Question About Merrick Garland

[gab13by13]

Why isn't DOJ prosecuting Donald Trump instead of Alvin Bragg and Fani Willis?

Same question I had a long time ago, why DOJ never prosecuted the Cyber Ninjas.

[Goodheart]

1. Damn good question.

At what point does reluctance turn into incompetence?

[gab13by13]

3. I mean, DOJ, prosecuted Michael Cohen

and got a conviction. I understand why Bill Barr didn't prosecute Trump but why didn't Merrick Garland, basically the same crime that Cohen went to prison for, yeah Cohen had a few added caveats.

[wnylib]

18. Seems to me that

Trump's federal crimes are more complex than the state crimes in NY and GA.

But I suspect that people who were certain that Trump would never be indicted on anything are experiencing a crisis of identity and purpose and now need to refocus on the things he's not been indicted for. Thst's a sustainable position for them because he will never be indicted for all of his crimes.

[Paladin]

2. Joy Reed asked the same excellent question on MSNBC last night.

Come on, DOJ: What the hell?

[gab13by13]

4. Nicolle Wallace has been asking that question for at least a year.

[Paladin]

7. Unforgivable lack of timely action by the DOJ. (nt)

[Fiendish Thingy]

32. And Chris Hayes quickly refuted her complaint.

If I find the clip I’ll post it here.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

5. The rump committed crimes. That's why the DoJ is prosecuting (investigating) him

Alvin Bragg and Fani Willis did not commit crimes.

That is why the DoJ is not prosecuting them.

[gab13by13]

10. Did I just get pulled over by the comma police?

[MichMan]

6. Didn't think they had a winnable case ?

Dunno

[lamp_shade]

8. Yawn.

[Beastly Boy]

9. "Instead"?

Maybe because Garland is not a State prosecutor?

Both Bragg and Willis are prosecuting Trump on respective state charges. Unless you can confidently argue that federal and state statutes are identical, the answer to your question is obvious.

And I don't think you would want to argue the nuances of federal statutes vs state statutes, would you?

[gab13by13]

11. I certainly would like to argue the difference between

the state and federal statutes regarding campaign finance violations.

The federal law made it easy for DOJ to indict and convict Michael Cohen. DA Bragg will have to jump through some hoops to prove that Trump violated campaign finance laws in New York.

The feds had no problem indicting Cohen and Mueller teed up the case for individual one. The only reason that Mueller did not indict Trump was because he was a sitting president.

It is common knowledge that it would have been much easier to indict Trump under federal law compared with state law.

Also, are you trying to tell me that Trump didn't violate federal laws in his Raffensperger phone call? I really do not understand what your post means.

[Beastly Boy]

12. The Feds never prosecuted or convicted Cohen, for Gawd's sake!

He plead guilty. He made a deal. He became Bragg's star witness. We have yet to learn what role Cohen is playing in the federal investigation of Trump.

And still, it remains to be seen how Bragg's prosecution will go.

You are not arguing statutes, you are arguing circumstances. And not very successfully at that.

[gab13by13]

13. I stand by my statement that you have not refuted.

It is easier to indict and convict Trump for campaign finance violations under federal law than state law. Donald Trump was an unindicted co-conspirator for crying out loud and Cohen was prosecuted by the feds that's why he pleaded guilty for a lesser sentence. Why would Cohen agree to go to jail if he believed he could beat the charge in court?

I wish that people would understand the importance of time, the importance of not waiting to investigate. If DOJ had indicted "individual one" when Garland became AG we would have had a Trump trial before the 2024 election. No way will Trump go to trial before the election under Bragg's prosecution. We better reelect President Biden in 2024.

[Beastly Boy]

31. I have no interest in refuting statements that deflect from your original question

You asked why garland is not prosecuting cases "instead" of Bragg or Willis.

I gave you an obvious answer.

You have yet to make a side-by-side comparison of state statutes vs federal statutes. Saying one is easier than the other doesn't begin to do it.

But it's really time for you to quit dragging Mueller's report into this. Mueller did not indict either Cohen or Trump. The only connection between Cohen and Trump that Mueller made was the potential relevance of Trump's interactions with Cohen as a witness:
"Mueller said the events were “potentially relevant to the President’s and his personal counsel’s interactions with Cohen as a witness who later began to cooperate with the government.”
But Mueller said the office, which referred the matter to federal prosecutors in New York, did not specifically investigate the payments themselves."
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/whats-not-in-the-muller-report

That's it. No connection at all between what Cohen plead guilty to and Trump. Enough already!

