Was Merrick Garland's Approach Correct All Along?

[Joinfortmill]

https://statuskuo.substack.com/p/was-merrick-garlands-approach-correct?utm_source=substack&utm_medium

Ok, people, take a deep breath and hear the man out. This article has been so thoughtfully articulated, it is difficult to reduce it and maintain it's clarity and coherence, so please take a few minutes to read it.(my words)

'I’m going to say something that might make me a bit unpopular...Attorney General Merrick Garland has taken a logical and reasonable legal path...It comes down to how Garland and the Justice Department...methodically laid a legal pathway for charges against Trump to land, rather than get thrown out of court or held in doubt till the end, where they might be far more vulnerable on appeal...

The first set of defendants...Garland took office in March of 2021, and by May 13...just two months later, the Washington Post reported that 411 suspects had been swept up “in what federal officials have called an unprecedented domestic attack on a branch of the U.S. government.” That’s a lot of arrests, but notice the wording, which was no accident: The attack was “unprecedented,” and it was “on a branch of the U.S. government.”

The Obstruction of an Official Proceeding statute...The statute that 195 defendant rioters had been charged with is 18 U.S.C. 1512(c). That part of the obstruction laws deals with “corruptly” interfering with an “official proceeding... otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,” and carries with it a hefty penalty of up to 20 years in prison...What does “corruptly” mean here?...What does “otherwise” include here?...The Justice Department didn’t have a clear answer to any of these questions from the courts back in 2021. So proceeding early with this statute against someone like Trump would have been a very dicey proposition had prosecutors not first laid a solid legal foundation....And that’s exactly what the Justice Department has been doing over the past two years, appearing before multiple district courts in the D.C. Circuit and before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals....And its work is very nearly done.'

[Cha]

1. Ohh you've Done it Now! Mahalo for

this, JFM.

[erronis]

8. I hope so! I also agree that the slow and steady is going to win the race.

Let's not forget that Garland also had no help during transition from the former administration and had many hold-over implants in the organization that he needed to deal with.

[Cha]

12. Mahalo for that Important Reminder,

erronis.

[Rhiannon12866]

48. Also, under TFG (and AG Jeff Sessions) numerous divisions of DOJ were ignored (Civil Rights)

There were many resignations and few applications destroying continuity for a generation. Merrick Garland basically had to start over. The same thing happened to State. I got this from Mary Trump's book.

[SheilaAnn]

2. I've given little to no thought of Garland especially since Jack Smith came on the scene. Garland is

not an impressive person and emits no reason to think about him very much.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

6. Impressed Obama a ton! Obama judgment Good enough for me!

[BWdem4life]

112. Obama thought Garland would be conservative enough that Repugs wouldn't block him.

Obama thought wrong. Should have started with a much more progressive pick, then settled with Garland and made his case to the American public. Instead he just let them steal the seat, without even the pretense of a fight.

He assumed that worst case scenario, Hillary would get the pick. Some might call that hubris, in retrospect.

Garland is a conservative and is completely unimpressive. He'd have made an unimpressive SC Justice. The only good thing I can say about him is he'd have been better than Trump's picks, but that's a no-brainer. Pull the average citizen off the streets and they'd have been better than any of Trump's picks.

[Sky Jewels]

118. Agreed.

[newdayneeded]

120. people forget that.

He picked Garland because he was center right to try and get acceptance from the right for a nom.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

131. People already forget who picked Jack?

[emulatorloo]

7. Sounds like you don't know anything about his history as a prosecutor.

[Cha]

13. Exactly.. Merrick Garland is Very IMMPRESSIVE!!

Mahalo

[Sky Jewels]

119. Not at all.

He had to be pressured into going after the coup plotters many, many months after they plotted to overthrow our government and destroy our entire system of government.

Not impressive at all.

Jack Smith, on the other hand, is very impressive. It would have been nice if he'd been given a lot more time to do his job.

[Cha]

123. Yes AG Garland Is IMPRESSIVE.

[onecaliberal]

34. 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻

[Beastly Boy]

43. Depends on what impresses you

To me, given the very high profile nature of his job, emitting no reason to think about him is impressive indeed!

DOJ is no Dancing with the Stars.

[Ohio Joe]

3. Yes, yes it was - nt

[MarineCombatEngineer]

4. I think I'll just sit this one out and enjoy my

and

[Cha]

14. 😎

Viva AG Garland! And his Appointee, Jack the Traitor Killer Smith!

[MarineCombatEngineer]

17. +100.

[Cha]

22. Mahalo, MCE!

[MarineCombatEngineer]

24. Mahalo Cha.

So sorry to read and hear about Maui, what a horrible situation.
Stay safe.

[Cha]

25. Yes, an Unbearable heartbreaking Tragedy..

But So many are coming together to help them and to rebuild eventually.

Pres Biden is On It!

Link to tweet

Aloha

[Bev54]

40. Unfortunately, those who need to read this most, probably won't.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

41. I did read it,

my comment wasn't meant in any way to belittle this thread.
My feelings on AG Merrick are well known and I don't need to spell them out again.

You're right though, those that need to read it probably won't.

