General Discussion

gab13by13

(31,053 posts)

18. Apparently there is no time limit on waiting.

Wed Mar 1, 2023, 07:38 PM

Mar 2023

Yeah, Trump was an unindicted co-conspirator, individual one, and Garland chose not to indict him for political reasons.

I also point out that Garland only wrote a stern letter to the pro-Trump Cyber Ninja fake company that was given access to sealed ballot boxes, voter information, election material and equipment all in violation of federal election law, Title 52.

The argument that we don't know what DOJ is doing has been debunked ever since Garland handed off the ball to Jack Smith. We know who Smith is subpoenaing and what documents.

fff never considers the importance of time, time isn't supposed to matter. Except time ran out on individual one. It has taken E. Jean Carroll 3 1/2 years to get Trump to a trial. If Trump were indicted tomorrow, no way he goes to trial before 2026.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

169 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

This was just reported on MSNBC. [View all] fightforfreedom Mar 2023 OP

Recommend! sheshe2 Mar 2023 #1

One more. we can do it Mar 2023 #4

K&R betsuni Mar 2023 #2

Thanks for this. ificandream Mar 2023 #3

You left out the du know-it-alls. we can do it Mar 2023 #5

+1 BaronChocula Mar 2023 #77

But I have a RIGHT to know everything DOJ knows. Immediately! brooklynite Mar 2023 #6

Why wait for the facts and full story, when one can just make assumptions? Fiendish Thingy Mar 2023 #46

By whom? Orrex Mar 2023 #87

I read that with the sound of tongue in cheek. WheelWalker Mar 2023 #96

Perhaps, but that poster lands hard on people who engage in wry hyperbole Orrex Mar 2023 #147

Speculation stokes the egos of those who blab. Those who know don't talk. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Mar 2023 #107

+10000 bdamomma Mar 2023 #7

K&R...... Lovie777 Mar 2023 #8

I think the investigation could go on forever unless it is adjudicated in the courts. kentuck Mar 2023 #9

All the investigations are moving in that direction, towards indictments and the courts. fightforfreedom Mar 2023 #12

Well, a grand jury is the first stop in the court process Fiendish Thingy Mar 2023 #48

Yes, grand jury is a "first stop"; it is not a place to homestead and plant crops. Magoo48 Mar 2023 #122

That is the only way we get any real information is in the filings in the court system Bev54 Mar 2023 #74

This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Mar 2023 #154

I've never argued that there aren't details unknown to the public Silent3 Mar 2023 #10

Likewise, if DOJ deserves no benefit of the doubt, Beastly Boy Mar 2023 #39

It's not like I'm going to flip Garland the bird in I run into him on the street Silent3 Mar 2023 #45

The pessimism you are describing is a sure sign of contempt of doubt. Beastly Boy Mar 2023 #62

What does it matter? Silent3 Mar 2023 #65

Then you are proposing that DOJ deserves contempt based entirely on your feelings. Beastly Boy Mar 2023 #79

I'm proposing that my feelings are irrelevant to any important issue being discussed here. n/t Silent3 Mar 2023 #81

Nobody is hurt if you are silent. But when people continually erode faith in the US government Bernardo de La Paz Mar 2023 #111

Far more prominent and important people than myself have expressed their doubts... Silent3 Mar 2023 #133

This exactly edhopper Mar 2023 #41

Exactly orthoclad Mar 2023 #92

time is running out- Meowmee Mar 2023 #113

"There is a GAP between what the DOJ has been doing and what the public knows." Goodheart Mar 2023 #11

You just proved my point. Thank you. fightforfreedom Mar 2023 #14

Because we don't know exactly what the DOJ is doing News Junkie Mar 2023 #149

Apparently there is no time limit on waiting. gab13by13 Mar 2023 #18

there is a gap azureblue Mar 2023 #36

There is a gap because Trump used gab13by13 Mar 2023 #50

Trump got caught orthoclad Mar 2023 #93

you are correct republianmushroom Mar 2023 #60

Thank you. PoindexterOglethorpe Mar 2023 #71

"zero chance of Trump being indicted": because you are an insider and know Bernardo de La Paz Mar 2023 #112

And all those who confidently assert he'll be indicted any day now PoindexterOglethorpe Mar 2023 #138

I do not confidently assert he'll be indicted any day now Bernardo de La Paz Mar 2023 #145

Have you been following the Georgia investigation? fightforfreedom Mar 2023 #120

That time thing. I've been schooled here a lot about that 25+ months thing. jaxexpat Mar 2023 #43

"the coup won already": your only conclusion with that premise is that Biden staged a coup and won Bernardo de La Paz Mar 2023 #110

Not to mention: DFW Mar 2023 #114

Back up, Bernardo. You twist meaning and provide illogical critique. Typical strawman "stuff"ing jaxexpat Mar 2023 #116

