General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Bashing Garland for the election? Spell out the evidence he supposedly had that he could have used to convict Trump [View all]
bigtree
(94,706 posts)'the state of the evidence' and it's efficacy.
No one outside of the investigation knows what Garland or his prosecutors considered viable enough to go to court at the beginning of the investigation. They just don't.
Most of what they had seized was immediately challenged on privilege grounds by the perps and delayed for use by judges in the appeals courts, often successive ones.
The suggestion that they had enough evidence and didn't proceed because of some kind of malfeasance or timidity or anything other than the evidence's viability or availability to them as discoverable evidence admittable in court sounds like Michelle and others outside of all of those couple dozen career prosecutors cared more than them.
It's ludicrous and really based on nothing but conjecture.
If you're not part of the investigation, you don't have access to those details. Period.
And it's still this nonsense that it was Garland's initial call to proceed.
They use grand juries, exclusively, and certainly in a case where the AG's boss was the defendant's rival. That's just regular jurisprudence, and it's been unfairly derided, all because people have a political aim that they want to superimpose on a process that is NOT supposed to be politically driven.
Avoiding an appearance or reality of a conflict is proper and necessary for a fair and impartial prosecution, and anything less opens the process up to challenges of favoritism that will manifest in a courtroom, not just in some internet chatter, and scuttle an entire prosecution.
Besides, Garland approves those decisions AFTER prosecutors have presented their evidence to the grand jury and they recommend out charges. Period. Charges aren't brought forward on his will and whim, and shouldn't be, even if there wasn't the blatant conflict of interest being the defendant's rival in this election's appointee.
Enough. End.
Not arguing this anymore.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations