General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTime to get your mind blown. Read the link and you may have to rethink trump's escape from prosecution,bullet ballots..
Garland's role, the Mafia state and on and on.
Not saying it's all true but it worth a look and it will make you think/wonder why trump is the only chief of state who attempted a coup, was not held to account, and even was allowed to run for office and in fact win election again.
https://sarahkendzior.substack.com/p/servants-of-the-mafia-state
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Fiendish Thingy
(23,235 posts)brush
(61,033 posts)jimfields33
(19,382 posts)I don’t think other countries have that. Trump wasn’t found guilty in a court of law so he’s able to run for president and allow the voters to decide.
brush
(61,033 posts)jimfields33
(19,382 posts)
viva la
(4,598 posts)And too many weak voters stayed home rather than make a choice.
Celerity
(54,407 posts)In the UK, for instance, Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1988 provides citizens the right to a fair and public trial or hearing in relation to both criminal and civil matters. Section 2 of Article 6 states , “Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law”.
Ocelot II
(130,533 posts)It's part of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. It's also in the European Convention on Human Rights which includes all of the EU countries as well as non-EU countries in Europe. It's even in Russia's constitution, not that they pay any attention to it.
cadoman
(1,617 posts)They had the goods from the bipartisan J6 committee and the issue was in the public eye.
Why were charges never brought? A lot of long-serving Republicans are sympathetic to our cause (Romney, Graham, McConnell, Murkowski, etc.). Biden was able to raise his hand and get sworn in on time. If there was a coup, how come we only have trespassing and assault charges to show for it?
Who dropped the ball??
brush
(61,033 posts)
bigtree
(94,261 posts)and did not have the burden of gathering ALL evidence related to the investigations, as DOJ does in any prosecution effort, nor do they have the burden of proving what they concluded in court.
How can anyone feel secure that what the committee revealed would be allowed to be used against Trump, especially after the SC ruling that excluded any official acts from charges or even from being used to prove other wrongdoing.
Did any of they folks touting something Congress revealed acually do the work of going back and determining what part of what they produced would be admissible in a prosecution today in the wake of the SC rulings?
Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony, for instance, which was all about her official duties, and was not included in the revised indictment after the SC ruled.
How can you judge the work of a team of over 20 career professionals without knowing the actual state and admissibility of evidence gathered? The second-guessing with these shorthand claims is just not believable.
Also, you left out the TWO multi-felony indictments which were delayed by several successive courts by dozens of often Trump or other republican appointed judges and justices when you talk about charges brought.
TheRickles
(3,386 posts)As per your thumbnail: "Without facts you can't have truth".
Fiendish Thingy
(23,235 posts)There’s a reason these CT’s aren’t being covered by the MSM or discussed by serious, reality based persons.
The burden of proof is on the one making the assertions, not the one challenging the assertions.
That burden of proof hasn’t been met for my level of critical thinking.
flying_wahini
(8,275 posts)Doesn’t sound at all kooky to me.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,235 posts)With an unbroken track record of consistently being wrong about just about everything.
H2O Man
(79,051 posts)that the article has some true and some false information. I don't think anyone is surprised when the felon is compared to a mob boss. And organized crime has played a role in various times in city, state, and federal government. And there are often connections between government and corporate & organized crime that the general public is largely unaware of.
But when one says we were told that Bill Barr, among others, would hold the felon responsible for his crimes, I must ask: who ever said that? And who did they say it to? The author provided no facts to support a rather weak claim, did she?
Many of us know that Barr's father -- a university professor and member of the OSS that morphed into the CIA -- is the individual who mentored Jeffery Epstein and got him a job at the elite private school, despite his not having a college degree. That's a connection worth considering. Bill Barr was cut from the same turd as his father. No one thought he would hold the felon to account.
SCantiGOP
(14,719 posts)When someone has to say “Not saying this is true…”, then it would be preferable not to post it here.
Ocelot II
(130,533 posts)I wouldn’t take this stuff too seriously.
brush
(61,033 posts)brush
(61,033 posts)
canetoad
(20,769 posts)And I think I've learned heaps in twenty or so years. It's so unllike ours here in Oz that it's like another planet. However, I can understand how this came about. You don't have the processes in place to quickly weed out the crims and con-men in your system. The repubs should never have allowed him to be their candidate in 2016 or this year but who is to stop them? 
The rest is pretty logical when you look at how it all works in concert. States rights, elections run by 50 states, money in politics - Democrats just can't get a break.
Lunabell
(7,309 posts)And if true, could explain a lot.
bigtree
(94,261 posts)brush
(61,033 posts)
stopdiggin
(15,463 posts)that does not qualify as either a defense of your ideas - or discussion in general.
onenote
(46,142 posts)mahatmakanejeeves
(69,850 posts)brush
(61,033 posts)What is your opinion about trump never being tried or jailed for staging a coup and is now president-elect?
