General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsImpatience with the seemingly slow pace of DOJ indictments
may be explained by both practical and POLITICAL considerations. On the practical side, staffing issues, filing protocols and the sheer volumes of evidence are self explanatory regarding the appearance of indictments.
Politically, the timing of indictments may play into a progressive advantage in the midterms and beyond. A lot of GOP criminals are involved in primaries and for our purposes, the best times for them to be indicted would be AFTER they secure their nominations and are on the ballot v. Dem. candidates. For example, picture Ron Johnson indicted for sedition or obstruction as he campaigns for the Senate?
IOW, what seems to be legal foot dragging might end up being political savvy.
Ocelot II
(115,936 posts)Consider just the events leading up to the December 18, 2020 series of meetings at the White House, involving Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, and Mark Meadows, which some of the same reporters that reported it in real time are reporting as if it were new news.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Or at least will spin a story to that effect, as Comey did.
That means they definitely will NOT indict after the primaries. And at this pace, not before the primaries, either. In other words, probably never. There's always another election coming...
MineralMan
(146,345 posts)or will not do. The reality is that you have no actual idea, and no information that comes from the DOJ, either.
Neither do I, which is why I'm not predicting anything. My guess is that the DOJ is busy investigating and making decisions on how to proceed, but I don't know what the substance of either thing is. However, we do have AG Garland's general statements about the ongoing investigations.
You are investing a great deal of credibility capital in your doomish predictions of inaction. What will you do if you are wrong, I wonder?
boston bean
(36,224 posts)entirely your prerogative.
MineralMan
(146,345 posts)Actually, though, I did provide my opinion in the post to which you are replying. You just don't like my opinion.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)I am allowed to have an opinion, based on my own observations of the past 50 years of politics.
So are you.
MineralMan
(146,345 posts)Of course you are allowed to have an opinion. However, if you share that opinion in a DU thread, you're likely to get responses, where others share their opinions of your opinion.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Pantagruel
(2,580 posts)Don't think that's the DOJ rule. It's not a sitting POTUS we're talking about indicting, it's congresscritters.