Additionally, Cohen was not prosecuted, or convicted, or even indicted. He pleaded guilty:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/michael-cohen-pleads-guilty-manhattan-federal-court-eight-counts-including-criminal-tax

And if you pay attention, he plead guilty to "criminal information" filed by a number of federal agencies to a whole bunch of charges, campaign finance violation being the least of them.

So please, quit comparing apples to pork bellies. You've been doing it for too long.

[bigtree]

17. you don't know what Garland had in front of him when he came into office

...you don't know what evidence Cohen was willing to share at the time.

You don't know what the state of evidence Garland's DOJ had access to, but you insist here that you're certain there was a case to be made.

People need to stop pretending they know what DOJ had in hand at the start of Garland's term. Plenty of outside observers raising 'questions,' but anyone outside of THIS DOJ claiming to know for certain why Garland didn't move forward on it is just telling a self-aggrandizing lie.

That just makes all of these speculators supposing DOJ should have this case look foolish, posturing like they can see through walls and read minds.

Harping on it as Bragg is telling the world that Manhattan prosecutes these cases as standard practice just looks even more ridiculous and begs the question of just whose interest is it in to insist DOJ should have taken on the case?

[gab13by13]

19. I don't know jack shit, that is true.

but last week I listened to Andrew Weissmann say that he cannot understand why DOJ did not prosecute Donald trump for 10 obstruction of justice crimes that he and Bob Mueller laid out.

Andrew Weissmann knows what Merrick Garland had in hand and he was upset that Garland did nothing. I am not speculating what I heard Weissmann say, you are speculating that Garland may not have had a case that was all laid out by one of the best prosecutors in our nation's history.

[bigtree]

21. Weissman says all of the time that he doesn't know why

...that's Weissman saying he doesn't know why, doesn't understand.

He doesn't know why.

He doesn't understand.

The answer is with Merrick Garland. Making up a presumption 'why' out of one's imagination is just sophistry.

Repeatedly bashing Garland with all of that imagining is just bullshit and something I'd expect from his actual opposition.

Expecting him to answer right now, in the middle of this prosecution isn't a real complaint, it's just gaslighting.

Not acknowledging what Bragg said yesterday about how this is what Manhattan prosecutes regularly as standard practice begs the question of just whose interest it is in having DOJ prosecute? Bragg didn't say a word of resentment about having to take this on, didn't call out DOJ, so what is this exactly?

Is there some special interest that Weissman has in keeping Bragg from prosecuting?

Is there some special interest you have in keeping Bragg from this case?

What's the actual value in deflecting from Bragg's prosecution to claim it's DOJ's providence, instead? What's the point in making a stink repeatedly, as Weissmann and others have, that DOJ should have the case instead of Bragg?

Are you trying to discredit Bragg's prosecution? Because that's the ONLY effect of these questions that people KNOW WELL can't be answered now.

It's just Garland bashing, and I think that's a popular fad among supposed supporters of the justice he's busy meting out that should be denounced. It's baseless, and unsubstantiated by anything other than imaginings about what the state of evidence that Garland had in his possession at the time.

And it's essentially a deflection and diminution from the Bragg prosecution which has just broke the mold for equal justice under the law. Why are you deflecting from that?

Why do the tv pundits and celebrated legal experts ignore that Bragg said yesterday he believes it's his jurisdiction to prosecute these crimes, just to bash Garland?

They look foolish.

[gab13by13]

22. Weissmann doesn't understand why Garland

declined to indict Trump for solid crimes where the evidence was laid out for him.

If we lose our democracy IMO the #1 reason will be because Merrick garland was slow to act against Trump and his inner circle.

Garland should have been doing what Jack Smith is doing now.

In the very beginning the argument against Garland appointing a Special Counsel was that doing so would take too long, so what does Garland do, he waits a year and a half and then appoints a SC, brilliant.

[bigtree]

25. he doesn't understand, doesn't know, has no way of knowing right now until Garland answers

...which would be an absurd thing for him to do as this prosecution is moving into court.

