I didn't say anything about Jack. Nothing.
I asked why we are not indicting Trump for the documents thefts. It is my understanding that Smith does not make the decision whether to prosecute Trump, but Garland does. We have not heard anything in a while about that indictment. No, I am sure stuff is going on about that. Or, is it?
It's May. We are simply going to run out of time. If you had been able to explain the coordination of all the "pending" indictments, the various logistics and cross contamination aspects of all the witnesses versus prosecutions and venues, you would have shined, but you can't. DOJ isn't obliged to tell me everything it's doing. But, I do note that Garland waited not for Midterms to be over, but rather he waited to appoint the SM after Trump announced his candidacy.
Every other prosecutor has equally heavy work products to hustle. But, I at least have the right to voice my concern that we are running out of time to prosecute Trump before he can say, I am the candidate for office and they shouldn't be allowed to touch me now. That's why he did it, that's why he delays and appeals absolutely everything, that's why his people are filing every idiotic suit they can think of, and that's why we are coming up against a deadline.
I never criticized Jack. I am concerned that Garland won't pull the trigger in time to do any good. He's old school, he'll respect the unwritten rule like it's law. I wanted to know if there was any reason not to indict Trump on docs before J6, like "all hell will break loose so let's do it all at once." I'm fine with doing it all at once, as long as it gets done and there is none of this "...but, but it's election time." These people are openly stating their desire to hang the Congress. This isn't normal.
= new reply since forum marked as read