When it comes to Garland, many people, including the news media, ignored these facts.

[fightforfreedom]

Garland has only been in office a little over a year.

He took office soon after the attack on the capital and the first attempted coup in our history.

When he took office he took over a DOJ that was ravaged by Trump. It was a mess. He had to hire new staff, lawyers, prosecutors. This takes time.

When he took office he had to search, identify, through videos and tips hundreds of people who stormed the capital. So far over 800 people have been arrested. All of them have to be prosecuted.

With all of the above Garland had to learn, catch up, with all the investigations The DOJ was conducting across the country and around the world.

With all the above Garland still found time to start investigating people like the fake electors.

To say Garland had a full plate when he took office is an understatement.

When you consider all of the above, it is fair to say it would have been near impossible for him to start a major investigation into the leaders of the attempted coup soon after taking office. It looks like he decided early on to let the committee start the investigation into the top coup plotters until he got caught up.

Garland is now caught up. he is starting to look at the top people. The committee is nearing the end of their investigation and Garland will use all their evidence.

Years from now we may all learn Garland was not really moving too slowly. In many ways he was moving quickly, deliberately, wisely.

[hamsterjill]

1. And, again yet another thread.

Are you sure you just don’t want to start a fan club?

[Ocelot II]

3. Not nearly as many as the bashing and complaining threads.

[kiri]

54. fear of being partisan destroys rule of law

I fear this paean to "scaredness of shadow" is disingenuous. The DOJ is so afraid of being "partisan" that they are paralyzed.

A good leader delegates, delegates to deputy AGs, associate AGs, so the AG does not bear all the burdens alone. There are no signs the AG has done this, except by creating a "go slow, be super cautious" environment.
Remember, the AG has no experience as a manager, ceo, leader, dept head.

Enormous damage was done and continues by Ford's pardoning Nixon. This set the stage for the AG's present timidity and inaction.
The DOJ has not pursued cases of contempt of the subpoenas. 140 days since the referrals from the Jan 6 committee.
The DOJ has not released the unredacted Mueller report.
The DOJ has not put any pressure on Republicans undermining fair elections. Dems keeping quiet is de facto endorsing, enabling.

DOJ is setting the stage for non-prosecuting Trump and his cronies. The AG is OK with SCOTUS breaking precedence, but afraid of DOJ being criticized for re-examining precedents.

Robert Reich, Glenn Kirschner, Jamie Raskin, Paul Krugman, Elizabeth Warren... have all expressed alarm at DOJ's missed opportunities.

[MineralMan]

5. Followed by yet another content-free attack

on some poster who is discussing the DOJ's performance and persistence.

Are you sure you don't just want to attack Garland?

I'm sorry, but you use too few words, it seems to me.

[agingdem]

8. I'm with you...

the J6 committee's sole purpose is to "tell the story" of January 6..Garland has a few more things to deal with..vote rights, voter intimidation, election interference, domestic and foreign terrorism, immigration..and the Trump ripple effect...

what seems obvious to us: sedition, treason, conspiracy, insurrection, coup..all unprecedented, can only be prosecuted with precedented law...Garland and the DOJ are doing their jobs in a world turned upside down...

[kiri]

65. confirmation bias--thy name is

If you mention Grlnd by name, and his inadequacies, a DU bot gets activated.

Then comes a nastygram warning of DU orthodoxies against criticising Dems with hymns to "confirmation bias."

I maintain that sending money $$ to Dems is a waste since the DOJ is too timid to enforce the laws.

[moniss]

22. There is plenty of content

in plenty of posts on this subject over the last months indicating sufficient reasons to be critical of the performance of the DOJ. The issue of ignoring subpoenas for example is very straightforward and clear cut and shouldn't have taken more than a week or two to file in court. But here we are many months after the referral to DOJ and no filings on these referrals. Don't think for one minute that the refusal of the J6 committee to turn over transcripts isn't a message to DOJ to get off their backside on trying to help enforce the subpoenas. If DOJ waits long enough until after the public hearings and report from the committee then they can just conveniently drop the referrals as being moot. How convenient.

[Novara]

47. Meadows' contempt referral isn't clear cut

Garland is looking at potential additional charges. Plus, Meadows might have some legitimate privilege and IIRC, they are pursuing getting that part of it settled before making a decision.

[moniss]

73. The privilege

doesn't exist at the behest of the underling. Furthermore any broad statement of "privilege" is nonsense legally to begin with. You have to state the type of privilege and the claim is not controlled by the underling. Bannon was referred long ago also. Do you think non-members of the administration enjoy privilege? No lawyer I've seen discussing this has considered that position to be anything but laughable. Charges in addition to ignoring the subpoena do not have to wait. Cases are brought every day and amended later with additional charges.

