Was Merrick Garland's Approach Correct All Along?

[iemanja]

84. The WSJ article isn't a lie

And the first link in the DU post doesn't say what you claim it does. The second refers to subpoenas of low-level rioters. The legal document is a year past the riots. Other posts are simply repeating Garland's claims that he'll pursue justice wherever it leads, but they don't prove an investigation. The WaPo article was extensively researched with sources and documents. That you don't like the story doesn't make it false. Your fake news excuse doesn't hold water. It's an excuse and pointing to a DU post with citations that don't refute the WaPo article doesn't prove your case. The real irony is that the post cites WaPo articles to try to refute a major WaPo investigation.

Then, you undermine your own claims by writing, "And then, of course, even if there were delays, which there weren't, and if they did affect the timing of the prosecution, which they do not, how would that increase Trump's chances of winning the election?"
I already answered that question, but the fact you first falsely claim their weren't delays only to them argue that the delays don't matter undermines the internal logic of your point--which is nothing more than an excuse. Anymore goal posts you care to move?

That's a rhetorical question. I've read enough here to know that all I'll get in response is more excuses and circuitous logic.