Garland's refusal to indict Trump may be worse than Trump's crime.

BidenPresident said:
People on the J/6 Committee expressed disappointment that the DOJ did nothing until they initiated the hearings.
Click to expand...

What? Are you sure the DOJ didn't start their independent investigation sooner? I find that hard to believe.

I remember that the DOJ was demanding transcripts of the 1/6 testimonies - but there were other things the DOJ could have been doing simultaneously.
 
LurchAddams said:
What? Are you sure the DOJ didn't start their independent investigation sooner? I find that hard to believe.

I remember that the DOJ was demanding transcripts of the 1/6 testimonies - but there were other things the DOJ could have been doing simultaneously.
Click to expand...

No. DOJ never denied it.
 
LurchAddams said:
What? Are you sure the DOJ didn't start their independent investigation sooner? I find that hard to believe.

I remember that the DOJ was demanding transcripts of the 1/6 testimonies - but there were other things the DOJ could have been doing simultaneously.
Click to expand...
She forgets that the DOJ was tasked with shielding trump before the inauguration.
 
Similarly, the special counsel Robert Mueller documented and collected evidence around possible obstruction of justice by Mr. Trump while in office, and the Mueller report states that this evidence prevented investigators “from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred.” Yet no prosecutor has sought to pursue this material now that he is out of office.

Everyone seems afraid to be the first to make the first move and break the Nixon precedent. Yet other democracies have been willing to bring current and former leaders to justice, including France, Israel and South Korea. In January, the British police fined Prime Minister Rishi Sunak for not wearing a seatbelt, and his predecessor Boris Johnson was fined for hosting parties that violated the country’s Covid lockdown rules. What better way to make clear the fundamental principle that laws apply to everyone than to bring a minor charge against a powerful figure?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/20/opinion/ford-nixon-trump.html
 
LurchAddams said:
Garland is moving pretty slowly. I think we should all prepare ourselves for a slap on the hand/aka some kind of fine for all trump's crimes.

The facts are, half the nation will be pissed if trump isn't thrown in jail. The majority of the other half are the violent ones - the ones who attacked us on 1/6.

It should not take over 2 years to investigate the facts of 1/6 and the maralardo document theft is pretty cut and dry.
Click to expand...
The fact is there are so many crimes to wade through, it has to be sorted out by Fed./State action.

I would say that the classified document theft was still being dealt with and until the exact scope of the crime was sorted out, there is no reason to bring charges. And the House investigation was in full swing, saving years of man hours for Garland. Now he simply has to indict those who obstructed justice in the House investigation.

The DOJ should not have to waste so much time prosecuting a criminal administration, but here we are. It's not like they were golfing the whole time.
 
Althea said:
She forgets that the DOJ was tasked with shielding trump before the inauguration.
Click to expand...

I just would think it storage after the inauguration that Garland's DOJ was just sitting on its hands, studying what the 1/6 committee was doing.

I think there's about a 50/50 chance Garland will improve any indictment. That's why I think Fawnee (sp?) Willis is our only chance for any worthwhile trump accountability.
 
LurchAddams said:
I just would think it storage after the inauguration that Garland's DOJ was just sitting on its hands, studying what the 1/6 committee was doing.

I think there's about a 50/50 chance Garland will improve any indictment. That's why I think Fawnee (sp?) Willis is our only chance for any worthwhile trump accountability.
Click to expand...
trump really screwed the pooch in Ga.

Likewise for his staff, and Lady G.
 
LurchAddams said:
I just would think it storage after the inauguration that Garland's DOJ was just sitting on its hands, studying what the 1/6 committee was doing.

I think there's about a 50/50 chance Garland will improve any indictment. That's why I think Fawnee (sp?) Willis is our only chance for any worthwhile trump accountability.
Click to expand...
Truth is, the DOJ has been very busy with the terrorists. Many have flipped on trump/Meadows. You start at the bottom and finish at the top.

It's pretty hard to claim that DOJ has done nothing. When everyone at the top plans to challenge every subpoena, you get the info from the low hanging fruit and then go for the big players.
 
Althea said:
The fact is there are so many crimes to wade through, it has to be sorted out by Fed./State action.

I would say that the classified document theft was still being dealt with and until the exact scope of the crime was sorted out, there is no reason to bring charges. And the House investigation was in full swing, saving years of man hours for Garland. Now he simply has to indict those who obstructed justice in the House investigation.

The DOJ should not have to waste so much time prosecuting a criminal administration, but here we are. It's not like they were golfing the whole time.
Click to expand...

I both appreciate your wisdom and love your optimism. Don't get me wrong - I think trump should be in jail years ago - but only half this nation is logical and the illogical half was in charge during most of thump's crimes. The "good guys" are in charge now and I hope you are correct the Garland DOJ proceeds bravely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top