Each day that goes by gets one day closer to the mid-terms and the DOJ customary 90 day "quiet period". The foot-dragging lets DOJ off the hook for going after the higher ups and then if the GQP is successful in the mid-terms they will use the must pass budget bills to restrict any spending by DOJ on 1/6 matters. If they should fail and any higher ups actually get convicted before 2024 (doubtful given the ability to stretch appeals of trial issues before trial conclusion) if the GQP wins the White House in 2024 the pardons will flow like water. Time is/was of the essence.

As an example of what happens with timid foot-dragging we need look no further than all of the voter suppression/election nullification laws that passed in the last year around the country. DOJ made statements about their intent to protect the ballot. The GQP and the right wing extremists learned long ago that they can laugh off that strongly worded press release. Meanwhile DOJ appears to have decided to make a public confrontation with the committee in response to criticism by the committee for the inaction on enforcing the subpoenas.

[MineralMan]

58. And you are? What is the basis of your expertise?

I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with you.

[moniss]

68. Back at you

and it takes no expertise to know that when you are subpoenaed you show up or else you are in violation. I have no idea why you feel you have to know someone.

[hamsterjill]

75. Great posts.

n/t

[hamsterjill]

62. I don't write volumes like some here.

You know, as an example - someone writing numerous paragraphs obviously bragging about how much one has. Most of us on here realize that there are many that may not have as much or anything at all. So we try not to flaunt what we may be privileged to have.

Or perhaps wanting a pat on the back for tipping someone a little extra for a job well done. I’d say the majority here probably tip generously yet don’t feel a need to advertise what we’ve done.

So, no. I don’t write volumes such as that.

The OP has started numerous threads about the same subject over the last few days. My comment was in recognition of that.

[MineralMan]

63. LOL!

I write what I write. People interpret what I write based on their own knowledge or lack of knowledge. Often, they get it wrong.

"A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest..." - Paul Simon

[BlackSkimmer]

66. Well stated.

[we can do it]

9. Yet another sad know it all reply.

[BlackSkimmer]

36. I know, right?

You can almost set your clock by them.

[hamsterjill]

56. Yep!

And their followers.

[Meowmee]

67. None of the listed gives any real reason

for the lack of action imo. Talk is cheap. Whatever actions are being taken the clock is being run out.

Citing a crisis such as Jan 6th as reason for inability to respond properly is an excuse- at some point, early on preferably, you need to respond appropriately to something on this level which has threatened our government and democracy.

I suspect they will never charge dumpster with anything and most of the big fish will not have any real accountability. They are afraid of charging a so called former prez with any crime.

[hamsterjill]

69. Agree.

The clock is (purposely) being run out.

[Meowmee]

70. agree, sadly and tragically

[Ocelot II]

2. I also wonder how many Trumpist moles remain in the DoJ

who are throwing spanners in the works, even if just by intentionally slowing things down.

[KS Toronado]

28. I wonder about them all the time

I call it "throwing rocks in the gearbox"

[AZLD4Candidate]

40. Anyone that snotty faced heap of parrot droppings appointed, nominated, or hired in any department

should have been told, on day one, to tender their resignation or be fired by 5PM on day one!

If that didn't happen, it was a grave oversight!

[Ocelot II]

43. Some of them are probably Civil Service, so they can't be fired so easily.

And then there's the question of identifying who's a loyalist likely to throw sand in the gears and who's just some ordinary office worker who happened to get a job there in the last 5 years. DoJ is a huge agency, and finding and taking out all the trash will take awhile.

[elleng]

46. Prolly a few; I don't follow the b.s.

[Mister Ed]

4. I especially wonder how many traitors work in the DOJ he inherited.

About a third of U.S. citizens are Insurrection Supporters, and believers in the Big Lie - you know, traitors.

I doubt that percentage is any less in the DOJ. I expect the Trump administration tried to plant and cultivate as many Trump loyalists in the department as possible.

I imagine that presents Garland with quite an obstacle course in the pursuit of justice regarding the Insurrection.

(With apologies to Ocelot II, whom I now see posted the same thoughts above while I was composing this post)

[gab13by13]

7. I especially wonder if that's why,

the select committee refused to turn documents over to the DOJ? If DOJ is doing such a fine job why does it have to get evidence from the select committee? Adam Schiff said several times that DOJ had better not be waiting on referrals from us.

I know this, DOJ failed miserably by not prosecuting the Cyber Ninjas. DOJ gave the green light to the Big Lie. Gave the green light to doing fraudits across the country. Gave the green light for Magats to tamper with election equipment, all because it failed to prosecute a pro-Trump, fake company with a mailbox for an office. One of the biggest blunders of Garland's tenure, we may lose our democracy because of his inaction.

Thank god a citizen's group and local media outlet in Arizona filed a FOIA request to get documents from the Cyber Ninjas. They found out that the people doing the fraudit were all Trump people, imagine that.

[Ocelot II]

12. This might be one reason why the 1/6 committee doesn't want to turn over

some of its documents to the DoJ. Are they also worried that some Trump holdovers will "disappear" or alter some important evidence, or at least sit on it? I'm not usually so conspiracy-minded, but...

[Mister Ed]

13. The simplest and most likely thing that Trumpsters in the DOJ might do...

...is to tip off the people under investigation, and give them the details about what the J6 committee knows.

If I recall correctly, that's how Karl Rove dodged justice back at Fitzmastime. A reporter inadvertently tipped him off about what investigators knew, and he scurried back to the investigators to amend his testimony and avoid perjury charges.

[yellowdogintexas]

6. Thank You!!!Not to mention an investigation into a former POTUS requires detail

and procedures far beyond any other investigation!

[gab13by13]

11. It's taken 15 months to find out that DOJ

is finally "investigating" the coup plotters. Investigating doesn't mean they will prosecute, but that's OK, at least we now know DOJ is looking at people outside of the 1/6 insurrection on the Capitol.

[Fiendish Thingy]

15. It only took two months to find out there was an investigation

Grand Jury was convened in February 2022 (just three months after the US Attorney for DC was sworn in), and that fact was revealed in April 2022.

The US Attorney for DC is primarily responsible for leading investigations into crimes committed in DC. The position was filled by an acting USA until Matthew Graves was sworn in on November 5, 2021.

We don’t yet know what investigative activity took place before Graves was sworn in, but we know there has been plenty of activity since then.

[gldstwmn]

51. And yet, Alvin Bragg wasn't interested.

Carey Dunne and Mark Pomerantz begged to differ.

[Ocelot II]

74. Alvin Bragg isn't DoJ; he's the Manhattan DA.

Why he didn't follow up on the NY State investigation isn't clear, but it has nothing to do with the federal DoJ.

[mcar]

10. Kick

[Fiendish Thingy]

14. Just as significant (if not more so ): the US Attorney for DC wasn't sworn in until Nov 5 2021

So, Matthew Graves is sworn in on November 5 2021, and convenes a Grand Jury to investigate January 6 just three months later in February 2022.

So, there goes the “DOJ has had over a year !!1!!” argument…

[gab13by13]

16. Why? Can't DOJ investigate without forming a grand jury?

Can't it do search warrants and interviews without a grand jury? I hope DOJ wasn't waiting for Matthew Graves to be confirmed.

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. Sure they can investigate without a GJ, we just don't know anything about it

Which seems to be your main complaint- that you were left “out of the loop” in being informed of DOJ’s activities, so in retaliation, you’ve presumed that DOJ has done nothing.

[gab13by13]

21. Nope, I am dumber than a box of rocks, I admit it,

but I do repeat what I hear from former prosecutors, what I hear from former FBI officials, but most damning of all, I repeat what I hear from members of the select committee. Why do all of those people feel that DOJ has dropped the ball?

They have more knowledge, more inside contacts than you or I, correct?

[Fiendish Thingy]

32. If the DOJ is doing it's job properly, they wouldn't know any more than you or I

Otherwise, they would be leaking specifics, something like “Garland has ordered staff to stand down, no prosecuting former presidents”, instead of the vague and general expressions of frustration at not knowing what DOJ is actually doing, which, upon brief reflection, I realize is exactly what your posts have been complaining about, that you don’t know what what DOJ is doing, so you presume they are doing nothing.

[kentuck]

17. "When he took office he took over a DOJ that was ravaged by Trump"

And there is no guarantee that he has cleaned up all the mess yet.

We should not naively expect the DOJ to clean itself of the Republican slime and devote itself to justice without any politics.

[Whiskeytide]

18. People are frustrated that this is not wrapping up like ...

… a Law and Order episode. Real life investigations are tedious, often messy and complicated.

