FULL STOP! We now have enough evidence to put him away 10 times over

[Iwasthere]

Or at the very least prevent him from EVER running for any office. I am sick of all the normalizing. DOJ PLEASE DO YOUR JOB! We shouldn't have to beg.

[samsingh]

1. you are so right. He's openly admitted it.

what is the DOJ waiting for? another coup that may destroy democracy.

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. You don't know that they aren't doing their job. You're just impatient he's not arrested RIGHT NOW!

[hamsterjill]

78. Why does it not bother you that a traitor is going unpunished?

That’s the part that I think about - as the proud American that I am. I don’t understand why anyone is upset that some of us want a traitor to be held accountable.

Some on DU are trying to frame the narrative that those of us who want justice are somehow impatient, negative and aren’t real Democrats. We are also supposedly ill-informed and stupid because surely the DOJ is working up an air tight case. Really? Please show me how you know that?

That narrative is completely untrue and unsubstantiated. We want the traitor put in jail so that democracy survives and we continue to have the freedoms we enjoy today.

You don’t know anything more about the workings within the DOJ than the rest of us do.

[Fiendish Thingy]

82. We agree on the desired outcome, just not the progress towards that outcome.

Your assumptions are based the absence of information, whereas I acknowledge the absence of information, and seek to learn what information is publicly available.

Emptywheel.net is an excellent source of detailed information that doesn’t get reported in the media, but is well sourced through court transcripts and often directly listening to the proceedings. The information from emptywheel alone has given me the patience to wait for the process to unfold. I highly recommend it.

[hamsterjill]

90. Marcy Wheeler

I’m sorry, but I simply don’t have the same fascination with Marcy Wheeler.

[Fiendish Thingy]

92. How about the facts she reports? She reports verifiable details no one else covers

You seem to be discounting information because of the messenger.

She’s not a substance free click bait speculator like Seth Abramson or the Palmer report.

[hamsterjill]

96. Why is it that no one else covers it then?

Perhaps there is a reason.

Look - enjoy her writing yourself. You’re allowed. But it’s not my cup of tea. I don’t have the hours available to go through everything. If you do, that’s fabulous and I admire it. I have other obligations that I have to attend to.

But how many posts are you going to make on DU pushing her website?

[Fiendish Thingy]

97. I post emptywheel links that are of interest to me

I’m not that interested in her reports on the Durham investigation, for example, but her reports on January 6 are top notch IMO.

I get that her style is not everyone’s cup of tea. Marcy gets deep into the weeds, closely examining court transcripts and evidence in sometimes mind-numbing detail. She goes into depth that MSM outlets don’t have the patience or stamina for.

In some cases, I skip her quotations of the transcripts and go straight to her explanation. If I am unclear or sceptical of her analysis, I can always go back and review the actual sources for her claims- and Marcy is excellent at keeping all the receipts.

A lot of the complaints on DU about Garland doing “nothing” to prosecute Trump’s crimes are based on the absence of information coming from the DOJ and MSM. I post emptywheel links to counter that faulty perception.

I know some have found it to be helpful.

[Irish_Dem]

3. The wheels of justice appear to grind very slowly for rich, white, powerful men.

[uponit7771]

13. Yep, justice is not swift or blind in the case of Putin's Whore

[Irish_Dem]

25. In fact some might say justice is nonexistent for him.

[treestar]

69. They always grind slowly

That's why the right to "speedy trial" for criminal defendants exists. The "law's delay" was mentioned by Shakespeare - it has always been so, for centuries.

Anyway what OP thinks is evidence may not be.

[Irish_Dem]

75. Unless you are a black male. Then the cops shoot you on the spot.

[treestar]

80. Not always

Or jails would not be populated disproportionately by black men.

[mitch96]

4. I don't know why but I think he his gonna get nailed on his business practice more than

the political bullshit he has been doing. Nip away at what his kids are doing and then nail him.
Of course the right is gonna say it's all political but the State of NY and the DOJ is the law..
YMMV

m

[artemisia1]

51. Absolutely. I think one reason is those in power, as much as they may despise FORMER President

Trump, don't want a precedent of ACCOUNTABILITY made as too many have their own skeletons in closets...

[FreepFryer]

5. Lol full stop indeed. I think the DOJ might have some folks working on this (Nt)

[maxsolomon]

6. Evidence of what?

Incitement of riot? He speaks like a mob boss; he doesn't give direct orders.

What is the crime you'd have the DOJ charge him with?

[Iwasthere]

8. How about sedition. All the normalizing taints the seriousness imo

Sedition is a serious felony punishable by fines and up to 20 years in prison and it refers to the act of inciting revolt or violence against a lawful authority with the goal of destroying or overthrowing it.

[maxsolomon]

10. I agree that what he did was Sedition, and he incited the riot

But there has to be evidence to charge him, and it is a very hard charge to prove. He never gave direction to the 1/6 crowd that was explicit, like "go invade the capitol and interrupt the proceedings", "steal the elector ballots", "kill mike pence", or "kill nancy pelosi".

He said "fight like hell", "we're going to walk to the Capitol". Like a mob boss, he is very good at walking that line; everyone knows what he means but it's all deniable.

I don't believe the DOJ is going to charge a former President with Sedition unless there is a giant flashing neon sign of proof. The risk of him being found innocent at trial is large, and would give him immense power as a victim of Liberal persecution in 2024. He's already waving that bloody flag; he's been waving it since 2016.

[uponit7771]

18. He admitted on video to firing Comey for investigating him, that's enough alone to charge him

[treestar]

71. +1 TFG knows better than to explicitly instruct anything

he is not smart, but he has the instinct for getting away with things.

[Jedi Guy]

88. Yep, and Michael Cohen characterized him exactly the same way, as a mob boss.

As I recall, Cohen said that TFG never comes right out and says what he wants done. He talks around the issue but gets it across well enough so that his cronies know their marching orders. Cohen would certainly be one to know, too. TFG is by no means a smart man, but he's not that dumb.

[uponit7771]

12. He literally said on video he fired Comey because he was investigating him, that's STRAIGHT OOJ ...

... and please don't tell me that's not enough evidence to charge him, it is.

[maxsolomon]

15. As President he had the right to fire Comey, didn't he?

OOJ = ?

[uponit7771]

19. Please don't gas light, its rude. He can fire who he needs to but not for illegal reasons like ...

... he's being investigated like he admitted on video to firing Comey.

That's NO DOUBT enough to charge him with a crime and keep investigation open

The majority of DUrs aren't LIVs

[maxsolomon]

27. I'm not fucking gaslighting you.

I am a cynic when it comes to DC and the DOJ. I don't believe there is any appetite in the DOJ for prosecution of a former president.

I don't know what a "LIV" is.

[BlackSkimmer]

58. I have no idea what an "LIV" is either.

[MrsCoffee]

95. Low information voter.

[Emile]

20. Inciting a riot is against federal law.

18 US Code 2101 and 2102

[uponit7771]

22. +1, and the incitement anyone would be charged with was him telling the crowd to go to the capital

... complex FULL STOP.

Even if he didn't know there were barriers there he DAMN WELL KNEW or SHOULD'VE KNOWN 10s of thousands of people going to the capital building weren't going to go there to stand around quietly and talk.

[maxsolomon]

26. "I meant go there and protest loudly but peacefully".

You know what he meant, I know what he meant, the crowd of traitorous yahoos knew what he meant, but is there plausible denial?

That's the DOJ's dilemma. I simply don't agree that the unprecedented prosecution of a former President for sedition is as simple as you assert.

[treestar]

72. What constitutes "incitement" under that law?

Any case law on it?

[treestar]

74. First case to come up on google scholar is interesting

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4933219956044772017&q=%2218+USC+2101%22&hl=en&as_sdt=10006

[lagomorph777]

30. He gave direct orders on Jan 6th. It's on tape.

[maxsolomon]

31. "go to the capitol and fight like hell"

"because if you don't you're not going to have a country anymore".

"we're going to the Capitol, and I'll be with you".

i remember. the yahoos took that literally, but he can argue that he didn't mean it literally, that it wasn't "direct orders" to engage in violent revolution. i think his impeachment defense did argue that.

[Emile]

32. and let's not forget the emolument clause violations during his term.

Egads he profited off his presidency all four years!

[Emile]

33. He charged the Secret Service thousands and thousands of dollars

for a room at Mar-a-Lago. He charged SS for golf cart fees that would blow your mind.

[lagomorph777]

34. He can argue that, but without his virulent Senate supporters, it will be met with cold silence.

[Elliot Waves]

89. I went ahead and pulled up the whole speech

Here's a couple of excerpts where it's relevant. Draw your own conclusions as you would if you were a juror..

From page 6 & 7:

"Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this,
we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down — we’re going
to walk down. Anyone you want, but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol
and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re
probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you’ll never take back
our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong."

"We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who
have been lawfully slated. Lawfully slated."

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully
and patriotically make your voices heard. Today, we will see whether Republicans stand strong
for the integrity of our elections. But whether or not they stand strong for our country — our
country, our country has been under siege for a long time. Far longer than this four-year period."


