Adam Schiff Asks, Would Garland Have Indicted Trump

[gab13by13]

Adam Schiff, at the 4 minute mark of the video makes a stunning statement; if it weren't for the J6 select committee shaming DOJ would DOJ have indicted Trump at all? Schiff is saying without the J6 committee publicly showing all of Trump's crimes, DOJ may not have indicted Trump. Pretty chilling statement coming from a former prosecutor.

[PJMcK]

1. Garland has been a mistake

When he was nominated, I thought President Biden had made an inspired choice. I was wrong.

The country needs an aggressive leader at DOJ. There is so much criminality that Trump and his supporters have committed that needs to be prosecuted. Garland’s slow-walking is not healing our fractured nation.

Garland has been a profound disappointment.

[PTL_Mancuso]

21. Obama should never have offered him for a SCOTUS appointment in 2016

When Turtle shot that down, many did not realize that Garland was a pretty conservative choice to begin with, put forward to appease the growing corporate monster on the right. That gave Garland the name recognition he needed to be brought forward and confirmed as AG -- by Biden voters, because why would Barrack and then Joe nominate someone who wouldn't support Democratic (small and large D) principles?, and by the Russo-fascist GOPer party because, why wouldn't they want a deep-rooted Federalist in there to stop progressives in their tracks as we tried to prosecute Rump and the other criminal heads of the Jan. 6 coup (who were part of the confirmation process)?

LESSON: Do NOT Appease Fascist Bullies!

[CrispyQ]

36. Yes, Obama's nomination lent Garland credibility he didn't deserve.

Even on DU he was heralded as a hero for nailing the Oklahoma bombers, but they were a bunch of riff raff, not the upper echelons of government handing out huge tax cuts to the oligarchs. We can't go after those people.

"Too much caution turns into immunity." Adam Schiff

Turns out it wasn't caution at all.

[msfiddlestix]

62. I remember misgivings about him as a choice for SCOTUS, but he was thought of as a "moderate"

therefore a sensible choice for SCOTUS to be easily confirmed with all the dems and repukes giving him high marks,

[markodochartaigh]

50. not healing our fractured nation.

It turns out that pardoning (like Ford), or slow-walking prosecution (like Garland) crimes by the upper echelons of one side doesn't "bring the country together". Kind of like if the court lets the neighborhood murderer go it's not going to "help the neighborhood heal".

[dalton99a]

2. It was obvious.

[gab13by13]

3. You know what this means, right?

GOTV once again. Once again it is up to us to save our democracy. We are going to have to overwhelm them at the ballot box because the rat fucking that is going to go on will make the 2016 election interference look like a walk in the park.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

4. Which means our institutions really do not work.

Think about it.

[gab13by13]

6. Yes, there was a lengthy discussion about that led by Nicolle Wallace

Nicolle was furious yesterday. She asked all of the former prosecutors, judge, lawyers around her, "how did we get to this point?"

Yes they talked about reforms that were needed to our judicial system. Most likely too late now since the Magat party is actively working to bring down our democracy.

Our founders didn't imagine that evil people solely seeking power would inhabit our halls of government.

[Irish_Dem]

10. I think our founding fathers did think about raw evil trying to take control of the US.

That is why they built so many checks and balances into the system.

And why Ben Franklin doubted we could keep a republic.

[Ohioboy]

16. Yeah, we just didn't use the checks and balances, and allowed them to become corrupted

The real blame is on the republicans, specifically republicans like Mitch McConnel, Kevin McCarthy etc.

[Irish_Dem]

19. We didn't realize most of it is just the honor system.

And if the entire system is corrupt, the checks and balances are meaningless.

[Ohioboy]

28. The Founders never intended for us to be at this point

We literally have an untried, indicted candidate running for the highest office in the land who is arguing that he should have total immunity. The crimes he is accused of are against the very government he is hoping to have under his control, and he has already been impeached twice.

And, because of delay, the final check of the checks and balance system, the American people, may never be allowed to have all the evidence presented at trial to help them make an informed decision.

[Irish_Dem]

35. Benjamin Franklin did.

He understood that human nature is what it is, and it would take an involved and educated citizenry to keep democracy going.
He was skeptical.

But yes the founding fathers were quite smart and did everything they could to prevent a charismatic autocrat from destroying
democracy and installing an autocracy.

The US is at a crossroads, only time will tell the end to this story.

[msfiddlestix]

61. You have the complete summary of the unthinkable nightmare in a nutshell. Well said, Well Done!

If I could, I would give this post endless counts of recommendations.

[PatrickforB]

23. Well those checks and balances only really work if we all get the real news, not some slanted horserace

story designed to generate shareholder profits. MSNBC is actually owned by Comcast, so their senior producers ONLY have a fiduciary responsibility to keep them profits rollin' in - NOT to serve the public with truth.

This aspect of capitalism - shareholder primacy - destroys everything it touches.