So why are these questions that Weissmann has no clue about the answer so important right now, especially as Bragg is insisting that it's Manhattan's jurisdiction to prosecute these crimes?

Is Bragg wrong that he has jurisdiction? If he's right, that would make all the prattle about DOJ moot.

Moreover, what's that actual point in this? What's the value of a federal prosecution as opposed to a state one?

I point out that state prosecutions can't be pardoned by a future republican president. That has great value.

What is the actual value in a federal prosecution here?

[wnylib]

23. You moved the goalposts in your response.

First you complained that DOJ did not prosecute the case that Bragg is prosecuting. When challenged on that, you switched to saying that DOJ should have prosecuted obstruction cases that Mueller "laid out" for them.

Mueller's investigation turned up some evidence of obstruction. But, since Mueller was not going to prosecute such a case, he did not do an in depth investigation that would have made the case ready for prosecution.

My guess is that, because of J6, Garland had more immediately pressing cases to investigate. Not to mention a DOJ riddled with embedded Trumpists. And several positions left open that had to be filled.

The ridiculous thing about claims that Garland does not want to prosecute Trump is that Garland's appointment of Jack Smith as Special Counsel indicates that Garland wanted to protect the investigation from being gutted by the Republican House.

[Fiendish Thingy]

33. Trump isn't being prosecuted for violating campaign finance law in NY. Nt

[bigtree]

14. there's no chance of a presidential pardon for any conviction in the states. That's important.

...and it's funny to have these criticisms that DOJ should have taken even more on their plate with over 1000 jan.6 rioters arrested, all of it coming from people busy complaining about too much time taken on the dual investigations in which DOJ is already deep into the grand jury process.

How absurd to imagine that DOJ should be everywhere, even where states are stepping up themselves. Bragg didn't complain. On the contrary, he said it was standard practice for Manhattan to prosecute these cases.

So who is actually complaining in NY? No one, except people looking to bash Garland like he's omnipotent.

[former9thward]

37. LOL

So the reason DOJ did not prosecute any of these crimes is that there might be a presidential pardon years from now. OK...

[bigtree]

38. you imagined that

...not what was said.

It's a benefit of a state prosecution.

Since you jumped in on a conversation that wasn't directed to you, and mischaracterized it in a failed effort to ridicule me, answer the query I made.

What's the benefit of a federal prosecution over a state one? What's the big shit over Bragg prosecuting it? I'm old enough to remember the (republican) complaint was that the feds should take the case because Bragg's was a Democratic district.

What's your reason for making it into a federal case?

[former9thward]

39. The underlying crime is federal.

Local prosecutors don't prosecute federal crimes. That is why it would be a DOJ matter. And the DOJ under Barr and Garland passed on this case.

You seem upset I commented in the thread even though "that wasn't directed to you". This is an internet discussion board, not your private chat room. If you want to send private messages DU has a mechanism to do that.

[bigtree]

40. that's untrue

...at least according to DA Bragg and many others.

You made a false representation, and you appeared to think it was some sort of slam. You didn't deserve a response, but I'm actually talking past you.

I haven't heard this complaint from anywhere other than opponents of Bragg's action, so it's interesting to find YOU opposed because it's supposedly not a 'local' matter but a 'federal' one.

That's a novel complaint.

Here's NYT:

Contrary to the protestations of Mr. Trump and his allies, New York prosecutors regularly charge felony violations of the books and records statute — and win convictions — when the crimes covered up were campaign finance violations, resulting in false entries in business records to conceal criminal activity.

The charge of creating false financial records is constantly brought by Mr. Bragg and other New York D.A.s. In particular, the creation of phony documentation to cover up campaign finance violations has been repeatedly prosecuted in New York. That is exactly what Mr. Trump stands accused of."

...a note about the Manhattan D.A.’s office that will prosecute this case: It is hardly a typical local cog in the judicial system. In fact, it is unique. Its jurisdiction is the financial capital of the world. That means the office routinely prosecutes complex white-collar cases with crime scenes that involve the likes of the BNP Paribas international banking scandal. Big cases involving powerful, high-profile individuals have been handled by the office for decades. That was proved most recently by the office’s conviction of the Trump Organization and the guilty plea of one of its top executives, Allen Weisselberg, on charges relating to an intricate yearslong tax fraud scheme.