From page 24:

"So we are going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue — I love Pennsylvania Avenue — and
we are going to the Capitol. And we are going to try and give — the Democrats are hopeless,
they are never voting for anything, not even one vote — but we are going to try to give our
Republicans — the weak ones because the strong ones don’t need any of our help — going to try
and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s
walk down Pennsylvania Avenue."

"I want to thank you all. God bless you and God bless America. Thank you all for being here.
This is incredible."

"Thank you very much."

"Thank you."


Link to full January 6th speech:

https://wehco.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/news/documents/2021/01/13/Trump_Jan._6_speech.pdf

[Emile]

93. What page is

"We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore," he said.

[lagomorph777]

94. Page 24; immediately before the cited text. Right near the end of the rant -er- speech.

"...something is wrong here, something is really wrong, can’t have happened, and we fight. We fight
like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore. "

[Beastly Boy]

7. Having evidence is a pre-requisite, not a guarantee of indictment

It would be gross negligence on the part of DOJ to ask for a grand jury based on evidence alone. DOJ must convince the judge (not the general public and not the DOJ personnel and not anyone other than the judge receiving the request, for that matter) to his/her satisfaction that not only the evidence exists, but that impaneling the grand jury will serve public interest, that the evidence presented to it only has to do with violations of federal statutes and no other subject, and that their request will withstand all the challenges brought up by the attorneys to the parties named in the request. Further, if any evidece is omitted from the request, or any parties not named in it, the whole process will need to be repeated and a new grand jury impaneled.

Any screw-up at any point in this process would make the odds of "him" running and cheating again much stronger than he would have otherwise had.

[demtenjeep]

9. yes

watergate was CHILDSPLAY

[uponit7771]

11. At minimum there's enough to *CHARGE* Putin's Whore with a crime, that's not done either.

[Emile]

14. DOJ is basically saying any future President can steal anything

from the White House with no repercussions!

[Mr. Ected]

16. Patience, Grasshopper

We only have one chance to get this right and it's far more complicated than us armchair warriors can fathom. Any missteps and we're toast. The fate of our republic lies in the balance. We're all anxious and afraid. We've been let down many times before in the past. It's okay to groan amongst friends but all of this is out of our hands.

Our country is broken. We somehow were able, by sheer numbers, to negate their advantage for only a short period. I have a feeling there are more resources dedicated to salvaging the nation right now than we could ever imagine.

Stay strong. Be courageous.

[Silent3]

46. It's only "complicated" in the minds of those afraid of going after the powerful

You can be damn sure that ordinary citizens with this much evidence against them wouldn't be treated as being so "complicated".

[Generic Brad]

17. This is bigger than Trump

There’s an infrastructure that funded him and props him and his ilk up to fulfill their oligarch agenda. As bad as Trump is, it’s possible the entire criminal apparatus is being investigated. Because this crap doesn’t stop once a trump is arrested. There are hoards of horrible people willing to fill the vacuum.

[NurseJackie]

29. Thanks. Well said. Short and sweet.

[NurseJackie]

21. Yawn.

DOJ PLEASE DO YOUR JOB!

They are professionals and they ARE doing their job. To insinuate otherwise is to take unnecessary swipes at the Biden administration.

We shouldn't have to beg.

Does anyone really believe that impatient citizens "begging" will make the DOJ skip-ahead and take unnecessary shortcuts? Ridiculous. They don't work on the timetable of people who are eager for slow and steady pace of real life justice to match what they're accustomed to seeing in one-hour three-act TV crime/courtroom dramas.

I am sick of all the normalizing.

Nobody is doing that. Please. Posts like this make me cringe.

[uponit7771]

23. Strawman, Putin's Whore could be charged with OOJ for firing Comey for investigating him ...

.. which he ADMITTED to on video.

There's been no charge even when he's out of office.

There's NO DOUBT enough evidence to at least CHARGE him with a number of crap he's admitted to, telling people the opposite at this point is gas lighting

[NurseJackie]

28. You know perfectly well that this is not any ordinary case. It's POLITICAL, and as a result...

You know perfectly well that this is not any ordinary case. While it may not be an impeachment, it's still very POLITICAL, isn't it? And as a result it must be handled very carefully, and deliberately. No mistakes. Every T crossed and every I dotted. Facts and sources checked and double checked. This is the real world.

In office or out of office, it's still political. There's no strawman here... where's the strawman? Or is that just the go-to rebuttal for anything that one disagrees with? Everything I'm saying may be difficult for impatient citizens to accept, but that doesn't change the fact that my words are true. Everyone's eager for the deserved outcome, but it truly serves no good purpose for anyone to go about planting the idea in people's heads that Biden's justice department is corrupt, or incompetent.

