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

[bigtree]

87. DOJ had more evidence pertaining to Trump and all at the point of the hearings, tied up in appeals for at least a year

...but most critics are talking about some perceived inaction in the first year of Garland's term, well before the Jan. 6 committee met.

In July 2021, the House Select Committee held a preliminary public hearing about the law enforcement experience during the mob violence on that day.

In 2022, the Committee held ten live televised public hearings.

The product of those congressional hearings, most of it, was duplicative of DOJ's, especially a lot of the smattering of Trump stuff.

But even if DOJ learned something new, that congressional committee did not make ANY of their witness transcripts or testimony available to DOJ until that fall of 2022, despite repeated requests from DOJ for almost a year previous, actually delaying two riot leader cases because of the need to provide all of the evidence they had gathered and revealed in public to the perp defendants in Discovery requirements, and for DOJ to make certain they weren't blindsided by any exculpatory evidence.

The committee actually hampered DOJ's efforts in many ways, including refusing to hand over those documents. I posted some of that recalcitrance upthread that emptywheel had documented and reported.

I mean, Congress not only had a different mission (they focused almost exclusively on the 'foot soldiers' that so many Garland critics deride him for), including the communications that Jack Smith described in his latest filing to Judge Chutkan contained in a Trump iphone he says he intended to use to prove intent and other corroboration - they have zero rebuttal, zero standard of proof compared to a courtroom, and no need at all to convince a grand jury AND a regular jury, which was the DOJ and Jack Smith's burden.

That's the comparison that's valid here.