Anyone Hear What Andrew Weissmann Said Last Night?

[gab13by13]

He was on MSNBC, Alex Wagner, and talking about the issue of getting Trump to trial pre-election. Allow me to paraphrase:

Weissmann said it was a mistake for DOJ to only go after low level insurrectionists, he said DOJ could have done both going after lower and higher people. He basically said the pyramid strategy was a mistake and it caused none of the lower level people to flip on Trump.

Weissmann then said that it was the J6 committee that shamed DOJ into acting. he used the word shame.

I have taken a lot of abuse here for just repeating what people like Weissmann have been saying, Merrick Garland did not want to appear to be partisan to the Republican party. Weissmann said that had the investigations into Trump started on day 1 we would be in a much better position to get Trump to trial pre-election.

Thank you Andrew Weissmann for speaking the truth. Then the talk centered around why the Appeals court is taking so long to shoot down Trump's claim of immunity? Weissmann said he believes the 3 panel judges want an iron clad, unanimous decision that may be so irrefutable that possibly the Supreme Court will not even take the appeal. We still have Trump's option to appeal to the Appeals court en banc. Delay Delay, The J6 trial date is certainly going to be pushed back. There is still time. I am hopeful, but soon Trump will lock up the nomination and his claim of election interference will carry more weight.

Time Matters.

[MOMFUDSKI]

1. I've been right there with you

from the get go. Biden should have replaced Garland when he saw him allowing orange guy the luxury of time. Now here we are.

[Celerity]

52. FBI resisted opening probe into Trump's role in Jan. 6 for more than a year

In the DOJ’s investigation of Jan. 6, key Justice officials also quashed an early plan for a task force focused on people in Trump’s orbit

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/06/19/fbi-resisted-opening-probe-into-trumps-role-jan-6-more-than-year/

https://archive.is/KE4gk



Updated June 20, 2023 at 8:15 p.m. EDT|Published June 19, 2023 at 8:00 a.m. EDT

Hours after he was sworn in as attorney general, Merrick Garland and his deputies gathered in a wood-paneled conference room in the Justice Department for a private briefing on the investigation he had promised to make his highest priority: bringing to justice those responsible for the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. In the two months since the siege, federal agents had conducted 709 searches, charged 278 rioters and identified 885 likely suspects, said Michael R. Sherwin, then-acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, ticking through a slide presentation. Garland and some of his deputies nodded approvingly at the stats, and the new attorney general called the progress “remarkable,” according to people in the room.

Sherwin’s office, with the help of the FBI, was responsible for prosecuting all crimes stemming from the Jan. 6 attack. He had made headlines the day after by refusing to rule out the possibility that President Donald Trump himself could be culpable. “We are looking at all actors, not only the people who went into the building,” Sherwin said in response to a reporter’s question about Trump. “If the evidence fits the elements of a crime, they’re going to be charged.” But according to a copy of the briefing document, absent from Sherwin’s 11-page presentation to Garland on March 11, 2021, was any reference to Trump or his advisers — those who did not go to the Capitol riot but orchestrated events that led to it.

A Washington Post investigation found that more than a year would pass before prosecutors and FBI agents jointly embarked on a formal probe of actions directed from the White House to try to steal the election. Even then, the FBI stopped short of identifying the former president as a focus of that investigation. A wariness about appearing partisan, institutional caution, and clashes over how much evidence was sufficient to investigate the actions of Trump and those around him all contributed to the slow pace. Garland and the deputy attorney general, Lisa Monaco, charted a cautious course aimed at restoring public trust in the department while some prosecutors below them chafed, feeling top officials were shying away from looking at evidence of potential crimes by Trump and those close to him, The Post found.

In November 2022, after Trump announced he was again running for president, making him a potential 2024 rival to President Biden, Garland appointed special counsel Jack Smith to take over the investigation into Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election. On June 8, in a separate investigation that was also turned over to the special counsel, Smith secured a grand jury indictment against the former president for mishandling classified documents after leaving office. Trump was charged with 31 counts of violating a part of the Espionage Act, as well as six counts arising from alleged efforts to mislead federal investigators.

snip

[Fiendish Thingy]

67. The WaPo report is flawed and incomplete

So much evidence to refute it.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/11/14/merrick-garland-hasnt-done-the-specific-thing-you-want-because-doj-has-been-busy-doing-things-they-have-to-do-first/

https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/06/26/nonzero-on-evidence-based-investigations-and-rudy-giulianis-devices/

This last link includes a summary of a conversation between Marcy Wheeler and WaPo reporter Carol Leonnig on the flaws and inaccuracies Wheeler found in Leonnig’s reporting.

[SqueakyWheel.363]

78. Bezos owns WAPO

and has been more and more involved in the last two years.

[Fiendish Thingy]

83. Which has nothing to do with the flaws in the report.

[Scrivener7]

84. Lol. Marcy, Marcy, Marcy.

[Fiendish Thingy]

88. Substance free post

Laugh it up.

[Scrivener7]

92. Single, tired, substance-light source.

Gotta laugh about something, because otherwise all you can do is cry about the fact that this shit is going to come down to the wire as to whether we still have a Democracy next year.

[Fiendish Thingy]

95. Check out bigtree's lengthy, substantive reply in this thread.

I’m sure you’ll find even more to laugh about there.

[Scrivener7]

99. It's lengthy, sure, but we've seen it before. And if you actually read it, you see that it amounts to

lots of subpoenas with little result, and only 5 people actually testifying. In all that time.

Yes. I know. You and he think that's fab. Many, myself included, really don't.

And, with regard to most of the non-white space in that "lengthy, substantive thread," once again, Marcy, Marcy, Marcy.

[Fiendish Thingy]

142. And yet, everything in that post is True, True, True

And is substantiated by court transcripts, subpeonas, and other verifiable public information, rather than the opinion of a TV lawyer claiming Garland was “slow” and did “nothing”.

[Scrivener7]

145. Five interviews. In a year and a half.

[jaxexpat]

178. I really appreciate that you didn't cave and quit in the face of that onslaught of irrelevance.

I notice there's not even an echo from your hitting the nail right on the head. We are infected with trawlers of trolls when it comes to the subject of DOJ. Arguments are not won by covering questions with tons of customized bloviation and inconsequential data but, like the machinations of our judicial process, it tends to erode the urgency to clarify, solve, discover and determine the truth.

"Five interviews. In a year and a half", should be the mantra of Garland's guilt for wasting time.

[Scrivener7]

180. And that was 5 interviews in a year and a half in response TO AN ATTEMPTED COUP!!

I am so sick of that single source, namely emptywheel, whose summaries do NOT look good for Garland,being presented as proof that Garland was a busy little bee all that time.

He wasn't, and when we look carefully at that emptywheel list, we see the proof of that. It's a lot of subpoenas that led nowhere and other dithering. In response to an ATTEMPTED COUP! When we compare THAT list to the list of actions that took place three or four months after Jack Smith took over, we see what should have been happening from the beginning.

Garland didn't even subpoena the people who were at the Mayflower hotel, for God's sakes!

[jaxexpat]

183. It's absolutely the worse time for the DOJ to practice their miscarriage of justice skills.

Yet, they strive.

If the nation is lost and let there be no doubt, Trump is installed=the nation is lost, the responsibility for that event in that moment will lay at the feet of the DOJ and Garland's gang that can't shoot or talk straight.

I don't know where these characters still cheering for Garland are coming from, but it upsets me. I am not a literate man, hell, I can't even type and my brain may be shrinking without me even realizing, but I've been around long enough to know when it's raining vs when someone's pissing on my shoes.

I really think those geniuses at the DOJ would be satisfied to let the election decide what a jury probably won't get a chance to even hear........ and that's cynicism. Theirs, not mine. If they've decided their "edifice of justice" is so precious and delicate that they refuse to follow clear constitutional directives (maybe because they think the system is incapable of decision without conclusive precedent and a speech from G. Washington), they are the dogs in our hard-won manger. Rebuilding the gate entirely and unnecessarily, long after the cattle have escaped, as seen by millions on TeeVee.

[Scrivener7]

187. That is a beautiful summary.

[msfiddlestix]

184. Volumes of substantive text, and yet at the end of the day, what is the most vitally important and glaring fact we are

all facing in this moment of the 2024 presidential primary season?

Tell me, is it really that hard for you to see the extremely dangerous set of conditions in play, when the mere fact that he will be allowed to be on any ballot in this election? That the question of immunity should not have even taken more than 5 minutes to decide , in THIS case, at the vert most?

How many weeks ago did Smith request a fast Supreme Court decision on the decision? I haven't double checked, but it feels like it was about a month ago.

So much of what has and is going on in the head of that psychopath, was predictable. And frankly, looking at the courts, especially the Supreme Court, well all tools at ones disposal and the power to wield as necessary is what was always called for.

Like the captain of the Titanic headed for the iceberg ignoring the advice of his crew, ignoring the conditions before him until it was too late. This is where we are.

All of the volumes of court documents indicating grabbing the low hanging fruit is not worth much if their psychotic cult leader is free to escape justice, which so far he has achieved, which enabled him to use that freedom to attempt to regain power., with the courts blessings.

[Fiendish Thingy]

186. Who's ignoring icebergs?

I expect the immunity question to exhaust all levels of appeal by summer at the latest. (Remember SCOTUS kicked it back to the lower court before they will consider it)

https://www.justsecurity.org/91108/how-long-will-trumps-dc-immunity-appeal-take-analyzing-the-alternative-timelines/

I don’t think anyone posting on this thread isn’t fully aware of the stakes- some seek unrealistic quick fixes and point fingers, others face the reality of the circumstances, and what the Justice system and pro-democracy voters have actual control over.

