HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Garland should have done ...

Thu Mar 30, 2023, 05:51 PM

Garland should have done this a long time ago.

I'm not entirely happy.

15 replies, 700 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 15 replies Author Time Post
Reply Garland should have done this a long time ago. (Original post)
Goodheart Mar 2023 OP
Irish_Dem Mar 2023 #1
FakeNoose Mar 2023 #2
Silent3 Mar 2023 #8
bigtree Mar 2023 #15
Marius25 Mar 2023 #3
Goodheart Mar 2023 #6
Fiendish Thingy Mar 2023 #4
Goodheart Mar 2023 #5
Fiendish Thingy Mar 2023 #7
Alexander Of Assyria Mar 2023 #9
AZSkiffyGeek Mar 2023 #10
Fiendish Thingy Mar 2023 #12
bigtree Mar 2023 #13
bigtree Mar 2023 #11
Mr.Bill Mar 2023 #14

Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Thu Mar 30, 2023, 05:53 PM

1. I agree 100%.

Most of us would have been in jail a long time ago if we had committed Trump crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Thu Mar 30, 2023, 05:56 PM

2. The DoJ is still working on their indictments

Don't worry, this is just the beginning. The charge against Chump in Manhattan is the weakest case, and YET they have rock solid evidence. Chump is looking at spending the rest of his life in prison, or else it will be house arrest. Either way he'll never be a free man again.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FakeNoose (Reply #2)

Thu Mar 30, 2023, 06:09 PM

8. They missed this election finance case, however

The federal case (for which Michael Cohen was already convicted and served time for) would have been a better, possibly stronger case, practically handed to the DoJ on a silver platter with most of the work done.

The DoJ allowed the federal statute of limitations to lapse, so now we have to settle for an indictment (or indictments) under NY State law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Silent3 (Reply #8)

Thu Mar 30, 2023, 07:07 PM

15. we have a state prosecution that can't be pardoned by a republican president

...if convicted.

Felony state charges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Thu Mar 30, 2023, 05:57 PM

3. Garland is too worried about being viewed as partisan

He's not willing to do what needs to be done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marius25 (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 30, 2023, 06:04 PM

6. Sadly, history seems to bear that out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Thu Mar 30, 2023, 05:58 PM

4. Today's indictment news has nothing to do with Garland

It’s coming from Bragg, the Manhattan DA.

But you can keep on being not entirely happy, if that’s what makes you happy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fiendish Thingy (Reply #4)

Thu Mar 30, 2023, 06:02 PM

5. I know EXACTLY where the indictment is coming from.

And you're quite entitled to defend Merrick Garland's ineptitude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Reply #5)

Thu Mar 30, 2023, 06:09 PM

7. On the contrary

I feel strongly that, based simply on the passage of time and the limited public information available, we simply don’t know enough to pass judgement on whether Garland has displayed ineptitude or not.

But, if that makes you happy, go for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fiendish Thingy (Reply #7)

Thu Mar 30, 2023, 06:14 PM

9. The pessimism crowd will be with us forever, like plagues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fiendish Thingy (Reply #7)

Thu Mar 30, 2023, 06:15 PM

10. Better be careful defending Garland

The Eeyore crowd will call you a MAGAT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZSkiffyGeek (Reply #10)

Thu Mar 30, 2023, 06:22 PM

12. I'm already being stalked, so...? Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Reply #5)

Thu Mar 30, 2023, 06:28 PM

13. Garland appointed Smith who hit the ground running because of what Garland had already begun

...it would be impossible to be at the point where we have the two grand juries pushing to the end of their probes without the work Garland's team did at the start.

Something not discussed lately is how DOJ paved the way for WH administration officials to testify before Congress.

NYT, Nov. 2021:

The Justice Department notified former officials that they could testify to the various committees investigating the Trump administration’s efforts to subvert the results of the presidential election and the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, according to a letter obtained by The New York Times.

Witnesses can give “unrestricted testimony” to the House Oversight and Reform Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee, the department said. Both panels are scrutinizing the bid by officials in the Trump White House to force the Justice Department to undermine President Biden’s victory, as well as the events leading up to the Capitol riot, as Congress convened to formally tally the electoral results.

The officials learned in May that they could provide information about how the department planned for and responded to the vote certification on Jan. 6, according to the letter. The department determines whether current or former officials can respond to requests for testimony on a case-by-case basis, and the letters to former officials leaves unclear whether the select committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot has made such a request.

“The extraordinary events in this matter constitute exceptional circumstances warranting an accommodation to Congress,” Bradley Weinsheimer, a top career official in the deputy attorney general’s office wrote, noting that the information sought by Congress was directly related to the question of whether Mr. Trump tried to use the Justice Department to advance his “personal political interests.”

The department told former officials that they could provide unrestricted testimony “so long as the testimony is confined to the scope of the interviews set forth by the committees” and does not reveal grand-jury information, classified information or pending criminal cases.


It's easy to point to the DOJ's relative silence early in their investigations about the complicity or culpability of Trump and his WH staff in the Jan. 6 insurrection and claim nothing was being done. But you don't get rapid rulings knocking down privilege claims like ducks in a row without showing courts evidence of serious crimes committed is being obscured.

You don't get that evidence by sitting on your hands in 2021, as many have accused DOJ of doing. You get to this point of actually pressuring top Trump officials, including the former president, by doing quiet, behind the scenes groundwork.

For every top Trump official who makes the news by balking and posturing against the DOJ, a dozen or more are likely to be complying behind the breaking news and public court actions. That's what's brought us to this point where appeals judges are dismissing challenges to testifying to the DOJ grand juries as fast as they can draft the rulings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Thu Mar 30, 2023, 06:18 PM

11. that's not the way any of this works

...the payments in this case were made in 2016.

It wasn't even considered for prosecution intil 2021.

It's nearly impossible to deny the dual DOJ probes are coming to a close. But like this indictment before it actually came down, there's still time to pretend something's taking too long there, as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Thu Mar 30, 2023, 06:36 PM

14. Of course I want to see him indicted for any crimes he committed,

but I'm glad to see a state charge. No president can pardon him for this. If he is convicted, just wait and see the gyrations the republicans go through to get a republican in the governor's office to pardon him.

I'd like to see a Georgia indictment because the governor there can't single-handedly pardon him in that state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread