General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsProfessor Tribe was just on MSNBC. Garland was one of his students.
He basically said this, Garland has more than enough evidence to indict Trump on at least 4 felonies. He then said what many of us here have been saying.
Garland will have to decide, what is more harmful to the country. Indicting Trump or not indicting Trump. What ever decision he makes it will be historic and change our country forever.
He also said the case in Georgia is pretty much a slam dunk. The DA in Georgia could very well indict Trump.
He did not mention the people in Trumps inner circle. I think it is absolutely necessary Garland indicts the traitors in Trumps inner circle.
Good luck Merrick Garland.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
rampartc
(5,400 posts)changed the country forever.
acceptance of trumps autocratic rule by violent mob must end.
fightforfreedom
(4,913 posts)
bucolic_frolic
(43,115 posts)There's so much stuff to watch and do!
I don't see the fallout as Garland's problem or call. He'll have a lot of backup from J6 Committee, and from the state cases against TDFG.
fightforfreedom
(4,913 posts)The DA in Georgia has courage. Her life is in danger. She has been getting many death threats. She has a smoking gun case with Trumps infamous phone call. If she indicts Trump that would allow Garland to go after all the traitors in Trumps inner circle and not worry about Trump for now. He could still go after him later.
gab13by13
(21,286 posts)not with the evidence or the prosecution, but with time. I bet it will be 2 years before Trump goes to trial. What is going on now is a special grand jury, it only gathers evidence and makes a recommendation to go to a real grand jury.
Overall I totally agree that what is going on in Fulton County may give Trump a nervous breakdown. Even though the process may drag out Trump will have no way to subvert justice. Tribe did say this was the easiest case to prove, regardless what Barbara McQuade said.
Response to bucolic_frolic (Reply #2)
fightforfreedom This message was self-deleted by its author.
Mr.Bill
(24,263 posts)how is it he gets to "decide" whether or not to indict someone trying to overthrow the government?
Baitball Blogger
(46,697 posts)I don’t see any good reason not to. Tensions will only get worse in my community because no one has the desire to stand up to these treasonous bastards.
fightforfreedom
(4,913 posts)I hope so and if it leads to Trump voters becoming violent, we will deal with them.
gab13by13
(21,286 posts)up to this post. Tribe did not say he believes that Garland will do the right thing, he said he hopes.
Also, I have a question about how many people here at DU have been saying that even though Garland has evidence to indict Trump he may choose not to if he believes it will be more harmful for the country to indict?
Other than me, who else has said this? I have been beaten up here for saying pretty much what Laurence Tribe just said.
fightforfreedom
(4,913 posts)I did not say Tribe said it. As for your question, other people have talked about it , including me.
gab13by13
(21,286 posts)it gets me in trouble.
Remember that Merrick Garland is a self-avowed institutionalist, I know that because I heard Garland say that.
We are really on the same page here. I believe that not indicting Trump will do much greater harm to our nation and destroy our democracy, the thing is that what I believe and want doesn't matter.
Thank god for the select committee, it may convince Garland to indict Trump, and I did hear that he is watching.
Justice matters.
(6,925 posts)... and follow what the Laws prescribe, no matter what the 'title' of the law breakers was (or is?).
Since a Judge already said after close examination of the evidence he was presented that dump probably committed two specific crimes, based on Garland's press conference, it would be a dereliction of duty to not indict IMHO. He would be pressured to resign (for lying?).
treestar
(82,383 posts)enough for a case. That's his decision, not the decision of every person on the internet who thinks they know best.
Mr.Bill
(24,263 posts)He said Garland has enough evidence to convict Trump on four felonies. Tribe is not exactly every person on the internet who thinks he knows best. The OP discusses whether Garland thinks it will tear the country apart, not whether there is enough evidence. I'm just saying it's not Garland's job to decide how the country will react. His job is to indict if he has the evidence.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Or is he a professor only?
gab13by13
(21,286 posts)said that there is enough evidence now to indict Trump for at least 3 crimes. Tribe then said that Garland will have a momentous decision to make whether to indict or not. Tribe said that Garland could decide that an indictment could cause a Civil war which may tear the country apart.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Doesn't matter how well he knows Garland. With this opinion, he needs, for credibility, more experience than Garland as a prosecuting attorney.
