Due Process. What a troublesome thing, eh?

[MineralMan]

Humans are impatient primates. We humans want things to happen instantly. We're not very good at waiting.

When what we want is not immediately available, we tend to fret and fuss and get all bent out of shape, even if there are reasons for delays. We're impatient.

Legal stuff is one of those things that often involve waiting and patience. Due process must be followed.

Only in autocracies are people immediately arrested and summarily prosecuted and convicted. In our system, due process must be followed. That means investigations, collection of evidence and organization of evidence, grand juries, indictments, pleas and finally trials before people get punished for doing illegal things.

Unless due process is followed, prosecutions fail to result in convictions.

I'm impatient, too. I'm a human being, so I don't like waiting, either. However, I also don't like losing criminal cased due to a failure to follow due process. That's something that can't be undone. Once a criminal is acquitted, that criminal cannot be tried again for the same offence. So, I think due process must be followed.

The more important the case, the more important that due process be followed.

[pwb]

1. Our younger progressive Democrats have little patience

and sometimes it seems little knowledge of how the law works. Hope they read your O P

[MineralMan]

4. Well, knowledge can be difficult to come by.

Attaining knowledge requires patience, too. If there is a shortage of patience, there will be a shortage of knowledge, unfortunately.

[gab13by13]

34. Patience is the traitors' game plan,

Delay everything. How much longer do we have to wait because elections are on the horizon and DOJ has a policy not to announce investigations that would affect the election, unless of course it's James Comey announcing an investigation into Hillary's emails, which she produced. We have people using private email accounts, burner phones, encryption, but Hillary's innocent emails were investigated.

I take it not many of the wait and see crowd listened to Liz Cheney last Monday and Tuesday. She cited the exact law that Trump violated, and Chuck Rosenberg agreed last night. Liz Cheney must also be in the impatient young progressive crowd because she was speaking directly to Merrick garland. If investigations aren't done there is no need to decide whether to prosecute.

By the way, I'm 74 years old. When the mafia-like family in my little town wanted to strip our pristine watershed I stepped up. I organized the town people, I ended up getting elected to council for 2 terms in a Republican town. The coal strippers brought their goon squad to every council meeting, a friend of mine who testified at a hearing got death threats, but we acted, we preserved our little town's water.

The time to act is now.

[gab13by13]

27. It doesn't take a lot of knowledge to understand,

if one doesn't take the first step (investigations) one isn't going anywhere.

I am quite aware how long it takes to get to the trial phase. Steve Bannon not until the end of July, then if he loses he will appeal. Mark Meadows, DOJ will take at least 3 weeks to decide whether to prosecute, then the grand jury has to indict, then a hearing to set the date for a trial, then a date for the trial is set. My guess is sometime in 2023.

Laurence Traub, Dan Goldman, Matt Miller, Frank Figliusi, Neal Katyal, Chuck Rosenberg, all famous former DOJ officials, every one has said there is no indication that DOJ is investigating the planners and organizers of the coup. Every one is way smarter than me.

Why doesn't someone from the wait and see crowd produce a tiny bit of evidence that DOJ is investigating the big fish? Anything, even a rumor.

[relayerbob]

35. "FORMER"

ie, they know exactly the same as we know.

[MineralMan]

46. Well, they have more background information than most of us,

but they are not there now, so they do not have all of the information.

Their input is useful as background information, but it isn't current information. It is informed speculation.

In places like the DOJ or FBI, once you leave that place, you no longer have access to all of the information you had when you worked there. So, when listening to those "former" people, it's important to remember that.

[gab13by13]

51. They still have contacts at DOJ for one thing.

[MineralMan]

55. Do they? I don't know that.

Maybe they do. Maybe they don't.

For example, I used to work in the NSA Building in Maryland. I knew lots of things about some very specific operations. I left there when my USAF enlistment was over. I still have friends who worked there when I did, some who worked there for a very long time afterward. Not once has anyone I know who worked there shared a single piece of information about anything they were doing at the NSA after I left. Not once. Nor did I ask, because I knew I wouldn't get any such information. Nor have I ever revealed any information I learned while I was there.

