The Garland apologists

[Boydog]

are pretty much history. I think all but just a very few have decided that he has no desire to lend precedent to investigating a former President which is in my view criminal neglect when there is as much evidence as there is against Trump.

[Hoyt]

1. Until something unquestionably damning is found, support Garland, Biden,

Bragg, etc.

They might get Stone, and some others at that level, but that’s about it. I get some folks will go to their grave hating on prosecutors who didn’t go after trump. I learned my lesson with bush.

If they find stronger evidence, it might be different.

[slightlv]

2. Pshaw!

Trump could do something completely and without question illegal, directly in their face, and they STILL wouldn't have the guts to go after him.

Goodbye Democracy. It was nice while we knew ye...

[Hoyt]

3. I'll still trust Biden.

[dchill]

5. So will I - when he gets an Attorney General.

[dem4decades]

6. Thank you. Garland's inaction will be Biden's downfall. When the base isn't energized, elections

are lost.

[slightlv]

15. I worry with you

Not that it'll change my voting... I mean, what am I gonna do... vote R? But it sure makes it harder to talk to other people about the importance of voting. When it looks as tho there are two different tracks of justice and it feels like it's continually thrown in your face, it does no good for us at GOTV. The Rs are bad enough, but too many times since Nixon we Ds have heard variations of Look Forward, not back... and here we are now on the verge of losing our democracy. Or maybe the people I talk to are more practicality based.

[dem4decades]

67. We're die hard here. We vote all the time but there's others we need that

Reason to vote and if Democrats won't hold Republicans accountable they're like why bother.

[Hortensis]

82. The Democratic base is COMMITTED to our principles and votes reliably.

That makes them the base.

There is no such thing as a "sand" base that will weaken and fall away if others don't keep them propped up.

They're valuable citizens and their votes needed, of course, but they shouldn't be mistaken for the millions in our base who know what they believe in and how to achieve it. Those who can lured shiny-eyed off course by charismatic demagogues promising the world or discouraged by agitprop insisting nothing are part of the problem.

Or by the Boydogs who claim to speak for all. Biden's proven himself to be honorable and competent, and he chose Garland.

[Demsrule86]

20. A base that needs to be energized in order to elect Democrats instead of Republican traitors isn't

the base. The boots-on-ground Democrats vote Democratic in every election and never fuck around with third parties ever -not in 2000 and not in 2016...don't know Who you are talking about but not our Democratic 'base' who are always energized to vote for Democrats-knowing what the costs will be if Republicans win. No, the base does not need to get their own way in all things in order to vote for the good guys. I should know, I work every year to elect Democrats, vote in every election, and donate to Democrats-that makes me and those like me the base. I don't need to be 'energized'. And I tire of the same old threats. Hasn't this sort caused enough misery in this country with their constant need to be 'energized'? And don't tell me they are the Democratic base because I don't believe it. They are Greens, Stein voters, People's Party types, and Justice Democrats...not the base.

[slightlv]

26. I take it

You're not interested in expanding the base...
And congrats for getting my ire up while I'm in a flair.

You see, I'm a died in the wool Democrat, who only missed one off pres year election... and that was while serving in the Military. Never voted for anybody but a D.

However I AM very used to not having my vote count worth crap, nor my voice count even around here on such matters.

I live in KS, deep red but used to be blue when I was young. Nowadays they've gerrymandered even the one reliably D county.. I've been reaching out to those families from my youth to try to turn them back towards D. Guess I ought just give it up, eh?

We surely will have enough people voting D, and having their votes count in those 26+ states that have been electioneering out we women, Blacks, and Native Americans among other minorities they don't like. Your base can carry the day all by yourself can't you.

You better hope tfg runs again. That mught energize all these people you're so willing to write off.

I'm used to it. My voice, being a progressive D is usually pooh poohed like so many others.

But I don't care. I'm fighting the Koch brothers with as much vigor as my great grandfather had when he fought their father, or "toured" around here with Woody Guthrie. We don't tend to give up easy... nor do we ensconce ourselves in only like minded bubbles.

And so my lupus shoots a raspberry. Yea I can get childish in a flair. And that's exactly how your message came across... childish yet arrogant. But I do have a good friend who's as sweet as he can be, but when he writes online he comes across the same way. I'm gonna chalk your message style to be akin to his, and hope you're not just being an a** hole to me.

