Bashing Garland for the election? Spell out the evidence he supposedly had that he could have used to convict Trump
...I'd guess that first you would need to know the actual state and nature of the evidence he supposedly had in hs posession.
Then you need to tell us whether the perp he seized or obtained it from had challenged Garland's prosecutors ability to use it in any prosecution.
Next you need to tell us the outcome of those challenges over issues like privilege for the top aides and attorneys, and how much time the judges in those cases allowed between hearings. (Clue: it took years for some evidence to become available, and other evidence was tied up in those very hearings until they were resolved in DOJ's favor, like Giuliani's phone which didn't get unlocked for a year afterward. Or Jeffery Clark's which they seized in 2021, or Jenna Ellis'?)
I've been told over and over that Garland, not his prosecutors, should have brought charges against Trump at the start of his term as AG.
Ignoring the fact that Garland doesn't just bring charges forward, himself, on his will and whim, and that DOJ uses grand juries to recommend charges AFTER they present enough evidence to convince them to recomment indictments, what do those who insist he could have prosecuted the cases sooner, early in his term, believe he had in his posession, other than the news articles, news reports, or tweets that most critics rely on to make this judgment?
Keep in mind that all DOJ investigations are done in secret, and don't reveal details in ongoing cases except in court filings and court testimony.
So, tell me. What evidence did Garland's prosecutors have in their posession early in his term that was actually available to him to use in any prosecution against Trump, that wasn't tied up in appeals courts?
And, can you describe how whatever you've imagined up in the way of evidence would suffice to convict him through the certain series of appeals?
Then, maybe tell me how a DOJ prosecution or conviction could stop anyone seeking the office or anyone elected to it. There's no law against a felon running or serving, even from jail, so...
= new reply since forum marked as read
...and was the basis for the complicity he found, outlined in his indictment, revealed in the filing, that Trump bore for the riot.
Not just what we saw in teevee, but actual 'foot soldier' cooperative testimony.
Besides, we knew from earlier reports that over a dozen Oath Keepers and some Proud Boys had provided helpful info to prosecutors:
receipt:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/11/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel-high-profile-moves-trump-criminal-investigations/index.html
Moreover, Jack Smith's latest filing says they intended to use “forensic evidence” from Trump’s iPhone to provide insight into Trump’s actions after the attack at the Capitol.
Not just clips from teevee, which the DOJ team of career prosecutors obviously didn't believe would suffice. But I'm going to guess internet fantasy prosecution players will insist differently than the experts actually involved.
Apparently he is the first AG ever that was 100 percent perfect during his 4 years. Completely unassailable in every way. No notes. 
Last edited Sun Nov 10, 2024, 12:18 AM - Edit history (3)
...they just criticize a bottom up investigation.
But they begin with this truth that most people who criticize Garland ignore:
Mr. Garland said he would place no restrictions on their work, even if the “evidence leads to Trump,” according to people with knowledge of several conversations held over his first months in office.
“Follow the connective tissue upward,” said Mr. Garland, adding a directive that would eventually lead to a dead end: “Follow the money.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/22/us/politics/trump-jan-6-merrick-garland.html
...and they did just that:
...but Thrush is demonstratively misleading on this second point:
It has resurfaced a question that has long dogged Mr. Garland: What took so long?
It would take the department nearly a year to focus on the actions contained in the indictment ultimately brought by Jack Smith, the special counsel Mr. Garland later named to oversee the prosecution: systematic lies about election fraud, the pressure campaign on Vice President Mike Pence, the effort to replace legitimate state electors with ersatz ones.
...it 'took a year,' not because Garland dithered in gathering evidence, but because the evidence he was gathering from principle WH perps was challenged by them on grounds of privilege.
The word 'focused' is doing a lot of the disinformation here. How did they not 'focus' on evidence they were gathering, defending the seizures in courts?
The resulting hearings dates for each of those perps challenges were set by JUDGES in COURTS, not by Garland, whose team fought each and every one of them successfully.
That doesn't happen by just going into court and presenting what Thrush describes as something we all saw, presumably on teevee.
That ultimately successful effort by Garland's team in often successive courts to knock down appeals and challenges and make evidence they gathered as early as the Fall of 2021 available to them for any prosecution, and the arrests and charging of rioters - many who served as cooperators.