[jaxexpat]

188. One question. What's wrong with, "in custody awaiting trial."?

Why is that beyond the system's ability?

Could it be that there is simply insufficient evidence to convict the conspirators?

After all, different light offers different observations. There is the light of day vs moonlight, ethereal light vs gaslight, the smeared reflection of candlelight, the humble glow of an excited hydrogen atom or the blistering illumination of that atom's multiple trillions of brothers.

[Fiendish Thingy]

189. The lust for vengeance does not justify pretrial detention

Unless someone is a flight risk, or likely to commit a violent offence, judges rarely order pretrial detention.

Note: Roger Stone threatened a witness with death via social media message, and in return was given a social media gag order, not pretrial detention.

[jaxexpat]

190. Okay, so judges believe Trumps rhetoric and the shenanigans of his followers does not justify pretrial detention.

I get that, even if I disagree. I believe there are accused who get thrown into detention prior to trial, probably because they are poorly represented by their attorney, who present less risk of committing any kind of crime than Trump or Stone. My opinion only, as well as a few million others.

You see, it's not a fixation on or lust for vengeance. That's Trumps schtick. It's the essential unfairness, the multi-tiered invert of justice which is playing before us as the critical election day looms. It's the misinformation campaign of the right trying to change the facts of the case. Like whack a mole, trying to keep up with and tamp the lies down before they fester in minds of the general public where it's a close contest between lawlessness for all and maintaining a worthy democracy. The stately pace of the justice system is so incongruous with the living, mad and anguished rush to resolution for which the nation aches. Justice under the constitution is supposed by most to be the guardrails of a democratic government but, from appearances, it may not be up to the task. That is the cause for great concern which will have no respite until this November. Then all hell breaks loose.......... or not.

[msfiddlestix]

191. Oh I I think I am facing the realities of our system, every single day this drags on

But I do not expect any decision which ultimately obliterates the psychopath to be stopped in his tracks to be settled by summer or the fall for the matter. We'll be headed for General elections with him and cohorts on the ballot.

Unless some momentous event occurs which is not based on any decision d by the DOJ or the Courts.
In which case all of this moot. however I am not taking such fantasies to the bank.

Not even entertaining any such notion for an instant, because that would be indulging in fantasy.

[dlk]

164. Christopher Wray is a Republican and a member of the Federalist Society

With respect to the FBI, that says it all.

[colorado_ufo]

70. Garland "brings the weak sauce."

[I_UndergroundPanther]

175. Drove me nuts when

Garland was foot dragging back then.. If he didnt want to look partisan to republicans he should have given the case to another prosecutor who was not bothered is he looked partisan. It would have saved so much time.

[doc03]

2. There will still be Garland apologists nt

[Irish_Dem]

7. It will get much harder to defend a man who enables Trump, and allows him to damage the US.

Trump is a man who is determined to destroy democracy and install a fascist regime.

Trump is a man who has committed so many very serious crimes we can't even keep track of all of them. Put our country in very serious danger by stealing and disseminating highly classified documents, and led an insurrection to overthrow our government.

And Garland is trying so hard to be fair, he does nothing for years. And let a known criminal take a wrecking ball to our country.

[gab13by13]

11. Garland is still doing it, he hasn't stopped.

Special counsel looking into President Biden's retention of classified docs, going on for over a year, a report was supposed to have been made last month.

No special counsel looking into Mike Pence's retention of classified documents.

Hunter Biden investigated for 4 years, special counsel appointed who indicts him.

No special counsel looking into James Comer's shell company.

No special counsel looking into Jared Kushner's shady dealings in the White House, with procurement of Covid medical supplies, nor his shady deal selling arms to Saudi Arabia, nor his receiving 2 billion dollars from the Saudi government.

Nothing has changed with Garland. When he publicly stated that he would not be partisan he was speaking to Republicans, when will he say the same thing to Democrats?

[Fiendish Thingy]

16. Why would Pence and Kushner require Special Counsels?

They are currently private citizens. Pence was investigated by DOJ, and Kushner, we don’t know that he’s not being investigated, which is typically what the public knows when an investigation is ongoing…

[gab13by13]

23. Last I checked Hunter Biden is a private citizen,

Hunter Biden never committed crimes while working in the White House, but maybe Jared did if someone would investigate him.

The we don't know what we don't know is very hard for me to refute.

[Fiendish Thingy]

42. Hunter is the son of a sitting president

If you don’t see the difference between investigating him and Kushner, I can’t help you.

[triron]

59. I don't think she wants your help.

[Scrivener7]

89. Hunter Biden was the son of a private citizen when they opened the investigation into him.

https://www.vox.com/2020/12/10/22167443/hunter-biden-investigation-tax-china

The investigation was reportedly opened in late 2018... It has focused on Hunter’s business dealings in China and began as a money laundering probe, but is now focusing on potential violations of tax law. The investigation was kept “covert” to avoid influencing the election, and Hunter was indeed only told of it Tuesday. And Joe Biden “is not implicated,” per CNN.

So tell me again, what's the difference between the Biden investigation when it was opened, and an investigation into Jared if one were opened now?

[Fiendish Thingy]

93. Special counsel for Hunter wasn't appointed until after Biden was president.

Although DOJ had been investigating him since 2018, Garland was the one who appointed Weiss as special counsel to avoid legal and ethical conflicts.

Perfectly consistent with DOJ practice.

[Scrivener7]

94. The investigation was opened when Joe Biden was a private citizen. Where's the investigation into Jared for the

$3.6 BILLION he scammed from Qatar and the Saudis? Given, as you say, that it should be entirely consistent with DOJ policies for such an investigation to be opened.

[Fiendish Thingy]

98. It would be appropriate, and we don't know that an investigation hasn't been opened.

Just as we didn’t clearly know Trump and his inner circle were being investigated for a year or more after the investigation began.

[Scrivener7]

100. Your faith is touching.

And, just to be clear, now you are saying there is NO reason why the son of a private citizen should not be investigated, which is the scenario that led you to say, "If you don’t see the difference between investigating him and Kushner, I can’t help you." Is that correct?

[Fiendish Thingy]

101. It's just reality

We don’t know what we don’t know, and, as has been proven repeatedly, the absence of evidence of action is not evidence of inaction.

[Scrivener7]

102. Since you replied before I was done with my edit, I'll pose my question again:

Just to be clear, now you are saying there is NO reason why the son of a private citizen should not be investigated, as opposed to when you said, "If you don’t see the difference between investigating him and Kushner, I can’t help you." Is that correct?

[Fiendish Thingy]

107. I agree that Kushner should be investigated

But I don’t see any justification to appoint a special prosecutor (unless Trump is re-elected).

[flying_wahini]

135. There are many reasons why Kushner should be investigated by a Special Prosecutor.

Around 2 billion of them. $$$$

[Fiendish Thingy]

141. You misunderstand what a special prosecutor does

The “Special” in Special Prosecutor doesn’t mean more powerful, or faster or more aggressive; it’s simply a term reflecting the layer of administrative insulation that separates the prosecutor from the administration to avoid ethical and legal conflicts.

That’s not justified for Kushner, who can be investigated by a regular DOJ prosecutor quite appropriately.

[rampartc]

177. kushner was "special counsel to the president"

hunter was, and is, nothing.

[Fiendish Thingy]

182. Kushner is a private citizen now

Appointing a Special Prosecutor is not justified, just as it wasn’t justified for Trump until he formally declared his candidacy.

[Irish_Dem]

17. If our democracy falls, Garland bears much of the responsibility.

Ironic isn't it? He is so worried about his reputation, he refuses to deal with Trump.

But that refusal is going to give him very bad reputation at the end of the day.

[JohnSJ]

35. No, if our democracy fails those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for Hillary in the 2016 general

election bear much of the responsibility.

David Sirota, Nina Turner, Cornell West, Briahana Joy Gray, etc., who not only refused to vote for Hillary in the general election, but also encouraged others to do likewise.

and it didn’t take much. In every critical swing, Hillary lost by less than 1%, while Jill Stein received 1% in those critical swing states.

People can find all the scapegoats they want, but the fact is in critical states where it counted, the votes weren’t there.

We lost the Supreme Court because of that folly, and they are at it again in 2024, with Cornell West running as an independent. The only thing independents will accomplish is re-electing trump.

Some want to blame it on the AG, but the reality is in 2016 there was no ambiguity that trump was a racist, sexist, and bigot, and their lame argument that there was no difference between the republicans and Democrats led us to losing the SC, and the path toward the end of our Democracy.

[NBachers]

46. I wholeheartedly rec this post. The mess with Ralph Nader enabling Bush the Idiot King should've been a warning.

[JohnSJ]

56. There were so many warnings. It makes me sick. Even if Gore or Hillary weren't the most ideal candidates, they

were far better than bush or trump.

[triron]

62. Not ideal?

[JohnSJ]

68. From the perspective of some progressives

[CrispyQ]

133. Maybe we can't blame one or two elections. I recall many dems voting for Reagan.

I was aghast when a group of friends confessed at a Halloween party that they were going to vote Reagan. We smoked dope, did mushrooms, & went to stadium concerts together, & they were going to vote for Reagan?