Mean what you write, jax, write what you mean. We can't read minds. Write clearly. . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Mar 2023 #117

All careful, legal, righteous, successful DoJs will be slow by being careful, legal, and successful Bernardo de La Paz Mar 2023 #118

Looks like you are blaming the wrong person wnylib Mar 2023 #104

👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 onecaliberal Mar 2023 #26

Forever orangecrush Mar 2023 #29

The answer is, as long as you don't know what DOJ is doing. Beastly Boy Mar 2023 #34

I'm not sick over it orangecrush Mar 2023 #47

Then why did you write you are? Beastly Boy Mar 2023 #64

If you read closely orangecrush Mar 2023 #131

been sick of it for some time. Remember Mueller's investigation. republianmushroom Mar 2023 #58

You need to expand your sources beyond TV lawyers Fiendish Thingy Mar 2023 #55

agreed Skittles Mar 2023 #98

What a bunch of BS: "Garland waited almost 2 years to conduct a serious investigation" Bernardo de La Paz Mar 2023 #109

Just when, exactly, was Jack Smith appointed as Special Counsel? Goodheart Mar 2023 #124

Nonsense. You are ignorant of the fact Smith inherited a sprawling ongoing investigation Bernardo de La Paz Mar 2023 #125

That's funny... Goodheart Mar 2023 #126

That 6 month old article does not support your assertion Bernardo de La Paz Mar 2023 #132

If the risk wasn't an existential one, I think more people wouldn't be in full panic mode Mr. Ected Mar 2023 #13

I agree, I get it. fightforfreedom Mar 2023 #17

The government watch dog, the GAO gab13by13 Mar 2023 #21

An existential risk is not an excuse for DOJ to circumvent the rule of law. Beastly Boy Mar 2023 #31

Didn't say it was Mr. Ected Mar 2023 #40

Likewise, the anxiety of citizens is misdirected when addressed to DOJ. Beastly Boy Mar 2023 #59

Saw him malaise Mar 2023 #15

How long should it take to indict for a crime committed in public? Ptah Mar 2023 #16

Try to indict without evidence of intent to commit a crime Beastly Boy Mar 2023 #30

He admitted to obstruction of justice on the TV machine. Ptah Mar 2023 #37

No intent to obstruct justice, though. Beastly Boy Mar 2023 #53

Firing the FBI guy to stop an investigation is a crime. Ptah Mar 2023 #57

Mueller concluded that it was up to Congress to determine whether Beastly Boy Mar 2023 #75

He said that based on a... MEMO written by a Nixon appointee... not a Law... Justice matters. Mar 2023 #140

That's funny Beastly Boy Mar 2023 #144

None of these specify a sitting President cannot be prosecuted for criminal activities Justice matters. Mar 2023 #151

Apparently, Mueller disagreed with you. Beastly Boy Mar 2023 #155

LOL, no. :) Justice matters. Mar 2023 #156

LOL no, Mueller doesn't disagree with you? Beastly Boy Mar 2023 #157

Mueller was a Banana Republican FBI Director. Justice matters. Mar 2023 #158

How does this change the US Constitution? Beastly Boy Mar 2023 #159

The banana republican memo should be nullified by Congress for the reasons Justice matters. Mar 2023 #160

I must say, I envy your ambition in choosing your adversaries. Beastly Boy Mar 2023 #161

This message was self-deleted by its author Justice matters. Mar 2023 #162

Don't forger to put the US Constitution on your ignore list too. Beastly Boy Mar 2023 #163

Why so nasty on a message board??? Justice matters. Mar 2023 #164

Why self-delete instead of putting me on ignore, as promised? Beastly Boy Mar 2023 #165

How about "I am free to do what I want when I want to" boy? Justice matters. Mar 2023 #166

A perfect answer. Beastly Boy Mar 2023 #167

And I am free to put you on my ignore list (for a while) Justice matters. Mar 2023 #168

Once again, I am thrilled with the prospect of getting on your ignore list. Beastly Boy Mar 2023 #169

You can subscribe to the DOJ news feed. AndyS Mar 2023 #19

+1 chowder66 Mar 2023 #24

The other sode of the story is tick, tick, tick lame54 Mar 2023 #20

That IS a big factor. BigmanPigman Mar 2023 #95

The big "GAP" today, Ponietz Mar 2023 #22

It's not just a matter of drawing conclusions. Beastly Boy Mar 2023 #23

"AlL iS wELL!11" BannonsLiver Mar 2023 #25

This message was self-deleted by its author CrispyQ Mar 2023 #27

Meanwhile, Grassley wants Garland to explain why Hunter Biden hasn't been arrested. Frasier Balzov Mar 2023 #28