So, my knowledge of NSA operations is irrelevant when it regards anything that happened there after I left, and I can't talk about things that happened when I was there. I can provide some background information about the NSA that is otherwise publicly known or unclassified, but that's it.

[relayerbob]

70. You understand that info would be classified

and would NOT be shared. With ANYONE.

[treestar]

2. Thank you

And realizing that without being a lawyer.

It can be amazing how difficult it is to have proof for a court. It's not the same as being convinced by the media and our own desires. And the American desire for instant gratification gets plenty of flak for the legal system, which doesn't provide that.

We can see news as entertainment like Fox viewers or we can see it as real stuff that goes on.

[MineralMan]

5. I grew up watching Perry Mason on TV.

I've also been involved in legal cases. Courtrooms are nothing like they are depicted in TV dramas.

No, I'm not a lawyer. But I do have some understanding of how things function. I'm an old man, and I've been learning for a very long time.

[MissMillie]

49. LOL... and I

stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[MineralMan]

54. Eww! I hate Holiday Inn Express hotels!

But that's just me...

[MineralMan]

6. Generally, prosecutors don't prosecute until their investigation

is near completion and the evidence is in order and near to being ready for presentation. The more complex the case, the longer that takes. And complexity in criminal cases can come from several directions.

In federal cases of some complexity, a Grand Jury is always part of the process. Grand Jury proceedings are also not public events. We did not know that there was a Grand Jury proceeding, for example, in the case of Steve Bannon. That was not public information until an indictment was issued.

As for opening up the investigation process to public scrutiny, that is, indeed, a rare event. As it should be.

[MineralMan]

21. No, I am not a lawyer.

I considered going to law school. I took the LSAT and did very well on it. However, I didn't follow that path.

[MineralMan]

24. Yeah, well, at 76, law school probably isn't in my future.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

26. +100. nt

[TexasTowelie]

37. I'd settle for getting another bachelors degree

just for the parties and spring break. Don't ask me to go to class though.

[MineralMan]

63. LOL!

[malaise]

47. I'm with you but I think The Slobfather should be indicted now for electoral fraud in Georgia

There is that tape. That said, I’m fine with waiting for the Jan 6 Committee to complete irs work before he and the rest of them face the Sedition charges.

[MineralMan]

53. Possibly. I have no idea what the thinking is at the DOJ.

They may well be working on much more serious charges right now. None of us know, nor do any of the "former" pundits jabbering on cable TV, frankly.

I wish I knew. But, I'm also aware that I won't know until something becomes public. I'm a patient guy.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

7. The public most definitely DOES NOT have the right to know the progress

of an investigation, that is until the indictments or charges are filed, until then you don't want those being investigated to know what evidence has been collected.

Disagreement doesn't mean we hate each other. (I pray.)
We're just talking.

I couldn't agree more, we're just talking.

Happy Holidays Chin music.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

10. +100. nt

[MarineCombatEngineer]

16. I'm guessing, and only guessing,

that because of the nature of the suspects involved, very powerful individuals, that they don't want to tip their hand, even with generic statements, we all know how the pukes like to twist things around and spread false mis info or out right lies.

Be well yourself and all your family.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

22. +100. nt

[uponit7771]

8. Unnnm Rosenberg made a good point, if the DOJ was holding an investigation the Trumpers wouldn't ...

.... be quiet about being questioned.

[MineralMan]

14. On the other hand, we do not know what testimony the

couple of hundred people who have already cooperated with the January 6 committee have provided. That's how it works. Patience is required from those not directly involved.

[gab13by13]

40. Thank you, you just admitted it,

all of those former DOJ officials are right, DOJ is not investigating the Big Fish or it would have leaked out, and not from a grand jury.

I am not talking about the select committee, it is doing a fantastic job with the limitations it is placed under. The select committee must subpoena phone records which takes months, the DOJ can go to a judge and get a warrant to obtain the phone records. DOJ has many more resources and clout than the select committee has. We would know nothing were it not for the select committee and investigative reporters.

As far as Bannon goes, the select committee forced him on DOJ, it had to make a decision. Bannon was low hanging fruit, not in Trump's administration and he blatantly refused to show for a valid subpoena and it took DOJ 3 weeks to decide to prosecute.

[Solomon]

11. Jesus, nobody is arguing to dispense with

due process. Due process doesn't mean you have to have all yours ducks lined up to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt before you arrest and prosecute someone for probable cause that they committed a crime.

The constant straw man lecturing is annoying.

[leftstreet]

15. +1

Although iI's always a relief to log onto DU and get the daily scold over with early

[Scrivener7]

77. .

[stopdiggin]

33. as several have pointed out, that IS more or less

what it means in real life (as opposed to TV drama) situations. Particularly, as has also been pointed out, if you're talking high profile cases involving grand juries and powerful political interests. You DO actually want to have all your ducks in a row.

[Solomon]

69. The OP is about due process, and the straw man

that people are wanting to dispense with it. I will say it again since it is apparently goiing over some people's heads. Due process does not require that you have to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt before you prosecute.

The argument that one should wait because some criminals have white privilege or wealth or fame has nothing to do with due process.

[stopdiggin]

71. The OP mentions due process

and then several other points within the body - which I found well written, and not at all 'straw man' in nature. Sorry if you saw it in a different light. I'll refer you to post #29 for an affirmation on the importance of dotting 'i's and crossing 't's - and getting ducks in a row for solid prosecutions. And, yes - the idea behind prosecution is always and inevitably to gain convictions! Imagine the boondoggle of a high level prosecution here - that falls apart due to sloppy preparation and execution. Now that's a disaster! And other than that, I'll stand by my post as written.

[Hortensis]

76. Actually, it's constant, just not stated that way.

Last edited Sat Dec 18, 2021, 05:33 PM - Edit history (1)

We all see the frightening gains Republicans have made by smashing laws and institutions, and some want us to up our game big time -- but stop short of spelling out how. Just DO it.

It might help in recognizing that to realize that, similar to the much larger reality on the right, not everyone on the left is naturally committed to upholding the principles and practices of democracy, and with them our judicial system.

Most who think they're just venting frustration don't realize it joins something much bigger and more dangerous that spans the spectrum from far left and far right and beyond to others too disengaged to identify with any ideology.

Anti-establishment, class-warfare, and authoritarian forms of populism, left and right, are all anti-democratic, again not served by, and antithetical to, the majorities empowered by democracy. LW universalist ideologies like socialism are by definition anti-establishment, and effectively anti-democratic because they have to overcome the majorities who reject them. We see frequent posts here promoting hostility to the majority "establishments," though of course many of those posting don't recognize the dangerous, destructive, and very diverse wave they're effectively part of. I just assume a few do.

So it should not be a surprise that the kind of people who do want to smash majority rule to gain power, or in some cases just to smash, also want to smash the laws that make majority rule possible. Again, just as with some on the right who are determined to overset the majority permanently, many don't look past their fears and frustrations to see the kind of people and forces they could be forming a dangerous new majority with -- the one that already made it possible for tRump to become president but needs to be bigger.

So, posts like MM's are responses to this. We need more, not fewer.

[treestar]

79. Many posters here would not agree with that in the opposite type of case

The posts would be along the lines of how dare they subject someone to the legal system if they don't know they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Pantagruel]

12. Well said MM

I tried to make similar points the other day;

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=16151153

In addition, DOJ underwent 4 years of Trump hiring, indisputably biased against even handed justice. Sadly, many of those hires probably still ensconced at DOJ, throwing wrenches in the gears, further slowing the processes.
Garland has a tough job in front of him, probably massively understaffed. Trump put a crook in charge of almost every cabinet division. The sheer list of potentially prosecutable offenses is daunting on size alone.

Patience folks.

[MineralMan]

18. Yes, and thank you for that.

The previous administration did not follow normal processed with regard to the DOJ. It did not follow a lot of things it should have followed. That has now been corrected. Unfortunately for the impatient among us, it means that the leaks and revelations from the previous administration's DOJ are no longer forthcoming.

That is a good thing. Due process is being followed.

[gab13by13]

42. Due process of nothing is still nothing.

To get your ducks in a row you have to look for and catch the ducks.