receipts:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/11/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel-high-profile-moves-trump-criminal-investigations/index.html
May 2021:
Prosecutors took 18 electronic devices from Rudy Giuliani’s home and office in April raid
As part of the same investigation, agents last month also executed a search warrant at the home of Victoria Toensing, a lawyer and Giuliani ally.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/20/politics/rudy-giuliani-raid/index.html
Jeffrey Clark's electronic devices were seized by federal agents in June 2021 "in connection with an investigation into violations of 18 U.S.C. 1001, which relates to false statements, 18 U.S.C. 371, which relates to conspiracy, and 18 U.S.C. 1512, which relates to obstruction of justice". The agents were looking for evidence of crimes of making false statements, criminal conspiracy and obstruction of justice. The raid took place at Clark's house in Northern Virginia, and his electronic devices were seized.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/jeffrey-clark-trump-considered-ag-phone-seized-obstruction-probe-rcna47923
April 14, 2022
Giuliani helps feds unlock devices as charging decision looms
Giuliani unlocked several devices, or gave investigators possible passwords.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/giuliani-helps-unlock-electronic-devices-feds-decision-looms/story?id=84081611
...emptywheel on the evidence seized early on and the challenges brought by the perps:
In Rudy Giuliani’s case, a privilege review of his phone content took nine months (though that review incorporated content relating to January 6, so it has been done since January 2022). In Enrique Tarrio’s case (largely due the security he used on his phone), it took over a year to access the content on his phone. In Scott Perry’s case, prosecutors are still working on it seven months later. In James O’Keefe’s unrelated case, Project Veritas still has one more chance to prevent prosecutors from getting evidence the FBI seized in November 2021, almost 17 months ago. You can’t skip privilege reviews, because if you do, key evidence will get thrown out during prosecution, rendering any downstream evidence useless as well.
In cases of privilege, DOJ first gets grand jury testimony where the witness invokes privilege, and then afterwards makes a case that the needs of the investigation overcome any privilege claim. DOJ first started pursuing privileged testimony regarding events involving Mike Pence with grand jury testimony from Pence aides Greg Jacob and Marc Short last July, then with testimony from the two Pats, Cipollone and Philbin, in August. It got privilege-waived testimony from Pence’s aides in October and from the two Pats on December 2. That process undoubtedly laid the groundwork for this week’s DC Circuit ruling that people like Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino must likewise testify to the grand jury.
By the time DOJ first overtly subpoenaed material in the fake electors plot last May, it had done the work to obtain cloud content from John Eastman and Jeffrey Clark. If DOJ had obtained warrants for the already seized phone content from Rudy — which is likely given the prominence of Victoria Toensing from the start of the fake elector subpoenas — then it would have built on content it obtained a year earlier in another investigation.
Some of this undoubtedly benefitted from the January 6 Committee’s work. I would be shocked, for example, if DOJ didn’t piggyback on Judge David Carter’s March 28, 2022 decision ruling some of John Eastman’s communications to be crime-fraud excepted. As NYT reported in August, in May 2022, DOJ similarly piggybacked on J6C’s earlier subpoenas to the National Archives (and in so doing avoided any need to alert Joe Biden to the criminal, as opposed to congressional, investigation); this is consistent with some of what Mueller did in the Russian investigation. Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony, obtained via trust earned by Liz Cheney, has undoubtedly been critical. But the January 6 Committee also likely created recent delays in the January 6 and Georgia investigation, thanks to the delayed release of transcripts showing potentially exculpatory testimony.
But much of it preceded the January 6 Committee. I’ve shown, for example, that DOJ had a focus on Epshteyn before J6C first publicly mentioned his role in the fake electors plot. Toensing’s involvement came entirely via the DOJ track.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/04/06/the-testimony-jack-smith-gets-this-week-builds-on-work-from-over-a-year-ago/
...to the op again, to which posting a link isn't actually answering the questions I posed, what specific evidence was available to use in a prosecution in the first year.
We can see that evidence was tied up in challenges to warrants and claims of privilege, as well as outright recalcitrance by perps, sometimes for years.
Understanding that the charging decisions aren't made by Garland, but rather, approved by him after the process of prosecutors presenting evidence to a grand jury, what evidence are critics claiming Garland had which assured a conviction in his first year?
Not knowing the actual nature or state of evidence they had in their possession at the time, and not just because most of that is secret except for what the targets reveal and filing and testimony and statements in court, what position do you think Thrush is in to make that determination, over and above the judgments of the over 20 prosecutors Garland had on the case?
receipts for '20 prosecutors' :
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/11/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel-high-profile-moves-trump-criminal-investigations/index.html
...besides, Smith obviously didn't believe the teevee clips we all saw were enough to convict because, he made clear in his latest filing that he was seeking to use “forensic evidence” from Trump’s iPhone to corroborate his assertions Trump instigated the riot.
Not just clips from teevee, which the DOJ team of career prosecutors obviously didn't believe would suffice (like Thrush wants readers believe), but through corroborated evidence.
I'm going to say, that's one of the problems with using old, speculative articles to make these points.
Jack Smith came into what was reported as a 'fast moving investigation,' that had already gathered more evidence than Mueller had when he began.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/11/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel-high-profile-moves-trump-criminal-investigations/index.html
Response to bigtree (Original post)
...you, otoh, are just personalizing what is a simple query.
People will disagree, but I would appreciate some proof to these arguments that Garland did something wrong. I offer rebuttals here, all through the page.
Should be a simple thing to either respond or not.
Looking forward to these dead horse arguments against threads bashing the AG.
...oh, and I forgot to tell you to enjoy your stay. 
Response to bigtree (Reply #71)
...my wish is that you're able to cope better.