[Bev54]

45. No, I wasn't referring to you. I know you have supported Garland.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

63. It's all good.

[ificandream]

5. I know everyone wished this would happen sooner, but in reality, it couldn't ...

If there's one thing we realized with Jack Smith's indictments, it's that they weren't rushed. They are defined and detailed for the best possible chance of a conviction.

I think things are proceeding fairly well. The only hitch, if that, is Aileen Cannon. But we'll see how that goes.

[erronis]

9. I believe Cannon will be steamrolled by the upper courts if she presents as a bubble in the asphalt.

[ificandream]

20. God, I hope you're right.

[Mr.Bill]

55. I think if Smith wins the case in Cannon's court,

jail time will not be included in the sentence.

But I also believe that if she hears the case the trial will be a complete shitshow.

[iemanja]

71. No, it's very clear

That a large number of people here did not wish it happened sooner. That’s what all the excuses about Garland reveal.

Smith has moved with due speed. It was everything before he was appointed that constituted the delay. We now know there was absolutely nothing done about investigating Trump in the first 14 months following the riots. Many here think that was right, ergo they do not wish the Trump
prosecution happened earlier.

[Sky Jewels]

117. It's really perplexing, isn't it...

I don't get all the excuse-making for Garland.

[dem4decades]

10. No. How long did it take for Garland to name Smith? And how long did it take

For Garland to name a special prosecutor for Biden?

And let's not forget, Trump actually did crimes, Biden didn't.

[Fiendish Thingy]

32. Two days

That’s how long it took for Garland to appoint Smith after Trump announced his candidacy. Before that, there was no ethical or political conflict that would justify appointing Smith under the Special Counsel rules.

[chowder66]

64. +1

[dem4decades]

75. So, if Trump didn't announce Garland would have done nothing? Two days after Trump declared

Smith was named? That looks worse than if DOJ began investigating Trump before he declared

[Beastly Boy]

80. Where is the "nothing" coming from? Anyone's vivid imagination, by chance?

All evidence suggests that the DOJ investigation into Trump has been ongoing since even before Garland took office (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/us/politics/justice-department-trump-capitol.html), and way before the J6 Committee came up with their criminal referrals in December of 2022. In March 2022, WP reported that "In the past two months, a federal grand jury in Washington has issued subpoena requests to some officials in former president Donald Trump’s orbit who assisted in planning, funding and executing the Jan. 6 rally", eaning the subpoenas went out as early as January 2022. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/03/30/jan-6-fbi-subpoena-justice/). In April 2022, "Sources confirm to Reuters that the U.S. Justice Department was investigating Trump's removal of official presidential records from the White House." (https://www.voanews.com/a/timeline-of-the-trump-documents-inquiry-/6734453.html). In July 2022 DOJ was already investigating Trump himself (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/03/30/jan-6-fbi-subpoena-justice/), and has not ruled out charging him (https://www.businessinsider.com/merrick-garland-hasnt-ruled-out-charging-trump-over-january-6-2022-7). In May of 2022, DOJ subpoenas National Archives for Trump's classified docs. On August 8,2022, FBI raids Mar-a Lago for classified docs (https://www.voanews.com/a/timeline-of-the-trump-documents-inquiry-/6734453.html).

All of the above happened before Jack Smith took over the Trump part of the DOJ investigation, which was by then well on its way, and THIS is what is not debatable. All of the evidence collected by DOJ since 1/6, 2021 was given to Smith by DOJ.

Is this your definition of nothing? C'mon, get serious!

[Fiendish Thingy]

88. DOJ had been investigating since mid 2021. Nt

[FakeNoose]

52. I'm pretty sure Biden didn't want anything to happen until after the Midterms

Biden never put the kibosh on investigating and eventually indicting Chump. He just wanted the politically explosive stuff (what's happening now) to come about after the Midterms were over. In the meantime Garland had his plate full for 2 full years, finding, arresting and trying the Insurgents. You know, the people who took part in the FAILED COUP.

The Feds are still arresting those people, and whistleblowers are still sending in their tips. But the focus is now on the true perpetrators, ever since Special Investigator Jack Smith came on board (immediately AFTER the Midterms.) I believe this is happening with all the speed and urgency that it needs to happen. Nobody has left the country, all the perps are still here. People are testifying to the grand juries, just as we'd all hoped they would.

Whatever the nonsense about Biden is, it's all going to be dropped very soon. It's all good.

[emulatorloo]

11. Good article. Kick and Rec n/t

[Iggo]

15. I wanted indictments to happen and indictments happened.

And I wasn’t flopping around like like a ringless gollum every day there wasn’t an indictment.

So honestly, I don’t think I ever really had a problem with Garland. I assumed he was doing his job, and it turns out he was. To be sure, I did have fun with the word “imminent” for a while…lol. But mostly I had an attitude of “If it happens, good. If it doesn’t, then it doesn’t. But I’m not going to go all fitzmas about it.”

At least, that’s how I remember it.

[usonian]

16. Merrick the Meticulous. Can't fault that.

Though Smith seems just as meticulous, perhaps more so, and at least 10X faster at the job.

