344 Days Since The Jan 6 Insurrection, 278 days since Merrick Garland took office

[berni_mccoy]

And yet not a single organizer of the insurrection has been charged with a crime.

I'm grateful for the indictments of 726 out of the several thousand insurrectionists.

There is a long way to go to bringing justice to all of them.

But justice will never be served if those responsible aren't charged, starting from the very top.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

1. How many of these are you going to start?

It's getting old.

[berni_mccoy]

2. One a day until justice is served

[Polybius]

33. So forever

n/t

[berni_mccoy]

34. Until justice is served or there is no chance.

Get used to these posts…

[Polybius]

36. I'm fine with them

I just don't think it'll be served.

[Demsrule86]

53. 'Get used to these posts'...no. I am going to block them as they serve no purpose and you have

no idea what the true situation is or what Garland is doing.

[George II]

42. Why not just continue in the one you started yesterday or the day before?

[berni_mccoy]

44. Because I'm going to make it clear that action needs to be taken

On a daily basis.

[iemanja]

45. Perhaps you should be writing to Garland instead

It's not like these posts accomplish anything.

[berni_mccoy]

46. As others have asked me, "What makes you think I haven't?"

[iemanja]

47. What makes you think posting on DU makes a difference?

Is the point thought control or getting things done?

[berni_mccoy]

48. What a laughable comment. Why post anything here then?

[iemanja]

56. To share news and interests

Do you actually think the DOJ, DNC, and congressional Dems monitor this place to decide what to do?

[Autumn]

65. The OP is interested in this event, it is current news. So what's the problem with her discussing

it and posting her opinion on it in an OP? Like you said the purpose of this place is "To share news and interests", that's what the OP is doing. . I don't recall her ever saying she was hoping the DOJ, DNC, and congressional Dems would moniter her posts.

They don't bother doing what 65% of the public wants so why would anyone think they would take advice from someone on a discussion board.

[iemanja]

66. Obviously he does think it has a political impact

He implied as much through his response to me. He was shocked that I thought it didn't.

I don't disagree with him on the issue. I don't even disagree that he should post what he wants. I've rec'd many similar posts. What I disagree with is that posting on a daily basis actually matters. He clearly feels politically compelled to do so. I think it's fine if he wants to discuss it on a daily basis, but he isn't going to succeed in creating the uniformity of thought he desires. Nor is a post going to transform into a change in the DOJ.

Not that you actually care what I think, as you made very clear, so don't waste the ink. Please.

[Autumn]

68. Hate to break it to you but everything at this point in time has a political impact.

Inaction and moving slowly will cost us dearly so the DOJ better get their asses in gear. We are running out of time. We all have this place where people can post their concerns with like minded people. If some people don't like it then they should ignore those posts instead of complaining about them and telling them not to post.

[George II]

54. Have you called your congressman/woman or either of your Senators, or the President?

They're the people you should be talking to or contacting.

I think everyone knows that "action needs to be taken", but it has to be the right action and be fully documented with evidence.

[Grasswire2]

49. I'll relieve you if you need a break. :-)

And there are probably hundreds of others here who would do the same.

[Scrivener7]

10. Yes, it's getting old. That is the point! Where is justice? Where is the protection for our

Democracy?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

15. So you have inside information on what's going on inside the DoJ?

If so, then post it for all to see.
Fact is that you, me, and everyone else here has no fucking clue what is or isn't known at the DoJ.

[Scrivener7]

21. Every fucking time. That is the only argument you guys have. In a year, when TFG is still golfing

without a care, and the republiQans have regained the Congress and all the investigations are stopped, are you going to say the same thing? In two years? Three? When will it begin to bother you that nothing is happening?

Or will you go to your death saying, "Maybe they ARE doing something! It's just invisible!"

[MarineCombatEngineer]

22. This a very complex investigation unlike anything ever seen in American history,

you have no fucking idea what's going on in the DoJ, or if you do, then post it and let us all see that the DoJ is doing nothing to bring these criminals to justice.

Other than that, have a great day.

[Scrivener7]

25. I know we are almost a year out from a well publicized attempted coup and not a single person

responsible for it has been indicted.

That's a big problem.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

27. Apparently you didn't read my post,

this is a very complex investigation, unlike anything ever seen in American history, it takes time to investigate something as big as this and I'm quite confident in AG Garland's desire to make sure this is an airtight case against very powerful criminals, he certainly doesn't want a them getting off on a technicality.

AG Garland is not B. Barr, he has integrity, honor and ethics, he's not going to let these criminals walk on a technicality because he botched the investigation.

[Scrivener7]

29. I read it just fine. And there is really nothing new in it:

It's so complex, it takes so much time, Garland is our saviour!

It's exactly the same things we said about Mueller. And Vance. And the supreme court in 2000 and on and on.

And you never answered my question: if we've seen nothing a year from now will you be saying the same thing?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

40. I'll let you know in a year. nt

[berni_mccoy]

31. +1

[PJMcK]

12. Wow

If you don’t like the posts, you might use the ”Ignore” feature.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

18. Back atcha. nt

[Autumn]

24. Using ignore takes all the fun out of telling people what they can and can't talk about.

[Grasswire2]

50. +1000

Let the people speak.

Let all the people speak.

Each one represents a vote, an opinion, and the courage to comment.

[George II]

37. It's like deja-vu all over again!

[Grasswire2]

51. yep

the regulars come like bees to blossoms.

[Demsrule86]

52. Waste of time...proving that Trump and his minions were trying to stage a coup will

be difficult...and Trump won't be convicted IMHO...consider that some of Biden's lowest ratings come with this House Commission thing. And if/when we lose the house, it is over... there goes the house, next, the constant investigation of Biden and his administration begins...Let's focus on BBB and the voting bill and try to hold the House and Senate in the midterms. There will be hell to pay if we don't.

[uponit7771]

3. It took longer for Watergate assholes to go to jail didn't it? tia

[berni_mccoy]

4. Oh, was watergate done out in the open in front of the public?

DOJ doesn’t need people to cooperate with subpoenas by the way, they can actually get search warrants.

People here have so many excuses but Democracy only has so much time.

[gab13by13]

8. Spot on,

DOJ has more tools, more clout than the select committee. Liz Cheney laid out plain and simple what law members of Congress, Mark Meadows, Jeffrey Clark, the retired colonel, and Donald J. trump can be charged with, and a judge has already agreed with her that impeding Congress in counting Electoral College votes counts as a violation of that law. Penalty: 20 years in jail.

Time for GOP to get moving.

[onenote]

30. What did Cheney establish they should be charged with?

Specific statutory cites please.

[Arazi]

32. 18 USC 1505

The code specifically says that “Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress” should be fined under the law and potentially imprisoned.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-liz-cheney-capitol-meadows-vote-b1975804.html

[berni_mccoy]

35. I can't believe you are asking this question.

[UnderThisLaw]

39. I can

because sometimes who’s asking is more important than what’s being asked

[onecaliberal]

9. Democracy is hanging by a thread while repu kes pass laws Everyday to give themselves the right to

Pick the winner.

[George II]

59. The Watergate robbers were arrested in the course their break-in. Pretty much public.

[berni_mccoy]

60. Nice try. Not even close.

You are making a desperate reach to equate the two.

[ancianita]

71. Watergate lawyer Jill Wine-Banks has done that on TV from the last impeachment 'til yesterday.

Time frames, procedures, differences in law, etc.

[CrispyQ]

13. We have less than a year.

I'm willing to wait until after the New Year before I start to panic, but I hope dem leadership realizes that we didn't stand in long lines & risk our well-being just for roads & bridges. We want some accountability. Sorry they don't have the same time frame they had back in the 70s, but that's the hand they were dealt. Our democracy is in peril & there is limited time to save it.

[gab13by13]

5. I think you were being nice to Garland,

At least 3 judges have complained that DOJ prosecutors aren't charging the insurrectionists with stiff enough crimes. One traitor is joking about her sentence. She is going to use her jail time to learn yoga to lose weight and stop drinking.

Pushing DOJ to act is being patriotic. No way in hell will the coup organizers be indicted if every criminal referral has to go through the select committee, there absolutely will not be enough time. Steve Bannon's trial isn't until the end of July, which he will appeal. If DOJ decides to prosecute Meadows, which IMO will take at least 3 weeks. Then Meadows has a law suit that will need resolved. So when will Meadows actual trial be scheduled? My guess is some time in 2023.

Garland needs to appoint a special counsel just like Barr appointed John Durham.

[berni_mccoy]

6. Thanks. You and I see the writing on the wall

Many here don’t.

Trying to show them is painful.

[onecaliberal]

11. You can't make them see what they refuse to see.

It’s not only on their side.

