Merrick Garland is not going to indict Trump.

[boston bean]

He could. He should. But he won’t.

It is all politics. Indicting Trump would play into Trumps hands politically.

The reichpublican party would be screaming the democrats were leading the US into fascism. Prosecuting political enemies, blah blah blah. When it is they who will lead us all down that path if he is not held to account.

This is what they are afraid of and why Ford pardoned Nixon, imho.

I don’t like it. I don’t agree with it. But it is the conclusion I have come to.

[Tickle]

1. I don't understand

How does this benefit TFG? This would be a disgrace for him and his whole family

[boston bean]

3. Well. I guess a Republican president could pardon him after 3 years of republicans

Screaming and claiming democrats are prosecuting political enemies.

People have to think with a wider view. The Republican Party is more of an issue than trump.

So, there is one way how he could benefit.

[Zeitghost]

38. Because conviction is impossible.

Federal prosecutors won't bring charges against a common criminal unless the outcome is almost guaranteed. When it comes to charging a former President, they would need to be 100% certain or the consequences would be disastrous politically.

[Tickle]

39. I never looked at it

like that. Makes you think 🤔

[Ocelot II]

2. I'm glad to know you have an inside track.

Did AG Garland tell you this directly, or have you been eavesdropping outside his office window?

[Budi]

4. K & R What does it take to be in the Garland inner circle?

Wish I could be in there!

[boston bean]

5. It is my own personal conclusion. YMMV.

[Ocelot II]

29. Fair enough, but you know what they say about opinions:

They're like assholes; everybody's got one.

[boston bean]

31. Yeah. I have heard that expression. All of DU is full of opinions. I don't mean assholes. I mean

Opinions.

[Tickle]

8. lol nt

[Phoenix61]

43. +1,000 nt

[Fiendish Thingy]

6. If Garland does indeed indict Trump, I'll expect you to post a full apology here on DU. Nt

[boston bean]

7. Not an apology. But I have no issue saying I was wrong. Normal people do that kind of thing.

[Fiendish Thingy]

10. Sure, an admission that you were wrong would be appropriate. Nt

[BlackSkimmer]

67. People post things that turn out to be wrong on here all the time.

Sometimes they're even proven wrong in the same thread.

Most double down. I can count the number of "apologies" on one hand.

Why should BB be expected to do so? IF she's wrong, which I doubt.

[BigmanPigman]

18. I agree with you.

If I am wrong, and I hope to Hell that I am, I will happily apolgize. I really do hope I am wrong since our democracy is at stake. At this point AG Garland is a huge disappointment.

No one on the Jan 6 Committee, legal experts, politicians, etc has any idea what Garland is waiting for. I stand with them. I want to see proof that Garland is doing a single god damned thing!!!! And don't reply with the usual standard, "But we don't know what Garland is doing secretly" line of BS. I was fairly patient with Mueller and look where that got us. I am all out of patience when it comes to the people who are supposed to be protecting the rule of law and not the fucking moron.

[Scrivener7]

33. Oh, FFS. Why? Are you hurt by her opinion?

[brooklynite]

9. Alerted.

I don't generally subscribe to accusations of "bashing" Democrats.

But you just accused the Democratic Attorney General appointed by the Democratic President of intentionally ignoring his responsibilities and politicizing the job of criminal justice.

[boston bean]

11. Nice to know.

[brooklynite]

15. It IS a shame that people don't get indicted in 45 minutes like they do on TV shows...l

[boston bean]

19. I have reached my own conclusion. We differ. Ok by me.

[Scrivener7]

34. Anyway, Marsha, it's not a Law and Order episode!!1! (*Flips hair and purses lips*)

[Wuddles440]

42. December 14, 2021...

Mark Meadows referred to DOJ by Congress for criminal contempt. The clock's running (now much longer than 45 minutes), the months are flying by, and nothing but crickets.

[Silent3]

47. We could have watched over 9,300 full-hour TV shows, with commercials...

...since January 6, 2021. If we watched 24/7, without sleep.

