How can Garland NOT bring criminal charges? They spread the lie KNOWING it was a lie

[NewHendoLib]

and they are still spreading the lie

And it directly led to the violence on January 6.

If this is not a crime, I don't know what is.

If this doesn't disqualify trump from running - or even disqualify ANY politician who is pushing the big lie - WE ARE FUCKED beyond belief.

[comradebillyboy]

1. Waiting for Garland is much like waiting for Godot.

[LogicFirst]

2. So true. Very clever.

[leftieNanner]

19. Or Guffman.

[purr-rat beauty]

3. Seems rather elementary that this is in the least Conspiracy

To conspire to undermine the democratic process, disrupt our elections, and to threaten the integrity of our ballots

whichi in the zealots eyes was a call to attack our Capitol resulting in millions in damage, 100s of injuries, and death.

[Novara]

24. Right. It isn't a crime to lie about nonexistent fraud ...

... but it is a rather serious crime to conspire with others to disrupt the official proceeding to certify the election.

Fuck, wouldn't it be great if that motherfucker went to prison for being a sore loser?

[maxsolomon]

4. I agree; it's Conspiracy and Sedition.

Is that PROVEABLE in a court of law? That's the crux.

[brush]

7. It's being proven by Barr and all the rest of the...

witnesses testifying under oath to the J6 Committee that trump knew/was told multiple times that he lost. That is proof. It's up to Garland to gather the cojones to move forward with indictments.

[maxsolomon]

13. I'm sorry but I wasn't able to watch.

Being told that he lost and acknowledging it are different things. As I've said, Trump has the ability to convince himself the lie is the truth, and vice versa. He believes what his ego demands.

Was there testimony that he directly acknowledged it to the witness?

[superpatriotman]

14. Believing in a lie is not illegal

It's known as the George Costanza effect.

[CousinIT]

16. IF YOU MISSED TODAY'S @January6thCmte hearing, you can see it here:

[brush]

25. Are you familiar with the term "he knew, or should've known?"

When there is evidence that he was told over and over by Stepien, Barr and others that he lost but continued with the conspiracy, that concept "willful blindness" I believe stands up in court. IMO it would especially apply with trump as he continued/continues even to this day to raise millions from insisting on the big lie (Election Defense fund).

[maxsolomon]

32. I am.

He was also told what he wanted to hear (massive Election Fraud) by a cast of RW lawyer/clowns who we all know. Whether he believed those clowns or not, it makes it contestable. It would be a subjective judgment on the part of a jury.

Sorry to remain a Doubting Thomas.

[brush]

34. Barr also testified the believed trump had possibly lost contact...

with reality in his continued pushing of the big lie conspiracy.

trump is either insane or criminal in continuing to raise money with it.

[Cheezoholic]

5. I would think they'd have to prove intent in a trial

on Fat Nixons part which can be difficult. The committee seems to be doggedly pursuing that path. I might add, if they do end up recommending indictments against Fat Nixon and others to the DOJ in the end, I would bet there's even more evidence they could pass along that won't be made public until if/when the DOJ could take up a possible recommendation.

[gab13by13]

8. Criminal intent has already been proven.

[Cheezoholic]

11. When?

I could've missed something but where has criminal intent by him been proven in a court so far? I know many experts are saying there is enough evidence but has it passed the muster in a court yet?

[gab13by13]

6. This has nothing to do with evidence.

Laurence Tribe said there is enough evidence to indict Trump, beyond a reasonable doubt, for 3 or 4 crimes.

This has to do with whether Garland feels indicting Trump could cause a Civil War.

People need to accept this possibility, Garland is a self-avowed institutionalist.

I want him to indict Trump yesterday but indicting Trump is a monumental decision.

Think of the optics. How do they get Trump to the courthouse? Do they send marshals to Mar-el-Loco and cuff and stuff Trump?

This is not an easy decision for Garland to make. Of course Trump is guilty, that's not the problem.

[NewHendoLib]

9. So the choice is civil war, or the end of our democracy?

No matter what, I want him dragged away in chains.

[spanone]

10. And if he DOESN'T indict there could also be a civil war.

[maxsolomon]

17. Not one provoked or led by Liberals/Dems.

We would swallow that disappointment, along w/ Bush v. Gore and assassinations of JFK, MLK, RFK. We always do; we know to expect it.

[gab13by13]

21. I agree 100%

It isn't what I believe. I honestly believe that Garland has not made up his mind yet whether to indict Trump.

Prosecutors wanted DOJ to run a parallel investigation with Fanni Willis with the Trump/Raffensperger phone call, but DOJ did not.