[Irish_Dem]

37. Democracy depends upon an educated, informed, active citizenry.

Our media has been sold to the highest bidder.
And that entity does not have any interest in a working democracy.

[Scrivener7]

29. Hamilton described the sick fuck to a tee and did everything he could think of to thwart him.

[CrispyQ]

49. Corporations are people. Money equals speech.

I'd love to hear the founders thoughts on that!

I wonder what women would have added to the original Constitution that men didn't think of, beside our right to vote, that is. That would be an interesting topic to start in our feminist forum.

[Irish_Dem]

52. Women understand patriarchal treachery all too well.

So maybe they would have thought of more safeguards.

[jaxexpat]

44. The founders knew but were hogtied by the MAGA spirit of their era.

I speak of the slaveholders whose lifestyle was based on their absolute control over life and death of other humans. How could the founders not be aware of the depths of human depravity with those examples sitting to either side? The stink of it must have been overwhelming. Compromise with it must have been like bathing in excrement. I think the love and respect we might have for the founders must always recall their personal sacrifices. They had no other choice.

[harumph]

55. "Compromise with it must have been like bathing in excrement."

Nicely put.

[BlueKota]

9. This

I intend to go vote and encourage others to do the same, but what's to stop the SC from interfering again, even if we have record numbers?

I think people who don't think that can happen are wishful thinking. So far Trump has been able to avoid criminal trials thanks to the holes in our justice system. Therefore what's to prevent him from just continuing to thumb his nose at the laws when they are not being enforced?

I don't think those of us asking these type questions are conspiracy theorists, or have been duped by the alarmist pundits. These are questions and possibilities that need to be addressed, so that counter measures can be put in place.

[gab13by13]

11. We at least have the Alvin Bragg trial

Trump fucked up when he tried to move the trial to federal court, he waived his immunity.

Trump is going to criminal trial on March 25th.

[BlueKota]

26. I hope he gets convicted.

[CrispyQ]

54. There is still too much "It can't happen here." -nt

[BlueKota]

56. Definitely

[whathehell]

32. It means the Supreme Court isn"t working..

not "our institutions", generally.
We need to be careful about using a broad brush, given that the Right Wing is now actively attacking institutions like our electoral system, the lower court judiciary, and the FBI.

[ShazzieB]

42. Amen to this!

[BlueKota]

57. Good point

I, however, would also add the current House of Representatives to the list of institutions that are not working properly

[whathehell]

58. Thank you, and

yes, I would add them too.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

60. You're right, thanks

I was annoyed when I posted that heh

[whathehell]

64. Sure..

I understand..These days I find myself annoyed most of the time!

[CrispyQ]

39. Our electoral process has become an industry in itself.

We need major electoral reform but the people who can change it are the very ones who benefit from the current system. I don't hear a lot of dems pushing for publicly funded elections. I know we'd need huge majorities for that kind of change but why isn't our party planting the seed in people's minds that this is a huge problem that can be solved pretty easily if we just had the votes. It also helps if you write/call your MOCs & tell them what you want.

Let's clearly define campaign season, too. No more years long campaign cycles. Tell me people wouldn't get behind that idea!! Fuckin 'A they would.

[jaxexpat]

48. Reform is impossible until the Republicans are history.

There will then be a narrow window of opportunity to overcome the worst of our nature. Bt it is a hope that needs nurturing.

[claudette]

5. It's apparent

now that Garland should have appointed Jack Smith a LONG time ago. Did McConnell do us a favor by not having a hearing for his nomination to the SCROTUS? I am SO upset about this orange criminal getting away with everything by manipulating the courts. It’s sickening

[gab13by13]

7. I have been criticized many times

for saying that Trump is an evil genius.

There is one small bright spot, the Alvin Bragg trial is going to start on March 25th. The evil genius fucked up when he tried to get his trial moved to federal court he gave up his immunity claim.

Go get em Alvin.

[claudette]

20. It's certainly

something to look forward to! Anything that will show this orange criminal, and the rest of the world, that he is NOT above the law.

[PTL_Mancuso]

24. I'll bet forces are at work to somehow stymie Bragg

Some kind of insignificant last-minute rat-fcking bomb that the MSM will pick up and smear Bragg with. Or just Putin-ize him or someone close.

[ProfessorGAC]

33. Can't Let This Slide

While I agree with much of your post, an "evil genius"?
He planned to lose the 2020 election, commit crimes to overturn the loss & then knew the guy that beat him would nominate an AG who would slow-walk prosecution?
That requires real Nostradamus stuff.
From a guy who, even taking the dubious Forbes estimate of net worth, underperformed both the commercial real estate industry & all the equity markets?