I don't recall that happening in even banana republics. Even Bolsonaro of Brazil who modeled himself after trump, is now being prosecuted for trying it.
Lunabell
(7,309 posts)Apples and oranges.
And besides, not all conspiracy theories are false.
https://history.howstuffworks.com/history-vs-myth/11-unbelievable-conspiracy-theories-that-were-actually-true.htm
TheRickles
(3,386 posts)bigtree
(94,261 posts)Last edited Sat Nov 23, 2024, 11:04 PM - Edit history (1)
...is a conspiracy promoted by Spoonliars.
The author's screed against what she called, "the Biden Placeholder Presidency" is yet another in a series of demagoguery about Democrats this writer likes to invent and promote.
Both of those opportunistic cons promoted by this writer are evident in this post linked to in the op.
brush
(61,033 posts)What's your take on it? Bulltet ballots has been postulated, maybe nothing to it. But how is trump president elect after staging a coup?
Abject justice system failure, what?
Last edited Sat Nov 23, 2024, 05:58 PM - Edit history (1)
...why did you post a link to that anti-Democratic party troll as proof of anything?
She's a proven liar, as well as a known conspiracy mongerer.
brush
(61,033 posts)That's normal in your eyes?
No other country would allow it, but all you post is LOL?
bigtree
(94,261 posts)...that doesn't involve blaming DOJ for losing the election that killed their prosecutions.
Especially since there's no law or anything that prevents ANYONE from running for president and being elected and serving, even from jail.
A majority of voters decided, along with the courts and judges who diverted the trials, to end the prosecutions.
No one at DOJ, to the point of the election and the defeat of VP Harris, did a thing to make that happen. Voters rehired an already convicted criminal on their own initiative. It's not as if one more legal thing DOJ achieved which wouldn't keep them from voting him into power would have made a difference.
What more did voters need from people who aren't in anyway responsible for elective politics to make them hold up OUR own responsibility to uphold justice? Voters screwed whatever hope we had of making the DOJ efforts real.
You want to believe something else? Have at it.
brush
(61,033 posts)voted for a jailed, convicted felon?
We all saw trump on TV tell the rally crowd to storm the Capitol or "they wouldn't have a country anymore. Then we watched his obvious dereliction of duty to protect the Constitution and the nation as he watched the crowd, apparently hoping they would succeed, invade the Capitol, threatening to hang Pence and find Pelosi, and also injure police. A few even died.,
All AG Garland had to do was prosecuted him as soon as he took office as we all saw the evidence on TV. But no, he went after the small frye instead of the instigators, trump and his cabal. Garland failed IMO as trump should be in jail now.
He appointed SC Smith two years too late instead of doing it himself. Smith did a wonderful job but couldn't overcome the forces againt jailing and conviction. Why was that?
trump should've been in jail long before the corrupt SCOTUS 6 gave him immunity to commit even more crimes.
bigtree
(94,261 posts)...what you've been reading for years now.
Lol, to whatever you wrote that I meant.
brush
(61,033 posts)about a president who staged a coup not being prosecuted and jailed and now is the president-elect.
SCantiGOP
(14,719 posts)you should quit digging.
Your unfounded CT shouldn’t have been posted.
brush
(61,033 posts)is now president-elect?
...are you now?
brush
(61,033 posts)bigtree
(94,261 posts)...but in reality, most of them are really sad.
All Garland's critics managed was to divert attention from the achievements he made in making actual prosecutable evidence available for Smith and the grand jury, including the testimony of all of his top aides and attorneys after getting their privileges removed.
I often wonder why all of that has been so obscured and unremarked on by so many making little more than the equivalent of 'Garland sucks' posts.
brush
(61,033 posts)bigtree
(94,261 posts)...just happened.
Check the news.
Also, look up 'prosecution' and prosecute'.
questionseverything
(11,840 posts)The former guy would of been arrested, prosecuted and locked away for stealing an actual truckload of classified and top secret documents
returnee
(925 posts)The constitution states that an insurrectionist is not qualified to run for president. I’m not sure what SCOTUS would have done in the Colorado case, for example, if he had actually been convicted of that, but it would have been a lot harder following a conviction, which clearly cannot occur without a trial. Thus, Garland’s decisions, including the timing of those decisions, can be reasonably questioned. Why or how those decisions were made is not public knowledge as far as I know.
bigtree
(94,261 posts)...any conviction was expected to be appealed in a process that would be expected to take two to three years minimum.
But to your point, no one has actually proven that the investigation and prosecution could have been completed to any conviction on either historic, multi-felony indictment that was brought by the SC and approved by Garland (after the dual grand juries made their recommedation which the federal justice system has relied exclusively on to bring high profile charges forward) in tyme for the election.