[betsuni]

35. +1

[Kaleva]

27. The base is made up of people who can energies themselves

We vote and work to GOTV the vote no matter what. That's what makes us the base.

Would it be safe to assume that you are not part of the base? That your vote and support for D candidates cannot be 100% depended on?

[betsuni]

32. +1

[Hoyt]

40. The "base" helped get trump elected when they weren't energized enough to vote in 2016

and/or were protesting because their guy didn't win the Democratic primaries.

Hope that doesn't happen again, but it appears it might.

[treestar]

45. The base does not fail to vote over one issue of many

It's the flakes who don't vote as if Republicans in power wouldn't do more things to get away with.

[smirkymonkey]

65. +1000

Appearances are everything. It doesn't really matter what he is doing at this point, although I would like to think positively, I have lost hope.

The point is that the base has lost faith that justice will ever be carrried out, and short of a miracle, we are running out of time.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

14. I admire your opinion but when you say "I trust...". Or

whenever anyone says that it makes me cringe. How can anyone be sacrosanct? Just saying...

[Hoyt]

42. I'll trust Biden more than a bunch of people typing in little white boxes, including me.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

60. I agree. But IMHO, he already knows that for whatever

reason, we can't really help and his only hope is that it ends quickly. Hence the short temper the other day. On his back is a new poll showing only 40% approval on handling Ukraine. ( Hey you could help by getting on TV and telling the public what we are doing?) Just see writing on wall, sorry. Hate it.. but reality . Have no idea who is in charge of PR at WH but in my opinion they suck big time. Like someone posted how President Biden forgave some student debt. Crickets. You can blame media all day long. But unless you have a coordinated effort of spokesmen on news constantly - no one will ever know.

[Hoyt]

61. Honestly, and I'll be bashed, but think a lot of poor polls is we're spending too much time going

after prior admin. At least it is part of the problem, and I bet that 5 to 10% of swing voters -- that decide elections nowadays -- feel the same way.

Sorry, I know I'm probably the only one that feels that way. The only hope is that I think Biden really wants to be a Prez for all, and maybe that will come through to those 5 - 10%ers.

[Bettie]

63. So, you think he, his enablers, and co conspirators

should just get a pass?

I guess laws really aren't a thing anymore.

[Hoyt]

64. He's not getting a pass. And if investigation causes us to lose House, he wins.

He was convicted by the ultimate court, voters. He has some followers left, mostly ignorant rubes, but not many. He’s going broke, and has to wake up every morning knowing he’s a failure.

But it’s your right to seek retribution for decades if you like. Not me.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

78. I think you are right. If it's taking too long for us...

Then it stands to reason it would be for that segment of swing voters, like you said. No minor victories against the trump inner circle doesn't help either.

It by no means diminishes our overwhelming desire to hold them to justice.... But it's evolutionary - some of us have reached a point where given the circumstances across the board it's starting to feel counterproductive.

[BradAllison]

53. That's fine, so do I with Biden

But all I know about Garland was he was a compromise candidate for the SCOTUS that was given a consolation prize as AG and Bragg I know only what he's done so far in office. which is jack shit.

[msfiddlestix]

72. I think Bragg has done worse than Jack shit, if I'm up to date on his decision to shut down

Manhattan pursuit to bring charges. Investigation was complete, it was time to bring those charges. he said Nope, not going to happen.

unless he's done an about face on that score, he's far worse than jack shit in my mind.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

79. That is such an accurate description "consolation prize"

I can't remember, who were the other AG candidates at the time?

[SpankMe]

12. Trump could shoot someone on 5th avenue

...and he wouldn't be prosecuted.

[slightlv]

28. Yippers. Thats what he said..

Though when I read your reply my first thought to what u said was...

No, that was Cheney... in the woods with a friend... with a shotgun..

And the friend apologizing for getting in his way...lol

[Emile]

77. I laughed when he said that, looks like the joke is on me!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

13. What do you attribute that to? I mean very good men

and women are trying to "get" trump. Sure they are as good a democrat as we are.

[Budi]

18. No. The actual "guts" it's taking is in 1st clearing the rot from the DOJ, FBI

...etc, so the entire Department can function as its intended to.

Thanks to Barr & his failure as US AG.

