Before Jack Smith was appointed, Merrick Garland:

[bigtree]

Mueller, She Wrote @MuellerSheWrote
Before Jack Smith was appointed, Merrick Garland:

Seized John Eastman's phone
Seized Jeffrey Clark's phone
Seized Scott Perry's emails
Seized Eastman's emails
Seized Epshteyn's phone
Seized Mike Lindell's phone
Seized Mike Roman's phone
Seized Scott Perry's phone
Got Kash Patel's testimony
Appointed Windom
Appointed Cooney
Subpoenaed the fraudulent electors
Subpoenaed 7 state's election officials
Subpoenaed Sidney's PAC
Subpoenaed Rudy
Opened IG probe into Clark
Opened IG probe into DoJ response to 1/6
Negotiated subpoena for Meadows
Battled the 11th circuit for classified docs
Subpoenaed trump for classified docs
Subpoenaed trump for surveillance video
Executed a search warrant on trump
Convicted Bannon of contempt
Indicted Navarro for contempt
Subpoenaed the speakers from 1/6
Subpoenaed the organizers of 1/6
Secured seditious conspiracy convictions
Subpoenaed records for any member of congress involved in 1/6
Subpoenaed info on Jenna Ellis
Secured testimony from Mark Short
Secured testimony from Jacob Engel
Secured testimony from Philbin
Secured testimony from Cippollone
Subpoenaed info on trump's PACs
Won privilege battles for Short, Engel, and the Pats
Negotiated for Pence's subpoena
Seized the phone records of Meadows
Secured the 1/6 committee transcripts
Subpoenaed 7 secretaries of state

Link to tweet

...all of that laying the groundwork for the man Merrick Garland appointed, Jack Smith, to secure the testimony of principles like Pence today.

NYT from Nov. '22:

Thomas Windom, one of the lead investigators examining the efforts to overturn the election, reached out to Mr. Pence’s team in the weeks before Attorney General Merrick B. Garland appointed a special counsel on Friday to oversee the Jan. 6 investigation and a separate inquiry into Mr. Trump’s handling of classified documents, according to one of the people familiar with the matter. Mr. Garland has said that the appointment of the special counsel, Jack Smith, will not slow the investigation.

Officials at the Justice Department declined to comment. A spokesman for Mr. Pence also declined to comment.

The discussions about questioning Mr. Pence are said to be in their early stages. Mr. Pence has not been subpoenaed, and the process could take months, because Mr. Trump can seek to block, or slow, his testimony by trying to invoke executive privilege.

...and here we are, with the man Merrick Garland appointed bringing it all home.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

1. Garland was very busy before the appointment of Jack Smith

[tritsofme]

2. Yeah but, the whiners gotta whine. It's all they know.

[republianmushroom]

3. and backed away from trump

Merrick Garland Weighed Search of Trump's Mar-a-Lago for Weeks

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142956907


President Trump’s staggering record of uncharged crimes

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/president-trumps-staggering-record-of-uncharged-crimes/#table

As of November 2022, Donald Trump has been credibly accused of committing at least 56 criminal offenses since he launched his campaign for president in 2015. That total only reflects allegations relating to his time in or running for office and omits, for instance, Trump’s criminal exposure for fraudulent business dealings.

[live love laugh]

4. I challenge the critics to compare Bill Barr's "accomplishments" to Garland's.

[gab13by13]

10. Under Bill Barr as AG, in 22 months,

Robert Mueller got indictments or guilty pleas from;

George Popadopoulas
Paul Manafort
Rick Gates
Michael Flynn
13 Russian Nationals
Richard Pinedo
Alex van der Zwaan
Konstantin Kilimnik
12 Russian GRU officers
Michael Cohen
Roger Stone
Sam Patten.

These people belonged to Trump's inner circle and many of them were attorneys.

Also under Bill Barr, Mueller laid out the evidence to indict "individual one," Donald Trump and named him as an unindicted co-conspirator.
Also under Barr, Mueller laid out evidence to prosecute Trump for 10 obstruction of justice crimes. The only reason that Mueller did not indict Trump was because of the DOJ memo that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Once Trump left office Merrick Garland was free to indict Trump, but didn't.

People actually went to jail within 22 months of Mueller's investigations.

[bigtree]

16. by all means, let's divert from the actual investigations closing in on Trump

...to revisit an investigation that neither Smith or Garland were part of.

That's going to hurry things along.

After reading that, I'm not thinking it's actually the investigations that concern you, as much as the Garland/DOJ wrestling (and throwing Hillary's name in there for effect).

