For everyone complaining about AG Garland's performance, please impress us.

[brooklynite]

Lay out the specific charges, and the compelling case and evidence you could present TODAY to secure an Indictment of Trump et al from a Grand Jury and a conviction at Trial.

[leftieNanner]

1. Thank You

Whatever the DOJ is doing regarding Trump's actions is certainly being kept under deep wraps.

We will hear about it all when they spring the indictment on him.

It is difficult to wait for something to happen though.

On Edit: Well, lookee there! 11,000 posts!

[Glorfindel]

4. Hey, congratulations on a major milestone, leftieNanner!

11,000 posts is very impressive.

[Aristus]

6. Well done!

[Beartracks]

11. Wow, congrats on the postage!

[blm]

15. 💐💐💐

[Pepsidog]

22. Been there done that with Mueller. Garland is a very nice gentleman, the kind of "we must look

forward” type. I don’t want a nice guy, I want a viper. No more Mueller’s it's Garland’s. I want Schiff, Yates, Letitia James, Jamie Raskin type. Smart, take no prisoners, natural-born vipers. I think the angst is that we are getting the impression by comments from Schiff that Garland may not be looking into TFG. You already have him named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case and the Mueller Report is supposed to be a road map for the prosecution of TFG when he leaves office. The work is sitting right there not including the charges from 1/6.

[Thomas Hurt]

2. We are also all ignorant of what Garland and the DOJ may or may not be investigating.

At this juncture, it is up the J6 committee to expose any bad acts to Americans through public hearings.

[Stuart G]

3. My guess & opinion is: Garland is working on your last 17 words right NOW.....That is my guess...

...That ain't easy.....especially last 4 words....."a conviction at Trial".............................

(if it were easy, that would have been done already...(at least securing an indictment of Trump et al)

[UnderThisLaw]

5. Well, I'm ready

to give up my ‘newcomer’ designation . It’s getting so I can tell who has created a post simply by reading its title

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

7. I'm not so much concerned with T**** as I am with Bannon.

Every day he is allowed to thumb his nose at the select committee's subpoena is loss of a tool Congress can use against other recalcitrant witnesses. The case against Bannon is simple: (1) was he subpoenaed? (2) did he show up? If he ignored the subpoena, ipso facto he is in contempt; punish his fat ass immediately.

[onenote]

10. Not as "ipso facto" as you might think.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/19/jan-6-commission-steve-bannon-criminal-contempt-516233

[grumpyduck]

16. Just read the piece.

Made me wonder why they even issued a subpoena knowing full well what would come of it.

Like, why bother?

I know... I know...

[Walleye]

14. I wonder when the appropriate grand jury meets. I know some of them are on Wednesday

[dem4decades]

8. The specific charges? From the investigation he hasn't started? That's a tough one.

[onenote]

9. How are you privy to what DOJ is or isn't investigating?

You must be quite the insider.

[dem4decades]

12. no leaks.

[gab13by13]

19. That is actually a good reason.

[lamp_shade]

13. Thank you. Kick and rec.

[gab13by13]

17. I have one,

Trump is "individual 1". He violated campaign finance laws. Slam dunk case, Michael Cohen was sent to jail for the exact same charge.

[grantcart]

21. Very difficult to prove intent which is a key element to the crime

John Edwards was not found guilty on a similar case

Michael Cohen wasn't tried on this charge he pled guilty on a plea deal that allowed him to walk away from a large pile of other charges mainly tied to illegal exploitation of taxi licenses.

[Bobstandard]

29. Not diff to charge, though

Let the chips fall where they may at a trial that the public can see

[grantcart]

58. Bad strategy. The first charge against Trump has to be ironclad

If he beats it at trial he wins huge propaganda victory and undermines the next one.

[Bobstandard]

72. Its not bad strategy to fire up your base

Tfg’d people are committed and unreachable. Aggressively pursuing and charging tfg snd his minions send a message to our side that we’re fighting. Bad strategy is giving our side no reason to hope.

[grantcart]

79. It's a terrible legal strategy and that is why no one in the legal community supports it

Whatever momentary boost your base would get would pale in comparison to the huge long term boost it would give to the other side when he is found non guilty.

Beyond being bad political strategy it is terrible policy and unAmerican.