[L. Coyote]

17. I remember how well they insulated reagan for Iran-Contra. Proving guilt was harder than

knowing who was guilty. Not even Russia will find Trump e-mails because there aren't any. In my view, for a mob boss, that in itself goes to consciousness of guilt in this age. In their war for power, the soldiers do time for the crime boss and the cause. Also read the Meadows-Thomas e-mails with a Lord of Lords delusional rationalization, they are also massaging their guilty consciences. With enough work and commitment, there should be a heavy enough preponderance of evidence to bring down #FailedCoupGuy even if no one flips. A lot of these players could have been under surveillance.

Or as the conspirators like to say, spied on.

[slightlv]

30. Right...

Putin doesn't have emails on TFG for the reason u stated, I agree.

I had hoped among the tranche of emails released by Anonymous, tho, were emails from sitting congress critters who took part. MTG, Gaetz, Boebert, Gosar and others don't strike me as smart enough to keep their fingers from the keyboards. And among taking out the trash in the 3 letter depts, I dearly want to see it taken out in Congress, too.

[Celerity]

23. Biden and Garland I get, but hell no to Bragg. You are sullying the first

two by including them with him.

Bragg needs to go go go. It is outrageous he is letting Trump off the hook.

[Hoyt]

43. Since you are apparently imminiently knowledgable about Bragg's Department, did he ever find

one witness -- an insider -- that would, or could, testify that trump directed his staff to falsify financial statements?

Bragg knows they don't have the evidence needed to win a case, that will be deemed a political case. A loss is worst than failing to indict when you know you'll likely lose and take resources away from other pressing issues in NYC.

[Celerity]

47. The main (ex) prosecutors from the case disagree, & they ARE eminently (imminently is the wrong word

as it means 'soon', when you meant 'clearly, very, to a high degree') knowledgeable.




Mark Pomerantz Is Furious About Trump’s Latest Escape From Justice

https://newrepublic.com/article/165841/mark-pomerantz-trump-alvin-bragg

There is rarely bad news in a district attorney’s office. Prosecutors almost never lose at trial because 90 to 95 percent of criminal cases end in plea deals. They report so little data on their performance—on charging decisions, sentencing patterns, or even misconduct—that experts refer to the average prosecutor’s office as a “black box.” Americans mostly learn about what their local district attorney does on their behalf through press conferences and campaign ads for their reelection.

So it is extraordinary that The New York Times published a resignation letter this week from Mark Pomerantz, a now-former prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney’s office. Pomerantz resigned in February in protest of what he said was District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s decision not to bring charges against former President Donald Trump, after a years-long investigation into his company’s finances. In the letter, Pomerantz told Bragg that Trump is “guilty of numerous felony violations.”

“His financial statements were false, and he has a long history of fabricating information relating to his personal finances and lying about his assets to banks, the national media, counterparties, and many others, including the American people,” Pomerantz wrote. “The team that has been investigating Mr. Trump harbors no doubt about whether he committed crimes—he did.”

Unless something changes, the letter will be a fitting coda for an investigation that once represented the most perilous legal challenge for the former president. Trump fought it every step of the way, even by raising far-fetched legal theories before the Supreme Court in 2020. The justices rejected him in 2020 by ruling that presidents could not generally invoke their office to ignore a state criminal subpoena. It turns out that Trump did not even need the presidency to defeat this case, however. He simply had to be persistent, careful, and wealthy.

snip



Read the Full Text of Mark Pomerantz’s Resignation Letter

The former prosecutor who investigated Donald J. Trump believed that the former president was “guilty of numerous felony violations.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/nyregion/mark-pomerantz-resignation-letter.html

The following is the full text of the resignation letter by Mark Pomerantz, who had investigated former President Donald J. Trump, but left after the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, halted an effort to seek an indictment.

Dear Alvin,

I write to tender my resignation as a Special Assistant District Attorney and to explain my reasons for resigning.

As you know from our recent conversations and presentations, I believe that Donald Trump is guilty of numerous felony violations of the Penal Law in connection with the preparation and use of his annual Statements of Financial Condition. His financial statements were false, and he has a long history of fabricating information relating to his personal finances and lying about his assets to banks, the national media, counterparties, and many others, including the American people. The team that has been investigating Mr. Trump harbors no doubt about whether he committed crimes — he did.