[bigtree]

21. the entire premise is a diversion

...from the op.

That's not just a conversation with 'Gab,' it's an assist to the attempt by the poster to divert the thread to a discussion of Mueller and Russia.

It has zero to do with the current investigations, and everything to do with this diverting effort to suggest Garland's DOJ has done something wrong, much of the noise curiously coming as reports surface of the investigations coming to a close.

[betsuni]

34. +1

[live love laugh]

23. Exactly. Because Barr hid it.

[bigtree]

12. how many were convicted of seditious conspiracy?

...how many for interfering with the vote?

You have several there who were held in contempt but didn't actually tell Mueller anything.

Tell us ONE person on that list who provided damning information concerning Trump (other than Cohen, who decided to cooperate with DOJ to get back at his former boss)?

None of those convictions were even remotely comparable or related to ANYTHING Garland and Smith are investigating.

[bigtree]

29. kinda incongruous alongside complaints the DOJ is taking too much time

...to suggest they should be prosecuting Mueller's report as well.

It's not likely, and it's not clear that Mueller even obtained the evidence against Trump folks are looking for.

But here we are diverting from the op and the actual investigations because, Garland bad.

I get it. It's not enough anymore for critics to claim Garland/Smith aren't proceeding against Trump. That canard was knocked down long ago, and now the aim is to suggest there's something wrong with the way Garland/Smith are investigating; could have been done sooner, etc.

This is amateur hour. It's not really so much an analysis of the investigation, as it is an outline of your own cynicism. What to make of all of that? Who knows?

It comes with no citation, nothing backing it up. It's basically misinformation based on nothing credible, because nothing of the sort has been revealed yet.

You have no idea what the state of the Mueller evidence is, or whether the Garland/Smith probes have used any of it. But, by all means, let's divert from the actual probes to flame out on this unrelated thread about it.

Fur shur.

[Cha]

5. TY AG Merrick Garland.

[brer cat]

6. K&R

[Joinfortmill]

7. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

[relayerbob]

8. And got convictions on almost 1000 of the 1/6 terrorists

[live love laugh]

24. ✔️+

[relayerbob]

9. K&R - Thank you!

[gab13by13]

13. I have faith in Fani Willis,

she indicated that indictments are coming.

I have zero problem with Jack Smith, in the words of Glenn Kirschner, Jack Smith is running a 2 minute offense, before Smith, Garland didn't have a team on the field. As heard on the Stephanie Miller show.

Bob Mueller, within 22 months, had trials and got convictions of people in Trump's inner circle.

If everything is going according to plan when can we expect indictments and trials for Trump and his inner circle? E. Jean Carroll has been trying to get Trump to trial since 2019, for a civil lawsuit, same for Letitia James.

Can anyone provide a blueprint of the circumstances that are going to happen that will hold Trump and his inner circle accountable? What will be the time frame? Will Alvin Bragg be able to schedule a Trump trial before the 2024 election? Someone calm my fears and explain how everything is going to play out. Give me a best case scenario.

[bigtree]

17. I don't believe you.

...you just conflated the petty Mueller convictions with the dual Smith investigations.

Mueller did not charge or suggest charges for anyone on one of the biggest questions he faced: whether the Trump campaign worked with the Russians to influence the election.

Mueller charged Manafort with hiding tens of millions of dollars he earned for for a pro-Russia political party in Ukraine and lying to banks to get loans.

Mueller charged Kilimnik with conspiracy to obstruct justice and obstruction of justice for allegedly attempting witness tampering during the Manafort investigation.

Roger Stone was found guilty of all seven counts he faced, including lying to Congress, tampering with a witness and obstructing a congressional investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Michael Flynn plead guilty to lying to the FBI about conversations with then Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

Rick Gates plead guilty to lying to investigators

George Papadopoulos: Served 12 days in prison for lying to investigators.

Alex van der Zwaan served 30 days in prison for lying to investigators.

Richard Pinedo: Sentenced to six months in prison for identity theft.

Sam Patten: Pleaded guilty to failing to register as a foreign lobbyist.


This is a pathetic list of convictions to compare to the charges pending in the dual DOJ investigations that are coming to a close.

It's embarassing to you to believe these are in any way analogous.

[live love laugh]

25. And Cohen was just revenge from the Trump mafioso.

[Hekate]

14. Thank you thank you thank you. BOOKMARKING

[Just A Box Of Rain]

15. Thank you for this very informative post.

Too many people are attempting to weave a very false narrative.

