Trump's Plan Was Working Against Merrick Garland

[gab13by13]

Merrick Garland claims to be an institutionalist, and institutionalist will not prosecute someone if it damages the institution, an institutionalist will honor tried and true principles, like attorney/client privilege.

Knowing this, Trump had cabinet members, like Mark Meadows commit crimes for him. Remember how DOJ did nothing when the J6 committee sent it the Meadow's criminal referral?

Trump used sitting members of Congress to commit crimes for him, such as Scott Perry who is up to his neck in the fake elector scheme. The FBI took Perry's phone last August but has so far not been allowed to access its contents. We have Senators Cruz, Hawley, Tuberville, House members MTG, Boebert, Gaetz, Biggs, many many more.

Trump's best idea was to use attorneys to commit his crimes, beginning with Ghouliani, Eastman, and a dozen more, and then claim attorney/client privilege and run any challenges up to the fascist Supreme Court.

Jack Smith is not a radical institutionalist, of course he believes in our institutions. Jack Smith went after cabinet member Mark Meadows.

Sitting Congressmen appear to be untouchable.

Jack Smith went after all of the criminal attorneys, busting the attorney/client privilege by not waiting for his crime/fraud exceptions to be delayed and run up to the fascist SC, no, Jack Smith went to a judge with the crime/fraud evidence and got a District judge to throw out that privilege and force the criminal attorneys to testify.

Would Donald Trump have ever been indicted by DOJ without Jack Smith? I'm not so sure he would have.

Trump fears Jack Smith, he is bashing him and his family, for a reason, Jack Smith is going to bring Donald Trump to justice.

If Merrick Garland had done the same a year and a half ago Trump would have faced trial/trials before the election, now it will be close. The pyramid strategy was a bust.

[Irish_Dem]

1. I agree with your points.

Especially the part that it appears the traitor/criminal members of congress are untouchable.

[orthoclad]

16. They are untouchable by choice, not law.

I can't believe we lost the House to the insurrectionists. They didn't have to fire a shot.

[Irish_Dem]

19. Of course, others are going to prison for their J6 crimes.

Yes traitors are now calling the shots.

[orthoclad]

22. The Covfeferacy is in a position to block all legislation

They have achieved more than Bobby Lee - they carried the flag into the Capitol.
They extorted the nation - again - with their debt ceiling ploy.

I can't understand why, for instance, Gaetz is not in prison for pedophilia. The DoJ had the receipts.

[Irish_Dem]

28. It appears the DOJ made a decision early on to give criminal members of congress a total pass.

[Beastly Boy]

72. Did they?

Do you think that, maybe, it has to do with separation of powers and that DOJ is prohibited by law to "give" anyone in Congress a pass?

[sheshe2]

100. This

[orthoclad]

113. That, or just passing a hot potato.

[Irish_Dem]

116. Time will tell.

[orthoclad]

117. Yeah. Another decade.

The Fourth Reich will show us.

[Bev54]

55. I think it is far too early to make these conclusions. If Smith ends up with RICO charges

they could be caught in that. The one thing we should have learned by now, is that all the screaming about Garland not doing anything, including the misleading article in WaPo that failed to acknowledge actual subpoenas issued in Sept 2021, continues to be proven untrue in legal maneuvers and filings. Just because someone thinks nothing is being done does not make it true, without actual proof.

[Irish_Dem]

78. Yes, time will tell us the truth.

I do not think that the DOJ has the courage to go after after half the US congress.

[orthoclad]

115. Yeah. Just 2 1/2 years since

they TRIED TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT.
And now they hold the House and extort the nation.
But no biggie. I'll be patient.

[gab13by13]

2. It was upsetting to me

when Garland went on national TV and said that he would not be partisan. The only people he could have been speaking to were members of the Republican party seeing as no one from the Democratic party tried to overthrow our democracy. IMO the Republican party can be called a criminal organization. Anyone who aids and abets a crime is a criminal.

When Garland made that public statement he was being partisan against the Democratic party.

IMO Trump would be on trial right now if Jack Smith were in charge earlier, we need to GOTV, this will be the most important election in our lifetime.