I think Garland will do the right thing, but I don't think he's there yet.

[Novara]

28. I believe Garland knows he's going to indict the motherfucker

"...but DOJ did not."

And your proof is?


HOW DO YOU KNOW he isn't running his own investigation? The fact is, NO ONE HERE has proof the DOJ is or is not investigating. However, I'd say there is a good chance they are, given the 16 indictments for seditious conspiracy, with four guilty pleas AND cooperation. These are widely known facts. Cooperation gets them up the chain of command. So, given this, I'd speculate there's a pretty good chance Garland is searching for the evidence trail that leads right up to the top.

It does him no good to rush into a prosecution without enough evidence. It's much smarter for him to use those lower on the totem pole to give up those higher up, which is exactly what he's doing. And it's in his best interest to not look like he's conducting a political investigation by waiting until the J6 committee has laid out their evidence in public, which appears to be what he's doing.

I suspect Garland knew there was a damn good chance he'd have to prosecute the orange motherfucker when he took the job. I think if he was as so opposed to indicting a former president as you claim, he wouldn't have taken the job and he would have left that up to someone else to deal with.

[inthewind21]

15. Not an easy decision?

So the slogan "no one is above the law" is bullshit. If they DON'T act on this, then we are basically saying no peasant is above the law, those in power are. So, expect someone as power hungry as Trump to come along, only next time a little smarter, actually knows how government works and able to pull it off. And hey we wouldn't want a civil war, it's much better to end democracy and go full on dictator and wait or hope for a revolution.

[gab13by13]

22. I agree 100%

but my opinion means nothing.

[bluecollar2]

12. Lying is not illegal...n/t

[Novara]

30. Right. Lying is not illegal. However conspiracy to disrupt the official proceeding of vote counting

IS a crime.

[bluecollar2]

35. I'm afraid it's up to the justice department

To decide if there's enough evidence to prosecute.

[leftieNanner]

18. If I were an enterprising attorney

I would file a class action lawsuit against the Big Lie PAC for fraud for the benefit of the Trump supporters who donated money to defend the election.

[orleans]

20. because

"no sitting president has ever been indicted" ?
and now
"no former president has ever been indicted" ??

that's the crap excuse i've heard in the past anyway

do i think those are good reasons not to indict tfg?

i do not!

[gab13by13]

26. I agree,

I believe the #1 reason that the select committee is doing these hearings is to convince Merrick Garland to indict.

Reason #2, to convince the majority of the American people that Trump is guilty and that he wants to end our democracy.

[ForgedCrank]

23. I can't stand

being the one to poo on the party, but I've yet to see anything definitively criminal.
Asshole stuff? Most certainly. But being a lying ass isn't illegal. We'd have truckloads of politicians in prison if this were the case.
There are very defined lines in the law, and as far as I've seen, Trump never said "storm the place, stop the election", or anything similar, at least not that I've seen.
We've got to stay on the sane side here. If we start prosecuting and impeaching based on these criteria, a lot of skeletons and revenge will most certainly follow.
I'll be 100% behind it if something illegal is actually uncovered, but unfortunately, I haven't seen anything so far that checks all the boxes.

[gab13by13]

27. Laurence Tribe says otherwise.

Yesterday Tribe said there is enough evidence to indict Trump beyond a reasonable doubt for 3 or 4 crimes.

Tribe also said the easiest case to prove is the case that Fanni Willis is bringing in Fulton county Georgia.

[Fiendish Thingy]

29. Fundraising off of the Big Lie is fraud

Especially since the funds were never used for “election defense” as promised.

That’s just what was covered today.

The committee still has the fraudulent electors scheme and obstruction of congress to review.

Plenty of crimin’ to prosecute.

[Novara]

31. mail and wire fraud

They've got him dead to rights on that, and I'm sure that's the tip of the iceberg.

[Trailrider1951]

33. As I've said before, I suspect that AG Garland and the DOJ will act

once the J6th Committee releases all of their findings. I think that this will be done to de-politicize the coming indictments, in that the indictments can then be seen as the result of the bipartisan Committee's investigations, rather than give gusto to the label "Democrat Witch-hunt". We shall see if this happens by the end of June.

[budkin]

36. "Too political"

That's all. /cynical take

[SoonerPride]

37. How can they seat an impartial jury without a MAGAt who will vote to acquit no matter what?

It seems impossible to me to sit a jury on a trial of trump.

No one yet has told me how you get a jury with no secret trumpers in there who will hang the jury deadlocked forever.

It is a calculus I'm sure the DOJ has considered at length.