You left out the myriad appeals by key witnesses of all important evidence and communications sought and obtained by Garland's team as early as 2021, advantaged by several successive courts involving dozens of judges, many republican and Trump=appointed, who set the dates of hearings to accomodate the effort to delay justice and keep Trump from trial before the election.
But when critics talk about Garland's responsibility to the election they forget that he doesn't make the decisions to charge anyone on his will and whim, and especially shouldn't be expected to do so in the case of his boss' political rival in an upcoming election.
Even at that, it was Garland who secured the bulk of the evidence for the SC who he hired on his own volition, successfully fighting those court battles well into Smith's term, including getting the attorney client and other privileges removed from half a dozen top Trump WH officials and lawyers who make up most of the key testimony in the indictments that the grand juries recommended.
This was a legal process, not a political one that intended to win the election for Democrats. It should never have been expected to be completed by the election, because the myriad appeals which led to the SC maga majority which just bent over backward to protect Trump right in front of us makes that a pipe dream.
returnee
(925 posts)…to decide to proceed with due speed in a case of such import. Who knows if DOJ would have achieved a conviction? We’ve all become aware of the potential delays this case, and of SCOTUS’ thumb on the scale. In my opinion, they simply did not move with sufficient and deliberate speed, not to get a Democrat in the White House in 2024, but to keep an insurrectionist out. I’d like to know why.
bigtree
(94,261 posts)...proof of your assertions?
bigtree
(94,261 posts)...there's zero evidence DOJ's investigation was hindered by the reported inter agency squabbles that Carol Leonning at WaPo and others following her clickbaited about years ago in an abandoned and discredited investigatory effort.
There's much more evidence that Garland not only proceeded directly to WH perps finances, he tied that effort to communications with the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers; including the Willard Hotel meetings; fleshing out what the vaunted Jan. 6 committee focused almost exclusively on without coming to any conclusion r proof of Trump's complicity.
Even with all of the early effort by Garland, this wans't the slam dunk so many like to portray it as. DOJ prosecuted well, and voters pulled the rug out fom under them. It's that simple.
To the point, his critics haven't shown any proof other than time-passed to the election to support their complaints. Justice doesn't have a political timetable, and it shouldn't.
What happened was an extraordinary prosecution effort unlike any other in history, which was blocked and hindered by Trump allies on the bench (up to the SC) advantaging obstructive appeals, often frivolous ones. Period.
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 benefited 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/
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/11/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel-high-profile-moves-trump-criminal-investigations/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/11/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel-high-profile-moves-trump-criminal-investigations/index.html
...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 critics want us to believe), but through corroborated evidence.
Besides, neither charges or a conviction is legally enough to keep Trump or anyone from running, being elected, or assuming office, even from jail. Or that voters just now elected a convicted felon/adjudicated rapist.
What did folks think was going to happen? These high profile cases regularly take two to three years in appeals to completely resolve (after conviction), minimum.
This is the hush money case, arguably less complex than the federal ones"
How long could this appeals process take?
It’s hard to say exactly, but the first layer of the appeal, which is just to the First Department, I would expect to take about a year. If that appeal is unsuccessful, then after about a year, he would have an opportunity to file what’s called a leave application with the New York Court of Appeals, which is confusingly the name of New York’s highest court. The lowest court was where Trump was just convicted and is called the Supreme Court. The middle layer court is called the Appellate Division.
Since the Court of Appeals is the highest court, they don’t take cases as of right—so after Trump’s first layer of appeal, he may not get another appeal. He would have to ask the New York Court of Appeals to allow him to appeal, and if they grant his leave application, only then can he actually file an appellate briefing, saying, “I was denied my constitutional rights under either the New York Constitution or the U.S. Constitution.” He can also say there was some sort of failure to follow criminal procedure. The Court of Appeals would typically decide the leave application after three to five months, and if granted, then the appeal could take probably another year, maybe a little less. And if the Court of Appeals’ decision is adverse to Trump, he could then file a petition for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, and the basis for that would have to be limited to the U.S. Constitution, rather than New York law or the New York Constitution.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/05/donald-trump-whats-next-jail-prison-appeals-process-explainer.html
returnee
(925 posts)What I will say is that the only “assertion” I made was that the constitution disqualifies insurrectionists from being president. The receipt is the document itself. Let me remind you, my initial response was to correct you saying that ANYONE could conduct a presidency from prison. NOT and insurrectionist. You could have just admitted your error.
Everything else will have to wait. Right now I don’t have the time or energy to review your onslaught of a response.
bigtree
(94,261 posts)...but it doesn't get you to the story you say you want to know and understand.
This doesn't have to be a confrontation of beliefs. It should be a discussion about what actually occurred, without supposition substituting for facts.