[JohnSJ]

157. I am amazed we didn't lose Roe earlier

[ismnotwasm]

61. This

A bigger act of self sabotage I’ve never seen. And they are still doing it

[StevieM]

87. Gary Johnson took more votes from her than Jill Stein did.

People mistakenly believe that because he was Libertarian he must have taken more from the GOP. But people who vote Libertarian are often just looking for a third party, and in 2016 most third-party voters would have gone for HRC.

Not that any of this matters very much to me. Hillary would have won easily had it not been for James Comey's repeated interference. He dominated that election from start to finish. I focus my anger over 2016 on Comey.

[JohnSJ]

96. The Gary Johnson voters would have NEVER voted for Hilllary. Jill Stein voters, or those

self-identified progressives could have, and should have. Noam Chomsky said it best:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/noam-chomsky-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-a7438526.html

It also wasn't just voting or not voting for Jill Stein, enough people decided not to even vote, because they believed the false mantra there was no difference between republicans and Democrats.

I do agree with you that she probably would have won if not for Comey, and the MSM pushing the lie that the email investigation had been reopened. That was a lie, and at the end of the week, late Friday, the weekend before the general election, Comey came out and said nothing new was found, and there was no need to reopen the email investigation.

but it still would have been close, because of the electoral college.

[StevieM]

120. I don't agree with your assessment.

I saw polls at the time which showed that most 3rd party voters would have voted for HRC. As I previously stated, most people who voted for Johnson did not do so because they had conservative ideological leanings. They picked the Libertarian candidate because that is the 3rd party that they are uded to seeing in election after election. It was the most familiar brand name. But they were not necessarily conservatives.

As for Comey, I think he repeatedly impacted the election, first by publicly placing her under investigation, then by holding that awful press conference when the time came to admit there was nothing to charge her with, and finally with that last minute stunt that turned the election upside down in the final 11 days.

[jaxexpat]

179. Okay.......and Garland's slow dance to doomsday places 2nd.

[chicoescuela]

41. He has been a huge disappointment and disastrous for democracy

[MorbidButterflyTat]

131. No.

That traitorous criminal and a complicit KGOP bears total responsibility.

[Irish_Dem]

143. Make no mistake, there is more than enough blame to go around.

If indeed we lose our democracy and have a fascist dictatorship put into place, all Americans are going to have to do some self examination. Just like the Germans were forced to do after World War II.

But the main culprits will be the entire GOP leadership, the MAGA base who have lost their way, and Garland's DOJ who refused for years to take action against one of the worst sociopaths to have ever attacked the United States of America.

[Polybius]

55. Mike Pence voluntarily turned them in as soon as he found them

It was pretty clear that it was a mistake.

[Scrivener7]

80. And, as I always point out, let's not forget the $1.6 billion Jared got from Qatar IN ADDITION to the $2 billion from

the Saudis.

A billion here, a billion there, it begins to really add up.

[Oopsie Daisy]

9. Along with the "Garland-haters," too?

[gab13by13]

14. Are Andrew Weissmann and Tim Heaphy Garland haters?

Look at my post, I am repeating what those 2 people are saying about Garland.

The excuses made for Garland that he was secretly investigating Trump, that DOJ doesn't leak, have been debunked. Garland did not investigate Trump until Cassidy Hutchinson gave her public testimony.

In the words of Andrew Weissmann last night, the J6 committee shamed Garland into action. Weissmann said that DOJ always takes the lead in investigations but it did not take the lead in investigating Trump. Weissmann said it last night, Garland did not want to appear to be partisan against Republicans. Garland's pyramid strategy was a huge failure.

Facts sometimes sting and truth will always win out.

[Fiendish Thingy]

18. You keep repeating lies

Garland did not investigate Trump until Cassidy Hutchinson gave her public testimony.

That is a provable false statement which I and many other DUer’s have refuted the numerous times you have posted it- it’s tiresome.

[gab13by13]

25. Then you are calling Andrew Weissmann and Tim Heaphy (lead J6 investigator) liars.

I am only repeating what I heard them say. Those 2 people are where I get a lot of my news from, I trust them.

Tim Heaphy stated, the majority of evidence that was turned over to Jack Smith about Trump came from the J6 committee not from DOJ. If DOJ had been investigating Trump why didn't they already have that evidence?
Reporters and journalists turned over more evidence about Trump's crimes in the 2 years after J6 than DOJ.

Where do you get your news from? I am trying to say this respectfully, but I want you to consider this possibility. If Weissmann is right and DOJ did not investigate Trump for over 2 years wouldn't anyone who claimed that DOJ was secretly investigating Trump, when it wasn't, be unwittingly doing Trump a favor?

When we get Trump to trial, he loses. Trump does not have the evidence to prove that he is not guilty in a courtroom, so Trump's strategy is to delay all trials until after the election, and Garland facilitated that strategy.

Time Matters.

[Fiendish Thingy]

47. Yes, they are either lying, or you are misquoting them

Tim Heaphy has no way of knowing the total volume of evidence that DOJ has, or what the sources of that evidence are, he only knows what the volume of evidence from the J6 committee was.

Reporters and journalists turned over more evidence about Trump's crimes in the 2 years after J6 than DOJ.

Utter nonsense based on…what?

I get my news from multiple sources, mostly print. Much of what I have learned about DOJ’s investigations has come from court watchers who pore over transcripts, filings and rulings and observe the comings and goings at grand jury hearings rather than cling to click bait sound bites from TV lawyers.

[ShazzieB]

169. Thank you for this and all your other posts in this thread.

I really wish the Garland bashers would carefully read everything you've posted, and then reread it, until it sinks in.

[Fiendish Thingy]

170. Thanks for your kind words

Unfortunately, 196 DUer’s (at current count) believe in this substance free nonsense.

[ShazzieB]

172. Sadly, yes.

[Irish_Dem]

21. Mary Trump just made a podcast directly blaming Garland for putting America in great danger.

She says if democracy ends, and we can look to Garland as the one responsible.

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. Aka members of the reality-based community.

Note: is one really an “apologist”, if there is nothing to apologize for?

[gab13by13]

26. Can you explain why E. Jean Carroll's 2nd Trump defamation lawsuit

was held before her first Trump defamation lawsuit? I will give you a minute before I answer. Hint: it has to do with Garland.

[PufPuf23]

117. Reality is that January 6, 2021 occurred over 3 years ago.

There are literally scores of individuals in Congress that are complicit that continue to deliberately sabotage the USA aided by MSM.

Garland is GOP and was a poor choice for AG by delay after delay and faux non-partisanship.

Gaslighting. Open your eyes.

[Oopsie Daisy]

118. Excellent point. Thank you.

[JohnSJ]

40. and some still prop up those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for Hillary in 2016, by either not voting

or voting for Jill Stein. Not only did they refuse to vote for Hillary in 2016, but they encouraged others to do likewise, and it didn’t take much.

In every critical swing state in 2016 Hillary lost by less than 1%, while Jill Stein received 1% of the vote in those critical swing states.

The same people our out their doing what they did in 2016, David Sirota, Nina Turner, Cornell West, Briahana Joy Gray, etc. for 2024.

[ancianita]

156. Garland supporters never apologize. Biden's man was always the man for the moment.

[Septua]

3. I heard his remarks...

It has been a recurring topic of discussion on MSNBC for quite a while.

[dutch777]

4. What Stone, Bannon and others realize, is if you make issues convoluted enough and big enough, DOJ et al

just don't have the resources to deal with much of it. And it is not just at the Federal level. I bet if you looked at the dozen biggest developers in NYC, you would find some similar fraud on taxes and loans that Trump is being tried for. The DA doesn't have those resources. Same for the IRS. These big players may get caught on some things but given how long it takes, how much money they make off other side hustles, their math says they win. Alex Jones is a great case in point. If you are willing to have a lifelong legal battle going on, you can say anything and almost do anything and as long as you can afford the lawyers to delay and shield you, you stay in the game and you still make money.

[gab13by13]

5. Weissmann said just the opposite

he even used the term "walk and chew gum at the same time." Weissmann said that DOJ absolutely had the resources to investigate the lower and higher level insurrectionists at the same time.

Weissmann did say that it was important to investigate the people who stormed the Capitol.

[malaise]

8. And that is why it has taken so long

Watergate also took three years

[Attilatheblond]

54. And Watergate investigation did not have to deal with the whole GOP battling to block it

nor with media (social and broadcast) running interference/spreading propaganda and driving extreme mindless support for Nixon.

Investigations in this era involve a lot more hurdles.

[Irish_Dem]

6. What Garland is saying is simply not true.

There is absolutely nothing that is fair about how the DOJ and the courts are treating Trump.

It's a travesty of justice and they're damaging the reputation of the DOJ and the US criminal justice system.

[gab13by13]

30. Weissmann even said

that there needs to be changes made to our justice system to speed up the process. Rich people have a huge advantage over poor people.

[Irish_Dem]

60. 100% guaranteed that if you and I stole boxes of top secret documents and disseminated them,

we would be sitting in a supermax right now.

And it is not just poor people who are at a disadvantage, middle-class people have a hard time affording legal representation.

[Fiendish Thingy]

69. Trump was charged with unlawful *retention* of classified documents

Not removal, possession or dissemination, which are separate crimes, and much harder to prove, even in Trump’s case.

Garland’s team, working with NARA, were masterful at obtaining the evidence establishing Trump’s criminal intent (required for both search warrant and indictment) to retain classified documents.

[gab13by13]

81. Too much to take,

DOJ should have handled the stolen documents case the moment NARA informed it of the theft. DOJ waited until NARA went to it because it didn't have the resources or manpower to do a proper investigation.