[Beastly Boy]

73. Is national TV really the best venue to address members of Congress?

If Garland wanted to talk to the Republican members of Congress and not the nation, wouldn't it have made more sense to address the Republicans in Congress?

[Chakaconcarne]

3. I think you're giving TFG too much credit.

Seems Merrick Garland could have found someone other than Jack Smith ?

With all of the insurrectionists/moles in the FBI and capitol police, you would think that would need to be sorted before any investigations could begin and be held under tight wrap...

Here I am speculating... which is all we can really do because none of us really knows what was happening behind the scenes...

But what we do know is there are a shit ton of people being taken down and the noose is tightening around the traitor.

[gab13by13]

6. Time Matters

[Fiendish Thingy]

57. Wait, I thought Justice Matters?

Which is it that matters most, time or Justice?

I know which one matters most to me.

(Minus 1000 points if you dare reply “Justice delayed is Justice denied”)

[sheshe2]

103. Yet now, over time we have the recordings from Bedminster...

A lot of boxes went there. We now have Nauta as well, will he turn to save his own ass?

To me, Justice matters.

[orthoclad]

17. But they never addressed the moles

They're still there. They opposed the MAL search. That was not the reason for delay.

[Caliman73]

77. Agree. Trump really isn't that smart, like literally he is not smart.

He is crafty like a con man or criminal can be, but not smart. He doesn't think, plot, and plan. Has no strategic planning.

Trump has always relied on people like Roy Cohn and the like to do his thinking for him. He can read people pretty well and knows how to schmooze and coerce, but his abilities are fairly limited.

I do agree on the assessment of Garland though. He is the type of man who would rather not press to hard if it risks damaging institutions. If anything was deliberate, it certainly was not Trump's idea.

[orthoclad]

114. Trump's just another tool,

like Reagan, and Bush II, and Thomas, and...

[Alexander Of Assyria]

4. Biden selected a man of Supreme Court quality who appointed the nations best prosecutor

for the monumental task of indicting an ex President and all his cast.

The it’s taking sooo long refrain is getting tired…the evidence is irrefutable…a thousand democracy protecting prosecutions…and counting towards the pinnacle.

It’s all brilliant and the only way mobs are ever brought down…from the bottom up.

[gab13by13]

8. I respect your opinion,

My opinion about taking too long means nothing, but too many former prosecutors, too many former judges, too many former intelligence officials, the J6 committee all believe that Garland dragged his feet until Cassidy Hutchinson embarrassed him.

Give the name of an expert who believes that DOJ under was Garland was going at the right speed. Garland didn't investigate Trump and his inner circle for over a year, he used his pyramid strategy where nothing has been published that shows that any of the magats who attacked our Capitol flipped on Trump. Give me a name.

Time mattered to our foreign agents who most likely were killed and imprisoned because of Trump. Donald trump is a Putin puppet, he is a threat to our national security to our democratic way of life and what he did, is doing, should not be looked upon as an ENRON CEO filching money from his investors.

Time matters, Jack Smith gets that point, Garland did not.

[Fiendish Thingy]

39. While you rely on TV lawyers for your opinions, reality marches on. Nt

[Beastly Boy]

74. Everybody who thought Garland was going at the right speed had no reason to whine.

Or engage in inflamatory punditry. Many of them were actually working for DOJ at a time and not for commercial mass media.

I don't know the names of these experts, but they should be public record and available for you to look up. All one thousand of them.

[dchill]

13. Know what else is irrefutable?

Election cycles. People who KNOW "it's taking sooo long" are just as tired of it as anyone.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

67. Who tires at watching the wheels of Justice grind so finely the fascist mass? Time is not of

the essence, so grind on! Time isn’t the enemy, it’s the ally of justice, hence speedy trial laws.

Leave nothing but dust when done, is the goal.

[dchill]

80. Justice delayed is justice denied.

You may pooh-pooh it, but I cannot. I see criminals at large - some of them on House committees. Some are yet unknown to most, but are known by some. And some of us will be part of your "dust" when all is said and some of it still undone - because of TIME.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

83. That's a motto applicable to the accused...as the innocent shouldn't languish, waiting for trial!

So contrary to your conclusion, I think it’s a wonderful bedrock principle.