Putin's what? Seriously? Are we allowed to casually use that sexist word now?

Listen, all I'm trying to say is that those who are encouraging haste are also encouraging mistakes. To argue the opposite at this point is what's actually gaslighting.

[uponit7771]

35. "It's POLITICAL,..." At least you're honest enough to say what everyone who's pissed at the DOJ

... has been saying and others have been dismissing.

Yeah, someone *

ADMITTING

* to committing a crime on video like Benedict Donald did with Comey is NOT SUPPOSED TO BE 'political' !!!

Cause then the DOJ can say "its political" for everything white, male, rich, hetero and Christians do !!

Our country is way too diverse for "its political" any longer, shit ... we might as well not have a judicial system if that's an answer that's supposed to be accepted.

Putin's what? Seriously? Are we allowed to casually use that sexist word now?

Putin's Whore, when has it been sexist to call a guy a whore ?!

[NurseJackie]

36. Of course I'm honest. Why are you acting so surprised?

At least you're honest enough to say

Of course I'm honest. Why are you acting so surprised?

has been saying and others have been dismissing

The only thing that's being "dismissed" is the irrational hair-on-fire shouting stomping-of-feet, name-calling, arm-flailing, teeth-gnashing, temper tantrums that are on full display at least once a day.

Nobody has denied that it's political. In fact, to the best of my recollection (as far as the threads that I've read or participated in) the most REASONABLE people have always pointed out that it's political. Why is this such a shock to anyone. We've been saying the same thing for months!

is NOT SUPPOSED TO BE 'political' !!!

Too bad. It is. Deal with it. Whining and griping won't change it. Continually denigrating the Biden administration won't help. Begging won't help.

Cause then the DOJ can say "its political" for everything white, male, rich, hetero and Christians do !!

Oh good grief. Spare me the drama and histrionics. That's just another undeserved swipe at the Biden administration's justice department.

Our country is way too diverse for "its political" any longer, shit ... we might as well not have a judicial system if that's an answer that's supposed to be accepted.

Oh, boo-hoo! What a ridiculous thing to say.

Putin's Whore, when has it been sexist to call a guy a whore ?!

When? Oh please! Stop. --- BT-dubs: It's also a homophobic slur when used in that manner. (But I'm sure you knew that already, too.)

[uponit7771]

37. "Too bad. It is. Deal with it..." Nope, a more perfect union doesn't come if its just white males...

... who benefit for it.

I believe in what the country stands for and doing and think we're a nationa of laws not of men as much as possible, not perfect but the you and DOJ should be beyond "deal with it".

What you're now admitting to or accepting is the VERY THING we're complaining about the DOJ doing; they're text book saying what you're saying "... deal with it..." but with lack of action and relatively very few words.

... and no, I don't expect people to be this openly honest ... that's not what humans do as a pattern when it comes to these issues.

I don't agree with you on the principle of what the country is supposed to stand on when it comes to law.

"Deal with it" isn't written anywhere other than where the privileged can take advantage of it.

When? Oh please! Stop. --- BT-dubs: It's also a homophobic slur when used in that manner. (But I'm sure you knew that already, too.)

Link and quote to any credible sight claiming such, I've never heard this before ... regards

[NurseJackie]

38. Ridiculous.

All of it. It's just so silly... impossible to know where to start.

What you're now admitting to or accepting

WTF is that supposed to mean? Admitting? The use of that charged word makes it sound as though you believe you've caught me in a lie... or a contradiction. Nothing could be further from the truth. Fact of the matter is this: I've never denied anything. I've always explained that this case is political.

Y'all can whine and gripe all you want, but it won't change anything.

and no, I don't expect people to be this openly honest

Okay. So what? Who cares what you expect? That's not sufficient justification to behave as if I've been LYING to you from the beginning and just now I'm suddenly telling you the truth (at long last). What good purpose does it serve to make those types of not-so-subtle backhanded insinuations about my honestly? Why do it? What kind of person does shit like that? I don't. And I don't deserve it either.

I don't agree with you on the principle of what the country is supposed to stand on when it comes to law.

Well, welcome to the real world. Surprise! It's not all lollipops, unicorns and rainbows. Not everything works in such an idealistic way, especially when it comes to indicting and prosecuting ex-POTUS's.

Such things will ALWAYS be political and I'm heartened by the fact that it indeed IS taking longer. I want it to be perfect. I want it to be airtight. He's going to have so much money and so many politicians and others to support him in ways that no other "common man" would have. This case needs to be good. It needs to be solid. It needs to be tight.