You want to have a fact free discussion? I'm not the person to respond to with an expectation of interest, using supposition as your primary point.
There's no value at all in evidence-free observations about a legal process in which it's definitions require proof and corroboration to make them substantive and real.
Funny reading your response to my little post. Where do you expect to get answers about the actual case, other than to view what's actually in evidence of the prosecutions? At some point supposition needs to yield to realities and facts, or it's just an endless loop of projections from imaginations.
returnee
(925 posts)..that the investigation and prosecution of this case against Trump, et al, was large and complex. This is not news. What is also clear is that with all these endeavors, justice for “the people” has not been served, and most likely never will be, and that our very government is at severe risk as a result. I am not impressed with the “twice the size of the Mueller team,” as indicating an appropriate designation of resources.
It seems almost impossible at worst, or counterproductive at best, to ignore the political implications of the case(s). That does not make it a “political prosecution.” How things are done usually is not necessarily how they should always be done. If the DOJ needed ten times the size of the Mueller team, that ‘s what they should have had. Prioritizing the lower level actors over the highest level actors (as far as completing prosecutions) may have been a poor allocation of resources, particularly considering that may of the convicted may well be pardoned, or have their sentences commuted, or their verdicts vacated-a complete waste of time and resources in the end.
I’m pretty sure you and I are not going to agree in our perspectives on this. So be it. I’m not looking for trouble.
bigtree
(94,261 posts)Last edited Sun Nov 24, 2024, 10:09 PM - Edit history (1)
...the fact that it fell to Garland's DOJ to arrest and prosecute over 1200 white supremacist Trumpers who rioted at the Capitol on charges up to the rare crime of Sedition does not mean that he was "prioritizing the lower level actors over the highest level actors.:
As you can read from what I posted, Garland's prosecutors and investigators were looking into financial ties between the WH and the riot leaders as early as 2021, seizing phone and other communications from WH perps like Guiliani, Jeffery Clark, and others to determine the extent of collusion between them.
As we all watched, this was the very focus of the vaunted Jan. 6 committee, looking for ties between rioters and the WH.
That evidence was immediately appealed and tied up in courts for at least a year before DOJ prosecutore could use those in grand jury hearings or any other venue.
The cooperation of the 'lower level actors' is mentioned in his latest filing and was the basis for the complicity he found, outlined in his indictment and revealed in the filing, that Trump bore responsibility 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.
I took time to spell out several reasons why the process was delayed and showed extrordinary efforts from Garland's DOJ from as early as 2021 to gather evidence and make it available to grand juries AFTER it went through a withering series of appeals and challenges through several successive courts with dozens of often republican and Trump-appointed judges and justuces who advantaged those obstructive appeals by detting court dates well into the future.
Arbitrary suppositions about 'allocation of resources' is just dancing around the evidence right in front of us.
I'm lost as to what 'trouble' you're referring to in discussing this. Nothing that you wrote addresses or describes anything DOJ has done, as it comes with zero receipts. It's essentially speculation that is at odds with the facts in the investigations and prosecutions.
It doesn't hold water. It doesn't illuminate anything but lack of knowledge about the investigations and prosecutions (and in these postings, impatience in reasoning through actual facts when provided).
Maybe what you meant was disagreement, you don't want to further disagreement. But this is how we learn; not only asking questions, but taking the time to listen when someone takes the time to answer.
Lunabell
(7,309 posts)Not Democrat party. That's what the trolls call us.
bigtree
(94,261 posts)...with all of that anti-Democratic vileness hidden behind a seemingly innocuous link to a post casting blame for what voters did, onto the DOJ which worked to hold Trump accountable.
You called out a typo, but ignored the actual anti-Democratic demagoguery linked to in the op.
You seem to be very hostile and angry. I hope you feel better soon.
bigtree
(94,261 posts)...one person writes about their antipathy and contempt for Democrats and our party; another posts the drivel; and others nod and cheer along.
I don't believe any of that hostility toward the party or the Biden WH should find refuge here on this Democratic party-supporting website.
Is that the kind of angry you're talking about?
Or is it something about my support for the investigation and prosecution which brought two historic multi-felony indictments against the former president, and my pushback against infactual and fact-free criticisms of the AG who made most of that happen that you're having trouble understanding?
Lunabell
(7,309 posts)I'm glad you edited your post to correct the typo. Maybe if you weren't so furiously keyboarding your reply, you would catch such an error in the future. Take care.
bigtree
(94,261 posts)...and, lawd, are we really doing Konspiracy Kendzior's substacks here again?
brush
(61,033 posts)bigtree
(94,261 posts)...I think all of the hot air surrounding this should be looked at, as well, since we're citing unrelated things that happened at the same time.
brush
(61,033 posts)bigtree
(94,261 posts)...who assaulted the Capitol, on charges up to the crime of Sedition.