It’s also worth noting that Mr. Trump was a federal candidate, whereas the other New York cases involved state ones. But court after court across the country has recognized that state authorities can enforce state law in cases relating to federal candidates. Those courts have allowed state cases concerning federal campaign contributions under widely varied circumstances, including for fraudulently diverting funds from political action committees founded to support federal presidential campaigns, violating state law limits on corporate contributions to federal campaigns and transgressing state laws concerning donations to PACs that funded federal campaigns. Some of the examples involve criminal enforcement by state authorities, some civil, but the point is the same: They can act.

So Mr. Bragg’s bringing a state case concerning a federal campaign is hardly novel. In an abundance of caution, he not only alleges violations of state campaign finance law but also alleges federal violations. We believe that is permitted, given that the fraudulent books and records and other relevant statutes refer simply to covering up “another crime” or using “unlawful means” and do not specify whether they need be federal or state.

...boom.

[Downsouthjukin]

15. I have been asking this for three years.

We got a guy who led an insurrection and tried to overthrow the government and the day the new administration walked in there were two ready made felonies that could have been put on him right away while they took their time investigating the others. The obstruction from the Mueller investigation and the Individual one indictment that was ready made.

[BlackSkimmer]

16. Good question. nt

[Scrivener7]

20. I think we have to think of any DOJ prosecutions of the organizers of

any of these crimes (rather than the Elks Club guys who carpooled in for January 6) as having begun in November of 2022.

In those terms, and given all the evidence we are seeing of the pace of Jack Smith's investigations, it appears Smith is moving quickly.

[gab13by13]

26. Members of Congress will not be touched.

I will have to look it up, but I heard that Scott Perry is just a witness and not a target. I cannot believe that is true.

[bigtree]

30. 'I have to look it up'

..'but I heard,' is just gossip.

Look it up and make a factual claim.

Positing that 'Members of Congress will not be touched,' without any substantiation at all is just infactual opinion.

[gab13by13]

24. I have one last thing to say,

I want wanted Merrick Garland to indict Donald Trump and his inner circle and I am being criticized for wanting to see Trump held accountable. The insurrection did not end on J6.

[Beastly Boy]

35. No, you are being criticized for routinely posting poorly founded innuendo

as you admonish Garland for not indicting Trump.

A very legitimate criticism indeed.

[B.See]

27. I've long since chalked it up to chickens**tery

for example:

DOJ collected evidence of conspiracy involving Nick Fuentes and Baked Alaska, but never charged them

[Hotler]

28. we're susposed to ask these questions around here.

[bigtree]

29. these questions can't be answered by Garland right now

...and the people asking them should know that.

But there's this opportunism being exercised to bash Garland with the questions like there's some definitive answer that's damning to DOJ.

The assumption that DOJ did something wrong, buttressed by nothing more than "I don't know why they acted in the manner they did," is just sophistry.

[MineralMan]

34. Still on this, are you?

Nobody can answer your question, you see. The DOJ is still investigating, and there is a grand jury considering charges. You know that, I'm sure, but since no news has emerged from the DOJ, you can keep on asking this question. You don't know the answer, either, and won't until the DOJ announces something.

Please consider waiting along with the rest of us.

[BumRushDaShow]

36. SDNY

Here were the U.S. Attorneys for the covered jurisdiction where the crimes would have occurred, which were in NY (Southern District of NY) -

August 13, 2009 – March 11, 2017 | Preet Bharara | (D) | (Obama) - FIRED by AG Jeff Sessions (remember him?)

March 11, 2017 – January 5, 2018 | Acting Joon Kim | (D) | (45)

January 5, 2018 – June 20, 2020 | Geoffrey Berman | (R) | (45)

June 20, 2020 – October 10, 2021 | Acting Audrey Strauss | (D) (court appointed)

October 10, 2021 – present | Damian Williams | (D) | (Biden)

We all recall Preet and his principled stand before being summarily fired by Elf (i.e., Jeff Sessions, who has managed to keep his name out of every news article and out of every pundit's mouth in favor of a focus on Barr but that is another story), and who was in the FEDERAL Prosecutor's position when these falsified records had begun to be generated....

Link to tweet

Preet Bharara
@PreetBharara
·
Follow
I did not resign. Moments ago I was fired. Being the US Attorney in SDNY will forever be the greatest honor of my professional life.
2:29 PM · Mar 11, 2017

The folks in that office would be the lead (working with the relevant DOJ divisions) to "prosecute federally".

