Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(96,641 posts)
33. "Here in America, we don't ever prosecute former presidents, regardless of the facts."
Tue Sep 14, 2021, 10:51 PM
Sep 2021

That would be option three: Garland doesn't intend to prosecute.

Regardless of whether you think "that's the way we do things", we're dealing with an Attorney General NOW who's dealing with criminal investigations NOW. If criminal activity has occurred and the DEMOCRATIC Attorney General chooses NOT to prosecute them because "we don't do that", you've made your choice.

I hope it is #1. I honestly don't have a sense but I do think Garland would be strategic. hlthe2b Sep 2021 #1
I'll credit our media for keeping the pressure, off. ShazamIam Sep 2021 #2
You're saying Garland needs to be pressured? brooklynite Sep 2021 #3
No, I mean if the media pressured, the DOJ would have been on a hiring spree; immediately after the ShazamIam Sep 2021 #4
"the DOJ would have been on a hiring spree" brooklynite Sep 2021 #5
I'm only basing it on my near instant recollection of the crimes of the Trump administration. Of ShazamIam Sep 2021 #7
"my near instant recollection of the crimes of the Trump administration" brooklynite Sep 2021 #9
I don't know. What do you think, is it projection? ShazamIam Sep 2021 #13
WTF knows Historic NY Sep 2021 #6
What is your answer? dpibel Sep 2021 #8
As stated before, I'm comfortable that indictments will be forthcoming when there's a case... brooklynite Sep 2021 #10
So safe with all outcomes! dpibel Sep 2021 #11
"And if they don't, there wasn't a case!" brooklynite Sep 2021 #12
Fascinating dpibel Sep 2021 #14
Can I distinguish between the two cases? Yes. brooklynite Sep 2021 #15
Oh, my dpibel Sep 2021 #17
Of course I understand prosecutorial discretion. Provide evidence that it's occurring. brooklynite Sep 2021 #19
"Provide evidence that it's occurring"?? dpibel Sep 2021 #23
The difference is that my assessment doesn't then require an assumption that..... brooklynite Sep 2021 #26
Well, gosh dpibel Sep 2021 #29
"Here in America, we don't ever prosecute former presidents, regardless of the facts." brooklynite Sep 2021 #33
That's one of the oddest things I've ever read dpibel Sep 2021 #37
The POINT is that YOU'RE jumping to: "the AG has chosen not to prosecute" brooklynite Sep 2021 #40
I'm sticking with dpibel Sep 2021 #43
This poll is absolutely biased. And isn't intended to reveal facts... brooklynite Sep 2021 #45
Duly asked dpibel Sep 2021 #46
I didn't vote for Johnson (because I was 5) brooklynite Sep 2021 #47
Well, OK. I accept your concession. dpibel Sep 2021 #48
Of course being a Democrat doesn't equate to being ethical... brooklynite Sep 2021 #49
Prove your unicorns! dpibel Sep 2021 #50
The Georgia state prosecutor isn't even close to being in the same category as Merrick Garland StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #35
I'm sorry that you don't understand dpibel Sep 2021 #44
Michael Cohen served time for campaign finance violations gab13by13 Sep 2021 #16
Okay, let's parse this... brooklynite Sep 2021 #18
Given what Cohen has said dpibel Sep 2021 #20
"What do you figger the prosecutor's doubt is based on?" brooklynite Sep 2021 #21
You're out of your element dpibel Sep 2021 #25
Same reason Jesus hasn't come back yet Effete Snob Sep 2021 #22
"They" might be "you" but it's not "us" questionseverything Sep 2021 #24
So President Obama and his Attorney General wasn't "us" either? This is getting confusing. brooklynite Sep 2021 #27
It really shouldn't be dpibel Sep 2021 #31
You can criticize his POLICIES all you want... brooklynite Sep 2021 #34
The evidence is all over c span this morning questionseverything Sep 2021 #51
If there is a prosecution iemanja Sep 2021 #28
It's going to be hard to make a case against Trump. Calista241 Sep 2021 #30
Exactly LeftInTX Sep 2021 #38
It will be hard to prove a case against him, but testimony about anything he said is not necessarily StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #42
They never went after Bush Co. Johonny Sep 2021 #32
The cases against Bush were much more complex. The shitbeast is more of a blatant criminal. LymphocyteLover Sep 2021 #36
I disagree Johonny Sep 2021 #39
I agree the torture was a clear cut case for an international court but it was never going to be LymphocyteLover Sep 2021 #52
Doubt DOJ has trump high on their list at this time. Hoyt Sep 2021 #41
Trump is rich and powerful AZProgressive Sep 2021 #53
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Poll: What is the reason ...»Reply #33