[treestar]

80. +1

Yep, 45 tried to hamstring every department.

[bluesbassman]

17. Due process is the foundation of our legal rights.

Slow walking is the foundation of obstructing the process. We are in the midst of a time sensitive process and people are rightly concerned that the clock will be run out. It’s happened before and it will happen again. For myself, I’m going to be really pissed if it happens to an attempted coup.

[MineralMan]

19. Timing is, indeed, important.

We are not the only ones who are aware of that. But, what is the right timing? That's open to question, I think. I don't actually know.

[gab13by13]

43. Michael Cohen was convicted of campaign finance violations

he spent time in jail. Donald Trump was individual one, he gave the money to Michael Cohen to give to Stormy Daniels, Trump's signature was on the check. Merrick Garland chose not to prosecute Trump even though he had all of the ducks lined up in a row.

The statute of limitations has run out, individual one skated.

[Martin Eden]

28. We have a phone recording of Trump pressuring Raffensperger to commit election fraud

Is attempted election fraud a crime?

That alone should have been enough for an indictment months ago.

It remains to be seen if the wheels of "due process" include building a multiprong case to indict, arrest, and convict Donald Trump for this crime.

[MineralMan]

30. Yes. There is a recording.

Does that recording contain enough information to convict someone of election fraud? I don't know, actually. I doubt it.

[stopdiggin]

48. and that is part of the problem

there is a lot of opinion flying about - including, unfortunately, among some 'legal opinion' voices, on actions and communications that constitute actual criminal infraction. Then a real prosecutor arrives on the scene ...

The conversation mentioned being a fair example. Trump was certainly toeing the line on what is ethical (which is pretty much SOP in his case) - but was the conversation actually actionably criminal? Debatable - but hardly a slam dunk. Similarly the entire "Big Lie" movement and strategy. Deplorable? Noxious? Damaging? Without question. Criminal? I guess we'll see. But, ugly as it is, for large portions of it at least - the answer is probably, "no."

[MineralMan]

56. Exactly. We are not a jury, and we are not sitting in an actual

courtroom with evidence being presented.

A lot of what Trump has said in public is contemptible, but perhaps not evidence of a crime that would result in a guilty verdict.

For example, when addressing the mob before the January 6 insurrection, he did not say, "Go there, break into the Capitol building and put a stop to what Congress is doing." What he did say was tantamount to that, but couched in deniable language that could be interpreted in multiple ways by a jury.

So, we know what his intentions were, instinctively, but what we "know" is not evidence that can be put before a jury. The burden of proof is different on DU than it is in a criminal trial.

We "know." But, we're not a jury. What we "know" is of no use in getting a conviction.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

57. Denzel Washington said it best in the movie, Training Day,

it's not what you know, it's what you can prove.

[MineralMan]

59. Perfect. Yes.

[stopdiggin]

60. exactly.

and a lot of what we "know" - is based on preconception and our own prejudice. Then we go out into the world (or sit down in in a jury box) - and are totally surprised to find out that a good portion of our fellow man - has a completely different take!

[TexasTowelie]

29. I'm not a lawyer, but I have helped prepare legal cases when I worked with the state.

My efforts were in relation to reporting compliance and seeking fines for late reports. It sounds simple, but the amount of work and supplying relative documentation was enough to keep an attorney and myself occupied for months. However, we did exercise due process in all of our work because those enforcement actions could have been heard by an administrative law judge and a small mistake could jeopardize the remainder of our work product.

Obviously what happened on January 6 is far more complex and the evidence itself is in multiple formats ranging from depositions, emails, and text messages to still photos and video on social media. From the perspective of a records data administrator they had to develop the relational database structures to scan, import and hyperlink all of that information with various files formats. As someone who has worked on projects like this in the past, I can state that is a very complex project that had to take months to develop the framework. Once the framework was established it was almost certainly ready to be "revised" again. Meanwhile, the attorneys involved on the case could only perform rudimentary work while waiting for the IT people to catch up.

People want swift action, but fail to keep in mind what is happening in the background on the investigation. Obviously, the coordination between IT staff and the Legal staff has to occur and those relationships can be rocky amongst individuals, especially when some of the people involved are deliberately attempting to stymie the investigation. Then throw into consideration that some of the people involved might be working remotely due to COVID restrictions and it is easy for me to see why the investigations and legal actions are slow.

[MineralMan]

31. Yes, thanks.

You're right, of course. Preparing a case is always time-consuming. It gets more time-consuming when the case is a complex one.

Understanding what is involved is difficult, at best. Clearly, it's not simple.

[Mr. Ected]

32. We live in a society which expects/demands instant gratification

Our technology keeps pushing that envelope and immediate access to information is considered a human right to many, particularly those who've never lived a day without a powerful cell phone in their hand.

I'm all for due process, believe me. However, the speed at which justice travels allows those who would defy the laws more than ample time to cover their tracks and to systematically remove those who also believe in due process from the system and replace them with sycophants. The results not only undermine justice, but replace it with something else entirely - something sinister and undemocratic.

That's why so many Dems are pushing hard to accelerate the process. But realistically and logistically, it's impossible....and unnecessary.

Perhaps the only middle ground available to soothe our paranoid souls would be for the DOJ to express in a press release or press conference in terms that are generally clear but specifically opaque that it is gathering evidence of crimes against all 1/6 players, from the top down, and that no one person is above the law. Just hearing those words would be reassuring.

This isn't about politics as usual...or even due process as usual. It's practically existential and no wonder otherwise level-headed people (eg, Chuck Rosenberg, Matt Miller) are speaking out. In this post-Trump, post-Mueller era, with the Fascists at the Gate, we need due process, but we also need a media voice that let's us know that the DOJ hasn't been infested with Trump loyalists that are preventing justice from being exacted.

[PufPuf23]

36. Looks sometimes that the legal system has gotten so complex that the actions and

results are unwieldy

Many at DU are concerned because we recall the Kennedy assassination, Vietnam, Watergate. Iran-Contra, BCCI, war crimes and profiteering in Iraq, Fitzmas, the Mueller Report, etc.

The wrong doers just run out the legal clock kicking the can down the road while they continue unabated wrong doing.

Recent todays the thought has come to me that in regard to Jan 6, that rather than go after the little guys, the involved politicians and the money trail should be the legal focus (and hopefully there is substantial investigation, the specifics for good reasons are no privy to public). Frankly if we arrest people that rob convenience stores, do not understand why some GOP Congress critters were not arrested that first week.

The legal system in general needs much fixing and lawyers get away with too much incompetent at best nonsense.

[MineralMan]

44. Perhaps so. How would that "fixing" happen, though?

Seems like a very, very difficult thing to accomplish, don't you think?

A robbery of a convenience store is a pretty simple thing to prosecute, if you think about it. You have video of the crime happening in almost all cases. Once you have identified the perpetrator and you have the video evidence, it's pretty simple. Generally, the defendant will plead out on some charge and you're done. There is video of January 6, and similar prosecutions of those who were captured on video participating are pretty simple, too. Most of those are entering guilty pleas as well, further simplifying things.

It gets much more complicated for people who operated in the background or planned things. Evidence isn't all that simple or clear, and is subject to interpretation by any jury who might hear the case. Not so simple, so preparing such a case takes a much longer time.

[PufPuf23]

58. I do not have an answer on how to fix the legal system. Alas and sad.

Agree with everything in your response to me.

Find it hard to be optimistic.

Think there are parties, foreign and domestic, that want to break up the USA.

Humanity has a little overreach problem going on with the ecology of Planet Earth.

Think the outcome to both situations is not going to be pleasant.

Pretty much in a go along to get along mode now. Want a full version of BBB to be enacted and the political criminals be removed from influence and punished. Been a good and exclusive Democratic voter since 1968 (when got to meet Eugene McCarthy as stayed with his party in a SF hotel because of my roommate at boarding school, we were age 15). First POTUS vote was McGovern.

[MineralMan]

61. I hear you.

[Pantagruel]

38. IIRC, Watergate

was a very slow reveal . Weeks would go by with no revelations but finally the sheer weight of the evidence produced a tipping point.