Deciding to prosecute based on how it effects your base means you are transforming law enforcement into a political tool. Not only is it wrong ethically it gives the other side permission to do it when they are in power, I.e. "lock her up".

It is unAmerican because the founding fathers believed that the courts should be blind to political interference and independent of partisan fervor. It is why John Adams defended the troops charged in the so called "Boston Massacre". The charges were politically motivated and did not correspond to the facts in hand.

[Bobstandard]

81. Apples to oranges

The parts of the Mueller report we can see provide legitimate grounds to charge. That’s the job.

[grantcart]

83. Try and keep up. This sub thread has Nothing to do with OOJ charges in the Mueller report

It is about prosecuting on finance charges which you would have to prove that the reason he paid hush money was because he only cared about the election and not about concealing it from Melania, something that is impossible to prove and unlikely to be true.

[Bobstandard]

89. Wrong. This is about whether Garland...

Wrong. This thread is about whether Garland and his DOJ are doing a CIS level job. A Federal Court judge agrees with those of us who say he’s not

During a sentencing hearing for a man who breached the Capitol on Jan. 6, Judge Beryl Howell took the federal government attorneys to task over their prosecution of Capitol rioters, saying they were failing the American people by allowing defendants to take plea deals for minor offenses. Howell said, “No wonder parts of the public in the U.S. are confused about whether what happened on January 6 at the Capitol was simply a petty offense of trespassing with some disorderliness, or shocking criminal conduct that represented a grave threat to our democratic norms. Let me make my view clear: The rioters were not mere protesters.”

Go ahead. Move the goalposts. Try to make it about something between tfg and the former ffl. The more you dig in the more reddiculous your arguments become. I thought we were almost in agreement early in this sub thread but now, sorry. We can start over if you like

[LymphocyteLover]

30. the 10 obstruction charges in the Mueller report are pretty clear

[krawhitham]

18. OK

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report_volume2.pdf

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

20. In a word,

Fitzmas.

[Evolve Dammit]

23. Have his taxes been examined? Are their sealed cases from Mueller's investigation? We may never

know, and through inaction we are all left to wonder. Pressuring elections officials? Campaign finance siphoning? Money laundering through Deutsche Bank? Others? I guess it must all be kosher?

[onecaliberal]

33. Right? I guess we can all launder money now right. They can't really prove our intent?

Except they do it all the time with everyone else.

[Evolve Dammit]

48. You and I would be wearing orange. There are no rules for the wealthy and connected. n/t

[Mr.Bill]

24. Give any one of us Garland's budget, staff

and subpoena and enforcement power, and we'll get back to you in a week.

[stopdiggin]

28. don't be counting on this "any one of us"

'cause I have never seen this as even within hailing distance of the 'slam dunk' you seem to imagine. So I guess that's "any one of us" - minus at least one.
----- -----

[LymphocyteLover]

31. did you read the 2nd half of the Mueller report?

10 obstruction cases that were laid out very clearly

[stopdiggin]

35. and you're claiming that these are all slam dunk

even in the face of 'sitting president' and executive privilege? Sure there's a consensus siding with that point of view? Me neither.

[LymphocyteLover]

36. I don't think I claimed they were slam dunk but I've heard several legal experts

say they are solid and chargeable. The whole 2nd half of the Mueller report laid out the legal case for them.

[stopdiggin]

37. Some people continue to be interested in

bringing charges, whether winnable or not. I remain in the camp that continues to point out the downside and cost involved in such shortsighted stratagems. Ask you're legal buddies how many of them recommend going to trial with a 'sorta', maybe' kind of case? (Because that's exactly what this amounts to. "Some people say ...".). If you can't make it stick - then you're just stirring up a hornets nest. And there's plenty of good reason to wonder whether this (meaning Mueller) would ever stick.

[LymphocyteLover]

46. Come on-- the guy is a massive crook, there was clearly obstruction of justice

The real hindrance for these cases was always political and people worried about bringing an ex-president to trial. I don't know why you are trivializing his crimes.

[stopdiggin]

47. ah, yes. the "why do you trivilaize his crimes?" retort.

I was wonder how long ....

[LymphocyteLover]

59. LOL! So why DO you trivialize his crimes?

[stopdiggin]

65. to say that a crime might be difficult

to prosecute - is a gaping chasm away from saying there is no crime, or perhaps only a trivial one.