What y'all keep begging for is quick failure. I want slow and steady SUCCESS!

Do you want failure or success? You can't have both. Choose one. Quick failure, or slow-success! What will it be?

It's like that humorous (but true) sign that I used to see in various repair shops. It definitely applies here too!

[uponit7771]

40. "WTF is that supposed to mean? Admitting? " Why do you sound so defensive man ?! I'm saying ...

... your ***NOT*** being an asshole about being dead wrong in regards to the DOJ stand.

Y'all can whine and gripe all you want, but it won't change anything.

SI SE PUEDO !!! I think we as a group can work with Biden and the DOJ to uphold legal standards, right now the DOJ isn't relative to other cases they're CURRENTLY prosecuting.

The law should be swift and blind, it's not when it comes to Putin's Whore (are you seriously not wanting me to call Trump a whore?)

Also, the case being political doesn't mean the DOJ can't do the right thing in regards to the law.

Both can be true no?

what the, come on

[NurseJackie]

42. Anyone who'd not busy navel-gazing or...

are you seriously not wanting me to call Trump a whore?)

Clearly some people get special treatment while others pay consequences for saying the same things. Enjoy the privilege while it lasts.

Also, the case being political doesn't mean the DOJ can't do the right thing in regards to the law.

They are doing the right thing. They're giving this case EXTRA care. They're being EXTRA meticulous.

I think we as a group can work with Biden and the DOJ to uphold legal standards

They are upholding them. Just open your eyes. Anyone who'd not busy navel-gazing or with their head stuck up their own ass can see it! I certainly see it... and that makes me very happy. Very, very happy. And it should make you happy too.

Once again:

[NurseJackie]

39. PS: ...

Link and quote to any credible sight claiming such, I've never heard this before ... regards

Oh please! Again, total nonsense. You're much smarter than you're pretending to be right now. You've been around DU long enough to have seen the conversations regarding what's sexist and what's homophobic and the dangers of mis-gendering someone. This is no secret what the standard is. --- But, apparently, there are some people like skating on thin ice. They enjoy the danger and the thrill of getting away with something. I'm sure it's invigorating to feel invulnerable. And if that's the case... and if it's worth it... then by all means, please continue. Let's see how long that thin ice will last.


Oof! Ouch! Here's a fellow who thinks he's hot stuff... until...

[uponit7771]

41. K, no website ... I'm continuing to call Trump Putin's Whore

[NurseJackie]

43. Enjoy the privilege.

[uponit7771]

44. Red Herring, "deal with it" doesn't sound like the DOJ we were promised

[NurseJackie]

45. ...

[BlackSkimmer]

79. Too bad. nt

[Silent3]

48. A lot of us are rightfully angry that "it's political" is an excuse

If "it's political" is why something is "complicated", and not simply a matter of the available evidence, then we have a de facto system where people are very, very far from being equal before the law.

[NurseJackie]

49. Lookit... do you want him convicted or not?

Slow is part of the process... especially for something that is unavoidably political. Y'all just need to learn to cope and be patient.

people are very, very far from being equal before the law.

Nobody is arguing differently (that I've noticed).

Once again, I'm glad this is going slow and that they're giving extra special consideration and care to this. Why would anyone want to rush things? Why take chances? Why fuck it up?

It's just amazing to me that you guys are constantly complaining that the DOJ is taking their time in order to DO A GOOD JOB and to BE SUCCESSFUL!

Why is that objectionable to anyone?

[Silent3]

52. The difference between not rushing and not doing anything isn't perceptible

There aren't any signs of even slow progress. What's happening now looks exactly like what doing nothing would look like when it comes to going after the really big fish. The only signs of prosecution, or even investigation, beyond the 1/6 street rabble is going after a few people in groups like the Proud Boys.

Not a single politician or political appointee or big rich donor has yet been charged with anything. Still no interviews (which can't be kept secret, no matter how much the DoJ would like to keep things secret) indicating those big fish are the target of investigation.

And besides, there's a long, long history of the rich and powerful never, ever being held to account, or their mere resignations from positions of power being considered "good enough" without bothering to prosecute or jail them.

[NurseJackie]

53. Again... ridiculous.

The difference between not rushing and not doing anything isn't perceptible

So naturally, it makes perfect sense to simply assume the worst, eh? Good grief.

There aren't any signs of even slow progress.

Again... ridiculous. This isn't a TV drama. This IS, however, an ongoing investigation. What exactly do you (and others) expect them to do? Press conferences every day? Hourly tweets? Publishing pdf's of everyone's calendar and internal documents? --- How absurd!