[CrispyQ]

17. Q-shaman has had the stiffest sentence of all, I believe. -nt

[Poiuyt]

64. I would love to see Garland appoint a special counsel with the full investigatory powers of the DOJ

And not restricted like Mueller was

[GoneOffShore]

7. Garland is slow walking this. He's the disappointment that some us of knew he would be.

Last edited Thu Dec 16, 2021, 04:11 PM - Edit history (1)

[PJMcK]

16. Imagine if he had made it to SCOTUS (n/t)

[gab13by13]

28. This may mean nothing at all but,

Senator Mike Lee of Utah recommended Garland to president Obama for SC. Garland made it through his confirmation as AG, I don't remember if any Repugs voted for him, I will have to go back and check. This all may be a nothingburger, it may just be that Garland is a nice guy, which he is.

I think he would have made a good SC justice, more suited to that job.

20 Republican Senators voted to confirm Garland as AG. That has to be a record since Joe Biden became president. The vote was 70-30.

[George II]

58. So you're hinting that Garland is "slow walking" (as was said) because republicans are responsible..

...for him being confirmed?

BTW, by coincidence, Daniel Goldman and Nicole Wallace were just talking about Garland on MSNBC. Goldman said that one of the reasons Garland is right for the job is that he's apolitical.

That's the way this should be.

[leftstreet]

14. No organizer will be charged with anything

And even if one is, they'll lawyer-the-clock out on it until it goes away

I knew that the minute Garland didn't appoint a special counsel



DURec

[gab13by13]

23. If DOJ, the FBI, gets involved now,

they can't run out the clock, at least until 2025 if the GQP wins the presidency.

[gab13by13]

19. Garland's first huge mistake was,

allowing a pro-Trump Cyber Ninja group break federal election laws in Arizona. A flood of other fraudits has resulted because of his inaction. One consequence of these fraudits is that GQPers are threatening honest election officials to make them resign, or just firing them and replacing them with Qanon people. If Garland had prosecuted the Cyber Ninjas the fraudits in other states would have been prevented.

[George II]

62. How was that a Federal crime? The Arizona election was already certified and Biden was inaugurated.

[SheltieLover]

20. Fairly soon, it will be "too close to an election" for DOJ to take action

What a shame these traitors aren't being treated like a Black man on a street corner selling a handful of individual cigarettes.

[gab13by13]

26. Oh yeah, good catch, I forgot about following norms.

In that case Garland needs to appoint a special prosecutor to look into the hidden emails of Congressmen and Trump's staff and friends who used encryption and burner phones. I know just the person Garland can hire, James Comey. James Comey opened up an FBI investigation into Hillary's emails right before the election.

[Grasswire2]

55. so true

That reprobate Leninist Steve Bannon, treated like a gentleman and allowed to turn himself in after the weekend, and then to walk free, with no bond required, no gag order, nothing.

The alternative could have been a no-knock early morning raid, a perp walk, televised ---- something that would communicate the precious concept of DETERRENCE to the other seditionists!

[Stinky The Clown]

38. I regret I have but one rec to give to this post

[Justice matters.]

41. There are investigations opened at the DOJ no doubt in my opinion.

But they are waiting for the committee to finish its work not to overlap it, taking good notes in the meantime, waiting for referrals to present to Grand Jury's for formal indictments.

And in case the committee ever gets shutdown by a "new" Congress, the DOJ's investigations will switch in high gear. RepubliQans could terminate the committee, but they can't shut down the DOJ's works at least before Jan. 2025.

[berni_mccoy]

43. Why wait? They have much more power than the committee

The don’t need subpoenas.

They can get the phone records and pretty much any communications from that day. It is a matter of National Security that they do so.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

57. How the hell do you know they haven't?

Unless you've got an inside source in the DoJ, and would like to post it here, then you don't know shit about what's really going on inside the DoJ.

[berni_mccoy]

61. If you need to ask that, you have never really understood how prosecutions work

Prosecutors don’t build iron clad cases to bring charges. They bring charges when they have enough evidence to charge. We are way past that moment.

And how many people are going to use this stupid excuse?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

63. Not in this case, this is a case like no other ever experienced in American history,

there are very powerful individuals here and I'm speculating that the DoJ wants an iron clad case before they bring charges.

Again, do you have a source inside the DoJ telling you of the inaction by AG Garland?
If so, then put it up so we can all see for ourselves, if not, then you're in the same boat as the rest of us, not knowing shit about what's really going on inside the DoJ regarding this investigation.
You have no idea if they've already taken the necessary steps and obtained those records and are, at this very moment, carefully analyzing them to make sure they've got all their I's dotted and their T's crossed.