The man who not only is responsible for gathering the majority of evidence used in the TWO historic multi-felony indictments of the former president, but was also responsible for successfully fighting to preserve those communications and other evidence gathered since as early as 2021, but fought in myriad courts for well over a year, into the SC's term, to successfully remove the attorney client and other privileges from top WH aides and lawyers so they would be able to testify to the DUAL grand juries who the federal justice system uses to make the recs to charge perps.
You've completely ignored the courts and judges who delayed hearings to keep Trump from facing justice.
You fail to even bother to mention that it was the withering series of appeals of evidence gathered by Garland's team from as early as 2021, and the republican and Trump appointed judges and Justices, all colluding to keep the legal process from allowing the SC to move to trial.
I always wonder why the actual people who were invested in keeping Trump from facing justice escape ANY accountability from people who keep insisting the people working overtime to prosecute Trump are to blame.
I'm sure can find takers for that convolution of blame in the op's linked-to, but you can't sell it to me. I won't defend the revisionist and imagined nonsense that comes with all of the Garland derisions.
Dishing it out with a link from an anti-Democratic party troll with a substack isn't working either.
brush
(61,033 posts)Last edited Sat Nov 23, 2024, 08:53 PM - Edit history (1)
bigtree
(94,261 posts)...I'm going to guess it'll be all blah, blah, blah, when the SC report is released, and all of the evidence Garland successfully acquired for the Smith, the grand juries, and myriad courts along the way points clearly to Trump's guilt.
Going to be interesting to watch the imaginations of the Fantasy Internet Prosecution scrambling to square their claims there wasn't an actual prosecution with the prosecutorial realities revealed in the actual indictments.
Will the FIP admit the evidence of guilt revealed in the indictments came from the DOJ prosecutors, or will they still be insisting the pundits, press, and internet prosecutors know better how to get a prosecution of a former president through the maze of republican judges and justuces doing their best to keep Trump from answering the charges already brought, in a courtroom?
Just spitballing here, since you're not really listening.
Ocelot II
(130,533 posts)that he's "a mafia state enabler," a "cog who serves corrupt interests" and "a protector of the criminal elite" who is therefore somehow responsible for the alleged sins of Jamie Gorelick. I think most people would agree that Garland did not move quickly enough to investigate and prosecute Trump, and I am not defending him for that failure. However, I saw no evidence in that screed that either he or Jamie Gorelick are "corrupt enablers of criminal acts" - which is to say that he (they) intended the result that Trump would not be prosecuted. To say that Garland dropped the ball is fair criticism; to say he did so with the specific intent to protect Trump is close to defamatory. If Trump hadn't won the election Jack Smith's prosecution would have continued, but whether it would have been successful will never be known. For that matter, if Garland had moved faster and taken the cases to grand juries a year sooner, it's still unknown whether Trump would have been tried and convicted. Given the unusual nature of the cases and the high burden of proof required of prosecutors, it's quite possible he'd have been acquitted. (If you want to point a finger at the individual who is far more responsible for the situation we're in now I'd suggest pointing it at Mitch McConnell.)
In any event, Kendzior's opinion is just an opinion devoid of facts, concluding without evidence that the fact that Garland and Gorelick are friends means they are both engaged in some nefarious conspiracy to "protect the criminal elite" for which Democrats and Republicans are equally at fault. I don't buy it.
brush
(61,033 posts)I surely do. No other G-7 or G-20 state for that matter, would stand for it.
The United States does now.
IMO Garland should've prosecuted trump immediately on taking office as we all saw the evidence on his attempted coup and dereliction of duty to defend the Constitution and the nation as he watched it on TV and did nothing.
All that should've been done by Garland way before the corrupt SCOTUS 6 had a chance to step in and give trump absolute immunity for 'official acts'. The post has much to do with Garland's failure.
Ocelot II
(130,533 posts)They will die on the vine, though, because Trump's corrupt new AG will see to that by firing Jack Smith. But Trump was indicted on multiple counts in two different federal jurisdictions, and it was only on account of Judge Cannon's ridiculous ruling in FL (which is on appeal right now) and the ridiculous SCOTUS decision granting immunity for certain official acts that those prosecutions were impeded and could not be concluded before the election. That is not the fault of DoJ. Moreover, there's never been any guarantee that these prosecutions would have been successful if allowed to continue to trial, regardless when they could have been commenced. What if the J/6 case had gone to trial before the election and Trump was acquitted? IMO that would have sucked as much as no trial at all.
brush
(61,033 posts)SC Smith, who btw, did a wonderful job against the resistance, reluctance and foot-dragging to prosecute trump.