In late 2021, then-District Attorney Cyrus Vance directed a thorough review of the facts and law relating to Mr. Trump’s financial statements. Mr. Vance had been intimately involved in our investigation, attending grand jury presentations, sitting in on certain witness interviews, and receiving regular reports about the progress of the investigation. He concluded that the facts warranted prosecution, and he directed the team to present evidence to a grand jury and to seek an indictment of Mr. Trump and other defendants as soon as reasonably possible.

This work was underway when you took office as District Attorney. You have devoted significant time and energy to understanding the evidence we have accumulated with respect to the Trump financial statements, as well as the applicable law. You have reached the decision not to go forward with the grand jury presentation and not to seek criminal charges at the present time. The investigation has been suspended indefinitely. Of course, that is your decision to make. I do not question your authority to make it, and I accept that you have made it sincerely. However, a decision made in good faith may nevertheless be wrong. I believe that your decision not to prosecute Donald Trump now, and on the existing record, is misguided and completely contrary to the public interest. I therefore cannot continue in my current position.

In my view, the public interest warrants the criminal prosecution of Mr. Trump, and such a prosecution should be brought without any further delay. Because of the complexity of the facts, the refusal of Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization to cooperate with our investigation, and their affirmative steps to frustrate our ability to follow the facts, this investigation has already consumed a great deal of time. As to Mr. Trump, the great bulk of the evidence relates to his management of the Trump Organization before he became President of the United States. These facts are already dated, and our ability to establish what happened may erode with the further passage of time. Many of the salient facts have been made public in proceedings brought by the Office of the Attorney General, and the public has rightly inquired about the pace of our investigation. Most importantly, the further passage of time will raise additional questions about the failure to hold Mr. Trump accountable for his criminal conduct.

snip



Turns Out Those Trump Prosecutor Resignations Were Exactly As Bad As They Looked

NYT got the details, and they are UGLY.

https://abovethelaw.com/2022/03/turns-out-those-trump-prosecutor-resignations-were-exactly-as-bad-as-they-looked/

A month ago, the New York Times broke the news that Carey R. Dunne and Mark F. Pomerantz, two outside prosecutors brought in by former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. to investigate Donald Trump, had both tendered their resignations. The odds of the two top guys deciding simultaneously that they needed to spend more time with their families seemed remote, although Vance’s successor Alvin Bragg assured the public that the investigation continued apace.

Turns out … not so much.

The Daily Beast reported three weeks ago the Dunne and Pomerantz left resignation letters explaining that they were leaving because Bragg had torpedoed their case, and that the letters were so detailed and damning that the DA’s office refused to release them under New York’s Freedom of Information Law. But the Times got its hands on Pomerantz’s letter to Bragg, and it’s every bit as bad as described.

The Times reports that Pomerantz and Dunne were ready to seek an indictment charging Trump with falsifying business records, rather than fraud, which would be harder to prove. But Bragg balked at going forward with the presentment without more evidence, effectively shutting down the investigation.

“As you know from our recent conversations and presentations, I believe that Donald Trump is guilty of numerous felony violations of the Penal Law in connection with the preparation and use of his annual Statements of Financial Condition,” Pomerantz wrote. “His financial statements were false, and he has a long history of fabricating information relating to his personal finances and lying about his assets to banks, the national media, counterparties, and many others, including the American people.”

snip



DA Bragg, explain why you dropped the case against Trump

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-bragg-trump-explain-20220329-6fa77vsvhfbytikdbpjwt2fi7e-story.html

It is time for recently elected Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg to publicly explain why he suspended the grand jury presentation that focused on whether criminal charges should be brought against Donald Trump for financial irregularities. The abrupt resignation of Mark Pomerantz and Carey Dunne, who headed the DA’s investigation of Trump under former DA Cy Vance, has raised serious questions that serve to undermine the public’s confidence in the integrity of the district attorney’s investigation. Pomerantz’s extraordinary resignation letter, which detailed his reasons for leaving, and the recent reports that prosecutors are now returning documents to people who turned over information about Trump’s business hardly support the new DA’s claim that “the investigation continues.”

