Bashing Garland for the election? Spell out the evidence he supposedly had that he could have used to convict Trump

[bigtree]

46. every one of his trials was estimated to take two to three years to resolve on appeal

...in successive courts.

And that's AFTER conviction.

There was never going to be a federal conviction in time to win the election for us, because the principle witnesses that supported the interference charges ultimately brought are all key WH aides and lawyers who didn't talk until Garland successfully had their privileges removed, that successful court fight spilling over well into his appointment of Smith.

I mean, Garland didn't tell his prosecutors to ignore evidence and rush into court, and the complaint is that he should have?

What did they actually have in their possession that was strong enough to convict him? Smith didn't charge him with the insurrection, probably because they didn't feel his Ellipse speech, by itself, was enough to convict or even convince a grand jury.

Smith just told Chutkan in his latest filing that they intended to use his iphone to prove that intention, not something we all saw or read in the newspaper, and not as a direct indictment on that incitement, but as an action related to his overall crime of election fraud.

Why isn't that given any heed by critics.. the judgment of a couple dozen crack career prosecutors who have actual access to things like evidence and grand juries, who's rec any AG or SC exclusively relies on to bring charges forward?

Just spitting out op stuff here...