I can certainly understand wishing that we had already watched an orange-clad Trump

[Atticus]

dragged kicking and screaming from a courtroom after his conviction for his multiple crimes. What I cannot understand is those who are so proud of their cynicism that they repeatedly state as a fact that "Trump will never pay any price. He never has and he never will!"

In order to believe that, you almost have to believe that AG Garland is some sort of Trumpian "Manchurian Candidate"; an agent of the "Dark Side" whose purpose is to aid Trump's escape from justice.

Barrack Obama nominated this man to sit on the SCOTUS. Trump's party denied him that seat.

This man quietly but effectively prosecuted the domestic terrorist responsible for the tragic Oklahoma City bombing.

Joe Biden appointed this man to be our AG. He is currently supervising the prosecution of an unprecedented volume of Capitol invaders and seditionists while following the tried and true "climb the ladder to the top" method of investigating large criminal enterprises.

Last night we heard Thompson and Cheney both repeatedly say that Trump was knowingly involved with the planning and executing a plan to overthrow the US government. I don't believe they would say what they said if they did not "have the receipts".

Does none of this mean anything?

Did Barrack and Joe foolishly appoint a "secret Republican operative?"

I don't KNOW what is happening at the DOJ. No one on the outside does. But, from where I sit, there is no real reason to assume the AG will "let Trump get away with it" and plenty of reasons to trust Merrick Garland to honor his oath and do his job---as he has always done.

[NanceGreggs]

1. Amen. n/t

[SoonerPride]

2. How can they ever seat an impartial jury?

I would imagine this is the first question Garland ponders and without a clear path on this point the discussion of seeking prosecution stops there.

So I posit it to you.

How would it be possible to seat an impartial jury?

[Atticus]

4. So, because we are all convinced he is guilty, he goes free? Juries which meet the legal

definition of "impartial" have been impaneled in countless "obvious" "slam dunk" cases where videos or confessions made the result highly predictable.

Were this not so, criminals who confessed to their crimes or filmed themselves "in the act" could escape consequences by publicizing their guilt.

[SoonerPride]

5. No. It would be too easy for a trumper to get on a jury

And let him skate.

With 30% of the country as members of a cult it seems implausible to impanel a jury without at least one cult member who would guarantee trump a hung jury.

That’s just a sad fact of our reality.

[TigressDem]

7. Show me the facts.

I don't care WHO he is or WHAT he has or hasn't done.

SHOW me the facts. THE FACTS determine guilt or innocence.

Just because I already know many of the facts doesn't mean I know them all.


IF he is really insane and was wrangled into this against his will, I can see him going away to a mental institution for his own safety... and ours.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. With the trajectory of the J6 Committee it won't matter

There is no exoneration with this kind of evidence. Even if there is no trial.

[former9thward]

21. Bush was (and is) called no end of names.

War criminal, etc. Yet he is now pals around with the former presidents and treated as such. Most people are not political. The bubble of the internet discussion boards distorts the reality of the world and how average people really think.

[TigressDem]

6. I agree that we should continue to have faith in the system even as it falls apart.

OUR faith is part of what keeps it together because the people fighting against the onslaught of deceit being poured on US like a waterfall by people who have more money than sense, OUR faith is a counterbalance to the darkness.

WHEN one of US succumbs to believing their lies, even when they tell US WE The People ARE NOT ENOUGH against their wealth.

IF ALL THE DEMS that are pissed at the Donald were to march on the Capitol.... Well, we wouldn't fit.

WE NEED CANDLELIGHT VIGILS outside the Jan 6 WATCH PARTIES.

WE SUPPORT TRUTH.

WE SUPPORT PEACE.

WE SUPPORT JUSTICE.

WE DO THE RIGHT THINGS. We need to take back the "right" from the REICH.

[edhopper]

8. There are other reasons

Garland will not move on Trump besides being a "secret Republican".

The Liberal Democratic DA of Manhattan is already letting him go, even though his own investigators say their is enough to convict him.

From where I sit, I see Garland letting him get away. I don't know why he is, but that is what I see.
We are both speculating from the little info we have.

[Phoenix61]

9. "Secret Republican" seriously? nt

[edhopper]

10. Isn't that what the OP claims

people here are saying?

[Phoenix61]

12. No, it doesn't. Seems to be just you. nt

[edhopper]

13. That is how I interpret this

"In order to believe that, you almost have to believe that AG Garland is some sort of Trumpian "Manchurian Candidate"; an agent of the "Dark Side" whose purpose is to aid Trump's escape from justice. "

[Phoenix61]

14. He is clearly not calling Garland a "secret Republican".

He’s saying anyone who thinks Garland won’t do his job must believe that or something like it. He then goes on to state the able evidence to support that Garland will do his job.

[Atticus]

15. Thank you. Just not in the mood to fight with strawmen today. nt

[Phoenix61]

16. You are most welcome. I always enjoy your posts. nt

[edhopper]

17. That's

what I was saying, I guess I didn't make it clear. That those who doubt Garland think he's a secret Republican. I said there are other reasons for doubt

[Phoenix61]

19. Right so he's not a "secret Republican" he's just incompetent.

The guy Obama wanted on the Supreme Court is an incompetent hack who can’t be trusted. The guy who brought the Oklahoma bomber to justice doesn’t know how to run an investigation. Right, but hey, bash away.