Ocelot II
(130,533 posts)I'm just questioning whether it really would have changed anything if he'd moved faster. I'm also arguing that there's no evidence that he's part of a nefarious plot by Democrats and Republicans to protect a government mafia. Also, some heads of state in democracies have, in fact, managed to avoid prosecution, e.g., Netanyahu. He's been indicted in Israel but, like Trump, so far he's still free and he's still the PM. The ICC has issued an arrest warrant for war crimes charges but as long as he stays in Israel or visits only the US he won't face consequences.
brush
(61,033 posts)buys everything in the post, especially about Dems and rethugs and Mafia, but something sure make you wonder how we've allowed trump to run and be elected again. The United States, the nation others have always looked to as a beacon of democracy and rule of law.
Now we've allowed a convicted criminal to go un-prosecuted andbe re-elected to head the government he tried to overthrow.
The good thing about DU is it's a discussion board and we're discussing it.
Ocelot II
(130,533 posts)by a court in NY and he was indicted on multiple felony counts in two different federal jurisdictions. He can't be both a convicted criminal and un-prosecuted because in order to have been convicted he had to be prosecuted in the first place! He has not had to pay a penalty yet, and might never, but that's on account of the SCOTUS decision. The larger issue isn't that he wasn't prosecuted, because he was prosecuted, but that we live in a society so debased that a narrow majority voted for him anyhow.
brush
(61,033 posts)Ocelot II
(130,533 posts)And since it has been timely filed, which means Trump has no statute of limitations defense, there's no reason it can't be just held in abeyance until he's out of office, and restarted (assuming a Democrat wins in 2028). Smith's superseding indictment complies with SCOTUS' immunity decision and re-files those charges that are not based on official acts. Even the FL case that Cannon dismissed is on appeal. That one doesn't have to go away permanently either. Read Laurence Tribe's post:
Trump’s claim that the “People†voted on Nov 5 to permanently dismiss all criminal cases pending against him is absurd. He was elected for 4 more years, not for life! At most his election argues for freezing the cases while he’s in office — until Jan 20, 2029. Or is he telling us he’ll never leave?
— Laurence H. Tribe (@tribelaw.bsky.social) 2024-11-21T04:25:36.626Z
brush
(61,033 posts)Last edited Sat Nov 23, 2024, 10:10 PM - Edit history (1)
from him.
Let's face it. He's a dictator and we've allowed it.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)When were charges filed for the insurrection?
I feel like I wouldn't have missed that but maybe I did somehow.
Ocelot II
(130,533 posts)TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)
Joinfortmill
(21,163 posts)TheRickles
(3,386 posts)Ninga
(9,012 posts)LudwigPastorius
(14,725 posts)Her take on the Republican and Democratic parties:
She sounds pretty fucking nutty to me.
bigtree
(94,261 posts)what she wrote:
The Biden Placeholder Presidency was designed to exist between two terms of Trump, Mafia Grover Cleveland style. The threat of Trump returning to office to complete his autocratic agenda is severe. But that he is able to do it – that the US is the only country in history to allow a coup to go unpunished and a seditionist to run for president again – is due to Garland, the DOJ, and their accomplices in Congress.
...in the article posted in the op, she linked to another post of hers where she originated that foul rhetoric about Pres. Biden - anti-Democratic rantings and anti-Biden screeds wrapped around the notion that Garland is our enemy and purposefully allowed Trump to skate.
brush
(61,033 posts)Last edited Sun Nov 24, 2024, 02:53 PM - Edit history (1)
is re-elected after staging a coup. How? Why is the United States the only nation to allow such a thing?
muriel_volestrangler
(106,211 posts)You post it, and then, after criticism, say "I don't agree with the main message, but something in there sounds right". What? And why didn't you start by saying "this is mainly complete crap"?
brush
(61,033 posts)Are critical thinking skills a thing of the past on DU now?
muriel_volestrangler
(106,211 posts)So, again, which parts of it do you think are true?
brush
(61,033 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(106,211 posts)brush
(61,033 posts)insurrection by encouraging a rally crowd to storm the capitol, then watch it on TV himself for three plus hours seemingly hoping it would succeed, without putting a stop to it as commander-in-chief of all US armed forces. That's called dereliction of duty and his oath to defend the Constitution and the nation.
The orange turd finally had to be called out by a woman, Cassidy Hutchinson, to get up off his ass and do something to stop it.
The US has been the beacon of democracy and law and order to other nations for centuries and this stuff should not be happening here...and that includes TSF not being prosecuted and jailed (a sorry AG IMO) , and then being allowed to run again, get the rethug nod, and then win by allegedly getting everyone of the swing states despite VP Harris' huge canvassing effort in the swing states...bringing in door knockers from states as far away as NY to Penn, and to AZ from Calif.