Baitball Blogger
(46,697 posts)It will just encourage the Right to escalate their efforts.
paleotn
(17,902 posts)
Celerity
(43,258 posts)
Tree Lady
(11,446 posts)Maybe he is watching and waiting to see how Americans respond to the committee and if the overwhelming majority is wondering why he isn't indicting Trump. He knows the country is split and is weighing how much violence will come out if Trump is arrested. Is he afraid Trump's people will take up all these millions of guns they have?
gab13by13
(21,286 posts)would take into consideration if indicting Trump could cause a Civil war. Tribe paused and said he hoped Garland would do the right thing.
Elessar Zappa
(13,950 posts)Remember most right wingers are cowards at their core. They might protest and some may get violent if Trump’s indicted but it won’t be anywhere near a civil war.
durablend
(7,459 posts)That means the MAGAts have free license to go around and hunt down libs because "there's no consequences"
CrackityJones75
(2,403 posts)the low hanging fruit have been getting justice
paleotn
(17,902 posts)Period. End of memo.
treestar
(82,383 posts)considers the popular view when it comes to indicting someone. Evidence. That's what the decision should be based on.
Voltaire2
(12,992 posts)Justice is not a popularity contest.
Hekate
(90,618 posts)
a kennedy
(29,642 posts)evidence against him??? Or that he should be indicted???
gab13by13
(21,286 posts)Members of the grand jury were upset it didn't go to trial.
Joinfortmill
(14,408 posts)convicted.
allegorical oracle
(2,357 posts)gab13by13
(21,286 posts)but I am slowly changing my opinion. The select committee is changing the narrative and hopefully it will convince AG Garland to indict.
What we need in the USA are a couple of billionaires to start a cable news network that is progressive, a network to combat Fox, no not by using propaganda but by using facts and the truth. Bring back Dylan Ratigan, Keith Olbermann, and hire Stephanie Miller and Thom Hartmann. Democrats need a progressive cable news network capable of controlling the narrative.
SharonAnn
(13,772 posts)fightforfreedom
(4,913 posts)I have talked about our history when It comes to indicting presidents. It's never been done. There is reason for that. It could cause great harm to our nation. With that said, after watching the first hearing which was damming and more hearings to follow. The case against Trump is unbelievably strong.
It may cause more harm not to in indict him. I want Garland to indict him and convict him. Whatever happens afterward is something the American people will have to deal with. It's time to end this madness once and for all. There may be violence, people could get killed, but that is the price we have to pay if we want to keep our democracy.
stopdiggin
(11,286 posts)And it's one that people from all points on the spectrum (institutionalists, legal scholars, politicians, revolutionary fire brands .. and school teachers) have had honest discourse and self-examination over.
Easy enough to say, "It doesn't matter .." "Rule of law."
And I certainly don't argue against that perspective ...
But it's only fair to point out that it's not the only, or universal, one.
Poiuyt
(18,122 posts)no one has done anything as bad as Trump has. You could make the case that Nixon could have been indicted, but I don't think he was nearly as corrupt as Trump. No president in our history has done anything like attempting a coup.
Response to allegorical oracle (Reply #16)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
Mr. Ected
(9,670 posts)Existential moment coming soon.
The rule of law is meaningless when egregious attacks on basic democratic principles are timidly addressed by those entrusted to protect us.
world wide wally
(21,739 posts)gab13by13
(21,286 posts)Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
paleotn
(17,902 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)This is the 21st century.
gab13by13
(21,286 posts)
ananda
(28,856 posts)He would be so great.
bringthePaine
(1,727 posts)
SergeStorms
(19,192 posts)"What is more harmful to the country".
Are you freaking kidding me? 
Let's see...dictatorship or democracy? 
I don't think that's much of a choice, but I'm not Merrick Garland.
gab13by13
(21,286 posts)There is no doubt that Trump can be indicted beyond a reasonable doubt, Laurence tribe said so, but he paused before he said, I hope Garland does the right thing.
Hey, Tribe going on TV and saying that may influence Garland.
Response to gab13by13 (Reply #27)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
Meowmee
(5,164 posts)Joinfortmill
(14,408 posts)
andym
(5,443 posts)Trump's men should be indicted first followed by the ringleader.
Justice matters.
(6,925 posts)Response to andym (Reply #36)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
andym
(5,443 posts)against the leader. One can always indict, but the stronger the case, the better the chance for conviction.