But

Case law is the point. However some 6 people have been throwing case law out the window when it disagrees with their personal agendas.

Wrong items thrown out the window.

[Bev54]

42. Smith seems faster because Garland cleared most of the roadblocks for him.

I think Smith is the right man for the job, was he available before? Was Garland waiting for him to recover but had to name him once Trump declared his candidacy? We will only find that out when the book is written. I have never once doubted Garland because unlike so many who disparaged him on tv and here were obviously not reading a lot of legal filings which is where we found out a lot about what the DOJ were doing. Very selective memories or selective reading accounts for much of the accusations, including from tv commentors, tv lawyers and their followers.

[wnylib]

53. Smith has been able to move quickly because

1) He could build on investigations already in process
2) He could devote all his time to investigations and developing cases related to J6 and the MAL docs compared to Garland who has an entire department to manage with hundreds of cases not related to the Orange Menace
3) Smith has more direct experience with these kinds of crimes than Garland has.

Garland needed a reason to appoint a Special Counsel. Trump gave him that reason by announcing his candidacy very early in an attempt to avoid exactly what he is facing now. With a SC, Garland has political distance, as a member of the Biden administration, from the investigations, charges, and trials, even though Trump refuses to recognize that the distance exists.

[waddirum]

19. The proof is in the pudding

Last edited Thu Aug 10, 2023, 06:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Dozens of indictments speak volumes.

[Orrex]

44. I concur

I was among the loudest of the impatient voices along the way, but I’m delighted to see dozens and dozens and dozens of indictments.

Of course my dream was to have Trump catapulted into a volcano 18+ months ago, but I can hardly complain about the indictments.

[iemanja]

67. The point is Trump

That is what at issue, that is if one cares about his facing justice. If the concern is the run of the mill rioters and not Trump, then naturally one thinks Garland was right to do nothing about Trump in the first year. It’s very clear that some here value Garland over justice for Trump, hence the endless excuses.

[waddirum]

73. Your statement that Garland did nothing

in the first year is not correct. He always, from the very beginning, said that justice will go wherever crimes have been committed. And he was 100% correct. And lived up to his word.

[iemanja]

78. False

The WaPo article demonstrated that DOJ, including Garland, and the FBI, which falls under DOJ, did nothing to investigate Trump during that first 14 months. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/06/19/fbi-resisted-opening-probe-into-trumps-role-jan-6-more-than-year/ They went after many low-level protestors, but not Trump. We have indictments because of Jack Smith's investigation.

[Beastly Boy]

81. That WaPo article was universally ridiculed for its crappy journalism.

And hopefully you have already seen the evidence that justifies all the ridicule that article deserves.

But if you insist, I can cut and paste it into my reply once again.

[iemanja]

85. It most certainly was not universally ridiculued.

That some people desperate to defend Garland--as though his career mattes more than the rule of law--invent stories to try to refute what is obviously credible journalism reveals a great deal about them but in no way refutes the article. The "a lot of people say" argument is transparent and meaningless. WaPO is not the source lacking credibility.

[Beastly Boy]

87. Anyone at all praising the article? Anyone?

And don't hide behind "people desperate to defend Garland" stuff. I, for one, couldn't care less about Garland's career. I defend facts against fact-free speculations.

And by now you have plenty of facts to question the validity of your speculations.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

95. +1

[Cha]

91. It seems like there's so much invested in

dragging on AG Garland for some to ever think anything was wrong with that Wapo article.

But I remember there were a lot of people on the thread who were calling it out for "the Timeline being shoddy reporting."

I admire AG Garland for what he's done in his career.. What an amazing brain.. too bad it wasn't done fast enough for those who wanted it rushed.

Aloha Beastly Boy

[Beastly Boy]

101. I don't understand where all this hostility towards Garland is coming from

or why people keep grasping at straws to keep it going. It goes way beyond being simply impatient with him or fearing the unknown. It's the stuff that mass hysterias are made of. Objectively speaking, Garland is turning out to be the iconic defender of democracy in America destined for the history books.


How are you fairing with all the fires around you, Cha? I hope you are OK. Mālama iā oe iho! (I cheated - looked it up online. But I mean it ).

[Cha]

122. They don't want to be wrong?

That's all I got.

Mahalo nui loa, Beastly Boy! I looked it up, too. That's a good one to know.

We're safe on Kauai but heartbroken for Lahaina. 🤷‍♂️💕

Mālama iā oe iho to you

[betsuni]

135. Refusing to accept being wrong. Part of black or white, good or bad, us vs them thinking.

When your whole ideology is based on everything and everyone Establishment being broken and corrupt (them) and you (us) are the only ones who know what's right and good, must be upsetting when it turns out not to be true, not so simple.

Garland is conservative/Republican, therefore bad and plotting bad things. Just like there are still people claiming that since some parts of the old Heritage Foundation health plan were present in the ACA, it must be bad and proof President Obama was a neoliberal Republican Trojan horse.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

94. Why do you believe

some crap opinion know nothing trash, over words AG Garland spoke to us himself?

Do you think he's a liar?