Together, we have practiced criminal law as a prosecutor and as criminal defense attorneys for more than 85 years. We embrace the ethical principle that prosecutors should not normally publicly comment on ongoing investigations. But the facts and circumstances of the Trump investigation compelled two highly experienced and respected lawyers to suddenly resign after years of work cry. This cries out for answers to restore public confidence in one of the country’s most highly respected prosecutor’s offices.

Pomerantz, a former federal prosecutor, in fact came out of retirement to lead the investigation at the behest of then-DA Vance. Dunne had served as the DA’s general counsel and had distinguished himself by his successful argument that resulted in the Supreme Court’s decision that Trump’s personal taxes had to be turned over to prosecutors. Pomerantz’s resignation letter did not mince words when he stated that the prosecution team that had been investigating Trump “harbors no doubt about whether he committed crimes — he did.” He went on to say, “I believe that Donald Trump is guilty of numerous felony violations of the Penal Law in connection with the preparation and use of his annual Statements of Financial Condition. His financial statements were false…” Based on the evidence that the DA had obtained and analyzed, he left no doubt that the decision to not prosecute Trump is “misguided and completely contrary to the public interest.”

Bragg must explain why the public interest of the people of the state of New York does not warrant Trump’s prosecution based on the evidence that was already in hand at the time of his assuming office in January 2021. At the very least, why not present all the evidence that his office already obtained and leave it to the grand jury to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that Trump committed felonies? What is the evidentiary basis for his decision to halt the grand jury’s consideration of evidence when the prosecutors who had been working on the investigation for years so strongly believed that the facts warranted charging Trump, were compelled to resign rather than remain silent in the face of an “injustice”?

snip

[Hoyt]

49. Pomerantz was relatively low level - new hire for trump investigation - not head of the DA's office.

Bragg -- a duly elected and apparently competent DEMOCRAT -- has a lot more on his plate than putting his job, and all the resources of his office on the line, for a likely failed attemp to convict trump.

But let's oust him, the state AG, Garland, Biden, etc.

[Celerity]

51. sorry, not playing into your spin and non sequitur games

But let's oust him, the state AG, Garland, Biden, etc.

Rubbish and a non sequitur as well.

I have never ONCE said to oust Letitia James, Garland or Biden. Blatantly false projection, and an attempt to try and false frame me.

It is a non sequitur because just because I (or anyone) am critical of one person in no way means I am critical of other specific people. You are making it up out of whole cloth.


As for your attempts at diminution of Pomerantz and Dunne, they are just silly. They both have decades and decades-long records as both prosecutors and defence attorneys at very high levels.


also

Pomerantz was relatively low level

nope


Prosecutors in charge of Trump criminal probe have resigned

The two prosecutors in charge of the Manhattan district attorney’s criminal investigation into former President Donald Trump have suddenly resigned, throwing the future of the probe into question

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/prosecutors-charge-trump-criminal-probe-resigned-83068560



and

new hire for trump investigation - not head of the DA's office

He came out of retirement, he was not some noob

and

Of course they were not the head of the DA's office

That is THE DA

it was Vance

now it is Bragg

[Hoyt]

52. He was like Mueller, guy with nothing to do looking for one last big payday before moving to Florida

[Celerity]

54. LOL, ridiculous. Which is it? First you said (falsely) he was some low level nobody, NOW you are

tossing out the old

looking for one last big payday before moving to Florida

gambit


smdh


done here

[Hoyt]

55. He's 70 years old Celerity. Christ, it's not like he's trying to advance his career.

If he's ticked at Bragg, maybe he should run for office in 2025. Or if he can undermind Bragg, maybe he'd get a promotion.

[Celerity]

56. Oh, now we have the ageist card played, with the added bonus of repeatedly questioning his motives

(and not just in this one post nor just this thread btw) for wanting to go after TRUMP.

sigh

[Hoyt]

57. You queston Bragg's integrity. Sigh

[TheBlackAdder]

4. Ex-Prosecutor suspects DOJ isn't working with Congress because they are 'compromised'

.

Former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner agreed but said one reason for it might be that members of Congress have criminal exposure or culpability for Jan. 6. He specifically cited the reconnaissance tours at least one member said she witnessed a GOP colleague giving. There was a near obsession about where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was during the Jan. 6 proceedings, as the rioters were searching for her. He also cited "giving aid and comfort to the insurrection," and other things that can be linked to the GOP.