[MineralMan]

39. Yes, and it finally led to some prosecutions and the resignation

of a President. Not enough, in some people's minds, of course. Prosecuting a former President is going to be a massive undertaking, if it happens at all. It will be unprecedented, to say the least. I don't expect it to be a rapid process at all.

[gulliver]

41. I trust Biden, Garland, etc.

Failing to trust solid people is a pitfall that a lot of people fall into nowadays. I blame the Internet. Anyone who can Google thinks they know more than people with long careers and track records. And, then, the pitfall inside the pitfall is suspicion, frustration, and anger.

"I'm baffled. Therefore, someone is doing something wrong or not fast enough. Therefore, they're idiots or possibly betrayers."

That mental script whirlpool sucks in all but the stronger swimmers.

[MineralMan]

45. Yes. I trust them, too, generally.

And you're correct that people think they know more than they really do. The internet gives us tons of information. Some of that information is even correct. Sorting out what is correct and factual and what is speculation is difficult, though. Not everyone takes the time to thoroughly fact check everything they see online. Really, almost nobody does.

We're impatient primates.

[gab13by13]

50. The select committee, to date, is the only organization,

that is investigating the people who organized, funded, and planned the coup, that we know of.

DOJ may be working quietly behind the scenes doing step one of due process, investigating. Laurence Traub, Neal Katyal, Matt Miller Dan Goldman, Frank Figliusi all former DOJ employees believe and have stated publicly that DOJ is not investigating the Big Fish.

How's that for my final post? Everyone agree on that? All of those former DOJ officials may be wrong and the wait and see crowd here may be right. You know what, I hope they are right and I am wrong.

Churchill had a quote I can't quite remember it exactly, he said that the only thing worse than the terrible evil of Hitler and the Nazis is good people who did nothing and let it happen.

[NurseJackie]

52. We know how to be patient, because we live in the real world.

Other more impatient individuals seem to believe that things should unfold as quickly (and neatly) as they often do in a three-act TV police drama, or legal drama... with everything all tied up in a nice neat package before the end of the hour... and all the bad-guys go to jail.

However, I also don't like losing criminal cased due to a failure to follow due process. That's something that can't be undone.

You're right. Only the most selfish among us don't care about things like that. Until mindsets (and expectations) change, the tantrums and second-guessing and denigration of the Biden administration will continue.

I'm sick of it. Thank you for calling it out so succinctly.

[MineralMan]

62. Well, I just call them as I see them.

Some people say I'm scolding. That's not my intention, of course. I'm trying to inject information into a speculation zone. That's never easy.

It's easy to look at big things through a very small aperture, but that doesn't really give us a complete view. And that's how we generally see our federal government and criminal justice system. Dimly and through a tiny hole in the fence.

[dpibel]

64. You appear to be confused

What you are calling "due process" is, as far as I can tell, something closer to "prosecutorial best practices."

That you are mistaken about the meaning of due process is made clear by your claim that "In our system, due process must be followed. That means investigations, collection of evidence and organization of evidence, grand juries, indictments, pleas and finally trials before people get punished for doing illegal things."

You seem to have the ownership of the right to due process backward. Due process is not a mechanism to maximize the prosecution's likelihood of prevailing. It's a right that belongs solely to the defendant.

Put simply, it means that, once charged, a defendant is entitled to a package of procedures. Things like access to counsel, access to all evidence, an unbiased judge and/or jury.

But there is nothing in the law that allows a defendant to say, "My conviction should be reversed because the prosecution didn't do enough investigating."

Your statement of what you think due process means is a combination of proper trial preparation, proper prosecutorial procedure, and actual due process.

This statement is flatly wrong: "Unless due process is followed, prosecutions fail to result in convictions."

In point of fact, it's much easier to secure convictions if due process is not provided. If, for instance, the prosecution fails to provide exculpatory evidence, the likelihood of conviction goes way up. But the conviction will (or should be) reversed on appeal.

That, however, is not what you are saying. You are saying that, unless prosecutors act with great diligence and investigate most thoroughly they will lose their cases. True though that may be, it has nothing to do with due process.

BTW: You say, "Only in autocracies are people immediately arrested and summarily prosecuted and convicted."