Justice delayed is Justice denied isn’t a phrase directed at the watching general public! It’s directed for the benefit of the accused!

[dchill]

85. You're wrong again. It also applies to the innocent ones who are...

...victimized by those avoiding justice.

[treestar]

84. Justice too fast is justice denied too

You would have people arrested and hung before they got a chance to defend themselves. That old saying is so trite and repeated that it apparently does not have to be proven.

[dchill]

86. Surely you know the kind of "delayed" that I'm referencing.

The saying is not so trite that it's not also true.

[emulatorloo]

36. "and the only way mobs are ever brought down...from the bottom up." +++++++

[Autumn]

41. Bullshit. The complaint is not that it's taking too long. The fact is that not one fucking

Last edited Thu Jun 29, 2023, 12:01 PM - Edit history (1)

member of Congress who were OPENLY in on it has not been touched. Trump isn't at the bottom and he's nothing like the mob. He's a traitor who committed treason. He has admitted it and he did it on video and in interviews.


What's getting old is the bullshit attempts to shut up the facts and the concern people have. FACT is not one of those ratfuckers in Congress is being held accountable. And they won't be.

[inthewind21]

53. Openly huh

So, do you have that evidence? Can you present it now? Rock solid without a doubt evidence? Not what you think you know. In case you didn't know, you have to have actual proof in a court. Not "well we know what they REALLY meant. I'll wait for that solid proof.

[Autumn]

64. If you want your rock solid it has to be investigated by the DOJ. It's not being done.

The beans have been spilled that those ratfuckers were in on the phone calls with Trump. You keep waiting, you'll be waiting a long time so don't hold your breath.

[inthewind21]

89. It's not being done?

LOL. That's all I got for that one.

[Beastly Boy]

92. Spinned by whom and in what context?

Have you heard of a prosecutor going to a judge and asking for a grand jury based on spilled beans about ratfuckers calling Trump?

If that judge had a sense of humor, he would have laughed his ass off, and if he didn't, he would have kicked that prosecutor's ass out of his chambers.

[Autumn]

105. Have you heard that they are under an investigation? One sure thing is, just like Trump those

ratfuckers ever find out that they ARE under investigation they would be screeching about it loud enough to bring the roof of the capitol building down.

Try harder.

[Beastly Boy]

106. I am not trying at all. Not even a little bit. And I don't have any plans to try harder.

I am just wondering where you are coming from and what your expectations are based on. What makes you think that DOJ didn't investigate and found no solid case to pursue?

Because I haven't heard that they did?

Mmmm...kay!

[Autumn]

107. Any excuse will do won't it? What make you think that they DID investigate and

found no solid case to pursue? Just doing the cheer thing? If the DOJ didn't find a case to pursue it's because they weren't looking. If any of those fucking Republicans that were in on it had been questioned they would never have kept it quiet.
Their preemptive screeching would have deafened the whole country. Leaks all over the place in the charges against Trump and people involved there but sealed mouths on dirty congress people?
Mmmm...kay!

[Beastly Boy]

108. Not any excuse. Only damn good ones.

Which, apparently, you are having a great deal of finding.

DOJ wasn't looking because... screech? That's a good one! Not as an excuse but as an amusing absurdity.

[Autumn]

110. Haven't seen a damn good one from you yet. Just stretching as far as you can.

[Beastly Boy]

111. Re-read this:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=18050914

That's the damn good excuse that you seem much difficulty to accept or respond to directly, without escaping into the realm of of hyperbole, childish name calling and "should have"s.

[pecosbob]

5. Great Sedition Trial of 1944 is a good example of political interference with justice

The parallels are striking...Nazis spies, America First Movement, Congressional involvement and interference...

[bucolic_frolic]

7. Garland wasn't AG until 2021

So I don't give a lot of credence to a theory of Trump's scheming with lawyers in 2020 or January 2021 because he knew what Garland would do. Now if it is stated most AG's would be institutionalist, that's probably true.