[edhopper]

20. Not incompetent

But doesn't see that he should prosecute Trump. The same as the Manhattan DA refuses, even though his own investigators said there was enough for conviction.
The way Obama refused to go after the Bush Administration or the Wall Street criminals.
You are myopic assigning one explanation for those of us who doubt Garland will pursue Trump. With nothing to back up your presumption. It is pure strawman all the way.

[Phoenix61]

24. I have lots to back up my position but you seem

determined to ignore it and rely on a “hunch.” I’m a firm believer the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior and everything in Garland’s past predicts he will investigate and prosecute anyone.

[edhopper]

26. I am not commenting

On our disagreement about whether Garland will prosecute Trump. I am saying the reason assigned to those of us who don't think so is a Strawman.

[Phoenix61]

27. No idea what you are trying to say but you wrote

“But doesn't see that he should prosecute Trump.” You made that determination based on what? That he hasn’t done so at this time? That since others haven’t done so he can’t? You haven’t shared anything in Garland’s past that supports your statement. Not one single thing. You don’t think he will prosecute Trump?Fine. But stop trying to say that it’s anything other than an opinion based on a feeling.

[edhopper]

28. As is those

that promise he will be indicted.
My other point is really about the OP, not what you wrote.

[Phoenix61]

29. I asked specifically what you are basing your opinion on and

crickets. Garland’s past behavior fully supports him indicting and prosecuting Trump. That you still haven’t provided any clear reason to doubt this puzzles me.

[edhopper]

30. Why?

Last edited Sat Jun 11, 2022, 09:07 PM - Edit history (1)

You will just say I am wrong. Plenty of people with more expertise have written the same thing. Like Lawrence Tribe.
With little effort you can find articles questioning Garland.u
I don't see the need to spend the effort to retype them now.
We shall see who is right in due time.

[Phoenix61]

31. You've taken lots of time not

answering a simple, direct question. If Lawrence Tribe shares what you believe a quick link to him doing so would certainly be sufficient.

[edhopper]

33. Why I think Garland won't indict

Is not a simple, one sentence answer.
And no matter what I do write, you will just disagree.
So why waste the effort.

Okay, you are 100% right, he will be indicated shortly. Nothing g to see here. Feel better?

[Phoenix61]

32. You mean this Laurence Tribe?

Tweeted June 7th with link to WaPo article
Laurence Tribe
@tribelaw
Knowing Merrick Garland for decades, I’m particularly encouraged by the way his DOJ is linking the dots in an ever-tightening spiral that can lead to only one prime mover, the clear beneficiary of the entire seditious conspiracy to seize the presidency 😡

The same one who said this?

Opinion Don’t give up on Merrick Garland quite yet
By Jennifer Rubin
Columnist
|Follow
June 7, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. EDT

“Other legal scholars such as Harvard University’s Laurence H. Tribe are likewise encouraged. He sees Monday’s developments as “a sign of this attorney general’s aggressiveness and dedication” that advances the theory that Trump was “at the center of the far-flung multifaceted conspiracy to overturn the very heart of American government, its peaceful transition of power pursuant to our quadrennial national election.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/07/dont-give-up-merrick-garland-quite-yet/

[edhopper]

34. Laurence Tribe

“Patience is wearing thin with Garland, not because he has so far failed to indict Trump or his cronies; [but] because he has not yet demonstrated the vision and nerve to defend democracy in its hour of need.”

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216790147

[Phoenix61]

35. That quote is nowhere in the link you posted..

And the post the link does go to is a summation written by a DU’er that also fails to provide a link.

[former9thward]

22. Ahh, no.

The OP aside there have been hundreds of posts claiming Garland was some sort of plant by the Republicans or asking questions like "Why did Sen. Lee ask Obama to appoint Garland?" Someone would have to have their eyes closed not to see them.

[Phoenix61]

25. Except the OP wasn't claiming that at all. nt

[Novara]

18. Sigh

These threads always devolve into the naysayers versus those who think justice will be served.

WHY DON'T WE ALL WAIT AND SEE?

Jeebus, people, this was only the FIRST hearing!

NO ONE knows what is going on in the DOJ.

NO ONE.

[ecstatic]

23. I don't fall into either camp when it comes to speculating on what will happen to tfg.

I truly don't know but I hope to God that he sees the slammer, and soon.

For me, the thought of nothing happening makes me angry beyond belief so that's why I sometimes get really impatient / angry with Garland. I sway back and forth between hope and anger based on things I see and hear on TV and DU.

As far as trusting Pres Obama and Biden, yes, I trust them--but I've never been one to think that someone is infallible. Everyone makes mistakes, especially when it comes to vouching for someone else. We cannot control someone else's behavior. From my understanding, Garland is a moderate/Independent, which to me means republican. I don't trust republicans, and for good reason. Just look around. Mueller did his job but in the end, he quietly walked off into the sunset, knowing his hard work had been mischaracterized. He wasn't going to do anything to harm his party or white republican male privilege. Just my opinion.