Considering how blatant the corruption of Trump and his cronies has been, I don't think the legal issues involved are nearly ten thousands times more complicated that one of those TV shows.

Let's not pretend it's purely a matter of the difficulty of wrangling the legal issues here that's the sole, or even primary, reason for prosecutions taking so long (if ever happening at all when it comes to Trump and his top-level conspirators).

[Scrivener7]

50. .

[hamsterjill]

64. So, I'm guessing a DU jury didn't agree with you?

Since you indicate you alerted on this post last night and the post is still here this morning?

Hmmm….maybe it’s okay that opposing viewpoints are discussed after all?

[USALiberal]

71. Dramatic much?

[brooklynite]

72. Do you object to learning why an alert was filed?

Or do you object to my explanation?

[MineralMan]

12. You do not know that.

[boston bean]

13. And you do not, not know that.

[MineralMan]

14. I'm not the one making the claim.

I am, however, correct in saying you don't know.

[boston bean]

17. As I am correct in stating you don't know either.

What would that imply upon your reading of my responses.

It is my opinion. My own conclusion. As I stated.

[ShazzieB]

35. All MineralMan said was that YOU don't know.

I agree, and I was getting ready to post the same thing myself.

MineralMan has made absolutely no claims about his own knowledge, and I'm not making any, either. YOU are the only one who has done that. YOU have claimed to know what Merrick Garland is thinking, doing, and planning. MineralMan said, "No, you don't know those things," and you have not offered any evidence to refute him. Now I am saying the same thing.

You are claiming to know things that you can't possibly know. Stating your personal opinions is fine, but you should present them as your personal opinions, not as established facts that we should all accept at face value.

Personally, I have no idea what is going on in Merrick Garland's head or what he is planning, and I don't claim to know. I can't read the man's mind, and I don't see any reason to believe that you can. My conclusion is therefore that you don't know what his thoughts or plans are, any more than I do. I don't need to know what Garland's thoughts and plans are myselfto reach that conclusion.

[boston bean]

36. Then why respond at all. It is clear it is my opinion based on many factors I have taken into

consideration.

What is the deal whether I know for sure or not. People don’t know for sure I am wrong.

This is a political discussion board full of all sorts of opinions and conclusions.

[ShazzieB]

48. In your original post, you didn't say it was your opinion.

You stated what Garland was going to do and not do as if you were stating established facts. That's what I and (I believe) several other people have been reacting to.

I can see now that we've been talking past each other. You were just stating your opinion, which is absolutely fine. The problem is that you didn't say it was your opinion at the outset. If you'd said, for example, "In my opinion, Garland is not going to xyz," or "I don't think Garland will xyz," or "I wish Garland would do xyz, but I think he's going to do ABC instead," it would have been more clear that you were making a statement of opinion.

In future, when I read a post at DU from anyone that says something like "Garland will/will not do xyz," or "Garland doesn't care about xyz," I will try to remember to respond by asking if that is a statement of personal opinion, rather than jumping to conclusions.

I've come to the realization that I am being triggered by certain kinds of statements, and I need to stop reacting to those statements in an unthinking manner. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[boston bean]

51. I,said it was my conclusion. Say what you want. I am not gonna argue about it.

[Tommy Carcetti]

16. He will if Georgia and/or New York indict him first.

But I don’t think he will go first or alone on it. He’ll let the states take the lead and have them deliver the shock.

[boston bean]

20. Maybe.

[madville]

44. Georgia and NY indicting Trump before the midterms

Could work in the Republicans favor, drive up their turnout because their idol is being “unfairly persecuted”. There’s a lot of strategy at play, even if those two states charge Trump now, nothing happens in those cases before the midterms that are only 9 months away.

[fightforfreedom]

21. Cancel the Committee, end all investigations, If we uphold the rule of law we are doomed.

That's how I read your post.

[boston bean]

23. Well, it should scare people. As I plainly state I do not agree with what I believe

is happening.