[inthewind21]

125. Run of the mill rioters?

So you would have been ok to just let them all walk and go straight after Trump WITHOUT all the precedent that those cases have now provided? I guess you would have also been ok when Trump walked, because what you are so adamantly griping about would have had a high probability of allowing just that.

[Sympthsical]

21. Garland hoped it would go away

The idea being institutions wouldn't weather a presidential criminal trial well. Also, a precedent would be set. Someone that powerful could be prosecuted. That idea is unsettling to a lot of people in D.C.

As long as Trump went away, things would be slow-walked until the man was dead or no one cared.

But Trump is Trump, so he had to pull the documents business. And Trump did something categorically dumb here.

I firmly believe if Trump wasn't running for President, very little would move forward. However, the document case panicked him, so he decided to run for President. In this, Garland's hand was finally forced. Enter Jack Smith. "Welp, now we have no choice."

And it has elements of a tragedy and farce. Trump thought declaring a run for president would immunize him. However, that declaration is exactly what forced Garland's hand to give someone like Smith the go ahead.

I absolutely 100% believe if Trump didn't decide to run for President again, we wouldn't be watching what we are. There was a line drawn early on, "He cannot be president again." Once Trump started crossing it, the jig was up. Something had to be done.

It's a very simple and very Washington explanation for the behaviors I've seen over the past two and a half years.

[Fiendish Thingy]

33. Well, you pulled that right out of your...

…imagination, as it has no basis in reality.

[Sympthsical]

38. It's my speculation based on observation

But I stand outside of this stuff. Don't care about it too much. Don't put on my Internet Lawyer Hat to comb through it. Don't cite Twitterati or cable news as appeals to authority. Don't have any particular emotional investment in any of it.

If Trump goes away, great. That's as far as I care.

It's for others to protect the honor of the objects of their fandom.

[Bev54]

46. Based on your observation of what exactly?

The investigation of Trump was started much earlier than most people believe but proof is all there for anybody to find, that is if they choose to look.

[Beastly Boy]

51. By your own admission, the extent of your observations leaves much to be desired.

Makes me wonder what prompted you to respond, especially in the way you did, in the first place.

[Sympthsical]

83. Boredom

But I completely forgot what topic was being discussed and how that typically goes. Usually I don't walk directly into a tire pile coated in charcoal lighter. Usually I'm content to just watch.

It's my fault. I was distracted.

I do love how pressed people get around the topic, though. It's why I usually don't comment and just watch. It's like Quaker Instant Trainwreck in a box.

[Beastly Boy]

86. I don't get you, but that's OK. I don't usually express my firm absolute 100% beliefs out of boredom

[Sympthsical]

133. That's all social media are

Things to do when we don't have anything better to do.

Nothing typed here matters. It's just bar conversation to pass time.

[GenThePerservering]

76. You don't agree (which is fine)

and thus defensively insult your opposition (which would flunk 7th grade debate).

Nothing to see here.

[Sympthsical]

82. No, I broke a personal rule

I have a rule about Garland stuff. Don't get involved. It's like watching fans debate Taylor Swift's love life on TikTok. "Just keep walking, nothing good comes from this."

Before I realized what I was doing, I said something.

I don't even have an excuse. I'm not on medication or anything. A little disappointed in myself, if we're being honest.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

96. So you just wandered into this thread

accidentally and accidentally posted four times.

[Sympthsical]

134. The first time I wasn't thinking

The rest are pretty much, "Well, I walked into the bar. Might as well order a drink since I'm here."

And, I'd like to highlight it took less than a day for my attitude towards the topic to end up completely justified given how messy people are being about it today.

Don't usually get that kind of quick turnaround. This'll be my last post on the topic, because I'm gonna take that win and bounce.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

54. "Garland hoped it would go away"

Then he should have appointed Ghouliani or Dershowitz as Special Counsel.

[ificandream]

23. Memories ... once upon a time, Trump and Republicans liked Merrick Garland.

Until they didn't. Trump considered Garland before nominated Kavanaugh. So said the book "The Hill To Die On."

They write that in summer 2018, “at various points during Trump’s internal deliberations about whom to nominate to the bench, the president privately raised the prospect of tapping Merrick Garland – the very man McConnell had blocked from even getting a hearing”.

Long ago and far away ...

[William769]

26. Here's the key

"but it was ‘not clear how serious’ he was"

[tritsofme]

27. Of course it was. There is just a loud contingent of whiners who live solely to whine.

The last few weeks has made it clearer than ever, that their whining should be ignored.

[Paladin]

28. You don't know me well enough to dismiss me as a mere whiner.

There's a more-than-sound basis for criticizing the slow pace of Garland's actions. I'm profoundly grateful that Jack Smith is at the controls, now.

[Scrivener7]

47. There is a loud contingent who is incapable of disagreeing without name-calling

those they disagree with.

I agree with you.

[Bev54]

49. There was no sound basis for it and if you actually read the article you

would have understood that it was the courts that were slow and you are blaming Garland for that. There was some other obstacles at play as well, such as RW FBI agents that they worked around.