I still think that, even here at DU (where we follow this stuff very closely), we tend to conflate the Stop the Steal rally with the breach of the Capitol building. As far as we know, there are no pics of Meadows, Stone or Mo Brooks shitting on desks, stealing podiums, throwing fire extinguishers or stabbing Capitol police officers with a Тяцмp flag pole.

But because the prosecutions of the asshats who entered the building are moving quickly (they really are), some have trouble understanding why the people close to Тяцмp are not being prosecuted for their roles in trying to undermine the election results just as quickly. Those are MUCH more complicated investigations.

And our criminal laws - which really never contemplated such blatant rat-fuckery - don’t clearly prohibit much of the conduct anyway. Where and how do you draw the line between State legislatures that appointed a group of “alternative electors” and designated them as being there “just in case the election of Biden was not certified” with a State legislature that just sent a group of electors without such a qualification? Is either really illegal? What Federal Statute prohibits it?

I don’t know if any of these people will be prosecuted. I don’t know if doing so would martyr them in the eyes of the Magats even if they did. But whatever happens, I have no reason to believe Garland is disloyal or incompetent. Or even slow. I suspect he’ll simply follow where the investigations lead, and take appropriate action.

[gab13by13]

23. I listened to Frank Figliusi yesterday,

he stated that people need to be charged with, "the attempted overthrow of our election."

That one charge should cover a lot of people.

[Whiskeytide]

45. The only statute I'm aware of that seems to ...

… track what you’re advocating is 18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government. Not the election, but the government.

It requires that the defendant essentially advocate the overthrowing of the government “… by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government…”. There is a provision that you can be charged with a crime if you advocate “…the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof-“

Again - conflating the breach of the Capitol building (violence) with all the procedural rat fucking that went on behind the scenes. None of the rat-fuckers - I.e.Тяцмp‘s people - seem to have actually engaged in violence (as far as I know anyway). Their connections to the militia groups at the Capitol building are not readily apparent. Is there evidence that some of these people helped plan the attack (not the rally, the violent attack)? I don’t know. I haven’t seen it in the media reports. If it’s there, that MIGHT be chargeable. But that’s a tough case.

I could see Stone being in on that. But it’s not likely Meadows or members of the Тяцмp family were hands on with any of that.

[MineralMan]

61. Please cite the law that makes that a crime.

You can't, because there is no such law. It's far more complicated that you know. Figliusi knows, but you don't.

"A man hears what he wants to hear..."

[DownriverDem]

34. Me neither

The complainers are politically naive. They really don't seem to get it.

[Novara]

48. This is a good point:

And our criminal laws - which really never contemplated such blatant rat-fuckery - don’t clearly prohibit much of the conduct anyway. Where and how do you draw the line between State legislatures that appointed a group of “alternative electors” and designated them as being there “just in case the election of Biden was not certified” with a State legislature that just sent a group of electors without such a qualification? Is either really illegal? What Federal Statute prohibits it?

The laws that were broken are not used a hell of a lot. In order to make charges stick, they have to be applied appropriately. I suppose there's quite a bit of research that needs to be done.

[MineralMan]

60. Exactly. Mostly, it's people who don't actually understand

what's involved in prosecuting something like this. It's unprecedented and will require far more than prosecution of more well-defined crimes. Garland is on it, I have no doubt. Just not fast enough for the TV cop show viewers.

[twodogsbarking]

20. Big wheels turn slowly.

[gab13by13]

24. Big fascism is moving quickly.

[LiberalLovinLug]

25. Sad that we feel compelled to write these kind of apologetic OPs all the time

We've used it on Obama, Pelosi, and others when it seems they are disappointing us with a lack of action when the base is screaming for it.

While Republicans are pushing the limits, the boundaries, of how far they can radicalize their base. When they go too far in that grooming like Madison Cawthorn, they cut their losses and move on.

I am not suggesting that, but for petes sake, don't do the exact opposite. It seems like they have been so cowed by being called "radical leftists" that they dare not over-react or "cause a scene". One State Senator's outburst two weeks ago was plenty, thank you very much.

[DownriverDem]

31. The base

does not get how it works. Americans have short memories. The closer to November it comes out the better. No matter how many times folks say it, the complainers just don't get it. Are they forgetting what happened to HRC in 2016?

[yaesu]

26. the problem is the longer this goes on without any charges the more it undermines the trust

people have in the justice system and government. Lawlessness, chaos happens, society breaks down, just the kind of atmosphere that fascisms thrives in.

[DownriverDem]

30. No it doesn't

The closer to November the better. It's a game.