Hard to believe all or what I just wrote, and just as hard to completely dismiss everything in the blog.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,211 posts)It's "the US is a Mafia state" (read the title), "woven of decades of deceit and impunity". And it accuses Jamie Gorelick of being the chief operative of this "Mafia state" in the DOJ. It is a massive, paranoid, conspiracy theory. It does not accuse Garland of being "a sorry AG", it accuses him of being utterly corrupt. The disgusting Kendzior was calling Biden a "placeholder" in Nov 2023, and saying she'd said that since mid-2021.
What you're promoting here as "mind-blowing" is a lunatic far-left "Dems and Repubs are all in it together as criminals" conspiracy theory. It is, frankly, the kind of thing that it you'd excerpted any 4 paragraphs of it in the OP would have got it hidden, because it's as bad as anything from Jill Stein.
It's like the people saying "RFK Jr makes good points - sugar is bad for us, and we can ignore the anti-vax antisemitic crap that he spends 99% of hie tims and energy on".
brush
(61,033 posts)brush
(61,033 posts)not what you cherry picked. If not, pls disengage.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,211 posts)The vast majority of the substack post is a character assassination of the whole career of Jamie Gorelick. She's accusing her of being an operative of the "Mafia state". And then she's damning Garland, because she "is Merrick Garland’s foremost influence, and she advises him to this day". And she claims the "Biden Placeholder Presidency was designed to exist between two terms of Trump". Think about that. That's saying that Biden, or Some People Who Secretly Control Him, is in league with the Mafia state of which Trump is another operative.
It doesn't call Garland a "sorry AG", it calls him a "servant of the Mafia state". And, frankly, it calls President Biden that too. Fuck, it even accuses Gorelick and Garland of burying the Epstein case.
brush
(61,033 posts)I agree that her general premise isn't kosher that the the orange turd should be allowed to go unpunished for inciting a riot and then being allowed to run again and win.
General premise. understand? Meaning I don't go along with every thing verbatim. Get it?
Sorry, seems we'll never see eye to eye. Pls disengage or I'll have to block you.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,211 posts)It is that Jamie Gorelick, and Merrick Garland, are a major part of a decades-long conspiracy to cover up multiple crimes, and to install Trump as president in 2024.
Oh no, you'll block me. Who cares? I engage with you because you're spreading a vile anti-Democratic conspiracy theory and saying "there's something in it". I'll continue to engage, by opposing, anyone who tries that on DU, whether they've blocked me or not.
Joinfortmill
(21,163 posts)That is a despicable thing to say about a great President and honorable man.
Takket
(23,715 posts)They delayed for EVERYTHING, not Garland, and issued nonsensical rulings like the immunity one that shocked the world and stopped DOJ dead in its tracks. four fucking years of appeals, delays, motions......... lawyers and corrupt judges ran out the clock. Smith was ready for trial the whole time.
I'll blame Garland for one thing. He should have been more vocal with the American people about how he disagreed with these bullshit rulings and delays. I don't think the public knows even half the story of what went on.
The OP is nothing more than a cathartic list of grievances. Not a legal analysis of any kind.
I don't like garland at all. He should have been fired for releasing the Hur report. But on the list of people who helped drumpf escape all his crimes, he's quite a ways down.
GreenWave
(12,641 posts)Response to brush (Original post)
polichick This message was self-deleted by its author.
brush
(61,033 posts)Response to brush (Reply #38)
polichick This message was self-deleted by its author.
MustLoveBeagles
(16,406 posts)
ecstatic
(35,075 posts)and it's all stuff I've already been thinking for months. Garland is a traitor, and he, like other past and present stooges at the doj, are more concerned about protecting the doj than they are with upholding the law equally. The ONLY time those mofos get emotional is when they're defending themselves. That tells you everything you need to know.
Gaetz and trump should be in prison, along with others who literally tried to overthrow the country. It is unforgivable that trump is being allowed back into the white house. We were not protected. We were let down in the worst way. I'm disgusted with everyone who took part in the farce, and disappointed with Biden's attempt to normalize a dangerous and incompetent traitor during that white house meeting.
brush
(61,033 posts)harumph
(3,278 posts)I've wondered whether we are all in denial about the ways things actually work.
Although the article of the OP seems far fetched, oftentimes I've wondered about how everything just fell into place for Trump and
our government lacks the CAPACITY or WILLINGNESS (it's one or the other folks) to protect itself from an existential threat to
democracy itself. Trump is clearly the most serious intelligence threat this country has faced and apparently, the STATE is conceding (by its inaction) nothing he has done is actionable.
Maybe our "betters" have decided that nation states are to be deprecated in favor of a few rich fucks that will own us all.
Of course performative voting will still be encouraged - (see Russia).
tenderfoot
(8,982 posts)Both have been correct about a lot of things.
bigtree
(94,261 posts)...Putin-apologista associated wth RT.