[gab13by13]

12. You make a good point,

and it bothers me that 20 Republicans voted to confirm Garland. It bothers me that people like Mike Lee recommended Garland to President Obama for the SC. It bothers me that Garland monitored a dozen Federalist Society events.

Jack Smith sped up the process tremendously when he by-passed the process of appeals going all the way to the Supreme Court. Smith went to a District judge with the evidence to show the crime/fraud exception. My question is, would garland have done that, or would he have gone by precedence and allowed the appeals to go through the process?

[Fiendish Thingy]

37. Smith didn't "bypass appeals to SC"

In fact, Trump appealed the initial ruling by Howell, the district judge.

The appeals court granted a stay, and Smith had to wait.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/trump-judge-crime-fraud-exception-special-counsel-rcna76186#

Trump lost the appeal, and apparently chose not to appeal to a higher court.

Smith didn’t “bypass” due process, he just got a lucky break.

[inthewind21]

54. Oh come on

Why lets facts get in the way when we can all speculate, claim we KNOW and hang on every word talking heads say as the absolute truth!

[Fiendish Thingy]

56. Wait, are you suggesting Nicolle Wallace and Glen Kirchner might be wrong?

Well, now my whole world is turned upside down…

[inthewind21]

79. I know

who knew!

[aggiesal]

9. The only problem with this theory is that ...

most of not all crimes were committed prior to Biden taking office and there is no way Pendejo45 or his henchmen had any idea that Biden would appoint an institutionalist like Garland as AG.

Pendejo45 is an arrogant POS and believes that there was enough co-conspirators in congress to protect a former pResident from ever paying for his crimes.

The fact is that Pendejo45 got lucky when Biden appointed Garland.
Unfortunately, Cassidy Hutchinson, elected officials and members of the DOJ held firm.

[orthoclad]

15. But DJT can make a pretty good prediction

that many Democrats tend to be timid. High-roading and bipartying.

[aggiesal]

50. Anyone can predict that ...

This theory makes Pendejo45 a prophet about specifically the AG position.
He's not that smart, he's a baffoon and is far from being a prophet. He got lucky.

[orthoclad]

112. R's have been "lucky" for quite some time...

[aggiesal]

119. Yup n/t

[dchill]

10. "Sitting Congressmen appear to be untouchable."

It's like a hangnail. A virulent, cancerous hangnail.

[BlueIdaho]

11. Trump can do nothing

Without the support from other GQP government officials and their henchmen. It’s time to drag them all kicking and screaming into federal prisons. Our democracy depends on it.

[orthoclad]

14. I have to wonder why

Garland waited around for about 2 years to appoint a special prosecutor, while ignoring criminal referrals from the J6 committee.

I can't help but think he was hoping the insurrection would become Somebody Else's Problem.

He wasted time pursuing the small fish pyramid. This is not a drug gang type of criminal investigation. This was an organized attempt to end the United States republic, with collaboration at the very highest levels. The big fish have plenty of cutouts. The stochastic terror, leaderless cell type of right-wing organization which has been developed and tested for years insulates the leaders from the soldiers. Meanwhile, the biggest fish was openly telling acolytes to "fight like hell", and then brandished a bat.

Delays cripple investigations. Memories fail, evidence disappears (Secret Service, anyone?). New events (declaring for prez) twist the arguments, allowing this to look like election interference.

Why did we have to wait for Trump to declare for office before we charged him with crimes?

[Fiendish Thingy]

32. Rushing sabotages investigations

You don’t seem to understand the purpose of a Special Prosecutor.

The triggering event was Trump declaring his candidacy.

Special Prosecutors aren’t more aggressive or faster, they exist to create an insulated “bubble” between DOJ and the investigation/prosecution of political candidates.

So, Garland didn’t “wait two years”, he acted once Trump declared his candidacy.

[emulatorloo]

38. +1

[gab13by13]

40. Garland's choice to give the job to Smith

so as to not appear to be partisan didn't work out so well, he is still being accused of being partisan.

Why is Garland even telling Republicans that he will not be partisan when the Republican party has become a criminal enterprise that is colluding with Trump? Garland saying that he won't be partisan is partisan against not just Democrats but democracy.