His comments come after former FBI official Frank Figliuzzi noted that his sources seem to indicate there are things going on behind the scenes. Those sources are telling him to give them time, assuring him that they're doing their jobs.
"It is everyone's question, 'why,'" Figliuzzi explained. "You know where I am on this. I have seen indications that something is happening. I don't see evidence of coordination and I get worried that the committee is in front of DOJ and doing things that they might like and then people telling me — who I trust — [to] calm down. 'Calm down. Give us space. We are doing our job.' So, I think DOJ is paying close attention and further, I think they have a strategy here and I still hold out hope that they're going to put the name Donald J. Trump in the subject line of a federal investigation."

Fellow former prosecutor Barb McQuade agreed, saying that judges don't generally make statements without facts to back them up. If that is the case, the DOJ is already on it, she thinks.

https://www.rawstory.com/republican-congress-compromised-january-6/

.

[dem4decades]

7. What are the chances Jeffery Clarke was the only Trumper at DOJ?

[uponit7771]

16. +1,

[Budi]

19. Absolutely. Here's a good dive into the Trump/Barr corruption of that Dept.

It's a read only if your interested in the details.
https://file411.substack.com/p/remember-that-time-someone-said-the

Here's a snip for starters:
Senate Judiciary to FBI & DOJ-OIG:.
The sheer number of FBI investigations that failed to comply with the DIOG’s rules suggests a pattern and practice of evading the rules.

In the late summer of 2021 ..a lengthy article about the newly disclosed DOJ practice where they violated the *SIMs (Special Investigative Matters) and under the Trump/Barr DOJ official sought not only gag orders but incredibly invasive subpoenas. You can read more here as I firmly believe and actually stated, the fall out would be catastrophic.

HERE. WE. ARE. Unfortunately exactly where some of us predicated we would be.

Additionally please note this is not a categorical condemnation of the DOJ. This is about “policies and procedures (P&Ps) ” and the FBI and more broadly the DOJ’s departure from long held agency P&Ps.

Snip
"Sometimes facts and the truth can be uncomfortable but I’d rather know both then to be blindsided and I believe that my readers largely share this position.

**Case in point on page 2 of the Senate letter to Director Wray - which reads in part:

"FBI reviewed 353 SIMs—just under half of all such matters that were pending during this 18-month period—and identified 747 violations.
Examples of DIOG requirement violations identified by the audit include the following:

*In 45 investigations, the FBI did not conduct or document a legal review prior to opening a SIM;

*In 40 investigations, the FBI officials who opened a SIM did not obtain approval from the relevant Special Agent in Charge or Assistant Special Agent in Charge;

*In 250 cases—70 percent of those audited—the relevant FBI field office did not notify the relevant U.S. Attorney’s Office within 30 days of opening a SIM, and in 46 cases the FBI field office did not notify FBI headquarters within 15 days of opening a SIM; and

*In dozens of instances, FBI headquarters and/or DOJ were not notified of intrusive investigative steps, such as search warrants and Title III wiretaps.
...Much More...


This is a very deep dive into the how fked up these Dept's have become.
Knowing Biden needed an AG who would 'right that ship'& clear out the corruption, Merrick Garland was indeed the man for the moment.

Trust Joe Biden, 1st.

[Kaleva]

25. +1

[Budi]

29. Thanks. And btw, It took Tom Perez and Eric Holder several years to undo the damage W did to ....

"It took Tom Perez and Eric Holder several years to undo the damage W did to the Civil/Voting Righs sections. There was an asshole named Christian Adams who had to be purged. Adams now represents 'True the Vote'
LMPV

Wiki:

*True the Vote (TTV) is a conservative vote-monitoring organization based in Houston, Texas whose stated objective is stopping voter fraud.
The organization supports voter ID laws and trains volunteers to be election monitors and to spot and bring attention to suspicious voter registrations that its volunteers believe delegitimize voter eligibility.
The organization's tag line is "If you see something at the polls that just doesn't seem right, record it."
*True the Vote's current president is Catherine Engelbrecht.
****************

This is what Garland is tasked with, now magnified by 4 years of Bill Barr.

[slightlv]

31. As tired and panic-y some of us feel

I'll bet Kirschner is really chomping at the bit. I followed him a lot in the early days. He's any one of us on steroids.