[yaesu]

33. It shouldn't even have a whiff of being political as that would also undermine confidence. nt

[hamsterjill]

57. This is not a game.

This is life and death and it needs to be dealt with as such.

People are frustrated because the world watched crimes being committed and nothing has been done about it after a significant amount of time.

[Meowmee]

72. This

Last edited Wed May 18, 2022, 04:25 PM - Edit history (1)

This is not a game

The murder of over 1 million and the numerous other crimes including an attempted coup and insurrection are NOT A GAME... they cannot be swept under the rug and apologized for or moved on from We either do something now and fast or we lose the country for good.

JFC what does it take to see that and to respond to save what is left after 4-5 years of that monster and his supporters?

[Joinfortmill]

27. Yes! Let's stop bashing this patriot.

[Peregrine Took]

37. Mueller was a great patriot, too, and look what happened there.

He should have responded forcefully after Barr wrote that "there's nothing there" screed which pulled the rug out from under the Report.

[gab13by13]

42. Mueller was given a narrow range to work in,

Mueller was under the impression that SDNY was following the money, thanks to Barr.

With that said, Mueller indicted or got guilty pleas from 34 people and 3 companies. Mueller laid out the evidence to indict Trump for 10 counts of obstruction of justice. Mueller laid out the evidence to indict Trump as "individual one."

The statute of limitations has run out on those cases so we have concrete evidence that Merrick Garland chose not to indict Trump, for whatever reasons. I believe it is because Garland is an institutionalist. Garland believes that prosecuting a politician, an office holder does damage to the institution.

[DownriverDem]

29. So very true

The complainers do not get how it works. Americans have very short memories and attention spans. The closer to November the better. I wonder who these complainers really are.

[KPN]

38. And you know Garland is starting to look at

the top people” how?

Oh, and never mind that time is actually running out if not already run out on any efforts on the DOJs behalf regarding top leaders of the insurrection and any crimes associated with creating the big lie to bear on this fall’s elections.

I’m not about to get my hopes up again. Not without some evidence at least.

[CaptainTruth]

39. I also believe it's important to get testimony & convictions of 1/6 participants first.

If you're going to build a case against [insert name of Coup Leader here] it's very helpful to have hundreds of 1/6 participants testifying that their actions were directly inspired by Coup Leader & yes they broke the law (because they have been convicted in court) in direct response to Coup Leader's words & deeds.

It makes a much more solid case against Coup Leader to have those hundreds of statements & convictions on record so they're not just speculation, they're fact.

[Novara]

41. Right, and why would he waste time doing the J6 committee's job?

The J6 committee's job is to gather evidence, and then present it to the DOJ and the American people. Why the HELL would Garland and the DOJ duplicate their work?

Look, I get it - I am also impatient to see some goddamn heads on pikes here. But it seems people are stamping their feet yelling I WANT IT NOW without understanding the mechanisms of all this. I don't understand it - no one here does - but you're right that Garland has had his hands full. And it just doesn't make any kind of sense to investigate the same damn things the J6 committee is investigating, and to duplicate their work. Rather, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to let the J6 committee do their job, then use the evidence they collect to work on prosecutions.

[gab13by13]

44. The job of the select committee is not to gather evidence for DOJ.

The job of the select committee is to investigate the 1/6 insurrection, the coup attempt, and to pass legislation to ensure a similar coup cannot happen again.

[fightforfreedom]

50. They will turn over their evidence to the DOJ.

It is the right of the committee to send criminal referrals to the DOJ if they find evidence of crimes. Your post is misleading.

[gldstwmn]

49. Garland is hung up on the OLC memo. He's an institutionalist.

He will not indict a sitting or former president just like Nixon and Clinton. Scooter Libby fell on his sword for Bush or Cheney as the case may be.

[hamsterjill]

59. You may very well be right.

If that’s the case, I think he should resign. Trump’s crimes went way beyond anything Nixon or Clinton may have done.

[Mr. Sparkle]

64. Then he should be fired or resign

[Escurumbele]

52. You make sense, and I hope you are correct. It is hard not knowing what is happening, but

everything you mention is correct, rebuilding is always harder than destroying. The Twin Towers, Ukraine, USA Democracy are good examples, they all took years to build, but very little to destroy.

I just hope that all those who committed crimes are made accountable and sent behind bars to make sure that any other traitors with dreams of destroying the country understand that the "rule of law" and "no one is above the law" are not myths.

[fightforfreedom]

53. Thank you, I also hope I am correct.

[867-5309.]

55. Maybe we can prosecute Trump posthumously

At this rate there may be no other way.