[SergeStorms]

47. Trump is no genius.

Left to his own devices Donald Trump would be living in a 4th floor walk-up apartment, working in a toll booth on the NJ turnpike.
Donald Trump was a malleable little rich boy who had a mob lawyer overseer (Roy Cohn, compliments of daddy Fred) because daddy Fred knew his son was lazy and weak, but extremely greedy. Roy did his job.
I'm not going to get into Trump's complete CV here, but it's suffice to say he's had smart, devious, and sometimes evil handlers his entire life.
Of course Trump takes complete credit for his present place in life, like any selfish narcissist would. His handlers sit in the background, collect their largesse, and listen as their creation beats his chest like a demented gorilla, and takes all the heat for being the twisted criminal they created.
Donald Trump is no genius. There's nothing real about Donald Trump. He's a hollow drum, which we all know makes the most noise.

[Irish_Dem]

8. It is obvious Garland had to be shamed into doing the right thing.

And doing his damn job.

[Paladin]

12. Garland is the wrong person in the wrong position at the wrong time.

Devastating to what's left of our democracy.

[Irish_Dem]

14. Yes he helped destroy our democracy.

I don't think it was incompetence.

I think it was deliberate.

[onecaliberal]

45. I'd like to associate myself with your comment. This is my thought as well.

[Irish_Dem]

51. The evidence points to deliberate.

At first I gave him the benefit of the doubt and just thought he lacked courage and integrity.

Now I believe that it was a done on purpose.
He was working for the GOP the entire time.

The Hur report sealed this conclusion.

[onecaliberal]

53. Hear, hear.

[gab13by13]

13. It was only obvious

to a minority of people here. I got whacked for stating the obvious.

I only get my news from a handful of places/people. I switch on cable news and I can't believe what they are pushing.

Another problem I have seen is who Democrats have to pick for openings. They have to pick people who Manchin and Sinema will vote for. Wouldn't it have been great for someone like Sally Yates to be our AG? 20 Senate Magats voted for Merrick Garland.

[Irish_Dem]

15. Same here.

We know something was very wrong with Garland.

We have been proven correct many times over now.

The GOP can pick whoever they want for open spots.
The Dems are always backed into a corner and have to go with subpar choices.

[PTL_Mancuso]

25. Cowardly Appeasement got us here. Cowardly appeasement will take us all straight to HELL.

[BlueKota]

30. Precisely

People need to ask themselves how well appeasement worked out for Neville Chamberlain with Hitler? You can't win, if you start with the assumption that lunatic dictators are willing to play by the same rules and norms you are.

"The only thing we learn from history is we don’t learn from history."

Well some people do, but they're usually ignored completely.

[hamsterjill]

34. So did I.

I remember the many posters who jumped on us for not seeing Garland as some kind of master figure who would save the world. He has been ineffective in his role the entire time. Glad people are finally figuring it out.

You cannot fight a figure like Trump with milk toast. You need a bigger asshole than Trump to defeat Trump.

[onecaliberal]

43. I have several hide receipts and received so much hate for the comments I made about Garland sitting on his finger while

recons take our democracy.

[msfiddlestix]

63. Yes,it should have been Yates, but we know the senate maggots would have blocked the confimration And Schumer didn't

assert himself from the leadership position at the onset.
I stopped watching the Senate shortly after the nominations to cabinet posts were being successfully blocked from confirmation hearings early in Biden's admin. I just couldn't take it.

Thought it better for my mental health that I simply read about confirmations here.
I rarely read about how well the Senate leadership is handling the position these past 3+ years..
cuz I rarely see any posts referencing Schumer at all. I don't think about it much, except during times like this when we so desperately need to hear from him about what the hell SCOTS is doing to our democracy and what he intends to do about it.

[Autumn]

17. No he would not have done anything. I doubt half the maggat insurrectionists would have even been charged.

[Snoopy 7]

18. Don't forget

Obama nominated Garland because McConnell and the Republicans kept saying no to his other candidates. President Obama thought if he nominate a Republican a.k.a. Garland he might pass. Instead thre Republicans said no to that too. People don’t fool yourself Garland is a Republican, he is not a member of the Democratic Party.

[gab13by13]

22. I think he is a registered Independent

[PTL_Mancuso]

27. It's what garland does and does NOT do. It is NOT what he says he is.

[Doc Sportello]

38. IINO?

Independent In Name Only.

Our Neville Chamberlain. Waiting for the day he steps in front of the press waving a piece of paper dump signed promising to be be good.

[onecaliberal]

41. Clearly.

[Martin68]

31. I believe Schiff is right.

Garland and the FBI are deeply compromised.

[onecaliberal]

40. He is 1000% on the money.

[bmichaelh]

46. Jack Smith

Jack Smith would have been a greater choice at AG

Biden should have picked someone like him or a RFK Sr type.

RFK Sr was fearless in the Kennedy administration going after the mob.

Garland seems to be overly concerned about not appearing to be political.

If Biden wins reelection, I hope he puts Jack Smith either as AG or FBI director.

[republianmushroom]

59. Adam, an answer to your question, Hell No, way to political for the AG.

Must not look political, now.

[Skittles]

65. of course not

NOPE