Was Merrick Garland's Approach Correct All Along?

[Beastly Boy]

90. Whatever you want to call it, it certainly wasn't the truth.

At least WaPo itself didn't feel like standing up for their editorial article in the face of its merciless mockery: https://ijr.com/washington-post-walks-back-headline/

The combination of all the links I provided certainly shows, in precise sequence, that DOJ wasn't doing nothing. It gives you a well documented chronology of what DOJ did, how they did it and when they did it. All of it meticulously documented. These links make up the full extent of what I claim DOJ did. Each item in this chronology is something, not nothing. And there is a continuous uninterrupted string of significant somethings from the time before Garland's appointment to the time of Jack Smith's appointment, an extended period of time in which you claim Garland did nothing. Each one of the links documents a progression in DOJ investigating Trump, something you claim never happened.

And in case you are still confused, I am claiming that the delays never happened AND that they do not matter. These are not mutually exclusive. I am claiming (and extensively documenting) both to be true because you had claimed, falsely and without backing up your claims with anything factual, that delays did happen and that these imaginary delays do matter in the upcoming elections.

So sure, go argue that Garland did nothing as you stare at the evidence to the contrary. Go argue that Garland is responsible for inexcusable delays as you are going through a chronology of Garand's continuous and uninterrupted investigation of Trump.

It adds credibility to your otherwise perfectly incredible speculations.