Same thing with the Michigan fake electors, Dana Nessel issued a criminal referral, waited 1 year, and when DOJ did nothing, she did the prosecution herself.

Dana Nessel would make a fantastic US AG some day.

[Fiendish Thingy]

86. More falsehoods and misinformation

It’s NARA’s job to track, inventory and store the presidential records of past administrations, not DOJ’s.

NARA’s back and forth with Trump, and their knowledge of what was likely missing and still in Trump’s possession created the evidence trail establishing Trump’s criminal intent to retain (critical legal term, since that is what Trump was indicted for) classified documents. That back and forth is what enabled Garland to get authorization for a search warrant.

[Scrivener7]

104. So he wasn't possessing them? Those were boxes of girl scout cookies on that stage at Log O' Merde?

Your post proves what you are trying to refute. He clearly was possessing them. You and I have seen the photos, along with everyone else. You'd be charged for that. He wasn't.

[Fiendish Thingy]

109. If Trump was indicted for possession, so would Biden and Pence.

Criminal intent for unlawful possession is extremely difficult to prove, especially for a president/former president.

Once informed that said documents must be returned, and are refused to be returned, proof of criminal intent for unlawful retention is easy to prove.

Proof of criminal intent is required both to execute a search warrant and for indictment.

[Scrivener7]

112. They asked him three times to return them and he assured them they were returned, then had Nauta move

them before those photos were taken.

I'm pretty sure I remember Biden and Pence behaving quite differently than that.

[Fiendish Thingy]

126. Which is why they weren't charged with *retention*, and Trump was.

Retention is a different crime than possession.

[Scrivener7]

146. And Trump WASN'T charged with possession, though what he did exactly meets the criteria

that YOU listed for that crime.

And I'll say again, if you met those criteria so exactly, you would have been charged.

[Fiendish Thingy]

149. It didn't exactly meet the criteria

Criminal intent for unlawful possession was not established, unlike his intent to retain documents. To indict, you must establish criminal intent.

If you have evidence to the contrary that proves Trump’s mens rea at the time of the alleged crimes, please post it,

[panfluteman]

10. I Do NOT Think Donald Trump Will Have Been Convicted or Otherwise Eliminated

Prior to the November 2024 presidential election. It's just going too slow.y... And besides, the Ascendant for the event chart for the 2024 election at 28 degrees of Leo is only one degree away from Trump's natal Ascendant at 29 degrees of Leo. That to me is a pretty strong indicator that Donald Trump will be the Republican candidate who Biden will be up against. But heck - I believe that's what Biden wants anyway. Let the voters decide, they say, but the hidden danger of this approach is that essentially, it's a collosal failure of our justic system to prosecute Donald Trump in a timely manner. This is basically confusing or conflating a justice or legal problem with a political choice, and this also plays into Trump's narrative that this is all politically motivated. It is just an elaborate way of sweeping stuff under the rug, and the lingering legal issues and obfuscations are going to come back karmically to bite us in the butt sooner or later.

[Scrivener7]

105. Don't know the astrology, but I agree with everything else in that post. Sadly, I fear you are right

about the defendant being nominated. And about the colossal failure to prosecute the defendant in a timely manner.

And the butt biting.

[Fiendish Thingy]

12. Appeal to Authority and Confirmation Bias are very seductive fallacies

You agree with Weissman’s opinion, so you repeat it ad nauseum as “THE TRUTH,”, when it is merely the opinion of a paid TV lawyer who happens to be a former federal prosecutor, but who has no access to any information that you or I don’t have.

Furthermore, history has shown that your “paraphrasing” of pundits and TV lawyers is often riddled with inaccuracies- why not post the clip of Weissman?

P.S. I thought you only got your news from one, single, solitary source- Nicole Wallace? Now that you’re seeing Alex Wagner, won’t Nicole be super jealous?

P.P.S.- the investigation started on day two, when Rudy’s multiple phones and devices were seized (it actually started before Trump left office, but for the sake of your Garland bashing, let’s start the clock with his time in office).

[gab13by13]

32. I reveal my sources, you do not.

Here is what I do, if you need to know, about getting my news now that Nicolle is on leave. I watch Stephanie Miller, Thom Hartmann, and I do turn on Deadline Whitehouse to see who the guests are, if I like the guests I will watch until they are done.
How it happened that I watched Alex Wagner last night, who I do not like. I was watching college wrestling and there was a break in the action so I flipped to MSNBC and saw Weissmann, so I watched until that segment was done.

It is fine if you won't reveal your sources, I understand, but I revealed how I get my news.

I will do as you ask and see if I can find the Weissmann segment.

[Ohio Joe]

36. Weird...

I can’t recall you ever linking to a source

[gab13by13]

160. I am a computer troglodyte

I tried to find the segment from Alex Wagner and did not see it.

There were other posters here who verified the discussion.

My intent is not to offend anyone, just talk about issues, I will never alert on anyone for simply expressing his/her opinions.

[Ohio Joe]

163. So... No source...

As usual. You just make claims and never offer a source. Why?

[Fiendish Thingy]

63. Since you and Nicole have agreed to see other people...

Perhaps you and Andrew can come to the same understanding when it comes to TV lawyers/legal pundits.

Might I recommend Barb McQuade and Joyce Vance? Both often have interesting, informative things to say about the Trump cases, and I don’t recall them ever whining about Garland (if they did, I’m sure you’d quote them).

Marcy Wheeler at emptywheel and the folks at Just Security (Norm Eisen et al) are top notch court watchers and analysts. They read through tedious court transcripts so we don’t have to, and provide non-click bait perspectives that might take more critical thinking to digest, but are also infinitely more substantive and evidence based.

The fact is, there was very little public information available on DOJ’s investigations for about 12-18 months after January 6, which is really how it is supposed to be. Unfortunately, the MSM hates (and that is putting it mildly) a news vacuum, and so, in the absence of verifiable information, they make shit up, in the form of narratives that drive viewership, like “Garland is doing nothing”.
The anti-Garland narrative had taken root and blossomed by the time his team had won the SCOTUS case against Trump’s executive privilege claims in January 2022, freeing dozens of witnesses to be compelled to testify in front of federal grand juries, which had already been hearing evidence (but the existence of the GJ wasn’t known publicly until April/May 2022). Then came summer 2022 and the culmination of DOJ’s months-long efforts with NARA to establish Trump’s criminal intent to retain (critical legal term) classified documents.

Nevertheless, the “meek Merrick” narrative had become dominant in order to feed the hungry MSM beast, and was further strengthened by the flawed, incomplete, and in some cases inaccurate WaPo reporting that so many point to. The WaPo reports actually show that Garland plowed ahead with investigating Trump’s inner circle despite obstruction and opposition from Trump-sympathizing career DOJ employees.

Far too many pixels have been wasted refuting your falsehoods sourced from your interpretation of one or two TV lawyers’ sound bites, but since DU doesn’t have a clear TOS standard against spreading misinformation, it’s up to the DUers in the reality based community to set the record straight so that others don’t get duped.

[PufPuf23]

119. Like Mueller, Garland was the wrong man for the job.

Unfortunately, the way the USA has walked over the 50 plus years of my Democratic voting life has been to kick the can down the road rather than address similar issues; lots of smoke and some fire but issues end with same fizzle.

[ancianita]

168. THANK YOU.

"...Far too many pixels have been wasted refuting your falsehoods sourced from your interpretation of one or two TV lawyers’ sound bites, but since DU doesn’t have a clear TOS standard against spreading misinformation, it’s up to the DUers in the reality based community to set the record straight so that others don’t get duped."

[sarchasm]

15. Reasonable and cogent analysis. nt

[Baltimike]

19. Merrick Garland has been a disappointment. Que the folk saying

"Tell that to Timothy McVeigh". That was decades ago.

Really

[Martin Eden]

20. Is it the "truth" that the Justice Dept acted only because the J6 Committee "shamed" them?

Without substantial corroboration from inside sources, such an assertion remains more opinion than fact.

[Septua]

22. It was complicated, to say the least.

Trump was 2/3 of the way to a dictatorship when he left the White House and had taken control of (weaponized) the DOJ. Both Biden and Garland had to undo that situation, leaving Biden in a position to say nothing and Garland in a position of not appearing overly aggressive in going after Trump.

In hindsight, we now know the timing of starting the investigation of Trump was academic because Trump still cried 'partisan persecution'. Still, had Garland walked out of his confirmation vote and immediately said 'We're going after Trump', the optics would have been bad for a President 50 days into his term.

I don't like the way it's gone but it is going and the evidence looks good for a conviction if a trial can ever take place.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/06/19/fbi-resisted-opening-probe-into-trumps-role-jan-6-more-than-year/

A wariness about appearing partisan, institutional caution, and clashes over how much evidence was sufficient to investigate the actions of Trump and those around him all contributed to the slow pace. Garland and the deputy attorney general, Lisa Monaco, charted a cautious course aimed at restoring public trust in the department while some prosecutors below them chafed, feeling top officials were shying away from looking at evidence of potential crimes by Trump and those close to him, The Post found.

Whether a decision about Trump’s culpability for Jan. 6 could have come any earlier is unclear. The delays in examining that question began before Garland was even confirmed. Sherwin, senior Justice Department officials and Paul Abbate, the top deputy to FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, quashed a plan by prosecutors in the U.S. attorney’s office to directly investigate Trump associates for any links to the riot, deeming it premature, according to five individuals familiar with the decision. Instead, they insisted on a methodical approach — focusing first on rioters and going up the ladder.

