extreme impatience — it’s part of the culture and fabric of this site — but it’s misplaced in many instances (including this one). Questions of strategic timing are more entwined with the Trump cases and indictments than with nearly anything else going on in the world of law; it remains a fair topic, I think anyone reasonable would agree, even if you personally find the repetition “annoying.”

        • Rayne says:

          Dude. You can knock off the attitude RTFN.

          First, this site owes nobody anything. Period.

          Second, pointers about timing have been offered repeatedly across multiple posts, and yes, that’s why it’s so annoying this has to be spelled out again.

          Third, Josh Marshall can read. He’s either refused to do so or he’s refused explanations in which case wasting more time to respond to Marshall is a waste of time.

          If Marcy has the time and feels it’s necessary she may respond. But you’ve already got access to a lot of the answers you are demanding. Don’t expect to be handfed AND expect this community to be oh-so-polite about it.

          ADDER: You can stop spamming this thread, Jordan. You clocked 397 words in two comments inside ~30 minutes. It’s 8:40 p.m. in Ireland, you could actually sit back and wait.

          • Jordan Orlando says:

            Thank you. This of course renders Rayne’s rant even more irrelevant, wrong-headed and unnecessary (since the question I asked and its roots in today’s Marshall blog are obviously sufficiently meaningful to Dr. Wheeler that she’s addressing them in a larger forum than this post). She’s literally doing exactly what I asked her to, of her own volition in another context.

            • Rayne says:

              You could stopped at your first comment, Jordan, but no. You’ve now written more than 700 words including some which are a rant directed at me.

              No, you think you personally are owed an immediate response and in a manner you feel befits your august personage though all the materials have been spelled out here for months and in some cases repeatedly.

              This kind of time suck is fucking irritating.

            • Jordan Orlando says:

              First, I noticed the subject has changed (since, as Dr. Wheeler demonstrated on Twitter, I’m obviously asking the right question despite Rayne’s objections)…and second, I’m hardly a TPM fan in terms of viewing them as standing apart from the monolithic framework of DC/NY journalism; I was just pointing out how they’re not overtly corporate-owned and make many important gestures towards independent online journalism.

              Interesting that I made you angry enough to want to furiously comb through my comments in order to find something mildly questionable from six years ago.

          • greenbird says:

            thanks, harpie.
            thanks, all !!
            we gotta just keep trying to improve and accept/tolerate – and wait – for the stream’s mud to settle.
            don’t let this month’s New Yorker cover become true.

    • Buzzkill Stickinthemud says:

      Can’t you just ask yourself, to what end would Garland delay anything related to Jan 6 or Smith’s work?

    • Cheez Whiz says:

      So I read the link to Marshall, and as I expected it’s a mix of unsupported assertions about “delay” and “taking too long” with a remarkable amount of “what we don’t know” thrown in, which somehow has no bearing on how “slow” Garland has been. There might be an argument to make that DOJ has been too conservative and cautious, even given an unprecedented indictment of a former President, but nobody who remotely has the chops to make it has stepped up that I have seen, just endless cries of Somebody Has To Do Something! This site and Teri Kanfield have been a refuge from all that noise, so thanks.

  2. giorgino says:

    Thank you for posting a link to your weekly podcast appearance. I’ll look forward to being informed, TGIF. BTW, your turns-of-phrase about the content are truly marvellous. Sadly, the content leaves much to be desired. Thanks for what you do!

  3. dimmsdale says:

    Can I just nod in and say now much I’ve been looking forward to each of these Friday Nicole Sandler appearances Marcy does? They seem to bottom-line (for us slower folks in the audience) many of the long, voluminously detailed posts that appear here, and I really appreciate Marcy making the time to do them. Glad to see them getting “official” notice here, too, and I hope, Dr. Wheeler, that if you do ANY other media at all that you cross-post here so we can jump on them/it right away.

    • Rayne says:

      I will set a reminder to try to post these Sandler appearances if Marcy is too busy to get to them.

      • dimmsdale says:

        …and thank you, Rayne, for everything you do around here! I can only imagine how difficult the backstage version of this blog is. Salud!

        • Rayne says:

          The recent flood of spam trying to sell this site on AI applications to boost our product and enhance our visibility is incredible, must say.

          Most of it is probably phishing attempts attempting to foist ransomware on the site. *blecch*

        • punaise says:

          hey, someone’s gotta pick up the “resident grouch” slack in the (hopefully temporary) absence of bmaz, no? :~)

  4. WilliamOckham says:

    Apropos of, you know, nothing in particular, I would like to mention that I can’t take anyone’s opinions about the Jan 6 investigation seriously if they can’t spell Lisa Monaco’s name properly.

  5. lastoneawake says:

    The ONLY regret I have about not being on twitter anymore is reading Marcy being an asshole to lame journalists.

    Especially the nicknames . . .

  6. Lisboeta says:

    I’ve just watched the podcast. The amount of information stored in Marcy’s brain, relevant to any prompt and ready to be instantly retrieved, is astounding. Would that I had that talent! Even more pertinent, would that the majority of politicians had it…

  7. Critter7 says:

    I’ve had the good fortune to catch some of Marcy’s appearances on Michelangelo Signorile’s show, SiriusXM.

    I say it that way because its usually hit or miss. If there is a way to know in advance when Marcy will be on, that would help me to hear those interviews more often.

    Thank you, Marcy, for your insights, persistence, and excellent journalism.

  8. harpie says:

    Underway at DC Circuit:
    Jan 9, 2024 · 2:32 PM UTC

    Karen Henderson starts by asking abt jurisdiction.