[Beastly Boy]

118. Garland is not telling Republicans that he will not be partisan.

Quote him, I dare ya!

[Cosmocat]

42. I mean, he was an ex-president

An equal or even greater rationale for a special prosecutor.

[Eyeball_Kid]

18. IMO, neither Smith nor Willis are done.

Both are reportedly targeting those involved in a conspiracy to defraud the US and commit insurrection. Once both prosecutors establish that conspiracies were factual in a legal sense, then co-conspirators can be targeted and named. Neither will be bypassing members of Congress, IMO, because that's where the strength of the conspiracy exists-- supporting members of Congress and other entities.

[gab13by13]

21. I will agree with you when the FBI is given access to Scott Perry's phone.

He is my #1 choice for a sitting Congressman to be indicted, he was deeply involved in the fake elector scheme.

It was last August when the FBI seized Perry's phone.

If Perry skates then they all skate.

[Fiendish Thingy]

31. Do you understand that is up to the courts, not Garland? Nt

[gab13by13]

43. Thank you for making my point about why Time matters.

Of course the courts are delaying the investigation, the Appeals court has not yet decided about E. Jean Carroll's first lawsuit.

Jack Smith realized the importance of time, that's why he didn't wait for the District court, the Appeals Court, the Supreme court to decide the crime/fraud exception to attorney-client privilege or we would still be waiting for Trump's criminal lawyers to testify.

Where would we be today were it not for Jack Smith?

Zoe Lofgren even said last week that it may be too late to bring Trump to trial before the election.

[Fiendish Thingy]

47. Smith had no choice but to wait

How do you ignore reality so consistently?

Howell ruled against Corcoran and supported Smith’s request for a crime-fraud exception.

Trump appealed, and the appeals court stayed Howell’s ruling pending appeal.

Smith had to wait, he’s not some fascist star chamber existing outside the rule of law, he had to wait.

The appeals court ruled against Trump, and, apparently, Trump didn’t appeal to a higher court (I can find no record online), otherwise, Smith would have had to wait.

That’s how due process works, and the rule of law. Does Trump manipulate due process in his favour? Of course he does. But this time, for whatever reason, he didn’t take it that far (perhaps his attorneys refused to appeal?) Smith got a lucky break.

[bigtree]

20. what bullshit. Garland NEVER 'claimed to be an institutionalist'

...nowhere. EVER.

Whatever follows that phony lede is worth as much as that lie.

[gab13by13]

25. Really, do you believe that?

Remember when E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for defamation, the first time? Bill Barr came out and said that the suit had no merit because defaming someone was an official duty of the president. Carroll's lawyer appealed Barr's decision and a District judge ruled in favor of Carroll. Trump appealed to the Appeals court where we are still awaiting a decision.

When Merrick Garland was appointed AG he did not have to agree with Bill Barr that defaming someone was an official duty of the president, but he did. Merrick Garland is prepared to have DOJ take Trump's place at trial because he wants to defend the office of the presidency, that my friend is the textbook definition of an institutionalist.

[bigtree]

29. it's a lie that he's said he's an institutionalist. Never in the way you describe him.

...own up to it.

[gab13by13]

45. What's wrong with the way I describe it?

There are times when it may be a better option not to prosecute someone if it will do harm to an institution. This isn't one of those times.

Why did Garland go along with Barr in defending Trump (the office) against E. Jean Carroll if he is not an institutionalist? What other reason can there be, he is an honorable man.

[Beastly Boy]

23. Jack Smith is a name. His title is Special Counsel.

He was appointed by Garland specifically to go after Trump.

I think you are drawing conclusions based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of a Special Counsel, whose name happens to be Jack Smith, in investigating and indicting Trump. He was appointed not because Garland is an institutionalist who is afraid to go after Trump, but because DOJ rules DEMANDED, under the circumstances Garland found himself in, for him to appoint a Special Counsel. Anyone can speculate whether it should have happened sooner or later, until their faces turn blue. There is no rational basis whatsoever to engage in such speculation.