[Beastly Boy]

57. I keep reading about sound basis as if it is something real, but

Last edited Fri Aug 11, 2023, 07:29 AM - Edit history (1)

I have yet to see this sound basis itself. The basis I encountered so far doesn't extend beyond fact-free creative speculations which are neither sound nor based on facts.

Surprise me.

[iemanja]

68. How dare anyone care about whether Trump

Faces justice. They are whiners because they don’t value making excuses for Garland over a timely prosecution of Trump. He will have pardoned himself and you will still be treating with contempt those who think they actually have the right to disagree with you.

[inthewind21]

126. LOL

How many more indictments do you need?

[canetoad]

29. I think he was

The Federal cases indicted by Jack Smith are at roughly the same stage as the Georgia and New York cases. I don't hear anyone accuse Fani Willis of being slow.

AG Garland had to get this right. It hasn't been done before.

[Bev54]

50. Yes and her investigation started sooner.

Nobody complaining it has taken her so long.

[MOMFUDSKI]

30. No.

We are in this time crunch and orange guy still has an outside chance of being President again. Bottom line is what counts.

[onecaliberal]

35. I agree.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

60. His trials and convictions would have zero bearing on him being elected

This has been explained many times, but people keep pretending that Smith is a magic bullet to keep him out of the White House.
That’s our job, not Smith’s or Garland’s.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

61. Well...

since we've all been beaten over the head with how Slobby can run for prez and win from a prison cell, what's the time crunch?

What do you think must happen to prevent that?

[Beastly Boy]

62. What time crunch?

And how can Garland possibly prevent Trump from becoming President in any event?

Isn't this the stuff of banana republcs, where due process of law plays no role?

[iemanja]

66. The 24 election

And the fact that if he wins the prosecutions go away. But if one doesn’t care if Trump ever pays for his crimes, there is no time crunch. If one does, time is paramount.

[Beastly Boy]

72. My question was what role does Garland play in Trump winning or losing the '24 election

I am sure you are not suggesting that he can unilaterally call elections for anyone.

I am aware of the chance Trump has of winning and prosecutions going away. But Garland has no role in it. Whether or not Trump gets convicted tomorrow or two years from now, the prosecutions, or their outcomes, will go away regardless of the time frame. Beyond casting his vote like you and me, he has no control over the outcome of the election or the consequences that it will bring about.

Garland's role is to insure a foolproof prosecution. He can only do this if he presents a foolproof case to be prosecuted, regardless of the time it takes. His job is to influence the jurors, not the voters.

The J6 Committee has already finished the their task of influencing the voters. That was their job, not Garland's. It is now up to the voters who already have all the information about Trump that is necessary to make an informed their voting decisions. What the voters will do is outside of what the courts can rule on.

So my question remains unaddressed: Why Garland? And what time crunch is there that Garland can affect one way or another? In simple terms, I am looking for an explanation for how Garland's timing affects the vote in the next election.

[iemanja]

77. Because the prosecution has been delayed

Because DOJ, including Garland, and the FBI failed to investigate Trump for 14 months after the riots. Indictments have only come now rather than a year ago. Because of the delay in prosecution, it increases Trump's possibility of election, and with it his ability to pardon himself and/or make the investigations disappear.

Jack Smith has acted relatively quickly, but he was only appointed in November.

[Beastly Boy]

79. No it has not been delayed.DOJ didn't fail to investigate Trump. It's a fairy tale debunked long ago

and way too many times. And if you were to read the OP before responding, there would have been no need to debunk it once again. And you would have realized that Jack Smith's pace of investigation is no different from that of Garland.

But even though I am sick and tired of doing this over and over, here it is once again, from one of my earlier posts, links to sources and all:

The oft repeated accusations of DOJ not investigating Trump, which is based in large part on a WP article widely derided for its shoddy journalism or outright fact-free speculations, is a fairy tale. All evidence suggests that the DOJ investigation into Trump has been ongoing since even before Garland took office (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/us/politics/justice-department-trump-capitol.html), and way before the J6 Committee came up with their criminal referrals in December of 2022. In March 2022, WP reported that "In the past two months, a federal grand jury in Washington has issued subpoena requests to some officials in former president Donald Trump’s orbit who assisted in planning, funding and executing the Jan. 6 rally", eaning the subpoenas went out as early as January 2022. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/03/30/jan-6-fbi-subpoena-justice/). In April 2022, "Sources confirm to Reuters that the U.S. Justice Department was investigating Trump's removal of official presidential records from the White House." (https://www.voanews.com/a/timeline-of-the-trump-documents-inquiry-/6734453.html). In July 2022 DOJ was already investigating Trump himself (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/03/30/jan-6-fbi-subpoena-justice/), and has not ruled out charging him (https://www.businessinsider.com/merrick-garland-hasnt-ruled-out-charging-trump-over-january-6-2022-7). In May of 2022, DOJ subpoenas National Archives for Trump's classified docs. On August 8,2022, FBI raids Mar-a Lago for classified docs (https://www.voanews.com/a/timeline-of-the-trump-documents-inquiry-/6734453.html).