As my patience has worn thin and memories if fitzmas dance in my head I've kinda list track and interest in the video. They listen to him about as much as they listen to us, his contacts notwithstanding. Sigh...

[Colgate 64]

8. He was a lousy choice for the Supreme Court

and a worse one for A.G.

[Budi]

24. Well Mitch would certainly agree with that!!

Yuppers!

[slightlv]

33. I'm convinced Mitch

Would have done the same thing no matter who it was.

Mitch hated Obama with a white hot racist hate. He'd have ko'd anybody just because Obama had picked him, Imo.

[Budi]

9. I'm more curious about who wants AG Garland removed.

I'm guessing Bill Barr is one of them.

[stopdiggin]

10. I don't have any particular problem

with Garland. And I feel that way even when I'm not seeing 100% all the things I'd wish for. Think that a little bit the nature of the beast. And, no - I'm not ready to declare the system is 'broken.'

So I guess that would be a "No" vote.
----- -----

[Fiendish Thingy]

11. Since you view AG's conduct (or really, the lack of public information about his conduct) as neglect

Criminal neglect you called it, would you support Garland’s impeachment?

That seems to be the only position consistent with your view.

You do realize that most of the significant evidence against Trump has only just emerged in the past two months, Since the SCOTUS ruling and the testimony of Pence’s staff, right?

[Budi]

22. K & R . See my post #19 above & the Read I linked to.

AG Garland was tasked to clean out the Trump/Barr rot from the entire DOJ, FBI etc...
And that was his 1st task, while the Jan 6th committee dug into their investigations in a more public eye.

[ShazzieB]

21. I have no idea what may or may not be going on at the DOJ, and I'm not even going to try to guess.

I really, truly, honestly still feel that I DO NOT KNOW what is going to happen, and that (cliché though it may be), it's not over till it's over (and it's NOT over yet). For those reasons, I haven't commented in any threads about this in quite a while.

I understand and share the frustration about how long this is taking, but I don't understand how anyone can be as absolutely certain of how things are going to turn out as some here seem to be. As far as I'm concerned, this is like a book with the last few chapters missing--because they haven't been written yet. And at this point, I am still willing to wait until they get written and see what they say rather than try and guess the ending.

I don't think any of this constitutes being an apologist, because I'm not arguing for OR against Garland or the DOJ or anyone else involved. I am simply saying I DON'T KNOW. I don't feel any compulsion to jump to conclusions about the intentions of any individual or agency, but I also don't feel any compulsion to try to convince others NOT to do so.

Everyone else's mileage may vary, of course. For now I am still....

[betsuni]

34. What does "the Garland apologists" mean?

How do you know what he's doing or not doing?

[kentuck]

36. I am gradually coming to the conclusion...

...that nothing will be done until after the election in November. In my opinion, the DOJ may have decided that this is a hot potato that cannot be picked up unless it is done in a "bi-partisan" way?

The schedule may have already been put into place? The Committee will finish their public hearings in June or July and make their recommendations. The DOJ will announce that they will investigate the matter. But they will not begin until after the August recess. Then, there are only two months left until the election.

If the Democrats win in November, the investigation will continue. If the Republicans win, it will be put on the back burner with the facade that the DOJ is continuing the investigation. But, unless there is some sort of bombshell, the investigation will effectively be buried.

[Emile]

37. PATIENCE

SARCASM

[dsp3000]

38. I'm still hoping maybe Garland will time it right to make maximum R damage for the midterms

If he did anything last year or even now, i think it would just blow over in a few cycles. just my opinion though.

[MineralMan]

39. How about a little information from you about how you know enough to

make statements like this one? That'd be great. I haven't seen enough of your posts to get any idea of your expertise or knowledge.

No doubt, you consider me to be one of the "Garland apologists." That affects me not at all.

I cannot say that I know what is going on at the DOJ, because I am not there. I think that neither are you.

Those of us who believe that investigations are ongoing at the DOJ and include investigations of Trump are weary of arguing with people who have no more information about the DOJ's activities than we do.

So, we're not jumping into every thread from people who are dissatisfied that Garland has not produced an indictment of Trump yet. Nope. There's no point to doing that. We would not change your mind, so why bother?

Personally, I believe that what is going on at the DOJ and in the House Committee is carefully timed for maximum impact on the midterm elections. I cannot provide you with evidence for that belief, nor will I attempt to do so.

As always, I say, "I don't know exactly what the DOJ is doing, and neither do you." Those are statements of truth.

So, I'm waiting. I trust the Biden administration on this. Yes, I do.

[Boydog]

44. There used to be loads of people defending

Garland on this issue. Now only a few. There needs to be a sense of urgency to this for our Democracy’s sake. The threat is very very real. It almost seems he’s hesitating for the sake of decorum.

[MineralMan]

48. "It almost seems..." You don't know any facts, just as I said.

Today a Deputy Attorney General made a statement that the investigations are ongoing at all levels. That is a fact.

As for how many people are defending the DOJ - you're talking to one. We're here, and we post in these threads. So, you're wrong once again. There are statements from the DOJ and there are people here who support those statements.

Any other questions?

[Boydog]

50. People are growing increasingly more

impatient every day with this as the clock ticks toward the mid terms. Some on here are oblivious to this. Garland certainly is. I am definitely not a Garland hater. I do respect his knowledge and expertise

[MineralMan]

58. Garland is not "oblivious." He knows people are impatient.

However, such prosecutions take a long time to prepare. The higher the level of the person, the longer it will take.

Just a little understanding of the legal system is required to understand that. Impatience without knowledge is a waste of time. It wastes your time, and it wastes the time of others, who have to keep explaining, again and again, what is very simple.

Prosecutors do not take cases they will lose because they are poorly prepared to court. So, they prepare to win. Would you rather they rushed and lost at trial? I'll bet not.

In the case of Trump, he will be the first former President ever prosecuted for a crime committed while in office. If you don't understand what a challenge that's going to be, you haven't thought this through very well.

So, we're not gone. We're just weary of explaining the same simple thing again and again. But, here I am, doing it again. I will be here in the future, too. Eventually, I will post an "I told you so post," once the convictions are in.

[lame54]

81. Of course, we know what's going on. It's all over the news...

They're investigating Hunter Biden

[Trumpdumper]

41. The Garland Haters are no better informed than anyone else

I am appalled at the amateurish invective directed toward the AG. The naysayers think he's not treating this issue seriously, which I'm sure could not be further from the truth.

And with a divided Senate, what is the likelihood of getting a more zealous (read: politically impatient) appointment confirmed?

[treestar]

46. You are calling out DUers

And your impatience is ever the same.

Why don't you write Garland and tell him what the evidence is against Trump, and what criminal charges it supports?

[xmas74]

59. I'm not an apologist

I just know that the government tends to take their time. When I worked in public safety I saw cases take years to prosecute. Garland took office in 2021. This is 2022. I don't expect anything for some time.

[Scar Tissue]

62. I'm thinking some of you would totally be down to indict Trump...

Just to have him get off because there's not a substantial case and now he has even more fodder to throw out at the base. It's quite remarkable at just how politically tone-deaf some of you guys can be when it comes to this. Either Garland has a slam dunk case against Trump - or he shouldn't indict or charge him with anything. The last thing we want is for him to be charged and get off.

if Garland isn't charging, they obviously don't think they have a case that will land Trump behind bars.

[Hoyt]

66. I agree with that. However, not sure that's best way to introduce yourself here. Good luck.

[CrackityJones75]

68. This post is divisive and out of bounds.

And third grade level to boot.

[Emile]

69. It seems the peoples patience has ran out!

[uponit7771]

70. I would agree until I saw J6 congressional leaders calling on the DOJ to do something.

[Boydog]

71. Yes. The Jan 6 committee

having to publicly call on a sitting Attorney General to get him to force these creeps to honor their subpoenas is shameful.

[CrackityJones75]

73. So being a divisive instigator on this forum helps?

Creating division her will not help one bit. If you are frustrated write to your rep and senator. Write the white house. Write to the DOJ but using divisiveness here has no place IMO.

[Emile]

74. Do you think the J6 congressional leaders are being divisive too?

[CrackityJones75]

75. Oh forget it

This forum is going the way everything is these days anyways.

Good luck.

[Emile]

76. You can call out concerned posters as being divisive, but ignore a simple question.

Yes maybe we should just close our eyes and forget.

[Shellback Squid]

80. Cogent argument.................for pessimists