This destroys those attempts. Bravo!

[Haggis 4 Breakfast]

18. Thank you for reminding us.

I tend to get frustrated at what I percieve as the slow pave of justice, but it's just because I want to see trump held accountable for decades of getting away with E V E R Y T H I N G.

[lees1975]

20. It's taken too long.

If they've gotten all those convictions, what's so hard about getting the ringleader?

He's kept documents illegally, we know this. He incited a seditious insurrection. We know this. There's plenty of evidence.

So why is this acting like it is some kind of complicated neverland?

Because people like Trump are never held accountable They live under a different set of laws.

Good luck with this.

[bigtree]

26. I'm happy we don't have prosecutors who are just presenting news articles to jurors

...in the place of actual testimony and evidence.

That's all the evidence you actually have access to. News articles.

I'm going to suggest the actual investigations are much more involved than just assuming crimes have been committed, and then just moving right into court with a jury comprised of people who may have voted for the defendant for president because, too long.

[bigtree]

36. fark that. There is nothing supportive of the DOJ investigation in any of these complaints

...and the replies are a word salad of disinformation wholly unrelated to the dual investigations.

It's stuff out of your head which is less informing of the investigations and more representative of your own imagination.

Schiff has just been outright lying about the beginning of the investigation, first claiming Congress was ahead of DOJ when it was Garland who signed off on the witnesses before they appeared in front of the committee. He began his politically opportunistic attack on Garland by falsely claiming there wasn't an investigation of the top WH officials, which has since been refuted completely.

Now you have critics like Schiff shifting their complaints to the lie that it's taken too long, when they have zero information backing it up. They don't know the state of evidence DOJ has, and besides, the Jan. 6 committee didn't hand DOJ a smoking gun. They dumped inconclusive evidence months after the hearings, and after a year of repeated DOJ demands for the witness transcripts.

Not because DOJ hadn't already gathered evidence, as the lame ass pundits and Shiff himself misinformed about. But because they needed to reconcile it with what they'd already gathered and check for inconsistencies and anomalies. Also the actual court cases scheduledlast year were demanding the evidentiary material which the prosecution is obligated to provide them in discovery.

So, just to hurry things along, the Jan. 6 committee withheld the evidence until late fall of '22, even as Schiff was going on tv complaining about the pace of the DOJ investigation. That, in turn caused a DELAY of the PB and OK trials which the committee had taken pains to show linkage with the Trump WH on orchestrating the Capitol insurrection.

It's the same kind of adversarial approach that critics of the DOJ use here, acting as if it's some badge of virtue to attack the people working to prosecute Trump daily, with innuendo, falsities, and and revisionism. Now the suggestion is something, something about the Mueller investigation. They should do this or that, as if that's the key to everything and DOJ is either hapless or negligent.

It's just a farce, and it doesn't deserve niceties, not for anyone claiming to be in support of the process who can't be bothered to represent the actual state of the probes as actual facts come out. To, me, that's not 'friendly' toward justice, it's just aggravating and unhelpful here in a place where facts should reign, especially as an information source.

This a thread with receipts. To understand the Garland/Smith investigations, you need to understand the culpability or materiality of each of the people listed in the op. If you skip over all of that, you may well have missed the very things you're complaining about.

It's a daunting list of DOJ actions BEFORE Smith came along which tracks the Trump WH conspiracy, and lays the foundation for the progress critics of Garland celebrating events today are working to disassociate from these very significant moves early in his appointment.

Notwithstanding whatever motivation you may have for believing you know better than the Justice Dept. prosecutors, or have more motivation than they do to find evidence of crimes and convict, this is a DOJ effort that's wrapping up one of the most wide-ranging, and encompassing investigations in its history.

I think THAT deserves our attention, more than these speculative complaints about Garland which come without any citation other than repeating someone else's nonfactual angst, and a laundry list of suggestions for a very capable and committed DOJ already well ahead of where most of these same critics had claimed they weren't even destined.

You can see from the list in the op that Schiff was just flat wrong about DOJ's efforts before Congress stepped up. He should be ashamed for repeating that lie, but he'll likely dissemble on it, just as every other critic has, and will, as this investigation phase moves to a close.

[bigtree]

40. it's hard to engage facts with innuendo, cynicism, and outright falsehoods.

...I understand.

[bigtree]

43. I won't coddle misinformation

...and I'm not going to just sit back and let this thread be hijacked with it.