All of the above happened before Jack Smith took over the Trump part of the DOJ investigation, which was by then well on its way, and THIS is what is not debatable. All of the evidence collected by DOJ since 1/6, 2021 was given to Smith by DOJ.

https://democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=18170012

And then, of course, even if there were delays, which there weren't, and if they did affect the timing of the prosecution, which they do not, how would that increase Trump's chances of winning the election?

[iemanja]

84. The WSJ article isn't a lie

And the first link in the DU post doesn't say what you claim it does. The second refers to subpoenas of low-level rioters. The legal document is a year past the riots. Other posts are simply repeating Garland's claims that he'll pursue justice wherever it leads, but they don't prove an investigation. The WaPo article was extensively researched with sources and documents. That you don't like the story doesn't make it false. Your fake news excuse doesn't hold water. It's an excuse and pointing to a DU post with citations that don't refute the WaPo article doesn't prove your case. The real irony is that the post cites WaPo articles to try to refute a major WaPo investigation.

Then, you undermine your own claims by writing, "And then, of course, even if there were delays, which there weren't, and if they did affect the timing of the prosecution, which they do not, how would that increase Trump's chances of winning the election?"
I already answered that question, but the fact you first falsely claim their weren't delays only to them argue that the delays don't matter undermines the internal logic of your point--which is nothing more than an excuse. Anymore goal posts you care to move?

That's a rhetorical question. I've read enough here to know that all I'll get in response is more excuses and circuitous logic.

[Beastly Boy]

90. Whatever you want to call it, it certainly wasn't the truth.

At least WaPo itself didn't feel like standing up for their editorial article in the face of its merciless mockery: https://ijr.com/washington-post-walks-back-headline/

The combination of all the links I provided certainly shows, in precise sequence, that DOJ wasn't doing nothing. It gives you a well documented chronology of what DOJ did, how they did it and when they did it. All of it meticulously documented. These links make up the full extent of what I claim DOJ did. Each item in this chronology is something, not nothing. And there is a continuous uninterrupted string of significant somethings from the time before Garland's appointment to the time of Jack Smith's appointment, an extended period of time in which you claim Garland did nothing. Each one of the links documents a progression in DOJ investigating Trump, something you claim never happened.

And in case you are still confused, I am claiming that the delays never happened AND that they do not matter. These are not mutually exclusive. I am claiming (and extensively documenting) both to be true because you had claimed, falsely and without backing up your claims with anything factual, that delays did happen and that these imaginary delays do matter in the upcoming elections.

So sure, go argue that Garland did nothing as you stare at the evidence to the contrary. Go argue that Garland is responsible for inexcusable delays as you are going through a chronology of Garand's continuous and uninterrupted investigation of Trump.

It adds credibility to your otherwise perfectly incredible speculations.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

93. OMG

That is so wrong. Beating that drum to death doesn't make it true.

Where do you think the indictments came from? Did you read them? Dates, times, names, details that had to be investigated and put together, didn't magically happen with Jack Smith.

If Slobby gets the White House again, the US is OVER. And AG Garland will NOT be responsible for that.

[inthewind21]

127. Know what

the best way to have avoided this "time crunch" is? To have NOT ALOWED HIM TO BE ELECTED IN THE FIRST PLACE! Yet here we are. Now it's, hurry up and fix the publics colossal mistake.

[peggysue2]

31. Very informative article

Everyone should read it, and then consider the legwork, the persistence and methodical approach Garland and his team has used to set this case onto the strongest track possible.

is in order, I believe. And patience is proving to be a virtue.

[Cha]

92. AG Garland is Brilliant!! Mahalo, PeggySue!

[LymphocyteLover]

36. I've never had a real problem with Garland. His careful approach was needed.

[marble falls]

37. You bet it was. He had a DoJ packed with TFG plants, and he got the investigations going.

[GreenWave]

39. Remember the FBI was very late to this ballgame.

So the priority should be save democracy while you still have the fierce urgency of now versus let's worry about ruffling the feathers of GOP demagogues. We already suffered though a midterm based on GOP lies and have their daily shitshow from the House as a result. Almost all GOP thugs who voted against Biden after the J-6 debacle got re-elected.

Yes a mountain load of shit took place leading uo to and including J-6. Nail the dumpster on the best thing you can early on and proceed from there. As it is, the mofu is inflaming his idiots to die for him so he does not have to serve for his crimes.

[BumRushDaShow]

70. "Remember the FBI was very late to this ballgame."

No they weren't. Here is the latest status of J6-related cases - https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/31-months-jan-6-attack-capitol -

(snip)

Based on the public court documents, below is a snapshot of the investigation as of the close of business Friday, August 4, 2023. Complete versions of most of the public court documents used to compile these statistics are available on the Capitol Breach Investigation Resource Page at https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases.

Arrests made: More than 1,106 defendants have been charged in nearly all 50 states and the District of Columbia. (This includes those charged in both District and Superior Court).

Criminal charges:

Approximately 372 defendants have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees, including approximately 112 individuals who have been charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer.

Approximately 140 police officers were assaulted on Jan. 6 at the Capitol, including about 80 from the U.S. Capitol Police and about 60 from the Metropolitan Police Department.

Approximately 11 individuals have been arrested on a series of charges that relate to assaulting a member of the media, or destroying their equipment, on Jan. 6.

Approximately 967 defendants have been charged with entering or remaining in a restricted federal building or grounds. Of those, 104 defendants have been charged with entering a restricted area with a dangerous or deadly weapon.

Approximately 64 defendants have been charged with destruction of government property, and approximately 51 defendants have been charged with theft of government property.

More than 310 defendants have been charged with corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding, or attempting to do so.

Approximately 42 defendants have been charged with conspiracy, either: (a) conspiracy to obstruct a congressional proceeding, (b) conspiracy to obstruct law enforcement during a civil disorder, (c) conspiracy to injure an officer, or (d) some combination of the three.

(snip)

These people came to D.C. from almost every state (not that many were actually local to the D.C. metro area). That meant that the U.S. Attorneys (most of which were either "actings" or holdovers from 45) had to confirm their IDs, then work with the local FBI to get warrants in those scattered jurisdictions, and once arrested, process them wherever they were before they would eventually be transferred to D.C. for further processing/pleas/trial (if it came to that).

You are seeing what kind of prep work and dogged battles in the courts needed to be done to finally get to the "organizers" higher up in the food chain. I.e., that is the level that has the legal and financial resources that the lower level offenders don't have, and they use their leverage to challenge every action and appeal every charge.

[GreenWave]

98. I realize you put a lot of effort into this but...

did you find any upper echelon bad actors in that list?

[BumRushDaShow]

99. You seemed to have ignored my bottom line - the last paragraph

I'll post it again -

You are seeing what kind of prep work and dogged battles in the courts needed to be done to finally get to the "organizers" higher up in the food chain. I.e., that is the level that has the legal and financial resources that the lower level offenders don't have, and they use their leverage to challenge every action and appeal every charge.

You also seemed to have forgotten that right now, the #1 "organizer" (when you ONLY look at the federal criminal charges and not even count the civil/NY state ones) has now been been indicted for 44 federal charges. To get there, they needed to "catch" the very lowest levels ( "the help" ) and battle through dozens of court hearings to get testimony of the higher levels like Meadows, and all the way to the-then "2nd in command" (the VP) to obtain those charges.

People will whine about "delay delay delay" but every damn story that gets posted is describing WHO is doing the "delay" - it's the perps and they are doing it IN THE COURTS. Claims of "Executive Privilege". Claims of "First Amendment Rights". Claims of "Attorney-Client Privilege" and on and on that must be litigated, then litigated again upon appeal.

[liberalla]

74. Yes, that still burns me about the FBI...

[Mr.Bill]

58. The story in the OP was one of the more coherent things

I have read on this whole subject.

[brooklynite]

59. So, you're saying all the armchair prosecutors here...

...wasted all those years in internet law school?

[iemanja]

69. Do explain to us the legal theory

Of doing nothing to investigate Trump until more than a year after the riots.

[Marcuse]

65. Why were the ten obstruction findings by Mueller not pursued by Garland?

[Goodheart]

103. Exactly.

[Beastly Boy]

105. Two reasons

First, Mueller himself had the authority to pursue his findings in court. He didn't.

Second, it was Barr's decision to make, not Garland's.

Mueller and Barr set the precedent at the time. Garland declined swinging his arms after the fight was over.

[edhopper]

113. Bullshit

Barr's command that Trump was off limits to Mueller did not mean Garland had to follow that also.

[Beastly Boy]

121. That's ridiculous.

Has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

Muller was authorized to prosecute any possible crimes he would find (file:///Users/distanceed/Downloads/order_3915-2017_special_counsel_0.pdf). He made no attempt to pursue Trump beyond his report. That was Mueller's choice, not Barr's.

Independently, Barr, as AG was himself authorized to prosecute Trump, based on Mueller's report or otherwise. He chose not to. That was Barr's choice, not Mueller's

Neither one was compelled, by law or by order, to prosecute. They both made their choices independent of the other. The matter was closed way before Garland became AG.

In order to prosecute Trump on the basis of Mueller's report, Garland would have had to overturn the decisions made by an Independent Counsel and an Attorney General, a very suspicious act having no unprecedent in the history of DOJ which would disrupt the fabric of DOJ and lead to unpredictable consequences. Instead, he started his own investigation into Trump.

Barr's command being totally irrelevant to his decision.

[edhopper]

129. Barr told Mueller not to prosecute

Garland could have easily rescinded that bullshit, crony decision. Barr acted like the toady he was.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/08/bill-barr-donald-trumpjustice-department-mueller-obstruction-memo

[Beastly Boy]

130. Nowhere in your source is there a hint of Barr telling Mueller anything.

So there is no evidence of what Garland could have rescinded and how.

Come up with the quote, and then we can talk. Maybe.

I dare ya.

[Recycle_Guru]

89. obviously yes--I trust the people Biden nominated

he knows how Washington DC works and is aware of what is needed in each role.

[LiberaBlueDem]

97. I'd like to see Garland wearing a tee-shirt

A tee-shirt that simpy states: LOCK HIM UP

In public the conald stated 'lock her up'. The public matters and the conald has incited them. Time for us to go public and Garland can do that! Can you imagine the press he'd get?

