Rachel Maddow embarrassed the DOJ into investigating Trump

[Beastly Boy]

52. Proof? What proof?

Last edited Mon Jun 19, 2023, 08:42 PM - Edit history (1)

Did Garland really say he would be non-partisan? Ok, it's in his job description, but did he emphasize his non-partisanship beyond saying "without fear or favor"? No? Well, that is not exactly synonymous to non-partisanship. And, despite your allusions to the things you have no proof of, he may have been speaking to people who were way too trigger-happy to accuse him of partisanship (BTW, not so long ago this company included a certain someone you may know very well). And yes, appointing Smith did work. Certain people no longer accuse Garland of partisanship, they now accuse him of being partisan by not being partisan (don't ask!), and claiming to be right anyway.

Do you have proof that Garland shit-canned the j-6 criminal referrals? Is Smith done with his investigation? No? What does "shit can" mean anyway? (BTW, not so long ago, someone you know well was swearing up and down this board that Garland is plotting to shit can all investigations into Trump. Because... "institutionalist"!)

Are the J6 Committee members still openly accusing Garland of non-action? No? How'bout Nicolle Wallace and her top notch guests? No? Wouldn't it be a sign that their open accusations, just like the predictions you tout so much, were a bit premature and not too predictive? How'bout Cassisdy Hutchinson's public testimony, which, as you know very well, is in large part inadmissible in court, embarrassing DOJ? How does testimony that is inadmissible in a court of law embarrass Garland into presenting a case in a court of law? Don't you think that Garland dragging inadmissible evidence into a court of law and making a fool of himself before a judge would be way more embarrassing?

Do you have any proof that a bottom-up approach (what you call a pyramid strategy) was a bust? Why was it? It worked in just about every federal RICO case! Or perhaps you have evidence of this not being the case. Do you think three individuals not flipping is proof positive of the pyramid strategy being a bust? You don't? Mmmm.kay! Are you under the illusion that flipping is the only means of gathering evidence in a "pyramid strategy"? You are not? Coulda fooled me!

Being admittedly lazy, I only sampled this thread for the challenges to your predictive prowess. These are the things you stated in the course of just a few hours as unquestioned evidence of you being right. There is more, but like I said before, I am not that motivated to prove you right or wrong. I am just directing your attention to a small number of opinionated pronouncements that don't meet the most elementary burden of proof.

And take it easy on your self-esteem. You have absolutely no rational reason to hate yourself for being right.