The Justice Department’s painstaking approach to investigating Trump can be traced to Garland’s desire to turn the page from missteps, bruising attacks and allegations of partisanship in the department’s recent investigations of both Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election and Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.

Inside Justice, however, some lawyers have complained that the attorney general’s determination to steer clear of any claims of political motive has chilled efforts to investigate the former president. “You couldn’t use the T word,” said one former Justice official briefed on prosecutors’ discussions.

[LymphocyteLover]

39. Yes, I agree

[ShazzieB]

171. This makes sense to me.

I don't like the way it's gone but it is going and the evidence looks good for a conviction if a trial can ever take place.

As to this last paragraph, I believe there WILL be a trial, and a conviction, before November. The DC trial date is being screwed around with right now due to Tump-created delays, but I believe both Smith and Judge Chutkan are firmly committed to keeping things on track as much as humanly possible. It may not start on March 4, but there's still time.

[Scruffy1]

24. It' really an indictment of our legal system.

It's all about deference to the money. If you have enough money and lawyers you can tangle up the courts for a long time. The government lawyers are on salary, but the accused lawyers make a profit on every piece of paper they file. The whole system reminds me of Bleak House by Charles Dickens in a civil matter a fight over an inheritance last for decades until the inheritance is spent through legal fees. Personally, I think that Merrick Garland was not a good choice. He was installed as a federal judge by Clinton and was chosen because his advisers thought that his first choice (Edelman) would face a tough fight and Garland was more likely to sail through. I think he's way too cautious, I also think any competent prosecutor in the country could have charges drawn up on January 7th 2021, as we all saw the evidence. All the delays do is give the defense more time and money to prepare more bullshit. All these delaying tactics were planned out for years who have now moved on to greener patures. The smart ones knew he was guilty as a bee in honey and the plan was to draw it out (and collect $) as long as possible.
There's nothing new about this. In the Teapot Dome Scandal Albert Fall was convicted and sent to prison for taking a bribe and Sinclair with his huge bankroll was able to delay and stall untl his lawyers managed to get the case dropped on an error that was made by the prosecutors. Wash, rinse repeat. These are just my opinions. I didn't think much of Eric Holder, either. Also I think you could get a better Supreme Court by picking 9 people at random. It's just true that most are "political hacks". It's been that way for a long time.

[ancianita]

192. It's also an indictment of the political obstruction tactics of congressional Republicans in confirming top DOJ people.

#1 Merrick Garland -- 2 months after Jan 20 Biden sworn into office
#2 Lisa Monaco -- 3 months after Biden
#3 Vanita Gupta -- 3 months
Civil Rights Division Head, Kristen Clarke -- 4 months
Criminal Division Head, Kenneth Polite -- 6 months after Biden
Assistant attorney general for the Environmental and Natural Resources Division, Todd Kim -- 6 months

Taken from various sources... this is just one.
https://www.businessinsider.com/merrick-garland-top-aides-advisors-inner-circle-justice-department-doj-2021-3#todd-kim-assistant-attorney-general-for-the-environmental-and-natural-resources-division-22

And they're just what's been reported about that first year.

[Hope22]

27. I stand with Andrew!

He is solid!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

28. Interesting! My first thought is " how would you know?"

That prosecuting the insurrectionists wouldn't lead to hard evidence against trump et al? Shows how super slippery trump and his cohorts are. I thought SURELY someone would be on a voice recording instructing insurrectionists to storm the Capitol, but obviously there isn't

Think it's all an arc. Politicians and legal entities started by treating him normally, traditionally, with respect. Hoping he wasn't as bad as he is.

PS hate the censorship you experienced

[Scrivener7]

110. Yeah, but think about it: the insurrectionists were 99% MAGA bros chartering in buses from Peoria to raise

some hell for their idol. That's who the thousands that were arrested are. None of them was ever going to lead higher up the chain because they just weren't on the chain.

The folks at the Mayflower, now THEY might have yielded something. But they weren't subpoenaed till Jack took over.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

124. Agree. But was hoping the underlings were told

By their bosses who were told by trump. Chain up instructions.

But I really was thinking more about direct evidence between trump and heads of Proud Boys, Oath Keepers etc

But totally agree top down too would have been perfect.

[Rhiannon12866]

29. Here's the video for those who missed it:

'The most important question of the 2024 election': Accountability for Trump remains a wild card - Alex Wagner - MSNBC

https://www.democraticunderground.com/13218004

Andrew Weissmann, former federal prosecutor and co-host of the "Prosecuting Donald Trump" podcast, and Katie Benner, reporter for The New York Times, talk with Alex Wagner about whether U.S. voters will know if one of the candidates they're considering for the presidency is a felon, and why the gears of justice in the Donald Trump cases feel like they're turning so slowly. - Aired on 01/19/2024.

[Scrivener7]

113. Rhiannon, you rule.

[Rhiannon12866]

173. Thanks! The video is posted for anyone who missed this. And I agree that it was one of the day's best.

[bigtree]

31. it's a baldfaced lie that DOJ just went after 'low level insurrectionists'

...no matter how many times people repeat this.

Politico: Prosecutors eyed obstruction charges months before Jack Smith took over Trump case
A newly unsealed court document underscores the Justice Department’s long pursuit of evidence to support the obstruction allegations now lodged against Trump.

A newly unsealed court document underscores the Justice Department’s long pursuit of evidence to support the obstruction allegations now lodged against Trump.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/19/obstruction-charges-jack-smith-trump-case-00132500

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.

emptywheel @emptywheel
Gonna reup this bc there is a flood of ignorant bullshit about what the investigation took to get to this weeks' indictment. Here are the accounts that Rudy claimed (if you can believe him) he conducted his coup plotting on.



emptywheel @emptywheel · 21h
This alleged conspiracy was conducted BY LAWYERS using ENCRYPTED APPs. If you read something about how long this investigation took that doesn't address those two facts, you can use it as kitty litter.

emptywheel @emptywheel · 21h
When a conspiracy is conducted BY LAWYERS on ENCRYPTED APPS, it means you have to go phone by phone (bc that's how you get the encrypted apps), and for each one conduct a privilege review.

emptywheel @emptywheel · 21h
We know the phones used in this conspiracy were seized on the following dates: Rudy: April 28, 2021 John Eastman: June 2022 Jeffrey Clark: June 2022 Boris Epshteyn: September 2022 Mike Roman: September 2022 Each phone of a lawyer will take AT LEAST 6 months to review.

emptywheel @emptywheel 21h
Rudy's privilege review, which was set into motion on LITERALLY Lisa Monaco's first day on the job, took 9 months. DOJ successfully got EVERYTHING reviewed, meaning when J6 got PC for it, the content was ready.

*Monaco tasked Thomas Windom in Fall 2021, a little-known federal prosecutor, to oversee key elements of the Justice Department’s investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.

emptywheel @emptywheel · 21h
We can't prove when Jan6 got Rudy's January 6 content, but there are at least 5,000 items from the phone seized on April 28, 2021 that were from Jan6 conspiring. Bc DOJ did a Special Master, it appears Rudy failed to invoke privilege over anything that was not his own lawyer.

emptywheel @emptywheel · 21h
And as this post lays out, not only was DOJ taking overt steps in the fake electors plot b4 J6C's first hearing, but their FOCUS was different--and in a way that might suggest DOJ's leads came from Rudy's phones.

“Nonzero:” On Evidence-Based Investigations and Rudy Giuliani’s Devices June 26, 2023, by emptywheel
https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/06/26/nonzero-on-evidence-based-investigations-and-rudy-giulianis-devices/

emptywheel @emptywheel · 21h
So JUST on the fact that this conspiracy was committed BY LAWYERS using ENCRYPTED APPS explains a great deal of what has taken 2 years. Now add in EP claims. It took from 7/22 to 4/27/23 to work through all the high level EP witnesses.

emptywheel @emptywheel 21h
Also: The investigation into Sidney Powell, CC3, was overt by September 2021.

No idea when or if they got her phone. But the investigation into her was literally overt before J6C issued their first subpoena.

emptywheel @emptywheel · 21h
Here's a list (as of January) of all the OTHER lawyers who were witnesses and subjects in this investigation. The list is now over 30. Again, with each one, you have to do privilege reviews.

emptywheel @emptywheel 19h
Incidentally if you think 6 months for a lawyer phone review is a lot, consider James O'Keefe. The review of HIS phone has been going on 636 days, since November 5, 2021.

thread unrolled here:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1687118267704651777.html

[Fiendish Thingy]

71. Yeah, but Andrew Weissmann says "Garland is weak"

So doesn’t that refute all the facts in your post?



Man, I wish we could bookmark replies in threads. I hope you have the text of this one saved somewhere so you can copy/paste it in response to every OP spreading this nonsense and misinformation.

Thanks big tree for your diligence.

[Ohio Joe]

106. I notice the OP avoids these facts

And just repeats stuff that is untrue. It makes one wonder why.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

134. Thanks for this

The arm chair Monday morning know it all prosecutors expounding on what should have been done gets so damn tiresome.

[Silent3]

174. The OP doesn't say "Jack Smith shamed DOJ into acting"... It says the House 1/6 Committee did that

Your laundry list of pre-Jack Smith actions, which has no dates for each action, says nothing about how much of that was delayed until after the 1/6 Committee started to influence events.

Jack Smith wasn't appointed until November 18, 2022, nearly two years after the events of 1/6.

There's nothing at all impressive about your list of actions taking that long to happen, especially if a lot of it is squeezed in after June 9, 2022, when the first public House 1/6 hearings were held.