    I think Childs then challenges Midlands Asphalt–they don’t have jurisdiction
    Now Sauer is AGAIN saying that Trump should have the equivalent of Speech and Debate immunity.

    Childs (I think) notes that Sauer’s references aren’t explicit.

    Sauer going balls out on the claim these are official acts.

    I guess he’s thinking the judges won’t notice?

    Pan jumps in–asking if Sauer says official acts for unlawful purpose must be impeached


    Pan: Could a president sell pardons? Could a president sell official secrets?
    Pan: Could a President order Seal Team Six to assassinate his rival?

    Sauer: He would swiftly be impeached

    Jan 9, 2024 · 2:30 PM UTC

    • harpie says:

      Marcy Jan 9, 2024 · 2:39 PM UTC :

      Pan: I asked you a yes or no question. Could a President who ordered Sealed Team Six to assassinate a political rival w/o being impeached be prosecuted?

      He dodges again.

      Pan: I’ve asked you a series of hypotheticals and asked you would such a president be subject to criminal prosecution if not impeached and your answer, yes or no, is no.

      Pan gets Sauer to admit that a President is not absolutely immune, bc if he can be prosecuted after impeachment he can be prosecuted. Isn’t that also a concession that a President can be prosecuted for official acts. Doesn’t that narrow issues before us?

      LOLOL. Sauer now trying to reverse what he just said.

      He’s audibly squirming.

    • harpie says:

      Marcy 2:48 PM UTC:

      Sauer now lying about how this prosecution started.

      I guess we’re at the table pounding stage.

      Very much looking forward to coverage from people who are watching in person.

      Sauer back to the ridiculous argument that Nixon’s was purely private conduct.


      Game over.

      Sauer somehow claims that Blassingame helps him. Nutty.

      Sauer: Many of which are just OBVIOUS, OBVIOUS official conduct.

      Childs: You say many of which.

      Sauer: ALL OF WHICH!

      Sauer cites Knight for Tweets being official communication.

      SM 2:47 PM UTC:

      With Trump in court, his attorney is peppering his responses with hypothetical prosecutions of “Biden” and “Clinton”

      Sauer references President Biden’s handling of the border.. and Clinton’s handling of pardons

      And Sauer now invokes an argument *frequently* made by Trump lawyers: Claiming the prosecution is politically motivated to target President Biden’s biggest electoral threat — Trump

      Judge Michelle Childs presses Trump lawyer on whether Trump’s alleged criminal conduct was a “private” or “official” act

      Trump’s team has argued strenuously that he was doing official business

      We’re 20 minutes into the Trump legal team’s presentations/answers. 20 minutes were allotted. Judge Henderson hasn’t yet asked a series of questions.

      This hearing is (as expected) going to run longer than scheduled

    • harpie says:

      Marcy 2:53 PM UTC:

      Henderson now raises concessions Trump made in Trump v. Vance and impeachment.

      [googly eyes emoji]

      Pan quotes Trump’s impeachment lawyer saying no President is immune from prosecution.

      [crazy face! emoji]

      Sauer argues that Trump shouldn’t be held accountable for what he said to get out of impeachment.

      Henderson: Let me go back to Marbury v. Madison.


      I think where Henderson was going was making a distinction between ministerial and discretionary official acts.

      Meaning you could consider SOME official acts.

      Henderson says Take Care Clause requires him to follow those laws, “Every one of them.”

      Henderson: I think it’s paradoxical to say that his Take Care Clause duty allows him to violate criminal laws.

      We have to assume allegations in indictment are true.

      I thought you agreed with me we’ve gotten beyond Marbury to dutybound v. discretionary.

    • harpie says:

      Marcy 3:07 PM UTC:

      Henderson: Effect of Blassingame. If we say these acts are — I’m going to say ministerial v discretionary, Blassingame says office-holder v office-seeker. Would we have to remand it?

      Ut oh. SOunds like a delay.

      Sauer now seems to recognize a rescue for him, says Henderson could remand to figure out whether this is official (or in her scheme, ministerial v discretionary).

      Pan: President Trump’s position is not fully aligned with institutional interest of Executive Branch (in part bc Exec is interested in enforcing the law).

      I can’t get my head away from the solution that Biden just has Seal Team Six assassinate Trump and Kamala runs as an incumbent.

      Sauer seemed REALLY anxious to get to the request that they stay the process so he can appeal to Trump’s captive SCOTUS.

      SM 3:13 PM UTC:

      Sauer tells judges if the court rules against Trump, Trump team will request the court “stay” its ruling. For future appeal to Supreme Court

      Trump attorney wraps and sits down.

    • harpie says:

      Marcy 3:14 PM UTC:

      Pearce: THIS CASE, in which the defendant is accused of conspiring to overturn result of election, is not the place to endorse the idea of some novel presidential immunity.

      Pan: Why aren’t you asking us to dismiss this bc it is interlocutory.

      Pearce: Your goal is to do justice, to get the law right.


      SM 3:14 PM UTC

      Special Counsel attorney begins arguments… and says this case… in which a former President is charged with plotting to overturn an election.. is not a case in which to apply and honor “some novel” argument of immunity

      Attorney James Pearce is arguing for the Special Counsel’s office

      He got 1-minute into his argument, when appeals court judges began to interject with questions

      Special Counsel’s office attorney says “Our interests are twofold. One.. is doing justice. The second is to move promptly to satisfy.. the public and the defendants interests..” by moving forward to trial

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Or John Sauer…or any of the plethora of other lawyers Trump has hired. But his real position is that the Dems won’t do it, they’re weak, but that strongman Trump would be likely to, and any successor wouldn’t think twice about it.

Comments are closed.