All the complaints, attacks against Garland are based on opinions, not the law or facts.

[fightforfreedom]

Garland should do this. Garland should have done that.

Garland could have re-opened the Mueller investigation, charged Trump. Wrong. Barr ended the Mueller investigation, sabotaged the investigation. Attempting to re-open that case would be a waste of time, money and resources.

Garland should have indicted individual1. Same as above.

Garlands investigations are taking too long. Wrong. Garlands investigations are at best only 18 months old. His investigations have not slowed down, they have expanded and are moving forward.

Garland should have appointed a special counsel a long time ago, that is an opinion. Garlands opinion was he did not want or need one. Now he believes he does need one because the circumstances call for it. So he appointed a special counsel.

[emulatorloo]

1. It took 2+ years to see indictments in Watergate. Very complicated case. Jan 6th even more

complicated. Being old I lived through Watergate, and followed it closely.

[Bobstandard]

2. He most certainly could have...

Moved on the recommendations in the Mueller report. Mueller’ recitation of the five points of Trump’s obstruction of justice continue to be germaine. Just because Barr passed on prosecuting doesn’t mean that laws weren’t broken. I’m unaware of a statute of limitations on obstruction of justice.

[fightforfreedom]

6. Garland would have to call Barr a liar. He would have to call him corrupt.

Barr ended the Mueller investigation. That means the end. With all that Garland is investigating now you want him to attempt to do something like that? To waste time and resources on something that would go no where. Can you imagine how the Republicans would react if Garland all of the sudden said Barr sabotaged the Mueller investigation. I'm going to re-open it. Ridiculous.

[jalan48]

7. Isn't Barr a liar and corrupt, or has he morphed into one of the good Republicans?

[48656c6c6f20]

10. Sounds like the "law" and "facts" are at odds with democracy.

I am positive I don't want to live in a country that upholds the crimes of the rich and powerful. That's the definition of a shit hole country.

[inthewind21]

15. Well

I hate to break it to you but, if you were born here, you've been living in a country that lets the rich and powerful skate your entire life. Just sayin.

[48656c6c6f20]

17. Not to the degree it is today

My opinion it got worse after Nixon pardon. It was like a blank check to do whatever they wanted with no restrictions.

[BannonsLiver]

3. True

Also true: the belief by many here that Garland will eventually indict trump is based almost entirely on speculation.

[fightforfreedom]

8. Evidence backed speculation.

[BannonsLiver]

13. Still speculation

[Firestorm49]

4. Yes. OK. But this site is opinion as well as fact based.

Here’s a few news items from this morning.

Joyce Vance expressed some pessimism over the investigation by the Special Prosecutor.

Charlie Sykes expressed some pessimism over the investigation by the Special Prosecutor.

Granted, the only person in Garland’s head is his, and he ain’t talking. I understand that. I appreciate that. Nobody wants the case blown.

We have the right to question. We have the right to doubt or support. If you are looking for the absolute answer, good luck. Until then, deal with it. We all have the right to accept or reject or question what we hear or read - especially on DU.

If this ends up with TFG skipping down the sidewalk, a lot of people are rightly going to be upset, lose even more faith in our system of justice, and say, “ I told you so”. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen - day by day, by day, by day, by day, by day, by day, by day, by day, by day.

[Jade Fox]

9. 👆👆

[Beastly Boy]

11. I don't believe the OP is against expressing opinions at all.

If I understand him correctly, he is distraught, as I am, with the staggering number of opinions on a variety of subjects that, conspicuously, all conclude with blaming Garland, the appointment of special prosecutor being just the latest one in a long long string of Garland bashing.

I am also pessimistic about how much a special council can accomplish, or whether Trump will be indicted. This doesn't mean it's Garland's fault.

[wnylib]

14. I agree that all people have a right to their opinion.

So there are opinions all over the place regarding Garland.

But I think that we also agree that opinion is not fact. So some of us will be wrong in our speculations, or maybe just partially wrong, because we base our opinions on limited knowledge of the facts. Then we draw conclusions (opinions) about those limited facts based on the framework of our own accumulated feelings and experiences in life.

So, it is a fact that Garland has not indicted Trump on anything yet. But WHY he (or the grand jury, actually) hasn't indicted yet is opinion. Whether he ever will is also opinion since none of us knows what he is thinking, and none of us have the full set of facts and law that Garland has.

Reasonably informed, well known people (experts) do not agree on their opinions about this.

The time period does not surprise me. I just happened to be listening to radio news in 1972 when the first (and only) report of the Watergate break in was broadcast. I was only 22, but I immediately thought that it was very significant. Later in the day, when visiting relatives, I tried to find another newscast after telling them about it, but there was NOTHING after that first report. It had been hushed up. The elections went on as if nothing had happened. I was discouraged.

It was two years before it all came to a head with hearings and Nixon's resignation.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

5. The threats by the House Republicans will not be tolerated.

Just because the necessary investigations into TDFG's criminal activity while in the WH are causing them to get their panties in a bunch. NEVER in the history of this country has there been a POTUS so reckless, corrupt, and criminal with NO respect for the Rule of Law, Congressional laws, or of the US Constitution that is sworn to uphold and defend. The House Republicans cannot stand anyone of their ilk being held accountable.

They can go after AG Merrick Garland, the Bidens, or anyone else they please. They will come up empty handed as this will backfire magnificently on them.

[H2O Man]

12. Respectfully disagree.

I did, however, recommend the post.

"Opinions" are rooted in facts. They require educated insight. Thus, the vast mahority of the anti-Garland comments we are seeing are what is properly identied as a bias. And most biases are rooted in ignorance and emotion.

Just my opinion.

[inthewind21]

16. You mean

like the outrage of why the DOJ hasn't remanded Trump to custody pending charges? That one floored me.