General Discussion

iemanja

(57,689 posts)

71. That's right

Reply to hlthe2b (Reply #68)

Sat Jan 7, 2023, 03:25 PM

Jan 2023

And DOJ never needs to wait for congressional hearings to do their job.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

79 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

As Adam Schiff continues to complain about the DOJ, he leaves something out. [View all] fightforfreedom Jan 2023 OP

I agree with the Adam Schiff side. Emile Jan 2023 #1

So do I gab13by13 Jan 2023 #2

So do I!!! hlthe2b Jan 2023 #21

Me too. Magoo48 Jan 2023 #26

Me too! mountain grammy Jan 2023 #34

Me, too. Peregrine Took Jan 2023 #40

Yes because DOJ made no effort to reciprocate FakeNoose Jan 2023 #44

I do too. And two years of imminent threat is too much. lostnfound Jan 2023 #77

His point was this.... Native Jan 2023 #3

All I know is this, gab13by13 Jan 2023 #8

Then Schiff should have turned over the committee evidence immediately to the DOJ. fightforfreedom Jan 2023 #30

Maybe Liz was the one who didn't want to turn it over? PuraVidaDreamin Jan 2023 #56

DOJ does not have just one case to work on treestar Jan 2023 #52

Yeah, I think a part of the reason the J-6 committee withheld stuff for a while was to scold the DOJ panader0 Jan 2023 #74

If nothing else, Trump should already have been arrested for stealing classified docs Orrex Jan 2023 #4

My own speculation is that.. Mister Ed Jan 2023 #5

My speculation is that they are wrapping it up so it's a slam dunk when they indict TFG. Native Jan 2023 #6

Who is wrapping up? DOJ? gab13by13 Jan 2023 #11

Rhetorical question for the win. Native Jan 2023 #16

Every former prosecutor that I have listened to on TV gab13by13 Jan 2023 #24

I said they've been saying it's imminent. Native Jan 2023 #28

commenting on TV is not the same as actually having treestar Jan 2023 #54

Maybe they are afraid of jurors Tree Lady Jan 2023 #73

You do realize that the DOJ indicts no one Genki Hikari Jan 2023 #75

I agree with your speculation, gab13by13 Jan 2023 #9

that's what i think, too. and still. mopinko Jan 2023 #10

The committee could have given the evidence to Garland directly. fightforfreedom Jan 2023 #25

My supposition as well. intheflow Jan 2023 #29

Agreed. cachukis Jan 2023 #49

Schiff knows that the DOJ is on top of this ...... Lovie777 Jan 2023 #7

He also knows they can't give RWers more chances to accuse the DOJ GoCubsGo Jan 2023 #12

Isn't going out of the way to ne non-partisan, being partisan? gab13by13 Jan 2023 #15

So then why, in your opinion, gab13by13 Jan 2023 #13

I agree.. agingdem Jan 2023 #14

Donald Trump stole classified documents gab13by13 Jan 2023 #18

Great points! Emile Jan 2023 #22

No, they are not. fightforfreedom Jan 2023 #37

Yes they are 😊 Emile Jan 2023 #39

We just received proof the DOJ is still investigating the secret document case. fightforfreedom Jan 2023 #42

I think the people who searched for the docs will be prosecuted before Trump will. nt Autumn Jan 2023 #48

How do you know what those secret documents say? AZSkiffyGeek Jan 2023 #33

Agree Meowmee Jan 2023 #43

Good post. fightforfreedom Jan 2023 #19

I ask you once again, gab13by13 Jan 2023 #27

Garland and Smith believe they need more evidence. That's all that matters. fightforfreedom Jan 2023 #35

you're right agingdem Jan 2023 #45

I agree with Adam Schiff. CentralMass Jan 2023 #17

The sedition caucus nominated Trump to be Speaker, gab13by13 Jan 2023 #20

Team Adam Schiff all the way. 50 Shades Of Blue Jan 2023 #23

I highly recommend listening to the "Jack" podcast -- Andrew McCabe & Allison Gill Pobeka Jan 2023 #31

You get it, some people never will. fightforfreedom Jan 2023 #32

THIS 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 LenaBaby61 Jan 2023 #38

It seems like some are conflating a lot of issues here and sugggesting those who hlthe2b Jan 2023 #41

Well put. cachukis Jan 2023 #53

Schiff believes Garland has been too cautious. That is his opinion. fightforfreedom Jan 2023 #36

And you need to review Separation of Powers. DOJ (Executive BR) v Legislative hlthe2b Jan 2023 #46

Last paragraph.....Great summation absolutely lays it out in a nut shell! PortTack Jan 2023 #51

Diplomacy, on the highest levels, requires few words. cachukis Jan 2023 #55

I have said I respect Schiff's opinion. fightforfreedom Jan 2023 #57

You know full well that "withhold' has legal implications. They are a separate branch hlthe2b Jan 2023 #60

There is one fact you do not mention iemanja Jan 2023 #72

Patently false iemanja Jan 2023 #47

The committee obviously did not hand over some of the most important evidence to the DOJ. fightforfreedom Jan 2023 #58

Is there some reason DOJ couldn't interview Hutchinson themselves? iemanja Jan 2023 #61

Ask Garland that question. Everyone is guessing and expressing their opinions. fightforfreedom Jan 2023 #66

It was reported July 27, 2022 that Hutchison was cooperating WITH DOJ! hlthe2b Jan 2023 #68

That's right iemanja Jan 2023 #71

I'm saying he chose not to prosecute iemanja Jan 2023 #70

Reported July27, 2022 that Cassidy was cooperating with DOJ probe hlthe2b Jan 2023 #67

I'll side with Adam Schiff. Jack Smith requested all of the information from the panel's Autumn Jan 2023 #50

+1. Garland was a well-intentioned but terrible choice for DOJ dalton99a Jan 2023 #59

What really gets me is that there was never any sense of urgency. The people now in charge of the Autumn Jan 2023 #62

Garland is no longer what made him famous dalton99a Jan 2023 #63

It almost seem that it was decided that going after elected members of Congress Autumn Jan 2023 #64

Yep. Verboten. dalton99a Jan 2023 #65

+1 nt Hotler Jan 2023 #79

I wonder if Garland agrees with Schiff's opinion. fightforfreedom Jan 2023 #69

The more time that goes by kacekwl Jan 2023 #76

No it is not. fightforfreedom Jan 2023 #78