Response to andym (Reply #46)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
gab13by13
(21,286 posts)DOJ should not be waiting for referrals for Pete's sake. Look at what the select committee dug up with limited resources and DOJ wanted them to turn over evidence, that did not encourage me.
Meowmee
(5,164 posts)Let the chips fall where they may. Otherwise the country is doomed and rule of law is a total farce.
BannonsLiver
(16,349 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)I do not think his having been Garland's professor means his opinion should matter. We all have many teachers. This decision does not fall on the prof's shoulders. Or any other professor or teacher who taught Garland or anyone else.
Martin Eden
(12,862 posts)... if there is sufficient evidence for indictment and successful prosecution..
It is not for him to weigh the political fallout.
LudwigPastorius
(9,126 posts)more harm to the country.
I hope Merrick Garland took some economics classes, and is familiar with the term “moral hazard”.
Letting Trump skate would be an example of a sociological moral hazard.
progressoid
(49,962 posts)I don't expect much to happen.
Justice matters.
(6,925 posts)Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Delivers Remarks on the First Anniversary of the Attack on the Capitol
Washington, DC ~ Wednesday, January 5, 2022
Good afternoon.
It’s nice to see some of you here in the Great Hall. And to be able to connect with all of you virtually today.
On my first day as Attorney General, I spoke with all of you — the more than 115,000 employees of the Department of Justice — for the first time.
Today, I have brought us all together again, for two reasons.
First and foremost, to thank you. Thank you for the work you have done, not just over the last 10 months, but over the past several years. Work that you have done in the face of unprecedented challenges — ranging from an unprecedented deadly pandemic to an unprecedented attack on our democracy.
Thank you for your service, for your sacrifice, and for your dedication. I am honored to serve alongside you.
And second, as we begin a new year — and as we prepare to mark a solemn anniversary tomorrow – it is a fitting time to reaffirm that we at the Department of Justice will do everything in our power to defend the American people and American democracy.
We will defend our democratic institutions from attack.
We will protect those who serve the public from violence and threats of violence.
We will protect the cornerstone of our democracy: the right to every eligible citizen to cast a vote that counts.
And we will do all of this in a manner that adheres to the rule of law and honors our obligation to protect the civil rights and civil liberties of everyone in this country.
Tomorrow will mark the first anniversary of January 6th, 2021 — the day the United States Capitol was attacked while lawmakers met to affirm the results of a presidential election.
In the early afternoon of January 6th — as the United States Senate and House of Representatives were meeting to certify the vote count of the Electoral College — a large crowd gathered outside the Capitol building.
Shortly after 2 p.m., individuals in the crowd began to force entry into the Capitol, by smashing windows and assaulting U.S. Capitol police, who were stationed there to protect the members of Congress as they took part in one of the most solemn proceedings of our democracy. Others in the crowd encouraged and assisted those who attacked the police.
Over the course of several hours, outnumbered law enforcement officers sustained a barrage of repeated, violent attacks. About 80 Capitol Police and 60 D.C. Metropolitan Police were assaulted.
As our own court filings and thousands of public videos of the event attest,
Perpetrators punched dozens of law enforcement officers, knocking some officers unconscious.
Some perpetrators tackled and dragged law enforcement officers. Among the many examples of such violence: One officer was crushed in a door. Another was dragged down a set of stairs, face down, repeatedly tased and beaten, and suffered a heart attack.
Some perpetrators attacked law enforcement officers with chemical agents that burned their eyes and skin.
And some assaulted officers with pipes, poles, and other dangerous or deadly weapons.
Perpetrators also targeted, assaulted, tackled and harassed journalists and destroyed their equipment.
With increasing numbers of individuals having breached the Capitol, members of the Senate and the House of Representatives — including the President of the Senate, Vice President Mike Pence — had to be evacuated.
As a consequence, proceedings in both chambers were disrupted for hours — interfering with a fundamental element of American democracy: the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next.
Those involved must be held accountable, and there is no higher priority for us at the Department of Justice.
It is impossible to overstate the heroism of the Capitol Police officers, Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police Department officers, and other law enforcement officers who defended and secured the Capitol that day. They demonstrated to all of us, and to our country, what true courage looks like.
Their resolve, their sacrifice, and their bravery protected thousands of people working inside the Capitol that day.
Five officers who responded selflessly to the attack on January 6th have since lost their lives.
I ask everyone to please join me in a moment of silence in recognition of the service and sacrifice of:
Officer Brian Sicknick.