Smith was selected by Garland, an institutionalist, to take over an ongoing investigation into two particular instances that involved Trump. Smith, himself an institutionalist, is operating within the DOJ rules, and is not by any means deviating from them. Smith, the institutionalist, with full confidence and support of Garland the institutionalist, is following every DOJ rule to conduct this investigation, without fear or favor, as Garland the institutionalist once pledged.

Trump would have committed the same crimes whether or not Garland or someone else were in charge of DOJ. In fact, most of the ctimes he is being investigated for were committed before Garland was appointed AG. Garland would have appointed a Special Counsel whether or not his name was Jack Smith. A Special Counsel, regardless of who it would have been, would have conducted the investigations into Trump, within the scope defined by Garland. Garland had no justification to appoint a special counsel a tear and a half ago, otherwise he would have. The pyramid strategy being a bust is a baseless fairy tale.

[gab13by13]

27. Why did Merrick Garland agree with Bill Barr

and choose to defend Trump (the office) against E. Jean Carroll? Even the District judge disagreed with Garland.

[Beastly Boy]

70. Why wouldn't he?

And what does it have to do with anything in my post?

[Fiendish Thingy]

24. What a bunch of nonsense

You completely ignore the role of the courts in all of this, from blocking DOJ from using the contents of Perry’s phone to Trump’s executive privilege claims affecting most of the coup architects, that weren’t resolved by SCOTUS UNTIL January 2022.

Most ridiculous of all, your post seems to imply that while president, Trump knew Garland would be the next AG, (was his nomination announced before January 6?), and so conducted himself differently than if a “non-institutionalist” (whatever the hell that is- someone like Bill Barr?) had been named.

Do you really think Trump is that cunning and calculating?

Remember how DOJ did nothing when the J6 committee sent it the Meadow's criminal referral?

Neither you, nor anyone else knows the DOJ did nothing; we know they didn’t file an indictment for contempt of congress, but we also know Meadows turned over thousands of documents and comms. And we also know, of all the coup architects, Meadows has been the quietest, cutting off contact with Trump and his inner circle, many speculating he has cut a cooperation deal.

Why would DOJ prosecute Meadows for contempt of congress if they could get him to flip and obtain convictions for the rest of the coup architects?

You keep beating the “institutionalist” drum, but you conveniently ignore the most important “institution” of them all:

The Rule Of Law

Are you suggesting Garland shied away from investigating Trump because it would damage the rule of law?

That makes absolutely no sense.

Jack Smith went after all of the criminal attorneys, busting the attorney/client privilege by not waiting for his crime/fraud exceptions to be delayed and run up to the fascist SC, no, Jack Smith went to a judge with the crime/fraud evidence and got a District judge to throw out that privilege and force the criminal attorneys to testify.

That had nothing to do with Smith’s strategy, and everything to do with the way the ruling were worded (no stay pending appeal), or the fact the attorneys didn’t appeal. Things could have broken the other way, and Smith would have had to wait.

Would Donald Trump have ever been indicted by DOJ without Jack Smith? I'm not so sure he would have.

The only reason Smith was able to indict Trump for the stolen docs when he did was because of the critical actions taken by Garland and his team (who now make up the bulk of Smith’s team) from May to August of 2022. Without the essential evidence obtained by Garland, Smith wouldn’t have been able to indict- period.

So you can continue to post about bad ol’ institutionalist Garland, but reality will continue to March on, quietly, secretly, until more is revealed.

Once more is known, some of us will be more fully informed; others will simply be embarrassed.

[relayerbob]

52. 100% agreed

But there you go, presenting facts.

[gab13by13]

26. Hail Hail The Gangs all Here

[Fiendish Thingy]

65. You didn't think we'd sit quietly while you spread misinformation disguised as opinions?

Did you?

[chowder66]

76. +1

[Beastly Boy]

93. Didn't you invite "the gang" in when you posted? What were your expectations?

If you object to hearing from "the gang", why do you keep posting, again and again, the same lame arguments that have been destroyed many times prior?