Unless you can point me to anyone on DU who is arguing that Trump or anyone else should be subjected to this treatment, I'm going to have to believe you're beating a straw man. Saying that it appears nothing is happening, saying that it has been a long time now without any charges, is not remotely calling for summary prosecution and conviction.

[Silent3]

65. +1000! n/t

[stopdiggin]

74. 99% (and 100 on due process)

I would defer on the following

BTW: You say, "Only in autocracies are people immediately arrested and summarily prosecuted and convicted."

Unless you can point me to anyone on DU who is arguing that Trump or anyone else should be subjected to this treatment, I'm going to have to believe you're beating a straw man.

It's hard to read much of DU and not come away with the idea that that is exactly what a lot would wish for. The virtual drumbeat of act, act, act! Jail, jail, jail ... Pretty deafening at times

[msfiddlestix]

66. Hey there..

Don't want to assume your age, I think I might be a little older. But I believe you have some actual living memory of DOJ/FBI inaction of high ranking officials criminal offenses in past decades. You might even remember Bill Barr essentially giving a swath of big players in the Iran Contra criminal enterprise a sweeping pass.

I have finally realized and have come to conclude, our institutions are not capable of dealing with the criminality of the highest ranking government officials or corporate officials. We are simply incapable of facing the raw brutality of criminality perpetrated on our country, on our citizens, and in business for what it is.

As for Due Process, at what point of abuse is it recognized as a cudgel, a tool to escape justice altogether? When is it recognized that the public interest have a rightful stake in redress? When "elections" is recognized as simply inadequate as answer to the offenses at hand?

We can all patiently go to our graves without living long enough to see justice.

But what of our children's children and their children? What did we leave them, when due process ran out the clock?


The reality is, that the next Coup Attempt, will likely succeed. I consider J6 2021 as a dry run.

Every passing day, indicates to me, our institutions of governance, cannot deal with the reality of what has occurred the past five years and all that is underway as we speak.

[Sur Zobra]

67. The myth of Fitzmas,

neatly wrapped in your post. But when you open the box there’s nothing in it

[Silent3]

68. As dpibel already said quite well, what you're talking about is much more than due process

This glacial pace is about fear of looking "political", and about fear of going after the big fish and losing. Not one bit of that has anything to do with the due process owed to a defendant, or avoiding authoritarian practices.

I can be very patient when it comes to the personal satisfaction I'd get about seeing all of the leaders of the insurrection thrown into jail. For that, I'll happily wait.

I cannot and will not be patient, however, with investigative and prosecutorial timidity driven by fear of going after the rich, the powerful, and the well-connected. I cannot and will not be patient with a system that very quickly throws a car thief in jail, but takes years to go after someone who robs a pension fund. I cannot and will not be patient with a system that quickly throws a woman in jail for accidentally voting before she was eligible, but takes years to deal with people who tried to steal the presidency.

Most of all, I cannot and will not be patient about a system that knows it's being played by people whose strategy is to run out the clock, and yet aids and abets that strategy far, far beyond the needs of due process.

[msfiddlestix]

73. ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️

every single word.

[msfiddlestix]

72. I feel like you might be a little bit in denial as to the reality we are living in

I don't have the feeling you're understanding that this "Due Process" revered and generally nurtured, and adhered to in a system which no longer exists. We are experiencing and facing, not just civil unrest but on the brink of a civil war.


There will be no "due process" when those evil bastards stage another coup. You can take that to the bank. ,


I was never a Pacifist, and I don't believe in turning the other cheek.

[Sympthsical]

75. Well that's a Sideshow Bob rake moment.

I mean, the whole bit is dead wrong. Not what due process is at all. So . . . that happened.

This sounded like what would happen if I, a gay man, walked into a gathering of women and began with, "What you need to understand about menstrual cycles . . ." while doing a scolding eyebrow thing.

It's impressive, though.

[Scrivener7]

78. My favorite is "people expect everything to be wrapped up in an hour like on TV!"

We're on year 5 for some of these crimes. That's a long-ass hour.

But, yes. I imagine the scoldings will continue till the clock is run out.

Then there will be other scoldings.