Did I really just have to say that? Sigh. ---- ----

[LymphocyteLover]

82. But just because something is difficult to prosecute doesn't mean it shouldn't be prosecuted, right?

And given the stakes here... it couldn't be more important. IMHO.

[stopdiggin]

84. nope. then we're back to the 'win or lose' strain of thought

and there I just fundamentally disagree. There are (often huge) costs involved in losing. (in this case that would seem almost overwhelmingly obvious) And, as as good portion of my previous posts reflect, I'm strongly committed to the proposition that if you don't have at least a really decent shot of winning going in - you're better off not going in.

I suspect you (and others) don't agree with that take - but that's where I stand. A failed attempt to prosecute TFG - offers virtually zero benefit - at the expense of tremendous cost.

[LymphocyteLover]

85. I understand there are downsides to losing but a good and righteous prosecution

sends an important message to the public, no matter the outcome.

[stopdiggin]

87. there too. strongly disagree

the 'message' sent by a failed prosecution - is nothing short of disastrous - in the public realm.

[LymphocyteLover]

90. what message is that? Like you think people see OJ as an innocent man?

[stopdiggin]

98. I think the Simpson trial was a shameful debacle

that ended up injuring the police department, the DA's office, and the judicial system as a whole - at least as much, if not in all probability a great deal more - than the defendant in the end.

F-ups and failures have consequences. That's why I'm comfortable on this side of that fence.

[LymphocyteLover]

100. I agree no one came out of that trial looking good

apart from damaging OJ's reputation, it did expose corruption in the LAPD and the foibles of the legal system.

Any high profile trial is bound to expose these things.

[LymphocyteLover]

105. How are these emails not indicative of a crime?

Should we not prosecute this?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/eastman-pence-email-riot-trump/2021/10/29/59373016-38c1-11ec-91dc-551d44733e2d_story.html

[stopdiggin]

106. what crime?

-"indicative of a crime?"- and yet you don't bother to specify.

Did Giuliani, Sidney Powell and Lin Wood commit 'crimes' by running around and filing all sorts of ridiculous lawsuits (with precisely the same end in mind)? Is giving a lame duck president real crappy advice a crime?

And the answer I chose here is (again) - if the DOJ and Garland decide that something in this is deserving of prosecution - then have at it. But I am not (at least at this point) prepared to second guess them in that judgement.

[LymphocyteLover]

107. the crime would be conspiracy to overthrow the US government

[stopdiggin]

109. so then, again

Did Giuliani, Sidney Powell and Lin Wood commit 'crimes' by running around and filing all sorts of ridiculous lawsuits? How about the 6-7 senators and over 120 House members who voted in objection to ratification? People in statehouses that voted for superfluous audits? Are these individuals also guilty of conspiracy? They all certainly have/had the same objective in mind. Anybody that participated in or had knowledge of 'war room' discussions? This too criminal activity?

If somebody actually gave orders for people to go to the Capital and beat and kill police officers .... That's criminal. Prosecute (if you can secure the evidence). Gaming and scheming, and political ploys surrounding the election .... Labeling those things criminal is (at least from a legal standpoint) questionable at best.

[uponit7771]

44. Stop

[onecaliberal]

52. Trump doesn't have any claim to executive privileges. Trump is a traitor.

[stopdiggin]

63. well, now THERE is a winning legal argument!

so glad that you settled that for us.
----- -----

[onecaliberal]

68. Please show me where I said my comment was a legal argument.

The mirror of a man's heart is his actions.

[stopdiggin]

80. well I'm sure that is quite profound

but you jumped into a string where the advisability (and timing?) of bringing charges against DJT was the general thrust. And I guess that coupled with your statement denying any claim to executive privilege ...
Led me to believe we were still talking ...
Sorry, my mistake.

[stopdiggin]

25. well deserved smack down

can wait to hear the many (thousand) ways that the 'experts' are going to frog-march Trump directly to jail. Oh, wait .....

[lame54]

88. Or are they completely missing the point?

[wellst0nev0ter]

91. In what universe does Michael Cohen go to jail

But the former guy doesn't, even though they committed the same crime?

[stopdiggin]

92. can you prove it?

And if that's the case (and you can get a conviction - which is rather important you would agree?). Then by all means go for it!

[wellst0nev0ter]

93. Can you prove he can't be convicted?

It's an open and shut case, by any looks of it.