The DOJ has no such obligation and reasonable adults understand that. These types of expectations, the wild attacks and smears, and continuous denigration of Biden's justice department are over-the-top temper tantrums and nothing else.

[Silent3]

54. The DoJ doesn't have the ability to keep everything as secret as they'd like

I don't expect press conferences or tweets. Once investigations proceed as far as interviewing witnesses and sources, the investigation gets out.

If there is anything going on at all, then the pace of the DoJ is so damned slow that it's glacial if these public clues haven't emerged after more than a year. What would they have been doing for more than a year? Nothing but studying documents and case law?

It's not as if time isn't an important factor here either. Democracy is in peril. The DoJ may prefer not to act in a political manner, but inaction or slow action that favors Republicans over Democrats is also political in effect. If Republicans further entrench their power in the November elections accountability for Trump and his minions slides ever further out of reach, no matter how wonderfully beautiful a case the DoJ might hypothetically be assembling while time keeps slipping away.

[NurseJackie]

55. Nobody has claimed otherwise, have they?

But by the same token, I think it's completely ridiculous to presume that they are somehow obligated to invite the public to view the details of ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS. It's patently absurd.

So many people wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth over nothing. It's accomplishes nothing.

[Silent3]

56. I've never said a thing about any DoJ obligation to keep us apprised

Nor has anyone else I've heard from. I don't get where you see any such demand or expectation.

The justified impatience is over lack of any signs of progress, which is an entirely different thing from expecting obligatory progress reports from the DoJ.

A pace so glacial that hard-to-hide hints haven't leaked out is more than enough to indicate either an unwillingness to pursue the big fish, or a failure to recognize the urgency of the threat to democracy by picking up the pace of whatever action might hypothetically be underway.

These things are more than sufficient to generate wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth. Does the hand wringing and teeth gnashing in and of itself accomplish anything? No. But neither does screaming when you're being stabbed to death. The screams just kind of slip out even if they don't save your life.

[NurseJackie]

57. Clearly that's the only solution to all the griping and tantrums that I'm observing.

56. I've never said a thing about any DoJ obligation to keep us apprised

Clearly that's the only solution to all the griping and tantrums that I'm observing. Aside from RUSHING to certain failure, what else would make you happy?

The justified impatience is over lack of any signs of progress,

So then it appears that you DO INDEED want the DOJ to keep you appraised on a daily/hourly basis. Which is it?

A pace so glacial that hard-to-hide hints haven't leaked out is more than enough to indicate either an unwillingness to pursue the big fish, or a failure to recognize the urgency of the threat to democracy.

Pessimists have such imaginations... so your complain now is that there are NO leaks?

The screams just kind of slip out even if they don't save your life.

This exchange has devolved into absolute absurdity. I just can't take these types of absurd claims and accusations seriously any longer. This type of extreme concern is bordering on performance art.

I'm done. Goodbye. Have the last word if you want.

[Silent3]

59. There's a well-known history that the DoJ can't keep investigations secret forever

How do you turn "The justified impatience is over lack of any signs of progress" into "So then it appears that you DO INDEED want the DOJ to keep you appraised on a daily/hourly basis."?

Do you see no daylight between the common expectation of some signs of progress, and your straw-man exaggeration of "appraised on a daily/hourly basis"?

It's one thing to indulge in some rhetorical exaggeration. I'm quite content with people applying a bit of dramatic flair to their writing. But you seem incapable of differentiating between your exaggerations and what's actually being discussed. Time and time again, you immediately counter "should see some signs" with "appraised on a daily/hourly basis", as if you truly see nothing in between.

[NurseJackie]

60. Message read.

[Silent3]

61. Apparently having straw men and binary thinking pointed out makes you sleepy n/t

[NurseJackie]

62. No. Watching adults have tantrums make me sleepy.

It's unnecessary and it accomplishes nothing.

[Silent3]

63. So, you're not deny there's good reason to worry about the DoJ?

You just want people to shut up because complaining won't help?

[NurseJackie]

64. Yes, I'm not not denying that there's not not no good reason for this.

63. So, you're not deny there's good reason to worry about the DoJ?

Yes, I'm not not deny that there's not not no good reason for this. (I can write grammatically confusing things too.)

You just want people to shut up because complaining won't help?

They don't need any help. Spreading toxic lies about the Biden administration and 2nd-guessing his choices is not necessary. Whatever it is you think these tantrums accomplish, doesn't actually accomplish.

[Silent3]

65. The sentence was hardly grammatically challenging

You're full of false equivalencies. Since when does complaining about inaction by the DoJ equate to "Spreading toxic lies about the Biden administration"?

I'm done. Goodbye. Have the last word if you want.

I was pretty certain too that you were no good for your word.

[NurseJackie]

66. It was hardly grammatically correct or clear.

You're full of false equivalencies.

It's not about me, is it?

Since when does complaining about inaction by the DoJ equate to "Spreading toxic lies about the Biden administration"?

The false accusations that Biden's justice department is corrupt and incompetent is toxic. Along with the insinuations that Biden doesn't know what's going on, or that he lacks good judgement when choosing members of his cabinet... all toxic. All harmful. It serves no good purpose.

65. The sentence was hardly grammatically challenging

Irrelevant. It was hardly grammatically correct or clear. I illustrated that in an amusing way with a response that was equally awkward.

I was pretty certain too that you were no good for your word.

Oh, please! It's a discussion forum. I changed my mind. Deal with it.

[Silent3]

68. Please point out where I made a false accusation.

Last edited Wed Feb 9, 2022, 01:55 PM - Edit history (2)

Go ahead. Try.

I changed my mind. Deal with it.

I did deal with it. By pointing out your rhetorical dishonesty and unreliability. You don't make logical arguments. You just try to "score points" and insistently mischaracterize what others say.

Perhaps you fancy yourself as "seeing through" what other people say to what you imagine they "really" must mean. If so, you aren't as good as that as you imagine.

[NurseJackie]

76. The insinuations of incompetence and corruption are unmistakable...

68. Please point out where I made a false accusation.

The insinuations of incompetence and corruption are unmistakable... and frequent. They're right there for anyone to see.

You just try to "score points" and insistently mischaracterize what others say.

Nonsense. That's false.

Perhaps you fancy yourself as "seeing through" what other people say to what you imagine they "really" must mean. If so, you aren't as good as that as you imagine.

Nice try. But, as I've said many times before. This isn't about me. I can tell you that I'm not the one who's shitting on Biden's justice department and insinuating that they're corrupt or incompetent, or that Biden is clueless, or that he chose his cabinet members poorly.

What I've continually done is to point out that those types of accusations (whether outright, or blatant, or clever insinuations that leave just enough wiggle-room for deniability) serve no good purpose. That type of impatience and those who indulge themselves with those types of anti-DOJ rants are no friends of the Biden administration or the Democratic party.


Yes, we know. Everyone wants everything NOW! But as Veruca Salt shows us... there's a price to pay for being impatient and demanding. The machine judges her as a "bad egg" and she disappears down the garbage chute.

[Silent3]

77. Your insinuations are quite mistaken

I think Biden is a good President, and I'm not accusing the DoJ of being corrupt. At most, I'm accusing them of insufficient courage and motivation. I do have strong doubts now about the merits of Merrick Garland, but even then, no President, no matter how good, has a crystal ball to foresee how well every appointee will succeed at every job, so I do not see this as a reflection on Biden himself.

The problem is long ingrained habits of treading far too lightly where the rich and powerful are involved. It's true in many countries under many leaders throughout history. I suppose one might call that a kind of corruption, but it's a common cultural corruption, not anything anyone here is blaming Biden for. That this deference and timidity about going after powerful and well-connected people is sickeningly common is no reason, however, to find it acceptable.

And, once again, you falsely equate any impatience after more than a year with imagined demands for instant gratification. You can't separate reality from your own exaggerations.

You also gloss right over the fact that there can be a price to pay for moving too slowly just as much as impatience can backfire.

You keep saying, "it's not about me". It's not about me either. You're painting with an awfully broad brush about everyone on DU who expresses impatience with the DoJ when it comes their meanings, motivations, and ability to endure any waiting whatsoever. We're already well past "instant" on anything here.

[NurseJackie]

81. Well, there ya go!

At most, I'm accusing them of insufficient courage and motivation. I do have strong doubts now about the merits of Merrick Garland, but even then, no President, no matter how good, has a crystal ball to foresee how well every appointee will succeed at every job, so I do not see this as a reflection on Biden himself.

That's clearly accusing them of being COWARDS and of being LAZY. That's an accusation of Garland of being a FAILURE and implying that Biden of lacks FORESIGHT or any sort of political acumen.

And, once again, you falsely equate any impatience after more than a year with imagined demands for instant gratification.

No I haven't. And as irrational as it may be, the "demands" being made are real. So are the insults and insinuations and attacks and smears and the continual denigration of the Biden administration.

not anything anyone here is blaming Biden for.

That this deference and timidity about going after powerful and well-connected people is sickeningly common is no reason, however, to find it acceptable

There's a little ambiguity there. Are you insinuating that Garland is timid, or that Biden is timid? Or that that one or the other is incompetent? Regardless, it's complete nonsense. And I have to wonder why anyone would want to willingly engage in doing that type of dirty work for the GOP. This is little more than writing their script for them.