[bigtree]

181. I'm really not here to do the groundwork for you, but I am committed to countering these lies

...just because I didn't include the entire panoply of a defense, you apparently believe it's an opportunity for one of those fact-free, evidence-free defenses of these lies.

It's not going to work, I have receipts.

CNN, Dec. 2022:



"Together, the twin investigations have already established more evidence than what Mueller started with, including from a year-long financial probe that’s largely flown under the radar."

and this:

this July 26, 2022 article by Carol D. Leonnig, the same person who claimed there wasn't attention at DOJ on the Trump WH, including the president for a year, should give pause in accepting the claims that Congress was ahead of DOJ.


https://washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/07/26/trump-justice-investigation-january-6/

"well before the televised House hearings"

and this...

Politico: Prosecutors eyed obstruction charges months before Jack Smith took over Trump case

A newly unsealed court document underscores the Justice Department’s long pursuit of evidence to support the obstruction allegations now lodged against Trump.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/19/obstruction-charges-jack-smith-trump-case-00132500


emptywheel @emptywheel · 21h
This alleged conspiracy was conducted BY LAWYERS using ENCRYPTED APPs. If you read something about how long this investigation took that doesn't address those two facts, you can use it as kitty litter.

emptywheel @emptywheel · 21h
When a conspiracy is conducted BY LAWYERS on ENCRYPTED APPS, it means you have to go phone by phone (bc that's how you get the encrypted apps), and for each one conduct a privilege review.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

emptywheel @emptywheel · 21h
We know the phones used in this conspiracy were seized on the following dates: Rudy: April 28, 2021 John Eastman: June 2022 Jeffrey Clark: June 2022 Boris Epshteyn: September 2022 Mike Roman: September 2022 Each phone of a lawyer will take AT LEAST 6 months to review.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

emptywheel @emptywheel 21h
Rudy's privilege review, which was set into motion on LITERALLY Lisa Monaco's first day on the job, took 9 months. DOJ successfully got EVERYTHING reviewed, meaning when J6 got PC for it, the content was ready.

*Monaco tasked Thomas Windom in Fall 2021, a little-known federal prosecutor, to oversee key elements of the Justice Department’s investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.

emptywheel @emptywheel · 21h
We can't prove when Jan6 got Rudy's January 6 content, but there are at least 5,000 items from the phone seized on April 28, 2021 that were from Jan6 conspiring. Bc DOJ did a Special Master, it appears Rudy failed to invoke privilege over anything that was not his own lawyer.

emptywheel @emptywheel · 21h
And as this post lays out, not only was DOJ taking overt steps in the fake electors plot b4 J6C's first hearing, but their FOCUS was different--and in a way that might suggest DOJ's leads came from Rudy's phones.

“Nonzero:” On Evidence-Based Investigations and Rudy Giuliani’s Devices June 26, 2023, by emptywheel
https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/06/26/nonzero-on-evidence-based-investigations-and-rudy-giulianis-devices/

emptywheel @emptywheel · 21h
So JUST on the fact that this conspiracy was committed BY LAWYERS using ENCRYPTED APPS explains a great deal of what has taken 2 years. Now add in EP claims. It took from 7/22 to 4/27/23 to work through all the high level EP witnesses.

emptywheel @emptywheel 21h
Also: The investigation into Sidney Powell, CC3, was overt by September 2021.

No idea when or if they got her phone. But the investigation into her was literally overt before J6C issued their first subpoena.

emptywheel @emptywheel · 21h
Here's a list (as of January) of all the OTHER lawyers who were witnesses and subjects in this investigation. The list is now over 30. Again, with each one, you have to do privilege reviews.

emptywheel @emptywheel 19h
Incidentally if you think 6 months for a lawyer phone review is a lot, consider James O'Keefe. The review of HIS phone has been going on 636 days, since November 5, 2021.

thread unrolled here:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1687118267704651777.html

[Fla Dem]

33. Here is a direct link to Alex Wagners segment with Andrew Weissmann's last night.

https://www.msnbc.com/alex-wagner-tonight/watch/-the-most-important-question-of-the-2024-election-accountability-for-trump-remains-a-wild-card-202546757668

[msfiddlestix]

34. ! Time DOES Matter and all of the essentials were so damn predictable, it makes my heart break

and deeply angered by the extreme foot dragging . I didn't see the program, I don't have cable.
Generally, I'll watch previous clips on Roku of various MSNBC late day and evening programs
But since the GOP campaigns have gone into full swing. I have avoided watching any tv except for netflix, prime etc.
I've been avoiding watching any news completely.
I deeply dread watching the obvious unfold. It's an effing nightmare, and that monster should have been dealt with on day one, obviously. For reasons I am not able to fathom, otherwise intelligent people couldn't or refused to see this nightmare coming,

From day one, I felt like a captive passenger in a runaway train headed for a cliff into a deep abyss and there's eff all I can do about it.
Except do what the fiddlers did on the Titanic as it was sinkiong, quite literally.
Just keep playing my music with others who are doing it not just for the love of music, but because it's damn near all we have to feel some sense of sanity and joy in an insane and miserable world.

[LymphocyteLover]

38. Garland wasn't even confirmed until many months in, because of GOP obstruction!

and Trump holdovers well and truly messed up the start of the case.

[Emile]

43. Early March 2021 is only a month and a half in.

[LymphocyteLover]

45. OK. Still what is the point of criticizing Garland so extensively? What good does it do?

It's not like we're not going to vote for Biden in 2024 because of it.

The prosecution of Dump a hugely complicated issue and Garland is hardly the main problem here.

[Emile]

58. You lost me with that statement.

Your statement: It's not like we're not going to vote for Biden in 2024 because of it.

Are you accusing anyone who speaks against Garland for not acting faster, as someone who is trying to get President Biden defeated?

[Fiendish Thingy]

73. Doesn't Garland's (alleged) incompetence reflect badly on Biden?

If the allegations against Garland were true (they’re not), shouldn’t Biden have fired him, or congress impeached him long ago?

[Emile]

75. Absolutely not. Garland's actions are not

the fault of President Biden.

The president of the United States does not oversee investigations of the Justice Department.
That is something Trump thinks.

[Fiendish Thingy]

82. Wasn't Trump ultimately responsible for the incompetence and crimes of his cabinet?

As was Nixon?

If a president knows an AG or other cabinet member is incompetent, isn’t it their responsibility to fire them and replace them with someone competent for the good of the country, and to uphold the presidential oath to see that the “laws are faithfully executed”?

[Emile]

85. The president of the United States does not

oversee investigations of the Justice Department.
That is something Trump thinks. I hate to think the DOJ is to be used at the whims of the president.

[Fiendish Thingy]

90. Who said anything about overseeing investigations?

“The buck stops here”.

That’s my point.

[Scrivener7]

114. Are you trying to discredit Biden?

See? That's just an obnoxious game to play. You shouldn't do it.

[Fiendish Thingy]

127. I'm only following the logical thread

If Garland is truly as bad as some here think, then doesn’t Biden bear the ultimate responsibility for not only hiring him, but also not firing him?

Help me understand why you disagree.

[Scrivener7]

148. No, you're pounding on the same weaselly strawman Garland defenders always fall back

on when they have no good response.

[Fiendish Thingy]

151. I'm merely suggesting that Garland bashers stand by their convictions.

Not sure how that is a straw man - Biden hired Garland, he hasn’t fired him, so if someone thinks Garland has failed and has intentionally put democracy at risk, why not demand Biden fire him immediately?

[Scrivener7]

153. Then by that logic, I'm sure you will be supporting Hawley, Cruz, Rubio, Blackburn and all the

others in their next elections who voted to approve Garland. Because you think Garland is a god and that is your belief about how this all works.

So effing childish.

[PufPuf23]

123. That is a cheap shot at POTUS Biden and the poster you debate.

Being POTUS is complex. Pols are hired with their own agenda beyond what the POTUS can micromanage.

My gut feeling is that Democratic POTUSs should not appoint or nominate from GOP and Garland is GOP and has acted as a passive GOP member. One cannot reach across the aisle to the 21st Century GOP, perhaps partially because the GOP successfully took the 2000 election, failed to protect the nation from 9-11, and lied the World into the Iraq war without consequences. The GOP owns or controls the USSC, the MSM, and most corporations, particularly private equity.

[Fiendish Thingy]

130. I'm not the one taking cheap shots

I’m not criticizing Biden because I don’t think Garland has done anything wrong; my position is that those who do think Garland is a failure and the worst AG ever should indeed hold Biden ultimately accountable, both for hiring him, and then for not firing him.

“The buck stops here” - Harry Truman

[PufPuf23]

144. Technically Garland has done nothing wrong and have not seen anyone say Garland is the worse AG ever.

Where have you been the last 50 years?

The same scenario has repeated itself time and time again; corruption and no follow through except for slaps on wrist.

We have become a society of grift and scapegoats and special interests grabbing what they can of the nation's benefits and reins.

Crazy making.

The fact is killing the USA over the long term and makes the USA very vulnerable at present.

[LymphocyteLover]

138. No, I wasn't accusing that. I just didn't see the point to the criticism. Seems like a waste of energy to me.

[msfiddlestix]

44. Quite aware of that. Day One wasn't in reference to Biden's first day in office. n/t

[Scrivener7]

115. But anyway, it was a month and a half, not "many months."

[LymphocyteLover]

49. it's sickening, yes, but it's impossible to "deal with him" when almost half the country sees him as legitimate.

and a great president. I still blame the GOP and FoxNews

[LymphocyteLover]

37. the vast majority of the criticisms of Garland are unfair IMHO. It's not his fault the justice system is so slow

and I think he was right to move cautiously.