[ecstatic]

22. tfg's own lawyers expected him to be arrested on January 6th!

They're laughing at how fucking weak we are. SMH

[MsLeopard]

53. +1 nt

[Emile]

24. He could, he should, he won't, don't like it, don't agree with it.

That's the messages.

[boston bean]

25. Pretty much is how I feel this is going to go down.

[Emile]

26. Well you posted your feelings very clearly!

I hope you are wrong, but you may be right.

My patience is growing weaker. Everyday we're hearing more evidence TFG was orchestrating the fascist takeover of the United States. This has to be punished and that's why I hope you are wrong!

[boston bean]

27. Me too.

[Baked Potato]

28. T***p isn't political in my book. He leads violent insurgents.

He will not stop until he IS stopped.

T***p doesn’t deserve to be treated politically.

No qualified-immunity for Coup Plot Capo.

[Mr. Ected]

30. Bullshit. He can and he will.

They'll indict, try and convict him. They'll disqualify him for office.

And they'll commute his sentence.

[boston bean]

32. I hope so. I highly doubt it.

[ShazzieB]

40. Thanks for this, Mr. Ected.

I am really tired of defeatist thinking and people assuming they know what's going to happen before it's happened.

I don't claim to know exactly what's going to happen, but I believe that, one way or another, Trump is going down. There is an avalanche of evidence that just keeps getting bigger and bigger. That evidence is NOT going away, and I simply refuse to believe that the AG of the U.S. doesn't give a damn about any of it. I'm sick of people talking like they have some kind of psychic knowledge of what's in his head.

I know people are frustrated that things aren't happening faster. I wish they were happening faster myself. I understand the frustration, but coming on here and making unfounded allegations about is supposedly going on in the AG's head is NOT an appropriate way to deal with that frustration, afaic.

[Scrivener7]

52. You have just castigated Boston Bean for stating her opinion that he is not going down.

How is your stating your opinion that he is going down more legitimate?

Personally, I think both of you should be free to state your opinions, and that both of your opinions are legitimate.

But it seems to me that those who believe TFG will be indicted become personally insulted when someone states the opinion that he will not be indicted. As has happened here.

[lagomorph777]

69. Yeah, that's the odd thing.

How did this become a personal insult to somebody with a different opinion?

[Zeitghost]

45. There are 74 million Trump voters

Let's say 50 million are loyal no matter the evidence. How do you get a jury without a single one?

[Mr. Ected]

54. Federal conviction rates are 95%+

I think they've got this.

[Zeitghost]

55. That's precisely my point

Federal prosecutors have such an incredible conviction rate because they don't charge unless they are sure they can win, that burden is even higher for a former President. Trump will never be charged because they will never be able to sit a jury that is guaranteed to convict and a failed prosecution of a former President would be a disaster for the Biden administration politically.

[Ohio Joe]

37. I disagree...

Ford pardoned Nixon because the repugs had already told him they would convict him if he did not step down and the repugs wanted the whole show over and done with, so it did not drag them down further. Todays repugs stuck with TFG, not because they thought he was innocent but because they feared his base... That fear is disappearing. The steady drip, drip, drip is damning... Very damning... In fact it is leaving no doubt as to the self-coup he attempted. And there is still a LOT more that will be coming.

TFG and some of his loons are and have been basically crying political prosecution for a while now and that will not stop regardless but the majority of repugs have been doing their best to stay completely silent... They know what is coming. Slowly though, the ones who have been silent are starting to speak up as the evidence mounts... And as more of the evidence is put out, more will speak up and turn their backs on him. They smell the blood in the water already, they want him gone and they will want to minimize the damage.

I think the next real news we'll get from DOJ will be when some of the 11 indicted for seditious conspiracy flip. Then I think it will be another stretch of silence until the next level up the chain gets indicted... That level will start to include elected officials and some of TFG's inner circle. I think at about that point, people will start to really believe.

We shall see.