[stopdiggin]

95. nope. can't prove that negative.

and as I say - if you've got a slam dunk sure thing (and can get past the 'sitting or former' and 'privilege' things) - then by all means ....

[wellst0nev0ter]

97. Then by all means pressure the Justice Department to do it

I like it when internet randos tell people with no power to exercise said power

[stopdiggin]

99. nah. I think people with real experience

are better qualified to make those calls - than lil 'ol me sitting back in the pea patch (or internet comment section). I'll leave it to others to tell Merrick Garland, and the DOJ, what their job is.

[wellst0nev0ter]

104. Well, you do you

Me, I'll fight to make sure that our public servants do what's right.

[Jon King]

26. Garland could have added additional charges those arrested for 1-6.

No one thinks he should indict Trump tonight. We get that is a long process that would take years to build a case.

But every single legal expert on TV said when he took over that he could add charges to the relatively light charges against the 1-6 arrestees.

You have on the ground prosecutors and even judges yelling about how these charges seem very, very light. Yet Garland's DOJ has not added any additional charges? Why not? Send a strong message. Make these people spend more and more for lawyers. Destroy them with charge after charge, any possible thing a good prosecutor can think of. Some cases will be lost, some won, that is not the point.

The point is Garland appears very reluctant to go strongly after those involved in 1-6.

[mikelgb]

27. Are you in a position to do anything about it if we took the time to do so? n/t

but anyway, he could be indicted on the Mueller Report alone.

[LymphocyteLover]

32. thank you-- what I've been saying

[ecstatic]

34. Didn't Mueller already lay the groundwork?

There are multiple crimes he can be tried for right now, even stuff that preceded the coup attempt. Garland can start with obstruction of justice, which is a crime.

Or how about the extortion attempt with Ukraine's president?

Or his illegal phone call with the SOS in Georgia in which he basically threatened him to find 11,000 votes?

Are you seriously saying that none of these crimes should be addressed? And if so, how is that not complicity?

[uponit7771]

42. +1

[msfiddlestix]

38. How about asking Schiff and slew of actual Prosecutors, who have and still are coming out with very

articulate and compelling arguments.

How about YOU offer compelling reasons NOT to bring charges.

[lagomorph777]

50. It's odd, but there are folks here who offer lots of reasons not to charge Trump & the Terrorists

Not very compelling reasons, mind you. But reasons. Apparently some here think that Rudy and Kraken need help defending these felons.

[Autumn]

53. I find the amount of complaining about people discussing this subject to be very, very impressive.

imagine that on a political discussion board. But hey, the Mueller report was shut up too to the best of the Orange turds ability.

[Celerity]

60. IMHO, to drag Bannon, etc in & force them to testify they're going to have to use inherent contempt

House hopes to defy history in criminal contempt case against Bannon

The Jan. 6 panel voted Tuesday to hold him in contempt. Things will get complicated from here.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/19/jan-6-commission-steve-bannon-criminal-contempt-516233

[Arazi]

39. The Stormy Daniels case. That investigation is done. Cohen's serving time

Individual 1 remains uncharged.

Why?

Because Merrick Garland isn't bringing charges in a case that's already been thru the courts with a co-conspirator

[uponit7771]

43. +1

[KG]

40. I lulz'd

[uponit7771]

41. BULL FUCKIN SHIT !!! If the J6 assholes would have been black or Muslim or dark skinned ...

... Hispanic and Trump would've been black and said the shit he did to get the J6 assholes to the capital building

1. 50% of the non whites on the capital grounds would've had napalm thrown on them and burned alive
2. 30% that were left alive chard bodies would've been thrown in jail that day
3. Deondre Trump would've had the shit beat out of him, shot in the back a couple of times and put in Gitmo by now.
4. The non white congress people who EVER thought about thinking about talking to the J6 assholes would've been called traitors
5. the non white congress people who DID ever talk to the J6 assholes would've PUBLICALLY forced to police stations and questioned for a couple of years or some bullshit ..

no ... the countries record on prosecuting crimes quickly if depending on the people involved is ... WELL ... documented and established.

There are less than 1000 of these assholes who've been charged by now !!!

WTF !?

At ***MINIMUM*** the optics here don't look right and I'm mostly just talking about going after the low hanging fruit of gathering up people who took videos and pictures of themselves attacking America's capital building !!!