The media -- particularly rightwing media-- is the ultimate problem here, as always, for constantly fellating Trump and his MAGATs

[gab13by13]

74. Garland's inaction continues.

Threats of violence have grown since J6. Today we have armed militias protesting outside of libraries for crying out loud.

DOJ isn't interviewing Roger Stone for threatening 2 Democratic Congressmen, the Capitol police are, maybe it's their jurisdiction but threatening people is Trump's strategy.

[LymphocyteLover]

137. it's a fine line to walk to uphold the law and not hinder the freedoms we have under the constitution

particularly when we have so many conservative judges who bend over backwards to help MAGAts

[nevergiveup]

48. I don't think there is any question that

Merrick Garland is a very decent and honorable man but if there is no verdict on the J-6 trial before the election and Donald Trump wins the presidency again Garland will likely become known as the worst Attorney General in American history. The survival of this democracy may very well be in his hands. The system is also much to blame but that is why you need an exceptionally strong person to be in charge. In just a few months we will find out if Garland was that person.

[Fiendish Thingy]

77. While the stakes are indeed high, Garland has a long way to go to achieve "worst" status

He would have to sink below John Mitchell, Bill Barr, Eric Holder, Alberto Gonzales and Francis Biddle.

[nevergiveup]

108. If he lets this narcissistic sociopathic fool go free and the fool ends up taking control of our government again

then Garland will indeed be worse then the men you mentioned. We are not talking about "high stakes" here we are talking about the end of our democracy. I do not dislike the man at all. I just do not believe he has whatever it takes to get aggressive in such a critical and dire situation when time is quickly slipping away.

[Fiendish Thingy]

111. Now that Trump has been indicted, it's not up to Garland whether Trump goes free

It’s up to the courts and the juries.

But you knew that, right?

On the other hand, there were other AG’s who didn’t even investigate, let alone prosecute, the crimes of previous administrations, and IMO, that makes them far worse than Garland ever could be.

[Doc Sportello]

50. You have been proven 100 percent correct

You took a lot of shit, often just personal attacks, for alerting people to the problem. Now many are saying a trial and conviction in the criminal cases won't happen before the election, and Garland's approach is a big reason why.

[JohnSJ]

51. Conveniently the OP leaves out the biggest factor why our democracy is at risk, and it isn't because of his repeated

posts how the AG has failed us, but because of those so-called progressives who refused to vote for Hillary in 2016 by either not voting, or voting for Jill Stein, and encouraging others to do likewise.

Since the OP loves to repeat the failures of Garland, I will repeat again, in every critical swing state Hillary lost by less than 1%, while Jill Stein received 1% of the vote in those critical swing states.

We lost the Supreme Court because of that.

Trump should have never won in 2016. That is the reason we are where we are.

David Sirota, Nina Turner, Cornell West, Briahana Joy Gray, etc.

Not one of them has any remorse for what they did in 2016, and in fact Cornell West is doing it again in 2024 by running as an independent.

According to the polls, West’s candidacy can take away 1% of the vote.

They did it in 2000 and 2016, and they are trying to end our Democracy now in 2024.

Yes, Garland probably should have brought charges against trump a year earlier, but the fact remains, the racist, sexist, and bigot should have never been elected in the first place.

As for the belief that trump would have already been convicted if Garland acted sooner, I am skeptical. They fact that he still garners as much support as he does leads me to that conclusion

[gab13by13]

72. There are many reasons why Hillary lost,

There is also a rule here about not reliving the past primary/election, lucky I do not alert on anyone, I say my piece out in the open.
Your post only divides us which we do not need.

[JohnSJ]

79. I am NOT fighting the last presidential PRIMARY. I am stating what contributed to losing

the GENERAL ELECTION.

Maybe YOU need a refresher about the rules.

You have the audacity to accuse me of posting a divisive post, when you never miss a chance to slam Garland, and by proxy President Biden.

Please enlighten me what YOUR continued anti-Garland posts actually do if not divide us.

and by the way, if you feel so inclined to alert on me, be my guest, I won't take it personally.

[mcar]

139. JohnSJ is not reliving the 2016 primary

he is talking about the 2016 general election and he is 100% correct.

TFG should never have been elected. The fact that he was is due to Stein, and the so-called "progressives" he mentioned, along with Comey.

There were people on this very board in 2016 who were banned or left on their own to form their own site. Why? Because the administrators would not allow them to call HRC the "c" word. They, and their ilk, did everything they could to demean and vilify her. They wanted TFG to win to, as Sarandon said, bring the "revolution" on sooner.

How'd that work out for us?

You can trash Merrick Garland all you want. You cannot take away the truth.

[PufPuf23]

147. We will know the truth when Trump and corrupt GOP pay the price

and, if they do not pay the full price, Garland will have failed.

Trump appears to be a genuine GOP candidate for 2024 POTUS and open insurrectionists walk the halls of Congress and continue the ongoing coup (which is far more than Trump the Squirrel).

Not a fan of Garland who is perfect to slow walk investigation and prosecutions.

[JohnSJ]

158. Why Garland? He isn't the SC or the judges trump appointed. He certainly isn't

Canon, or control juries if the insurrection actually gets to a trial.

In fact it could be argued that trump’s delay’s could actually keep the issue alive, and continually demonstrate how dangerous and unfit he is

[PufPuf23]

161. Give it a break.

You are defending the undefendable. Always an excuse.

I have been an exclusively Democratic voter for over 50 years.

Political and financial crimes are without true consequences in the USA.

[JohnSJ]

166. and what makes you think that would change with someone different than Garland?

and by the way I am not defending anything. I have been voting Democratic since McGovern

[PufPuf23]

167. For a start, an AG that is not GOP. Try a Democrat with fire in the belly.

Already answered your question. Pardon my lack of optimism.

Skating on political and financial crimes is the American Way by my experience. Add war crimes too.

POTUS Biden is basically my oxygen at present.

Very complex to be a POTUS and a POTUS relies on others and cannot micro-manage.

Our legal, medical, media, and financial systems are broken but we have a very expensive military.

[uponit7771]

150. Both can be true and both Garland or non Clinton voters took the wrong path

[Scrivener7]

162. Right? This is silly. These are two completely different topics.

[Silent3]

176. Once a bad thing has already happened...

...it's perfectly fine to criticize subsequent failures to deal with that bad thing, without needing to refer back to any original cause. It's ridiculous to snidely refer to such criticism as "conveniently" leaving anything out.

An electrician's faulty wiring leads to a house fire. Of course the electrician should be blamed.

Firefighters are slow to respond because of an incompetent 911 operator, and the house burns down when a faster response would have saved most of the house and the property in it. The incompetent 911 operator is ALSO to blame. If the subject of conversation is the 911 service, not mentioning the bad electrician isn't "conveniently" leaving the electrician out of it.

[Maraya1969]

53. Tell these judges that Trump murdering them and/or their family would not be a crime

I can't even believe they are not just throwing the whole thing out.

[nowforever]

57. Biden made a serious mistake

Picking Garland, who is an A1 milquetoast was a serious error in judgement. Jack Smith is the kind of man who should be running the DOJ. Garland makes Mister Rogers look like a tough guy.

[uponit7771]

152. +1, the DOJ was focused on not pissing MAGA off versus putting every single one of them and their dogs in jail

[ananda]

64. I just don't know why Garland hasn't been replaced already?

I never thought he had much of a spine.

[tinrobot]

91. Not sure, but a replacement would need Senate confirmation

Do you think any qualified replacement would get 10 GOP votes?

[bigtree]

103. the man who appointed the Special Counsel who brought two historic felony indictments

...against the former president?

Name ONE Attorney General in history who has prosecuted more insurrectionists, white supremacists, and also indicted a former president twice.

The whinging about Garland is really something, given that he's singulary responsible for not only convicting the Jan. 6 rioters who are essential to any prosecution of Trump for colluding with them or encouraging them, but singularly responsible for appointing the man who accelerated and deepened the trump investigations.

No one in history has even come close to what he's accomplished. Supposing someone else could come in and do a better job is just ridiculous, and really betrays the weakness and inanity in these attacks on Garland.

Just who the fuck do you think would be the benificiary of Garland's removal after initiating these historic prosecutions and convictions?

This is the full measure of the inanity of these Garland attacks from supposed advocates of justice. They have nothing to do with justice being done, because the criticisms fail to acknowledge justice being done.

No one should follow these people down their rabbitt hole leading to nowhere.

[Sneederbunk]

65. Historians will not be kind to Mr. Garland.

The J6 Committee will loom large in history.

[bigtree]

97. they will absolutely credit Merrick Garland for his convictions

...of the Jan. 6 rioters which is continuing with even more arrests this week, right there for anyone claiming to be concerned with justice to highlight and support.

But there's really isn't support for those arrests on this thread, and I think that's so telling.

It's either ignorance and indifference to justice done, or it's a deliberate omission, for whatever reason. We can see republicans doing what they're able to denigrate Garland for obvious reasons, but what is this ignorant, evidence-free attack on the man engaged RIGHT NOW in prosecuting the wave of white supremacists who the media says is a violent threat to our democracy really about?

Imagine where we'd be right now if the DOJ wasn't engaged in this pursuit of the perps. What would the SC use in court to show that the Capitol had been breached?