And with respect to Cyber Ninjas - I think it was mentioned over and over that the Constitution indicates that "how elections are run" is up to the states. This is why you see some states have "open primaries" and others have "closed primaries" and some states now even have "ranked-choice" or "jungle" primaries and/or elections. The federal government does NOT step in to tell that state how to configure their elections but outside of "fixing" the general election date and explicitly highlighting what the Constitution indicates for Presidential and Congressional elections, and then mainly uses what are codified as legal "guidelines" (e.g., Help America Vote Act of 2002, which for example, outlines types of machines and certain security requirements that go along with the process).

This is why Democrats have tried so hard to enact either or both of 2 different "voting-focused" pieces of legislation -

H.R.1 - For the People Act of 2021

H.R.4 - John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021

And both died in the Senate thanks to the 60-vote threshold (cloture) to advance a bill.

The County in the state of AZ that was impacted by Cyber Ninjas conducted a review and after being fined by a court, the company shut down.

Meanwhile, DOJ's involvement would be narrow (primarily using the SCOTUS-gutted Civil Rights/Voting Rights Acts, including HAVA, for cites) and they did in fact start gettng involved -

US Justice Department expresses 'concerns' over the GOP's Arizona election audit being conducted by Cyber Ninjas


Charles R. Davis
May 5, 2021, 9:52 PM

The US Department of Justice has reviewed details that "raise concerns" about the integrity of the Republican-led audit in Maricopa County, telling the president of Arizona's state senate that the effort may violate federal law.

The audit, taking place at a sports arena in Phoenix, is being conducted by a private firm, Cyber Ninjas, that has no experience in elections and is led by a man who promoted conspiracy theories about the 2020 election. The firm was chosen to lead the effort by state Sen. Karen Fann, over the objections of Maricopa County's local Republican officials — and after two audits were already conducted last year. President Joe Biden won the county by more than 45,000 votes.

In a May 5 letter to Sen. Fann, obtained by local news station KNXV's Garrett Archer, the Department of Justice's Pamela S. Karlan, principal deputy assistant attorney general with the Civil Rights Division, said Cyber Ninjas' involvement may be illegal.

"Federal law creates a duty to safeguard and preserve federal election records," Karlan wrote. The department is concerned that this is not happening in Maricopa County, where the records "are no longer under the ultimate control of elections officials, are not being adequately safeguarded by contractors, and are at risk of damage or loss."

Link to tweet

(snip)

More: https://www.businessinsider.com/us-justice-department-expresses-concerns-over-arizona-election-audit-2021-5

TWEET TEXT

The AZ - abc15 - Data Guru
@Garrett_Archer
·
Follow
#BREAKING the DOJ Civil Rights Division has sent a letter to Senator Fann raising concerns over how the #azaudit is being conducted.
1. Election assets are not under the control of election officials.
2. Reports of door to door canvassing.
Image
Image
8:35 PM · May 5, 2021

You also had this revealed less than 2 months ago -

Former Arizona AG sat on records refuting 2020 election fraud

By JONATHAN J. COOPER February 22, 2023


PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona’s former attorney general suppressed findings by his investigators who concluded there was no basis for allegations that the 2020 election was marred by widespread fraud, according to documents released Wednesday by his successor.

Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes, who took office last month, said the records show the 2020 election “was conducted fairly and accurately by election officials.”

Previous Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, never released a March 2022 summary of investigative findings, which ruled out most of the fraud claims spread by allies and supporters of former President Donald Trump. Yet a month later, he released an “interim report” that claimed his investigation “revealed serious vulnerabilities that must be addressed and raises questions about the 2020 election in Arizona.”

He released his April report despite pushback from his investigators who said some of its claims were refuted by their probe. Brnovich was at the time in the midst of a Republican Party primary for U.S. Senate and facing fierce criticism from Trump, who claimed he wasn’t doing enough to prosecute election fraud.

(snip)

https://apnews.com/article/arizona-state-government-2022-midterm-elections-donald-trump-fraud-55d9a729d412ef45ba234d5397cc8839

So this is still an ONGOING issue that is peeling back the layers of obfuscation as the GOP loons have been slowly purged out of that state's government and their misdeeds are being uncovered.