[OhioChick]

45. This.... n/t

[ecstatic]

49. Exactly! + ♾️. NT

[lagomorph777]

51. 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

Here's the damning proof:
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial

Now impress us. Defend Trump. Persuade us that he's innocent. Tell us why you like him so much.

[uponit7771]

55. Yep, ... Now come the "slam dunk" goal post move

[Arazi]

57. Or just ignore the answers to his question

[lagomorph777]

86. That seems to be the approach.

[Autumn]

54. I think it's kind of impressive that Garlands Justice Department trying to keep the main parts

of the Muller report redacted. Of course that would help prevent any specific charges, and any compelling case and evidence that could help to secure an Indictment of Trump

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-attorney-seeks-secret-mueller-report-materials/2635867/

That little nugget impressed the fuck out of me.

[BannonsLiver]

56. Probably no prosecution

Though we can all take comfort in knowing Air France’s first class hard and soft products are “to die for”, as was pointed out recently.

[Bettie]

62. Well, good to know that those first class passengers

won't have to suffer flying like the "little people"...smh.

[Bettie]

61. Why don't you tell us

why we should feel hopeful about any of this?

What evidence do you have that ANYTHING is happening, except for lowballing charges and sentencing for insurrectionists and the DOJ acting as TFG's personal law firm?

[brooklynite]

64. Well, I seem to recall President Biden being elected last year.

Maybe you think he should be Primaried in 2024 if he can't hire competent staff or manage them appropriately?

[Bettie]

67. Ah a non-answer

100% expected.

Oh, and I never said that he should primaried, that's you putting words in my mouth.

[brooklynite]

70. Then let me try these words.

Do you feel that Garland is doing a competent job? (I do). If not, then it’s Biden responsibility for picking him in the first place, and especially his responsibility to address the problem.

[uponit7771]

69. Deflection

[Bettie]

71. Right? Not even a little bit of

"well I'm sure he's doing plenty behind the scenes" anymore.

Which, I guess is an answer.

[brooklynite]

73. I've been very clear that I have confidence in his performance.

It seems odd the all the people who DON'T have confidence don't seem to think they should do anything about it.

[Bettie]

76. LMAO!

OK, well, you have confidence. Good for you.

And "do anything about it". Um, you may have the ear of all of the powerful people in the universe. Most of us don't.

[brooklynite]

77. 202-456-1111

The White House has operators standing by 24 hours a day so you can share the opinion with Garland’s boss. Although it certainly is convenient to just say that there’s no point doing anything, because nobody will listen.

[Bobstandard]

74. Bad hire? You replace 'em

Any manager can make a bad hire. When that happens, you replace them. That’s what many of us think Biden has done and should do.

[brooklynite]

75. And my point is, when Biden doesn't do that, what next?

[Bobstandard]

78. They're emboldened, we're not

You fight for those who fight for you. Tepid support isn’t going to win this one.

[Demsrule86]

94. That sounds like a threat to take your ball and go home...and then you lose. I am of the

opinion that Trump will never be convicted in any court. Also, conspiracy is very hard to prove.

[Bobstandard]

102. Nope. I'm worried about the...

I’m worried about the “Why should I bother if our side won’t fight” voter. And I think there are enough of those to make the difference

[mcar]

66. Apparently Garland is rearranging paper clips instead of throwing Trump in jail

I read it today on DU.

[AZProgressive]

96. Does this include Schiff?

[SMC22307]

101. "Almost schizophrenic" - Judge Beryl Howell on DOJ's 1/6 prosecutions

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/28/almost-schizophrenic-judge-rips-doj-approach-to-jan-6-prosecutions-517442

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/28/politics/dc-federal-judge-january-6-cases/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/judge-howell-capitol-riot-case/2021/10/28/8f6da2c2-3809-11ec-9bc4-86107e7b0ab1_story.html

It ain't just DU. The Biden Admin needs to right the DOJ ship ASAP. Democrats are FED UP with there being no repercussions, from Fat Nixon on down to the MAGATs who stormed the Capitol.

[Polybius]

103. Garland was passive when Cotton said she should resign in disgrace

Cotton also said thank God you're not on the Supreme Court. Garland should have ripped him a new asshole.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

108. Begin here:

https://wapo.st/3w59E9g