Officer Howard Liebengood.
Officer Jeffrey Smith.
Officer Gunther Hashida.
And Officer Kyle DeFreytag.
I know I speak for all of us in saying that tomorrow, and in our work in the days ahead, we will not only remember them — we will do everything we can to honor them.
In the aftermath of the attack, the Justice Department began its work on what has become one of the largest, most complex, and most resource-intensive investigations in our history.
Only a small number of perpetrators were arrested in the tumult of January 6th itself. Every day since, we have worked to identify, investigate, and apprehend defendants from across the country. And we have done so at record speed and scale — in the midst of a pandemic during which some grand juries and courtrooms were not able to operate.
Led by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and the FBI’s Washington Field Office, DOJ personnel across the department — in nearly all 56 field offices, in nearly all 94 United States Attorneys’ Offices, and in many Main Justice components — have worked countless hours to investigate the attack. Approximately 70 prosecutors from the District of Columbia and another 70 from other U.S. Attorney’s Offices and DOJ divisions have participated in this investigation.
So far, we have issued over 5,000 subpoenas and search warrants, seized approximately 2,000 devices, pored through over 20,000 hours of video footage, and searched through an estimated 15 terabytes of data.
We have received over 300,000 tips from ordinary citizens, who have been our indispensable partners in this effort. The FBI’s website continues to post photos of persons in connection with the events of January 6th, and we continue to seek the public’s assistance in identifying those individuals.
As of today, we have arrested and charged more than 725 defendants, in nearly all 50 states and the District of Columbia, for their roles in the January 6th attack.
In charging the perpetrators, we have followed well-worn prosecutorial practices.
Those who assaulted officers or damaged the Capitol face greater charges.
Those who conspired with others to obstruct the vote count also face greater charges.
Those who did not undertake such conduct have been charged with lesser offenses — particularly if they accepted their responsibility early and cooperated with the investigation.
In the first months of the investigation, approximately 145 defendants pled guilty to misdemeanors, mostly defendants who did not cause injury or damage. Such pleas reflect the facts of those cases and the defendants’ acceptance of responsibility. And they help conserve both judicial and prosecutorial resources, so that attention can properly focus on the more serious perpetrators.
In complex cases, initial charges are often less severe than later charged offenses. This is purposeful, as investigators methodically collect and sift through more evidence.
By now, though, we have charged over 325 defendants with felonies, many for assaulting officers and many for corruptly obstructing or attempting to obstruct an official proceeding. Twenty defendants charged with felonies have already pled guilty.
Approximately 40 defendants have been charged with conspiracy to obstruct a congressional proceeding and/or to obstruct law enforcement. In the months ahead, 17 defendants are already scheduled to go to trial for their role in felony conspiracies.
A necessary consequence of the prosecutorial approach of charging less serious offenses first is that courts impose shorter sentences before they impose longer ones.
In recent weeks, however, as judges have sentenced the first defendants convicted of assaults and related violent conduct against officers, we have seen significant sentences that reflect the seriousness of those offenses — both in terms of the injuries they caused and the serious risk they posed to our democratic institutions.
The actions we have taken thus far will not be our last.
The Justice Department remains committed to holding all January 6th perpetrators, at any level, accountable under law — whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy. We will follow the facts wherever they lead.
Because January 6th was an unprecedented attack on the seat of our democracy, we understand that there is broad public interest in our investigation. We understand that there are questions about how long the investigation will take, and about what exactly we are doing.
Our answer is, and will continue to be, the same answer we would give with respect to any ongoing investigation: as long as it takes and whatever it takes for justice to be done — consistent with the facts and the law.
I understand that this may not be the answer some are looking for. But we will and we must speak through our work. Anything else jeopardizes the viability of our investigations and the civil liberties of our citizens.
Everyone in this room and on these screens is familiar with the way we conduct investigations, and particularly complex investigations.
We build investigations by laying a foundation. We resolve more straightforward cases first because they provide the evidentiary foundation for more complex cases.
Investigating the more overt crimes generates linkages to less overt ones. Overt actors and the evidence they provide can lead us to others who may also have been involved. And that evidence can serve as the foundation for further investigative leads and techniques.
In circumstances like those of January 6th, a full accounting does not suddenly materialize. To ensure that all those criminally responsible are held accountable, we must collect the evidence.
We follow the physical evidence. We follow the digital evidence. We follow the money.