[Ohio Joe]

67. That is simply not true

Nearly 80,000 people were defendants in federal criminal cases in fiscal 2018, but just 2% of them went to trial. The overwhelming majority (90%) pleaded guilty instead, while the remaining 8% had their cases dismissed, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data collected by the federal judiciary.

Most defendants who did go to trial, meanwhile, were found guilty, either by a jury or judge. (Defendants can waive their right to a jury trial if they wish.)

Put another way, only 320 of 79,704 total federal defendants – fewer than 1% – went to trial and won their cases, at least in the form of an acquittal, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. These statistics include all defendants charged in U.S. district courts with felonies and serious misdemeanors, as well as some defendants charged with petty offenses. They do not include federal defendants whose cases were handled by magistrate judges, or the much broader universe of defendants in state courts. Defendants who enter pleas of “no contest” are also excluded.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/11/only-2-of-federal-criminal-defendants-go-to-trial-and-most-who-do-are-found-guilty/

You do not get a conviction rate anywhere close to that unless you have an ironclad case when bringing charges.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

69. +100. nt

[Justice matters.]

72. I only speculate but Glenn Kirschner said he knows who would be in charge or that at the DOJ

And he said he has no doubt investigations are "opened" just because the predicates are obvious. He said it would be a dereliction of duty if they were not working on that.

To the question of why we don't hear anything about them may be because it's a very complex investigation and add to that the fact that the committee may not want to see it's own complex probe suffer any diversion concerning, for example, testimonies (they interviewed over 300 people already) that imply other subjects they could want to keep secret for the time being, let's say until the start of their live public hearings. Like they don't want the DOJ to indict Meadows, or even Trump for that matter, before their final report is done? Because it could make it even more difficult to produce then for all kinds of reasons we know nothing about yet.

Just speculation, as maybe they would not appreciate the DOJ short-circuiting their own findings? Because they want to write legislation that will prevent any other future violent attack on the Capitol.

I suggest waiting and being confident in the process. Sure, if the committee gets shut down by the RepuQs in Jan. 2023, the DOJ will pick it up from there: Can you imagine freshly re-elected Rs getting indicted for their treason while sitting in Congress? They can't pass bills outlawing the DOJ... The judiciary branch would not approve...

Same for the orange terrorist: He'll get what he deserves.

[traitorsgalore]

73. The entire Bush/crime admin never got what they deserve for WMD lies and torture camps

They deserve life in prison for crimes against humanity and for using known falsehoods and propaganda to lead America into a war.

The longer we wait to prosecute Trump, the more likely it is he walks free.

[Justice matters.]

74. That's another case. Congress voted FOR these wars. How to indict?

Who would indict?

Based on which piece(s) of evidence?

They must exist, but where are they hiding them?

In the domestic terrorism case, Trump watched TV for 187 minutes while cops got beaten and many died...

It was his DUTY to call them off, tell them to stop and go home right away, not 187 minutes later. Now THAT's evidence everyone can see. All that's missing is testimony or National Archive video/pictures, memos telling how gleeful he was while watching what he HAD to stop and didn't.

[berni_mccoy]

75. I hope you are right.

[Justice matters.]

76. I hope too. But to me, it makes sense.

Now, let's work on pressuring Manchin & Sinema to vote for the Voting Rights Act not requiring 60 votes, but 51.

That's the most urgent bill to pass.

Let the committee finish its work, and IF the Voting Rights Act doesn't pass and the GQP wins the midterms, then shutdown the committee, the DOJ will get the evidence on hand to present their cases to the Grand Jury's and indict the traitors (IMHO) while the RepuQs won't be able to stop them at all.

[Patton French]

77. I'm anxious to hear about your experience as a federal prosecutor

Since you’re so sure how this should go, I assume you’ve been there. Please share, it will help us understand your frustration with AG Garland.

[Duppers]

78. The Jan 6th committee should send a letter to Garland

And subpoena him, if necessary, to appear before the committee to ask questions in closed session.

And the FBI's should be doing this investigation; they have more tools then the Jan 6th committee.

This has gone on long enough and far enough.

Even Laurence Tribe is getting exasperated with the process. He said they already have enough evidence on Trump to bring him in.


Thanks for the thread, berni.

[NurseJackie]

79. Ridiculous.

This isn't a TV drama. In the real world, it's not going to happen.