[Emile]

41. Well thought out reply. You give a new view that

I never thought of. Thanks and I hope you are right.

[mzmolly]

46. I think it's too early to say what Garland will do.

I have confidence he's letting the Jan 6th committee do its job, before moving forward with specific charges.

[sarcasmo]

49. Above the law.

[kacekwl]

56. The fact that you and Merrick Garland give a damn what Republicans think.or say

is what's wrong with the "justice" system in the US. Talk about political.

[boston bean]

62. It is political though.

[RANDYWILDMAN]

58. Sadly nobody had the courage with Nixon, so we got Trump and he was way worse

the next person who pulls this could be smarter then both people combined and could tear our country apart.

Merrick have some courage.

I voted for courage, not status quo


I want every peon who even stepped foot in the Capital on January 6th sent to the pokey for as long as possible.

[LymphocyteLover]

59. The Jan 6th investigation is the biggest test the DOJ has had-- they know the stakes

couldn't be higher. They are taking it seriously.

I think they will do right in the end, though it will take longer than we would like.

[Poiuyt]

60. Obviously we don't know, but I have the same opinion

I think Garland will come to the conclusion that pursuing Trump is not worth the hassle.

[Sogo]

61. I keep hoping Garland will

call up his former professor, Lawrence Tribe, and hire him for this particular case. Tribe would have TFG behind bars in no time….

[Dorian Gray]

63. I think you're right

and we are living in fantasy land if we think that the DOJ is going to charge him.

Having said that, the Jan 6th committee gives me pause. They are doing a very thorough investigation.

But they aren't the DOJ.

[Karma13612]

65. Hoping you are wrong.

But, I am getting used to being disappointed about our justice system in general. Not necessarily Garland, or any specific judge or justice, just overall defeated.

So, I am not holding my breath either.

But, just a side note about the debate going on in this specific thread.

It is always good for us to have opinions and work thru things. But, when I first saw the title of this thread, it’s authoritative wording led me to believe this was more fact than opinion.

Is it possible we should adopt the practice of SOME online news sources that precede their non-news articles with “OPINION” or “EDITORIAL”?

Like myself, some people here took exception to your authoritative wording and wondered how you could be so certain of your assertions. And as I said, I actually thought this was a news piece indicating that Garland had said as much. Of course, once I read your post, I understood it to be opinion.

Just a thought….

[Jose Garcia]

66. Remember how all of the Trump humpers hated Jeff Sessions?

[xmas74]

68. He won't because he doesn't need to.

His best course is to leave it to the various states investigations. Let New York prosecute him. He's more likely to be found guilty.

[msfiddlestix]

70. I'm trying very hard to accept this as reality, even though I want to believe otherwise

Sometimes over the past two decades, I wish we as a society screamed bloody murder when SCOTUS was allowed to determine who won Bush v Gore in 2000. That was more than a "landmark" decision, said to be a "one off".

It may not have been the actual beginning of the downfall of our democracy, but it was definitely an extremely significant event paving the road to where we are now. Nixon's pardon should not have been allowed to stand.

Lot's of "should never been allowed to happen" in the past 50 years. We never truly recovered from them, just glossed over with the passage of time. Put in the "moving forward" category, because what's done is done, and after all time marches on with challenges old and new.

When the Mueller investigations were on going, things looked hopeful. But then it came to an abrupt end just when it was time to nail the the criminal in chief. Oh, not until long after did we all learn that Mueller wasn't even
investigating financial dealings under pinning all of the crimes in question, when all along we collectively believed for good reason that it was an integral component.

Cy Vannce. Well, most of us had no faith in his "work" . Turned out we were right on that front.

The Psychopath is freely campaigning, holding rallies and whipping up incitement for Jan 6th 2.0.

With No End in Sight.

So, I'm dealing with my resistance to accept this reality. I'm old as dirt so it's not likely to change "my world" too drastically before I leave this planet, but I'm deeply concerned for my granddaughters futures.