The DOJ should have started their investigation into 1/6 ... aggiesal Mar 2023 #32

They started before Garland was sworn in. Beastly Boy Mar 2023 #49

So we knew on Jan. 15, 2021 that DOJ was arresting and charging unwashed Magats, gab13by13 Mar 2023 #52

I don't see how this relates to my reply. Beastly Boy Mar 2023 #68

That article only mentioned this about the DOJ ... aggiesal Mar 2023 #54

I quoted the pertinent part of the artocle, and gave a link to it Beastly Boy Mar 2023 #67

They went after the Worker Bees, not Trump or his Minions ... aggiesal Mar 2023 #90

So they DID start their investigations on 1/7, 2021, didn't they? Beastly Boy Mar 2023 #94

Don't parse words. ... aggiesal Mar 2023 #102

Please pay attention to the thread Beastly Boy Mar 2023 #123

I think you have to stay on subject ... aggiesal Mar 2023 #134

Never asserted any such thing. Beastly Boy Mar 2023 #135

Absolutely relayerbob Mar 2023 #33

Unless your name is Hillary. nt wiggs Mar 2023 #35

for sure azureblue Mar 2023 #38

Wait, so Garland isn't destroying our institutions? Fiendish Thingy Mar 2023 #42

Why did Garland refuse to investigate gab13by13 Mar 2023 #63

Please post a link to Garland's statement declining to investigate J6 intelligence failures. Fiendish Thingy Mar 2023 #72

I already did this morning gab13by13 Mar 2023 #78

Must have been deleted. Fiendish Thingy Mar 2023 #83

Really self-centered of you to think everyone is in YOUR time zone Bernardo de La Paz Mar 2023 #136

There is only one post in this thread with an :01 time stamp this morning Bernardo de La Paz Mar 2023 #137

"intelligence failures" don't constitute crimes. brooklynite Mar 2023 #76

I'm with you. triron Mar 2023 #84

LOL treestar Mar 2023 #143

If any institution in America reflected its demographics cachukis Mar 2023 #44

Repeat until it sinks in. Thank you. Joinfortmill Mar 2023 #51

Recommended. H2O Man Mar 2023 #56

Part of the impatience comes from Fitzmas and Muller time. Or Eric Holder -lets move forward. 3Hotdogs Mar 2023 #61

We know our justice system is far from perfect and we know it's not geared to investigate yaesu Mar 2023 #66

What would you expect a top DoJ official to say. republianmushroom Mar 2023 #69

But there are SOME things we do know. pnwmom Mar 2023 #70

We get it. We just don't want a repeat in Jan 2025. mccarthy has given out the blueprint. ecstatic Mar 2023 #73

TY! Cha Mar 2023 #80

Over two years and no one above CHUD level has been indicted. dchill Mar 2023 #82

I remember the Bush Administration. Is he still in office? brooklynite Mar 2023 #89

No. Both he and Dick are living out their lives... dchill Mar 2023 #103

My point is that President Biden has hired a competent person to run DOJ. brooklynite Mar 2023 #121

My definition of competent is results-oriented. dchill Mar 2023 #139

And you know that enough time has passed for "results"? brooklynite Mar 2023 #141

K&R ismnotwasm Mar 2023 #85

Ho-hum Orrex Mar 2023 #86

It seems to me markodochartaigh Mar 2023 #88

TWO YEARS... orthoclad Mar 2023 #91

+1 Laura PourMeADrink Mar 2023 #101

+1 Emile Mar 2023 #108

+1000. Nay Mar 2023 #142

Here's the video for those who missed it: Rhiannon12866 Mar 2023 #97

KnR Hekate Mar 2023 #99

Post removed Post removed Mar 2023 #100

What? You are attacking OP's motivations, calling them a paid shill? Is it wrong to support Dems? Bernardo de La Paz Mar 2023 #106

A site that supports a Democrat "no matter what" loses credibility quite fast. Goodheart Mar 2023 #127

That does not apply in this thread. Why is the poster calling the OP a paid shill? Bernardo de La Paz Mar 2023 #129

lol Meowmee Mar 2023 #115

I don't work for anybody, I'm retired. fightforfreedom Mar 2023 #119

25 months? BWdem4life Mar 2023 #105

Where's the rush? Mueller, Durham, Smith: paid by the hour. Goodheart Mar 2023 #128

You make stuff up again. Stop with the falsities. SCs are salaried positions. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Mar 2023 #130

Two years ago..... just wait!!! LiberalLovinLug Mar 2023 #146

People can bring up the time factor all they want. fightforfreedom Mar 2023 #150

"It's over" LiberalLovinLug Mar 2023 #152

Doom and Gloom. How do you get through the day? fightforfreedom Mar 2023 #153

Imagine if James Comey had followed DOJ rules. StevieM Mar 2023 #148