Peas in a pod.
tenderfoot
(8,982 posts)eom
Ponietz
(4,330 posts)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_diGenova
bucolic_frolic
(55,137 posts)Things they should tell you in PoliSci 101. You are about as likely to hold any power as to be a professional basketball player. What politicians do will frustrate you. You're better off with politics as a side gig.
SCantiGOP
(14,719 posts)then it shouldn’t be posted.
brush
(61,033 posts)You have problems with questioning how a coup instigator who we watched on TV actually commit dereliction of duty to protect the Constitution and nation as he watched the insurrection for three plus hours without doing anything to stop it?
tritsofme
(19,900 posts)brush
(61,033 posts)tritsofme
(19,900 posts)would post such a nonsense article attacking Democrats and spreading ridiculously dumb conspiracy theories.
brush
(61,033 posts)tritsofme
(19,900 posts)Thanks!
AverageOldGuy
(3,835 posts). . . has gone off the charts.
Hekate
(100,133 posts)
stopdiggin
(15,463 posts)But - it's OK, because it's supposed to "make us think ..."
Even while the poster claims not to necessarily believe such conspiratorial nonsense - - such as the Biden admin conspiring in plans to return Trump to the presidency .... But, you know ... Food for thought.
- - - - - 
- - - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
- - - - - -
ColinC
(11,098 posts)
LearnedHand
(5,499 posts)But I'd sure like to know her sources. It she has them she certainly doesn't cite them.
This is doubly frustrating when we're already looking for logical reasons this whole thing has gone to shit. Very easy to slip into conspiracy thinking, very hard to not let it get a claw in you.
brush
(61,033 posts)Last edited Sun Nov 24, 2024, 01:04 AM - Edit history (1)
with comspiracy thinking. I doubt anyone believes everything in the OP, but somethings sure make you wonder how the United States has allowed a convicted, mentally declining, crminal liar, coup-atempting insurrectionist to not be prosecuted and jailed to run for president again, and then to actually get elected again and is now a dictator.
Only in America I guess. Not in any of the other G-7 or G-20 democracies.
LearnedHand
(5,499 posts)Just because this piece feels good -- it names enemy entities we can understand, e.g. -- it doesn't mean we start out own critical thinking journey by wholly accepting the writer's starting place. She has a lot of work to do to prove the validity of her claims.
brush
(61,033 posts)
Lonestarblue
(13,480 posts)Anywhere. If voting machines were hacked, they would need to be examined and their tabulations compared with hand counted ballots. To my knowledge, not one investigation has been launched to see if that happened.
In 2020, contested states like Georgia counted and recounted and compared paper ballots to tabulations. In 2024, was it an oddity that 10 million people who voted for Biden in 2020 just didn’t vote in 2024? No investigations have been done.
Joinfortmill
(21,163 posts)flying_wahini
(8,275 posts)We are totally fucked.
Ocelot II
(130,533 posts)so I wouldn't worry too much about becoming chilled by this particular lump of it.
bigtree
(94,261 posts)...and this infactual, evidence-free rant against Democrats and Pres. Biden comes from a known anti-Democratic party conspiracy mongerer.
Poorly written, at that, like a high-schooler feeling their new political enlightenment, but it's ostensibly from an educated person, so it actually reads like con for rubes giving her money to continue this anti-Democratic party conspiracy enterprise of hers and whatever she can get followers to buy into.
I'd ask for some proof before signing on, but your mileage may vary.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,211 posts)Quotes:
...
The DOJ appears to have a troll bot farm that recites identical mantras praising the attorney general. If any other country had an online propaganda operation for a powerful prosecutor, used to harass journalists and other critics, we would rightly view that country as a mafia state.
The DOJ also has an army of podcast propagandists and legal pundits who falsely claim that justice is imminent. They have spent years assuring the public of this imminent justice, like televangelists who steal your money while moving the end times date down the line.
...
The person who gave Gorelick these jobs is Joseph Biden. Under Biden, Gorelick serves in the Department of Homeland Security, despite her record of abetting criminality and her conflicts of interest in the private sector. In 2022, Gorelick was promoted by Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to the DHS advisory council while the department fell under criticism for abuse of migrants, a travesty it commits to this day.
And if you're "not saying it's all true", then the least you could do is point out which bits you think are made-up, and which bits you believe. Would you like us to assign the most idiotic bits to you?
What has this to do with "bullet ballots", by the way? Not mentioned in the article at all, and as far as I can see, the 2024 election is not discussed at all. It's really a hit piece (some of which you think may be lies) on Garland and Gorelick. But not just a "they're milquetoast" or "incompetent" accusation - it's claiming the Biden presidency was "designed" to let Trump back in. You may as well say "I, brush, think the Democrats are in league with the Republicans".
Defend yourself.
brush
(61,033 posts)here.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,211 posts)It might prevent you from posting links to turds like this one.