You can't separate reality from your own exaggerations.

Again... not about me. Nice try.

It's not about me either.

All I can say is that I'm not the one who's making (not so) subtle accusations of COWARDICE, LAZINESS, FAILURE and political incompetence of Joe Biden.

You're painting with an awfully broad brush about everyone on DU who expresses impatience with the DoJ when it comes their meanings, motivations, and ability to endure any waiting whatsoever.

No I'm not. I'm just putting things into perspective for everyone who has become addicted to "instant gratification" and who equate that with COWARDICE, LAZINESS, FAILURE and political incompetence... or who cleverly suggest that Biden's DOJ is corrupt and giving preferential treatment to Trump and his cronies.

It's as simple as that. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Silent3]

83. Well, now that I know it's "as simple as that"

...and that what I mistook for mere opinions from you are actually unimpeachable facts with no other interpretation, I'll make sure I spread the word.

[NurseJackie]

84. Thank you. Until the next time, I guess my work here is done!

no other interpretation

Correct.

I'll make sure I spread the word.

Okay. Do that.

[Silent3]

86. Apparently even Biden's Whitehouse staff is anti-Biden now.

This contagion is spreading fast. You'd better go correct the error of their ways.

[NurseJackie]

87. I'll get right on it.

[RobinA]

70. So At What Point

is one justified in transitioning from patiently waiting for something to happen when it appears that nothing is, to concluding that nothing is, in fact, happening?

[NurseJackie]

73. That's not for me to say. But what I can tell you is that it serves no good purpose...

... for anyone to continue to spread toxic lies about the Biden administration and his justice department by insinuating that they're all corrupt, or incompetent, or lazy, or "in on it" or that they're "protecting Trump", etc etc, blah-blah-blah. The insinuations that Biden is clueless, that he has no idea what he's doing, that he can't be trusted to choose competent people for his own cabinet and administration is also a DANGEROUS LIE.

appears that nothing is, to concluding that nothing is, in fact, happening?

I guess appearances can be deceiving, can't they? These judgements and proclamations and declarations and insinuations and every degrading thing that's being uttered about Biden's justice department are all based on a LACK of evidence.

It's ridiculous and pointless... and harmful. This type of behavior makes about as much sense as blaming Biden for the supply-line bottlenecks and the inflation that's causing. Yet, people continue to do that... and other less-informed and gullible citizens believe it... and will sit-out the next election or vote for the GOP instead. All because of the undeserved criticism and blame that comes in a steady stream of toxic vomit that spews forth from impatient and unrealistic individuals.

It's a dangerous and selfish game.

[Emile]

24. The lawless former guy makes me cringe!

[brooklynite]

47. Who is "normalizing"?

If you have evidence that DOJ is NOT doing its job, please present it.

[Silent3]

50. How about as, just a small example, over fifty days and counting for Mark Meadows...

...not being charged with contempt of Congress.

It's not that "complicated". No matter what claims Mark Meadows might want to make for executive privilege, Fifth Amendment protection, being On a Mission from God... none of that matters. The law is pretty damn clear. You still have to show up in person before Congress and make your claims, on a question by question basis, why you can't or won't testify. No one gets to say they're just not going to bother to show up.

If the DoJ is dragging their feet on something that simple, and you add on top of that that their secrecy always gets broken when they get as far as interviewing people during investigations, and that many important people who should be in the know are also expressing impatience, I'd say the burden of proof is on you that the DoJ is doing their job, not on people complaining that they aren't.

[MineralMan]

67. Who are "we?"

If you are part of that "we," and you have actual evidence, please present it in detail.

I suspect, however, that you do not actually have genuine evidence, though, but only mere suspicion and supposition.

You know who does have real evidence? The DOJ. It has tons of evidence, which is is using to decide what should be done. It's not as simple a decision as you seems to think it is. The DOJ knows what to do with evidence and how to present it to grand juries and in court. Do you know that stuff, too? Maybe you can get a job at the DOJ and help...

[nolabear]

85. But her...oh, never mind.

[AngryOldDem]

91. Did you see Kurt Bardella on The ReidOut last night?

He thinks the DOJ does have enough to get Trump, but it won’t say so publicly until it has the fucker doing a perp walk out of Mar-A-Lago.

Otherwise, there is no hope for our justice system.

I, for one, cannot WAIT to see that happen.

[Emile]

98. Now today we learned the documents handed over to the 1/6 committee have gaps like on 1/6.

[JuJuChen]

99. ....

[Demovictory9]

100. K&r