Time for conald to get some of that : IN YOUR FACE that he thrives on. He'd go nutz, again.

[kentuck]

100. It was such a huge conspiracy...

...how many crimes would have been over-looked if the investigation had not gone down the way it did? The January 6th Committee gave legitimacy to all the investigations. Otherwise, they may have followed the Republicans and swept it under the rug?

[Goodheart]

102. Is this a poll? Because I vote NO.

He delayed... there is no reason that he couldn't have beaten the House Select Committee to all their witnesses and evidence, and then with actual subpoena power.

So, NO.

[Beastly Boy]

106. Are you under the impression that due process of law is no reason for not jumping the gun?

Last edited Fri Aug 11, 2023, 08:54 AM - Edit history (1)

The J6 Committee didn't have to take their findings to court in order to establish their accuracy under the law. They were not bound by due process, only by their own rules.

The J6 Committee made referrals to charge Trump n December 2022. Trump was promptly indicted on those charges by Jack Smith on August 1, 2023. conspiracy to violate rights, conspiracy to defraud the US, corrupt obstruction of official proceeding, and conspiracy to commit the obstruction, all in seven months!

So where is the delay?

If anything, it indicates that DOJ was already investigating all these crimes way before the J6 Committee made the referrals.

[Sky Jewels]

104. NO

There was a fucking attempt to overthrow the government . It required immediate action, ASAP in early 2021. I can’t say more about my opinion of Garland because I might get in trouble. 🤬

[Beastly Boy]

109. Jacob Chancley (the QAnon Shaman) was arrested on 1/9/21. Indicted on 1/11/21.

Immediate action, ASAP, very, very early in 2021. You can search for his records here: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases?combine=&order=field_case_multi_number&sort=asc

Hundreds followed him in the first 100 days since then.

Yeah, I know, small fish, low hanging fruit, yadda yadda yadda. But they all fucking attempted to overthrow the government.

There. You already got yourself in trouble, so no need to worry about that.

[Sky Jewels]

114. They needed to go after the criminals who crafted the plot

simultaneously with the dipshit small fish low-hanging fruit. The testimony of the cultists who showed up on 1/6 wasn't essential for unraveling the crimes of the plotters at the top. Garland had to be pressured into going after the big fish. Adam Schiff voiced his concern that he was sitting on his hands last summer. Smith wasn't appointed until almost two years after the violent coup d'etat attempt.

[Beastly Boy]

124. Funny that you are bringing up Schiff and last summer.

First, I doubt that Schiff brought up the "sitting on his hands" trope. That's the stuff of right wing echo chamber.

Second, was Schiff bashing Garland before or after DOJ began its investigation into Trump? Your answer will determine whether I should take Schiff's (and your) talking points seriously.

In March 2022, WP reported that "In the past two months, a federal grand jury in Washington has issued subpoena requests to some officials in former president Donald Trump’s orbit who assisted in planning, funding and executing the Jan. 6 rally", eaning the subpoenas went out as early as January 2022. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/03/30/jan-6-fbi-subpoena-justice/)In April 2022, "Sources confirm to Reuters that the U.S. Justice Department was investigating Trump's removal of official presidential records from the White House." (https://www.voanews.com/a/timeline-of-the-trump-documents-inquiry-/6734453.html). In July 2022 DOJ was already investigating Trump himself (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/03/30/jan-6-fbi-subpoena-justice/)

So if not Schiff, who exactly pressured Garland to go after the "big fish" by March of last year and in what ways?

[Mr. Ected]

107. We can't rewrite history. We can't know everything that was happening behind the scenes.

We have absolutely no idea if Garland had a master plan or not. He did bring in the SC the moment Trump announced his candidacy for 2024, though, which means that such a decision was apparently predetermined to be a catalyst for action. Had Trump announced later, would he have still appointed a SC? What if he had decided not to run in 2024? Would an SC have been named?

I'm on the fence. For the BS years (before Smith) I was enraged by the lack of action. Now I'm hoping they've left enough time to nail Trump and his accomplices before it's too late.

[edhopper]

108. I think the Congressional Committee

forced his hand on TFG.

[Beastly Boy]

110. How?

The Congressional Committee made their criminal referrals in December 2022, 18 months after it was established.

Indictments based on their referrals came on August 1, 2023, seven months after the referrals.

Is this a sign of a forced hand?

[inthewind21]

128. Wait...WHAT?

You mean the J6 committee didn't gather all their evidence in a week? Say it ain't so!

[edhopper]

111. Timing of Committee Hearings

and Jack Smith appointment is pretty obvious.

[Sky Jewels]

116. Yep.

Committee members were concerned that Garland wasn't planning on pursuing the big kahunas.

Unbelievable that it was even a question of whether he would or wouldn't.

[dem4decades]

115. Now we have a Special Counsel for HunterBiden? While Jared profits?

[Skittles]

136. correct

and we are supposed to be, you know, happy about it because of some three-dimensional chess game or something

[Autumn]

132. Only time will tell.