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
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Fitzmas avoidance does not require multiple wet blanket cannons [View all]Bernardo de La Paz
(49,001 posts)53. Garland undoubtedly has determined, but would not say if he has. He has not said tRump is cleared
Garland has not said that tRump is not being investigated any more. That is very significant.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence with regard to the link you request. Absence of link does not make its existence impossible. Garland's DoJ is one of the most tight-lipped DoJs ever.
Especially when Mueller's report remains redacted (mostly likely due to ongoing investigation).
Especially when Garland has actually appointed a Special Counsel.
Especially when the statements clearly alluded to the fake elector scheme tRump is entangled in.
Especially when Garland is currently actively suing in court to lift the restrictions on investigation of the tRump document crimes.
Especially when Garland explicitly refused to rule out tRump:
Merrick Garland does not rule out charging Trump and others in January 6 probe
By Paul LeBlanc, CNN
Published 4:40 PM EDT, Tue July 26, 2022
Attorney General Merrick Garland has declined to rule out prosecuting former President Donald Trump and others for their role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol or attempting to interfere with the presidential election.
We pursue justice without fear or favor. We intend to hold everyone anyone who is criminally responsible for the events surrounding January 6 or any attempt to interfere with the lawful transfer of power from one administration to another accountable, Garland told NBC News Lester Holt in a taped interview that ran in part Tuesday on MSNBC. That is what we do. We dont pay any attention to other issues with respect to that.
[...]
Pressed by Holt on whether a 2024 White House bid from Trump would change that, Garland maintained: I will say again that we will hold accountable anyone who is criminally responsible for attempting to interfere with the legitimate, lawful transfer of power from one administration to the next.
By Paul LeBlanc, CNN
Published 4:40 PM EDT, Tue July 26, 2022
Attorney General Merrick Garland has declined to rule out prosecuting former President Donald Trump and others for their role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol or attempting to interfere with the presidential election.
We pursue justice without fear or favor. We intend to hold everyone anyone who is criminally responsible for the events surrounding January 6 or any attempt to interfere with the lawful transfer of power from one administration to another accountable, Garland told NBC News Lester Holt in a taped interview that ran in part Tuesday on MSNBC. That is what we do. We dont pay any attention to other issues with respect to that.
[...]
Pressed by Holt on whether a 2024 White House bid from Trump would change that, Garland maintained: I will say again that we will hold accountable anyone who is criminally responsible for attempting to interfere with the legitimate, lawful transfer of power from one administration to the next.
All of this points to intent to indict, one way or another.
I am confident Jack Smith will indict tRump for more than one crime.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
72 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Fitzmas avoidance does not require multiple wet blanket cannons [View all]
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
OP
Pierce deserves respect, but I think Garland was required to appoint a Special Counsel.
Hermit-The-Prog
Nov 2022
#8
It can be inferred by the DOJ policy that requires the appointment of an SC in such circumsances.
Just A Box Of Rain
Nov 2022
#37
The "circumstances" have changed due to announcements by TBL and indications
Just A Box Of Rain
Nov 2022
#52
Garland undoubtedly has determined, but would not say if he has. He has not said tRump is cleared
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
#53
Sure. Emphasis on "seems". But I think it is other than "shielding from Fox and hysterics"
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
#9
Barr barred Mueller from indicting tRump then Congress (Republicans) didn't do their job
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
#22
Obviously you and I see very different things. Appearing before the Jan 6 committee
Autumn
Nov 2022
#59
Yes, there is much more than the J6 committee; J6 committee has nothing to do with this thread
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
#64
Bill Barr was too smart to do anything illegal. Remember, he resigned BEFORE Jan 6
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
#65
Nothing has changed about that SOB since IC. He got away with his shit then and it looks to me
Autumn
Nov 2022
#66
The leading hypothesis is that it contains info about ongoing investigations
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
#48
Yes. Hence my reasoning that it is not about evading shrieks of 'partisan witch-hunt'. . . .nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
#46
We have no other option but waiting. Garland is immune to social media / talking head noise
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
#50
keep in mind he is likely fighting a rear guard battle against the left behind.
mopinko
Nov 2022
#12
Whatever Garland is doing to keep a clean, tight, house is working. We hear nothing
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
#15
There is a small contingent of those who partake in this kind of behavior here:
demmiblue
Nov 2022
#18
What are you referring to? There is no issue of control in this thread. . . . nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
#23
Sure. I'm not responsible for other threads, nor do I have any "control". . . . nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
#31
After the Robert Mueller experience, I do not have faith that our justice system will ever prosecute
Yavin4
Nov 2022
#21
That is not what prompted this thread. Fitzmas was a lack of indictment. Speakership is different.nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
#28
I'm not mad. Wasn't the OP clear enough for you that I was advising an even keel?
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
#30
Slapping hands for not believing in a ridiculous cloud castle isn't an even keel
Sympthsical
Nov 2022
#38
This thread is not about that thread. I don't know why I have to repeat that. . . . nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
#42
You made me laugh -- I guess I deserved that, whatever it was. Thank you very much....
Hekate
Nov 2022
#39
Thanks. Positivists live longer and (or because) they enjoy life more
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
#61
From the "gift" of indictments that prosecutor Fitzgerald was highly anticipated to deliver
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2022
#68