[Scrivener7]

109. I would have thought they would be busy watching the two-and-a-half year long Law & Order episode.

[boston bean]

33. I agree. Just watched yesterday, Zoe Lofgren state she was extremely disappointed

that the DOJ was not investigating Jan 6th planners for over a year. I think she would know.

[Fiendish Thingy]

63. Lofgren doesn't know anything more than you or I do

Which is as it should be.

Congress doesn’t get inside information about the status of investigations- can you imagine the chaos and sabotage if the current congress did?

[boston bean]

69. Yeah right.

I am positive she knows more than you or I.

[Fiendish Thingy]

71. To clarify- she doesn't know more about the status of Trump's investigations

Which is as it should be.

Again, imagine the chaos if DOJ staff could leak information to congress without consequences.

[boston bean]

91. To be clear, she does.

[Fiendish Thingy]

94. If true, either Lofgren is breaking the law

Or someone at DOJ is.

There is no evidence that she knows more about the inner workings and status of the DOJ investigations than you or I do. She is not authorized to have access to that information, nor is any other member of congress, including the gang of eight.

You just want it to be true.

[boston bean]

95. Bull oney

[Fiendish Thingy]

96. Not exactly an evidence based refutation. Nt

[boston bean]

97. Neither,is yours.

[Fiendish Thingy]

98. Here is my assertion:

Members of congress are not entitled to access information on the status of current criminal investigations, and DOJ employees are forbidden from sharing information on the status of criminal investigations with anyone outside the investigation team/DOJ management.

The reasoning goes to the heart of the Separation of Powers as outlined in the Constitution.

In the current DOJ, Any DOJ employee caught providing information would be disciplined/terminated.

So what is your evidence that Zoe Lofgren obtained access to information not available to the general public regarding the status of Trump’s investigations?

[boston bean]

101. No

[Fiendish Thingy]

102. 🤷🏻‍♂️?

[gab13by13]

34. Merrick Garland was not mandated to appoint Jack Smith,

that was his own personal decision.

Federal prosecutors investigated Spiro Agnew while he was Vice President.

[inthewind21]

58. Newflash

Federal prosecutors have ALSO investigated DJT. Were you trying to make a point?

[Alexander Of Assyria]

68. The point being Garland appointed top dog prosecutor with the instincts and knowledge of predators.

Who assembled a team of legal werewolves. Had other options, took the top shelf one.

Isn’t that obvious?

[inthewind21]

81. Was it the point?

Clearly some are not ok with how Garland handled this. Which is what I responded to. Was THAT not obvious?

[usonian]

35. T*ump delegated many of his crimes. Garland delegated the prosecution.

"I'm nonpartisan" Appoint me to the Supreme Court.

And as for the other one.

prison DJ.

[jaxexpat]

44. It has always been about the timeliness of prosecution.

And not really much about anything else.

[gab13by13]

46. OMG thank you.

Especially since the evidence is overwhelming.

[jaxexpat]

48. The evidence presents itself.

Just requires straightforward speaking of the obvious and the often reported. Calling a lie, a lie and differentiating it clearly from the truth.

[inthewind21]

60. lol

Take "stating the obvious" into a court with no solid evidence then let me know how that works out.

[jaxexpat]

62. The obvious evidence, obviously.

There should be no misunderstanding that facts usually speak for themselves. No need to seek or buy them. Just presemt

[Fiendish Thingy]

61. How many federal prosecutions have you won?

Make a separate list of the cases against former presidents you’ve won.

Remember: every time somebody says “slam dunk”, an angel gets its wings…torn out by the roots.

[jaxexpat]

75. "........list of the cases against former presidents" I've won. Good question but I have an answer.

None and especially none like this because no one else has ever even seen one quite like it. It's a very special occasion and may require getting off the inertia of the "way it's done" and embrace possible procedures to suit. There is no "slam dunk", just as you say. That would be a great way to grasp defeat from certain victory.

I understand courtrooms are where facts and truth go to die after being tortured and worn down by charade, bluff and the malevolence of bureaucracy. Where they are embalmed in misdirection and interred beneath countless irrelevancies. For this case on this occasion, it would just be nice if our cynical system were to come to its senses and accept that guilt and innocence are real and not phony constructs designed from its own impotence. And do so simply, expediently and before the people, so that all may see the underlying need for the verdict.