But most important, we follow the facts — not an agenda or an assumption. The facts tell us where to go next.
Over 40 years ago in the wake of the Watergate scandal, the Justice Department concluded that the best way to ensure the department’s independence, integrity, and fair application of our laws — and, therefore, the best way to ensure the health of our democracy — is to have a set of norms to govern our work.
The central norm is that, in our criminal investigations, there cannot be different rules depending on one’s political party or affiliation. There cannot be different rules for friends and foes. And there cannot be different rules for the powerful and the powerless.
There is only one rule: we follow the facts and enforce the law in a way that respects the Constitution and protects civil liberties.
We conduct every investigation guided by the same norms. And we adhere to those norms even when, and especially when, the circumstances we face are not normal.
Adhering to the department’s long-standing norms is essential to our work in defending our democracy, particularly at a time when we are confronting a rise in violence and unlawful threats of violence in our shared public spaces and directed at those who serve the public.
We have all seen that Americans who serve and interact with the public at every level — many of whom make our democracy work every day — have been unlawfully targeted with threats of violence and actual violence.
Across the country, election officials and election workers; airline flight crews; school personnel; journalists; local elected officials; U.S. Senators and Representatives; and judges, prosecutors, and police officers have been threatened and/or attacked.
These are our fellow citizens — who administer our elections, ensure our safe travel, teach our children, report the news, represent their constituents, and keep our communities safe.
Some have been told that their offices would be bombed. Some have been told that they would be murdered, and precisely how — that they would be hanged; that they would be beheaded.
Police officers, who put their lives on the line every day to serve our communities, have been targeted with extraordinary levels of violence.
Flight crews have been assaulted. Journalists have been targeted. School personnel and their families have been threatened.
A member of Congress was threatened in a gruesome voicemail that asked if she had ever seen what a 50-caliber shell does to a human head. Another member of Congress — an Iraq War veteran and Purple Heart recipient — received threats that left her “terrified for [her] family.”
And in 2020, a federal judge in New Jersey was targeted by someone who had appeared before her in court. That person compiled information about where the judge and her family lived and went to church. That person found the judge’s home, shot and killed her son, and injured her husband.
These acts and threats of violence are not associated with any one set of partisan or ideological views.
But they are permeating so many parts of our national life that they risk becoming normalized and routine if we do not stop them.
That is dangerous for people’s safety. And it is deeply dangerous for our democracy.
In a democracy, people vote, argue, and debate — often vociferously — in order to achieve the policy outcomes they desire. But in a democracy, people must not employ violence or unlawful threats of violence to affect that outcome. Citizens must not be intimidated from exercising their constitutional rights to free expression and association by such unlawful conduct.
The Justice Department will continue to investigate violence and illegal threats of violence, disrupt that violence before it occurs, and hold perpetrators accountable.
We have marshaled the resources of the department to address the rising violence and criminal threats of violence against election workers, against flight crews, against school personnel, against journalists, against members of Congress, and against federal agents, prosecutors, and judges.
In 2021, the department charged more defendants in criminal threat cases than in any year in at least the last five.
As we do this work, we are guided by our commitment to protect civil liberties, including the First Amendment rights of all citizens.
The department has been clear that expressing a political belief or ideology, no matter how vociferously, is not a crime. We do not investigate or prosecute people because of their views.
Peacefully expressing a view or ideology — no matter how extreme — is protected by the First Amendment. But illegally threatening to harm or kill another person is not. There is no First Amendment right to unlawfully threaten to harm or kill someone.
As Justice Scalia noted in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, true “threats of violence are outside the First Amendment” because laws that punish such threats “protect[] individuals from the fear of violence, from the disruption that fear engenders, and from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.”
The latter point hits particularly close to home for those of us who have investigated tragedies ranging from the Oklahoma City bombing to the January 6th attack on the Capitol. The time to address threats is when they are made, not after the tragedy has struck.
As employees of the nation’s largest law enforcement agency, each of us understands that we have an obligation to protect our citizens from violence and fear of violence. And we will continue to do our part to provide that protection.
But the Justice Department cannot do it alone. The responsibility to bring an end to violence and threats of violence against those who serve the public is one that all Americans share.
Such conduct disrupts the peace of our public spaces and undermines our democracy. We are all Americans. We must protect each other.
The obligation to keep Americans and American democracy safe is part of the historical inheritance of this department. As I have noted several times before, a founding purpose of the Justice Department was to battle violent extremist attacks on our democratic institutions.
In the midst of Reconstruction following the Civil War, the department’s first principal task was to secure the civil rights promised by the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. This meant protecting Black Americans seeking to exercise their right to vote from acts and threats of violence by white supremacists.
The framers of the Civil War Amendments recognized that access to the ballot is a fundamental aspect of citizenship and self-government. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 sought to make the promise of those amendments real. To do so, it gave the Justice Department valuable tools with which to protect the right to vote.
In recent years, however, the protections of the Voting Rights Act have been drastically weakened.
The Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in the Shelby County case effectively eliminated the preclearance protections of Section 5, which had been the department’s most effective tool for protecting voting rights over the past half-century. Subsequent decisions have substantially narrowed the reach of Section 2 as well.
Since those decisions, there has been a dramatic increase in legislative enactments that make it harder for millions of eligible voters to vote and to elect representatives of their own choosing.
Those enactments range from: practices and procedures that make voting more difficult; to redistricting maps drawn to disadvantage both minorities and citizens of opposing political parties; to abnormal post-election audits that put the integrity of the voting process at risk; to changes in voting administration meant to diminish the authority of locally elected or nonpartisan election administrators.
Some have even suggested permitting state legislators to set aside the choice of the voters themselves.
As I noted in an address to the Civil Rights Division last June, many of those enactments have been justified by unfounded claims of material vote fraud in the 2020 election.
Those claims, which have corroded people’s faith in the legitimacy of our elections, have been repeatedly refuted by the law enforcement and intelligence agencies of both the last administration and this one, as well as by every court — federal and state — that has considered them.
The Department of Justice will continue to do all it can to protect voting rights with the enforcement powers we have. It is essential that Congress act to give the department the powers we need to ensure that every eligible voter can cast a vote that counts.
But as with violence and threats of violence, the Justice Department — even the Congress — cannot alone defend the right to vote. The responsibility to preserve democracy — and to maintain faith in the legitimacy of its essential processes — lies with every elected official and with every American.
All Americans are entitled to free, fair, and secure elections that ensure they can select the representatives of their choice.
All Americans are entitled to live in a country in which their public servants can go about their jobs of serving the public free from violence and unlawful threats of violence.
And all Americans are entitled to live in a country in which the transition from one elected administration to the next is accomplished peacefully.
The Justice Department will never stop working to defend the democracy to which all Americans are entitled.
As I recognized when I first spoke with you all last March, service in the Department of Justice is more than a job and more than an honor. It is a calling.
Each of us — you and I — came to work here because we are committed to the rule of law and to seeking equal justice under law. We came to work here because we are committed to ensuring the civil rights and civil liberties of our people. We came to work here because we are committed to protecting our country — as our oath says — from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Together, we will continue to show the American people, by word and by deed, that these are the principles that underlie our work.
The challenges that we have faced, and that we will continue to face, are extraordinary. But I am moved and humbled by the extraordinary work you do every single day to meet them.
I look forward to seeing more of you in person, soon, and to our continued work together.
Thank you all.
Speaker:
Attorney General Merrick B. Garland
Component(s):
Office of the Attorney General
Updated January 5, 2022
_______________________________________________________________________
A Judge said last week, after carefully reviewing pieces of evidence presented by the Select Committee, that dump may have committed two felonies.
According to the following underlined text (mine):
A flip-flop for any reason will only lead to pressures to resign (for lying to everyone).
multigraincracker
(32,658 posts)until the last page.
ecstatic
(32,677 posts)At the end of the day, the magats don't truly believe tfg. At least, not anymore. I think the vast majority of them understand that they were lied to.
tfg promised the crowd of maggots that he would walk with them to the Capitol, but instead he hauled ass to the White House, safe and secure behind the fortress he had erected in previous months. They know tfg is full of shit. They're not going to go to war over his bullshit, not again.
Even when they attacked our country on January 6th, the ringleaders / professionals who were there to "hang mike pence" decided not to. The ones who got inside could have easily mowed down everyone in that mofo--security was that sparse (on tfg's orders, no doubt).
That said... Do I think a civil war is coming? It's very possible, but it won't be over tfg's fake, lying ass. The recent primary election outcomes had nothing to do with tfg. Qpublicans selected who they wanted to select, whether tfg was on board or not.