What would the prosecution of Trump for obstruction look like without ACTUAL prosecutions of Jan. 6 rioters, instead of just conjecture that they were trying to stop the vote?

DOJ is engaged with the Supreme Court TODAY as they weigh a challenge to his CONVICTIONS of Jan 6 perps as to whether his convictions for obstruction the certification of votes was vaild.

Ignorant of that development means you're ignorant of the essential link between those rioters and the prosecution of Trump for obstruction the same vote.

It’s a conspiracy to obstruct a congressional proceeding. That's what the SC indictment's civil rights count goes to. It syncs with the Garland prosecutions in a way that make all of this grousing about him look either foolish or accomodating of those who insist those prosecutions were invalid.

Critics complaining about only 'foot soldiers' pursued by Garland need to explain how the SC gets to a conviction of Trump for obstruction without those convictions, including the convictions Garland obtained of riot leaders for Sedition?

Critics' narrow view of this prosecution is really something.

Not only would they have Trump in court before Garland successfully got the courts to strip Trump's entire senior legal counsel of attorney/client restrictions on their testimony, they would bring the former president in on some petty nonsense they gleaned from news reports, believing like Trump's Habba that just winging it in court with twitter and blog posts would be sufficient to obtain a conviction.

We have Guiliani just yesterday reported as cooperating with Jack Smith, described by pundits as extremely devastating for the former president, and zero acknowledgement that Merrick Garland seized Guliani's phones and other communications in early 2021.

You folks just don't care enough to do anything other than bash Garland. Most of you don't know anything about the case beyond what you can find to bash the DOJ with.

What a farce.

[uponit7771]

154. +1, but somehow a special counsel is needed for misdemeanor tax and gun process charges !! DOJ is not only

... Political im this far away from calling them partisan.

[MyNameIsJonas]

185. What did the J6 committee do?

History won't remember the J6 committee because it was a toothless endeavor that changed little public perception.

C'mon. Get fucking real.

[republianmushroom]

66. Weissmann then said that it was the J6 committee that shamed DOJ into acting. he used the word shame.

AGREE

Washington Post: FBI slowed investigation into Trump’s role in January 6 for fear of appearing political

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/19/politics/fbi-doj-trump-investigation-january-6/index.html

A.G. Merrick Garland Resisted Investigating Trump’s Connection to January 6: Washington Post

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/06/garland-doj-resisted-investigating-trump-january-6

'Washington Post' journalist on FBI's delayed investigation of Trump's role in Jan. 6

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/19/1183098037/washington-post-journalist-on-fbis-delayed-investigation-of-trumps-role-in-jan-6

The FBI Desperately Wants to Let Trump Off the Hook

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/03/fbi-trump-mar-a-lago-raid-prosecution/673251/

Inside the Mar-a-Lago Raid: Prosecutors and FBI Feuded Over Trump Search, According to Washington Post Deep-Dive

https://www.mediaite.com/print/inside-the-mar-a-lago-raid-prosecutors-and-fbi-feuded-over-trump-search-according-to-washington-post-deep-dive/

And this is just some articles.

36 months and counting

[getagrip_already]

76. The statute of limitations is quickly expiring - it's only 5 years

Most of stinky's presidency is now immune from prosecution, and within a year even the j6 crimes will be.

Yet only smith is acting, and his mandate is narrow. There is so much that falls outside of his scope that is being left uncharged. And all of those criminals will be free to infest the next republican administration - and there will eventually be a next.

[Texin]

116. Well I've read other articles that stated that it wasn't just Garland's reticence but also Biden's concern

about going after his predecessor. He was in the middle of the former guy's numerous crises and didn't want to appear that he was going after a political adversary because it would continue to divide the country. I'm not certain when Biden had enough of the cretin's ape shit behavior and decided that the idiot needed to be pursued legally.

[Snackshack]

121. Agreed

The absolute fealty to garland combined with the DOJ’s blanket immunity on accountability has, is and will continue to be a huge miscalculation.

We find out now that TFG, Kushner got millions from foreign governments. $7.8M reported so far and then there is the $2B MSB gave Kushner. DJT had been found to be violating the emoluments clause and the case was appealed to SCOTUS. SCOTUS / CJ Roberts sat on that case…until after DJT was out of office and then dismissed it…reason being DJT was no longer in the White House so it was now moot…really?!?. Roberts was a wallflower at djts 1st impeachment and couldn’t even be bothered to show up for the 2nd one.

Hunter lied on a form and HFS, DOJ is ALL over that one I mean that’s way more serious…then…

Say lying on purpose about a deadly virus, calling it a Hoax to “play it down” after taking the Oath as President. This was admitted too on tape by DJT to Bob Woodward. DJT did all he could w/o losing his support to slow, stop a response to COVID a deadly virus that to date has killed over 1M+ Americans. The biggest single death event in American history. A study concluded DJT was the biggest source of misinformation about COVID. He told us Disinfectant Injections were being looking into ?!?!… even his Medical Advisor facepalmed on that one in front of the world.

Then DJT incited a crowd of Americans that attacked the Capitol on J6. An American died inside the Capitol during this attack. we have since found out DJT stole 1000’s of top secret documents some of which have vanished not to be seen again…we all remember “lock her up” and what that was about. It will never be known just how damaging this security breech will be or how many lives have been lost. Benedict Arnold was going to hand over keys to West Point and he is viewed as the worst even thought what DJT did is 1000x more damaging.

Garland and by extension Biden have gone great lengths to sidestep/ slow walk or avoid all together the appearance of a whiff from a scent by the smell of law & order or accountability to the previous president or that administration to detriment of the country.

By not continuing our historical precedent of charging, prosecuting and either finding guilty and sentencing or innocent and setting free individuals who have broken our laws our justice system has been emasculated and the coming election in Nov. could be the last election we have because of fear of appearing…political the ONLY thing the gop does now.

President Obama made this same costly mistake. Holder and PBO never held anyone accountable for lying us into a war over WMD. Still appalled no one held accountable for P. Tillman deception or the fact that “Yea, we tortured some people.” as PBO said it. No one held from wall st. to account for their actions bringing about the 2008 global financial collapse. There was 1 mid/low lvl manager charged at a small bank but no one from chase, goldman, citi, et al.

This is why we are at this place with another gop admin that has been precedent setting in their lawlessness. They saw a handful of ppl like bush jr, cheney, rumsfeld, rice etc do all of that and get away with it some have prospered.If we survive this guaranteed another gop/ republican/ neocon group in the future will push the line farther.

[onecaliberal]

122. As have I. Garland is weak. His bird walk may see that orange garbage go on to destroy democracy.

[edisdead]

125. Me thinks there are agitators about.

[gab13by13]

128. I did not want this thread to go off the rails,

I still have hope that Jack Smith can get Trump to trial pre-election.

I hope we get an answer from the Appeals court soon and then we will have a better idea about the trial. How the stay is treated will be the tell. Right now pre-trial events have been brought to a halt. It will take 2 months just for jury selection.

There is still time, hoping the Appeals court comes through. If Trump is convicted, he loses the election. He will be forced to attend the trial, 6 to 7 hours a day for 3 or 4 months, muzzled in his chair. I don't see him surviving that physically and mentally.

[Ohio Joe]

132. If that were true you would address the facts in post 31

But you don’t… You ignore them and keep posting the same incorrect things over and over. Why is it you don’t address the facts? It’s curious.

[gab13by13]

155. I addressed post 31 before,

this isn't the first time it has been cut and pasted.

What is my thread about? I reported what Andrew Weissmann and Tim Heaphy said about Garland waiting to investigate Trump.

I have a handful of go to sources for my news and you will be hard pressed to come with sources better than those two.

You don't have a beef with me, you have a beef with my news sources.

Heaphy damn well knows what DOJ was or wasn't doing, he was the J6 lead investigator, and Weissmann called Garland's delay shameful.

No way in hell would Weissmann and Heaphy lie on national TV.

Cassidy Hutchinson testified before the J6 committee and DOJ had never even spoken to her, that is a fact.

[Ohio Joe]

159. Then cut and paste your reply in again

I’ve never seen it… Nor have I seen you ever link to any source. You make unsubstantiated claims and deem them the truth without citations. Give me your sources… Please.

Refute post 31, with sources… Please.

I dare you.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

136. "If Trump is convicted, he loses the election."

And if he's acquitted??

He will ride that MAGAt wave into the White House forever.

"Right now pre-trial events have been brought to a halt. It will take 2 months just for jury selection."

Link? Not buying your prognostications.

[Hotler]

129. Of course, it's an undergound.

[KPN]

140. I'm in agreement. At best, DOJ decided on a pyramid structure investigation

as Weissman described it. Whether that amounts to dithering — or not as some,
maybe even many, here at DU contend — is a matter of conjecture. We are all entitled to our opinion when it comes to speculative matters. There is no non-speculative evidence that Gsrland moved early on the upper reaches of the J6 insurrection. My opinion is he started at the bottom which unnecessarily delayed investigating at the tier or tiers just below Trump … which is where clear evidence lies of Trump’s incitement and direction to pursue an alternative slate of electoral college electors.

The DOJ and White House are now, as a result, placed in a position where Trump will almost certainly be the Republican nominee for President in the midst of his prosecution for inciting an insurrection. That’s a shame as well as something that could have been avoided.

Time does matter. We will find out how much.

[Evolve Dammit]

165. Time matters is right. And we are running out of it. If the Orange Anus is on the ballot and wins, this Justice Dept.

will go down as one of the worst, if not THE worst in our brief Republic. Because it won't be a democracy anymore.