I know I tilt at windmills but why not? When a system prides itself on providing equal opportunity to both justice and injustice it will eventually come down due to the weight of its ineffectuality anyway. Why not take credit for its demise. It's what Sancho would want.

[inthewind21]

87. Well

Last edited Thu Jun 29, 2023, 02:59 PM - Edit history (5)

There's that pesky thing called due process in the constitution. Is the legal system frustrating beyond belief? Yes it is. Does it work like it's supposed to more for those who can afford teams of high paid attorneys? Yes, it does. However, the ENTIRE process is AVAILABLE to everyone, the "unfairness" is the cost of a legal defense. People scream about 2 systems, and unfair. It's not the process or the rule of law that's flawed. It's the cost of Attorney's, experts, and everything else involved. Someone accused of murder can expect upwards of $500K in legal fees to mount a defense.

I can guarantee, were this ANYONE other than DJT, or some other despised public person, the same people belly aching now would be screaming at top volume about due process and the constitution. You can't be pro 1st amendment for everyone but (fill in name here). You can't be pro constitution, except in "this" case. And do we really want to start arresting and prosecuting based on "we all KNOW what XX was REALLY saying and what we REALLY saw"?

What I saw on J6 was bunch of morons storming the capitol. A very lot of them have been arrested, charged and prosecuted. Why, because they live streamed and posted their crimes on social media as well as picked up on live media coverage of the event. Now THAT'S some solid evidence. Interesting thing, people don't seem to be able to understand WHY those were easy yet DJT is not. I also heard what was said on the ellipse. Was it a dog whistle, yes. It always is with Republicans. Did he say, you guys go break into the capital and beat up on the capitol police? No. There's this thing called plausible deniability. Trump skirted the line, but, he never actually called for violence. And that was by design. So all these claims of "we all saw it live on TV" no, we didn't. We saw what WE were taking away from it and I'm certain exactly what Trump was calling for. Unfortunately, what "we think he was REALLY saying" WILL NOT hold up in a court of law.

[Major Nikon]

49. The DOJ policy of not prosecuting sitting presidents is horrible for the US

All it does is put people above the law and erode public trust in the justice system. Justice is the institution that should always take precedent over everything else. Without it we are lost as a nation.

[Grasswire2]

90. It isn't even a policy.

It's a memo of opinion written by a partisan.

And if a memo of opinion written by a partisan can be used to over-ride established criminal law enacted by elected representatives of the will of the people, then we are governed by DECREE.

DECREE.

And that is un-American.

[Bear Creek]

51. Have forgotten already

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218021227

Washington Post news story about how Garland was reluctant in investigating. Also the partisan comment made by Garland.

[wnylib]

59. Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith,

so he must have had a lapse in his usual judgement.

He signed off on the indictment of Trump. Oops. Another lapse.

Zzzzz. The Garland bashing gets so boring.

[inthewind21]

66. The

absolute lack of understanding how the judicial system works get's really old. "Just waltz into court and "state the obvious" "But talking head X said" "We all KNOW what DJT REALLY meant" "We all saw it on live TV, why wasn't DJT arrested immediately?"! God help those so woefully ignorant of how court actually works if they ever find themselves before a court.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

99. Yes, the realities don't seem to phase the whats taking so long crowd.

[ProfessorGAC]

82. Trump & Plan In The Same Sentence...

...seems inappropriate.
There's no evidence he had any plan beyond getting his name out there.
He didn't even plan on winning in '16.

[RANDYWILDMAN]

88. Jack Smith is a Bulldog and he does not care who he attacks

TFG is within his sights

[Beautiful Disaster]

104. This is just a silly post.

If DU had their way, Trump would have been indicted so quickly that his case would have been thrown out. You guys are just awful when it comes to law.

What's remarkable is this consistent belief that nothing was happening until Jack Smith arrived. If you believe that, you're either sorely confused or purposely being disingenuous.

It's very likely much of the case Smith is making was put together in the proceeding months before he took over. Remember that: Smith took over - he didn't start the investigation.