You may well be chagrined at the forcefulness of my responses to misinformation, but they are factual, and remain unchallenged by replies repeating even more misinformation.

There isn't going to be any comity toward any of that from me.

[pwb]

35. Have you listened to The Midas Touch on you tube? They are lawyers

who explain how the law works and how the process takes time. More time for people with money who can delay at every turn. Not to mention that asshole is still an ex President and that also complicates things.

[bigtree]

39. this isn't Brazil

...and as the op informs, DOJ also took things in hand quite quickly.

Besides, you're actually exaggerating the Brazilian's response.

from Brookings:

President Lula’s peaceful inauguration and Bolsonaro’s departure from Brazil — makes it both more puzzling and distinct from the January 6 attack on the Capitol. While Brazil’s federal institutions have admirably held the line against anti-democratic forces, what is now abundantly clear is that the embrace of authoritarianism has found a foothold in a country that 38 years ago emerged from repressive military rule. Although Bolsonaro’s direct role — if any — in Sunday’s attack remains unclear, the authoritarian norms that precipitated it have seemingly become entrenched amongst a subset of the population, perhaps even without the overt backing of the former president.

A different kind of insurrection

As the attack unfolded in Brasília, Congress was not in session, and federal buildings were largely vacant. With the transfer of power complete, the assault on the Superior Federal Court, National Congress, and the presidential palace seemed without clear purpose or organization. While rioters offered vague justification about occupying the building until the military intervened to overturn the election, they seemed to primarily focus on ransacking the place. Videos and images of Bolsonaro supporters bashing windows, destroying works of art, looting government documents, lighting fire to carpets, and even defecating on desks circulated widely online, often shared by those defacing federal property. There were even concerns that Bolsonaro supporters had made off with the original copy of the 1988 Brazilian Constitution, which later proved to only be a replica.

Unlike in the United States, the actions of these bolsonaristas did not directly threaten the lives of elected officials or seek to stop a constitutional process. But they did represent a clear demonstration of their disdain for democracy, laying bare the underlying authoritarian impulses motivating at least some of the former president’s supporters. They also highlighted the clear power of disinformation to mobilize even just a small fraction of partisans, who with thousands of rabid supporters committed destabilizing and destructive acts of violence.

What is more alarming about the events in Brasília is the total complacency of local government and public security officials from the Federal District (DF). Unlike Washington, D.C., the Federal District — home to Brasília — has the governing capabilities of both a state and municipality, and security forces within the DF are responsible for protecting federal buildings. Yet while the attack unfolded, Bolsonaro supporters met surprisingly limited resistance.

Although the District-level government failed to meet the challenge, Brazil’s federal institutions once again showed their resilience to anti-democratic attacks, despite their relative youth. After news of the invasion broke, Lula declared a federal intervention of the District’s public security. With congressional approval, this allows the federal government to control public security until the end of the month. Alongside other federal forces, the military eventually intervened, drawing cheers from Bolsonaro supporters, but did so only to clear protesters from federal buildings (importantly, several military officials reportedly participated in the vandalism, highlighting clear internal divisions amongst Brazil’s armed forces). The Supreme Federal Tribunal Court also swiftly suspended the governor of the DF for 90 days, pending an investigation into his “ painful absence” during the attack. Somewhere between 200 and 400 people were arrested immediately, and less than 24 hours later, the federal government had detained more than 1,500 people for questioning about their involvement in the attempted coup, with more arrests underway.

[bigtree]

45. responding to you on my own thread isn't bullying

...you made a false analogy of Brazil and the U.S., and I called you out for it with facts.

You are not a victim in this thread, you're an aggressor. It's intended to refute misinformation and you're managing to do the opposite, nonetheless.

[bigtree]

47. read the room

...you diverted from the op for this.

This is all you. You go have a nice day.

[bigtree]

49. I was thinking of how this reminds me

...of the lady who has been deliberately bringing her dog by my house to piss on my flowers, despite almost everyone in the house asking her not to.

When I chastened her from my upstairs window one day, she had the cops show up at my door claiming I'd harassed her.

That's what this feels like with you claiming you're being bullied by my daring to confront your pissing on my thread.

"DU's not fun anymore because, I can't piss on your thread with impunity."

[H2O Man]

31. Recommended.

[betsuni]

33. K&R

[AZSkiffyGeek]

50. Sshhh... I've been told that supporting Garland is what MAGATs do nt

[LetMyPeopleVote]

51. This makes me smile

I wish that the J6 criminal prceedings were moving faster but it is unfair to say that AG Garland did nothing before the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet