Garland needs to resign for whatever reason he can make up.

[boston bean]

He is just a disgrace as far as I am concerned.

[Silent Type]

1. Think it's best to wait until after election.

[LiberalFighter]

67. I agree. Need to focus on the election.

Make sure the next one is not a Federalist Society member too.

And they need to go after the crooked judges.

[RockRaven]

2. Confirmation hearings between now and election day are not a good idea.

Confirmation hearings are always a shitshow which insert Repug talking points and soundbites into MSM/prime time news as if they were serious. We get enough of that as it is, we don't need more of it until after November.

[boston bean]

3. Just appoint an interim like asswipe did.

[bigtree]

7. not just 'not a good idea'

...it's basically a subversive effort which isn't supported by ANYONE in the administration.

It's anti-administration, and anti-Biden because, Garland still has the support of the president to continue in his job.

People thinking they're speaking for him by suggesting he blow up his administration before the election, and fire the AG who is essentially overseeing the prosecutions of his son, are basically calling for the undermining of his presidency and posturing like it's some kind of political genius.

[bigtree]

4. attacks on Biden's AG should come with more than just an anti-Biden administration AG screed

...it's not enough to have Trump and the rest of his republican cabal attacking the Justice Dept. daily because of his efforts (even this week, prosecuting a military officer for his Jan.6 crimes), but there's this backbiting, navel-gazing, reflexively attacking of the man who hired the SC prosecuting Trump EVERYTIME it's revealed that a republican has done something wrong, like it's some kind of virtue.

Is it too much to ask that these critics spend that 'resign' energy on the actual people supporting the people criming?

[Think. Again.]

10. If there are people "criming" and garland isn't doing anything about it....

...which is his job to do, then seeking his resignation so that he can be replaced with someone who would do the job, is a perfectly reasonable position.

(and yes I think it's okay and actually a good thing to call out bad people in ANY administration, because I'm not in a cult.)

[bigtree]

14. but, that's just sophistry

...Garland is doing his job.

Moreover, he has the full support of the President.

Who in any position of leadership in our Democratic party is actually calling for his resignation right now?

This is not only inopportune in the middle of the election, it's basically an anti-Biden pursuit, given that you'd essentially have to stage some sort of opposition to his own support of his AG.

I mean, you'd be haranguing against his AG, essentially undermining not only the president, but the man who hired the man prosecuting Trump, and the man who is still engaged in prosecuting not only Jan 6 perps, but is engaged in much more than these nebulous complaints would suggest.

I'm not getting why people think it's some sort of political or pro-justice genius to replace the AG who appointed the man prosecuting Trump. It would clearly be a gift to not only the Trumps, but to the entire right wing.

I'm having a hard time figuring just where this fits into an anti- Trump, anti-republican, progressive, or pro-justice agenda.

[Think. Again.]

18. I have not heard of Biden expressing any support, or non-support, of garland....

...as far as the DOJ's hiring of Jack smith, I question why that happened only after a Congressional committee performed an intensive investigation (which would be the DOJ's responsibility) and presented their findings to the public.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

34. That is not what happened

The January 6 committee didn't shame AG Garland into anything. Jack Smith was appointed special counsel by AG Garland (not the DOJ, you can't even give him that?) after the multiply convicted felon announced his presidential candidacy (ie. his get out of jail free card).

This is common public knowledge.

This fracturing of Democrats over inconsequential crap is so lame.

[Think. Again.]

36. Are you saying garland ISN'T in charge of the DOJ?

[MorbidButterflyTat]

51. No.

Where did I say AG Garland isn't in charge of the DOJ? Jack Smith was appointed SC by AG Garland, specifically, not the vague DOJ.

I hate those disingenuous twisty word games: "Are you saying..." You can see what I said by reading my post.

[Think. Again.]

58. Your post clearly implies that you think garland...

...is an entirely separate entity of the DOJ.

[bigtree]

37. of course, you provide zero receipts for that untruth about Congress and Smith

...first , let's do away with the lie that Garland's DOJ 'waited' for anything regarding investigating the Trump WH.

https://nytimes.com/2022/06/28/us/politics/trump-investigation-thomas-windom.html



...for instance, the financial investigation of the Trump WH and the Save America PAC picked up steam as investigators enlisted the cooperation of perps after the 2021 riot (one of those 'foot soldier' things critics like to deride without a clue about what DOJ has done with those perps).

https://cnn.com/2022/12/11/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel-high-profile-moves-trump-criminal-investigations/index.html



...remember, when Jack Smith arrived he was presented with a 'fast-moving investigation' which had already amassed more evidence than what Mueller had at the same point in his Russia probe.

Are you really sure they did all of that in the few months of the congressional hearings, or is there something else you can imagine they were doing?

https://cnn.com/2022/12/11/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel-high-profile-moves-trump-criminal-investigations/index.html




...don't bother with any more of this with me. You've actually blown your top here.

[Think. Again.]

41. There is no untruth in the known fact that garland made no...

...prosecutorial action until after the Jan. 6 Committee's public wrap up of their investigation.

[bigtree]

48. that's just bullshit. And it comes with ZERO receipts.

...Anthony Coley @AnthonyColey (Former Head of Public Affairs, U.S. Justice Dept.)
🧵 on now-debunked narrative that Garland's DOJ wasted 2022...

My great frustration running comms at DOJ is that I couldn’t always correct the record on things that were factually wrong – matters related to grand juries, for instance.

That inability to insert key facts into the public discourse often leaves the public with a wrong impression – or incomplete context – of DOJ’s work.

In the gap, many well-meaning people speculate wildly and often come to wrong conclusions.

For example, in the election interference case against Trump, one wrong conclusion was that Garland’s DOJ was slow; inept; behind the ball – you pick the euphemism from your favorite talking head.

That was really wrong. (Politico) “The filing indicates federal prosecutors began weighing obstruction charges in connection with the Trump probe well before the House’s Jan. 6 select committee formally recommended that the former pres. be indicted on the charge.”

And this: “…the underlying documents show that the Justice Department fought extensive battles throughout 2022 to access crucial information to support a criminal case.”

**Throughout** 2022.

The takeaway: Much of DOJ’s investigative work takes place out of the public eye. DOJ speaks through its filings. And just because the public doesn’t see action/movement on a matter, that doesn’t mean nothing is happening. End

Link to tweet

...DOJ was FAR ahead of the Jan. 6 committee, which actually hindered and delayed actual PB and OK trials by withholding discovery materials demanded by defendants in those trials for months, until the end of the year.

....WaPo says you've got this completely wrong:

DOJ April 2022 received phone records of key Trump officials, including Mark Meadows. That effort is another indicator of how expansive the Jan. 6 probe had become, well before the high-profile, televised House hearings in June and July on the subject.

The Washington Post and other news organizations have previously written that the Justice Department is examining the conduct of Eastman, Giuliani and others in Trump’s orbit. But the degree of prosecutors’ interest in Trump’s actions has not been previously reported, nor has the review of senior Trump aides’ phone records.

The revelations raise the stakes of an already politically fraught probe involving a former president, still central to his party’s fortunes, who has survived previous investigations and two impeachments. Long before the Jan. 6 investigation, Trump spent years railing against the Justice Department and the FBI; the investigation moving closer to him will probably intensify that antagonism.

This year, the fake-elector scheme has become a major focus of the Justice Department inquiry. After Trump lost the election, lawyers and others close to him urged GOP officials in key states to submit alternate and illegitimate slates of electors to reject the results of the state vote totals. Those would-be electors were aided in their effort by Trump campaign officials and Giuliani, who said publicly that the rival slates were necessary and appropriate, and has been described as overseeing the strategy.

Last month, federal agents fanned out in multiple states to serve grand jury subpoenas, execute search warrants and interview witnesses — a significant escalation of overt investigative activity. As part of that effort, agents searched Eastman’s electronic devices, and conducted a search at the home of Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official who enthusiastically embraced some of Trump’s last-ditch efforts to stop Biden from becoming president. Many of those who received subpoenas were told specifically to turn over their communications with Giuliani.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/07/26/trump-justice-investigation-january-6/

...are you fucking reading this? I'm fed up with the misinformation.

"That effort is another indicator of how expansive the Jan. 6 probe had become, well before the high-profile, televised House hearings in June and July on the subject."

[niyad]

54. Thank you for this important information.

[asm128]

56. Washington Post says YOU got it wrong

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/06/19/fbi-resisted-opening-probe-into-trumps-role-jan-6-more-than-year/

"Garland and the deputy attorney general, Lisa Monaco, charted a cautious course aimed at restoring public trust in the department while some prosecutors below them chafed, feeling top officials were shying away from looking at evidence of potential crimes by Trump and those close to him, The Post found."

And look, the date is after your date. Can you fucking read that?

[bigtree]

60. Leonnig left out almost everything I posted

..and contradicted what she said in an earlier article:

This July 26, 2022 article by Carol D. Leonnig, the same person who claimed there wasn't attention at DOJ on the Trump WH, including the president, should give pause in accepting the claims that DOJ was negligent in the early days of Garland's time in office.

Here's what she fucking wrote:

Justice Department investigators in April (2022) received phone records of key officials and aides in the Trump administration, including his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, according to two people familiar with the matter. That effort is another indicator of how expansive the Jan. 6 probe had become, well before the high-profile, televised House hearings in June and July on the subject.

The Washington Post and other news organizations have previously written that the Justice Department is examining the conduct of Eastman, Giuliani and others in Trump’s orbit. But the degree of prosecutors’ interest in Trump’s actions has not been previously reported, nor has the review of senior Trump aides’ phone records.

...this is Leonnig reporting "how expansive the Jan. 6 probe had become, well before the high-profile, televised House hearings in June and July on the subject."

You can't make this up. The person's article almost EVERYONE, including YOU, are drafting this Garland bashing behind reported in July 26, 2022 that "the Justice Department is examining the conduct of Eastman, Giuliani and others in Trump’s orbit."

NOTHING in her later article contradicts the facts of this investigation. Nothing she wrote in that later article changes the fact that Garland's investigators had begun "weighing obstruction charges in connection with the Trump probe well before the House’s Jan. 6 select committee formally recommended that the former pres. be indicted on the charge.”

And this: “…the underlying documents show that the Justice Department fought extensive battles throughout 2022 to access crucial information to support a criminal case.”

receipt:

this is someone INSIDE the Justice Dept., not a clickbait reporter who tells two different stories about the investigation:

...Anthony Coley @AnthonyColey (Former Head of Public Affairs, U.S. Justice Dept.)
🧵 on now-debunked narrative that Garland's DOJ wasted 2022...

My great frustration running comms at DOJ is that I couldn’t always correct the record on things that were factually wrong – matters related to grand juries, for instance.

That inability to insert key facts into the public discourse often leaves the public with a wrong impression – or incomplete context – of DOJ’s work.

In the gap, many well-meaning people speculate wildly and often come to wrong conclusions.

For example, in the election interference case against Trump, one wrong conclusion was that Garland’s DOJ was slow; inept; behind the ball – you pick the euphemism from your favorite talking head.

That was really wrong. (Politico) “The filing indicates federal prosecutors began weighing obstruction charges in connection with the Trump probe well before the House’s Jan. 6 select committee formally recommended that the former pres. be indicted on the charge.”

And this: “…the underlying documents show that the Justice Department fought extensive battles throughout 2022 to access crucial information to support a criminal case.”

**Throughout** 2022.

The takeaway: Much of DOJ’s investigative work takes place out of the public eye. DOJ speaks through its filings. And just because the public doesn’t see action/movement on a matter, that doesn’t mean nothing is happening. End

Link to tweet

...DOJ was FAR ahead of the Jan. 6 committee, which actually hindered and delayed actual PB and OK trials by withholding discovery materials demanded by defendants in those trials for months, until the end of the year.

NOTHING in Leonnig's 2023 article contradicts this Justice Dept. official.

Further, (since you don't seem to be able to read past your own contradicted Leonnig article) :

...first, let's do away with the lie that Garland's DOJ 'waited' for anything regarding investigating the Trump WH.

https://nytimes.com/2022/06/28/us/politics/trump-investigation-thomas-windom.html



...for instance, the financial investigation of the Trump WH and the Save America PAC picked up steam as investigators enlisted the cooperation of perps after the 2021 riot (one of those 'foot soldier' things critics like to deride without a clue about what DOJ has done with those perps).

https://cnn.com/2022/12/11/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel-high-profile-moves-trump-criminal-investigations/index.html



...remember, when Jack Smith arrived he was presented with a 'fast-moving investigation' which had already amassed more evidence than what Mueller had at the same point in his Russia probe.

Are you really sure they did all of that in the few months of the congressional hearings, or is there something else you can imagine they were doing?

https://cnn.com/2022/12/11/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel-high-profile-moves-trump-criminal-investigations/index.html



...bring receipts, not just one Leonnig article that contradicts what she said in 2022 without actually refuting it.

Tell us all how all of this shows a Garland DOJ unwilling to take their investigation to the WH as so many have claimed without a shred of evidence. Show something other than an incomplete, and untrue article that's been refuted repeatedly.

You can't.

In case you couldn't bring yourself to read upthread:



repeating:

...the financial investigation of the Trump WH and the Save America PAC picked up steam as investigators enlisted the cooperation of perps after the 2021 riot (one of those 'foot soldier' things critics like to deride without a clue about what DOJ has done with those perps).



...next time bring more receipts than that discredited bore from WaPo.

Marcy Wheeler's "re-up about flood of ignorant bs about what the investigation took to get to this indictment."

emptywheel @emptywheel
Gonna reup this bc there is a flood of ignorant bullshit about what the investigation took to get to this weeks' indictment. Here are the accounts that Rudy claimed (if you can believe him) he conducted his coup plotting on.



emptywheel @emptywheel · 21h
This alleged conspiracy was conducted BY LAWYERS using ENCRYPTED APPs. If you read something about how long this investigation took that doesn't address those two facts, you can use it as kitty litter.

emptywheel @emptywheel · 21h
When a conspiracy is conducted BY LAWYERS on ENCRYPTED APPS, it means you have to go phone by phone (bc that's how you get the encrypted apps), and for each one conduct a privilege review.

emptywheel @emptywheel · 21h
We know the phones used in this conspiracy were seized on the following dates: Rudy: April 28, 2021 John Eastman: June 2022 Jeffrey Clark: June 2022 Boris Epshteyn: September 2022 Mike Roman: September 2022 Each phone of a lawyer will take AT LEAST 6 months to review.

emptywheel @emptywheel 21h
Rudy's privilege review, which was set into motion on LITERALLY Lisa Monaco's first day on the job, took 9 months. DOJ successfully got EVERYTHING reviewed, meaning when J6 got PC for it, the content was ready.

*Monaco tasked Thomas Windom in Fall 2021, a little-known federal prosecutor, to oversee key elements of the Justice Department’s investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.

emptywheel @emptywheel · 21h
We can't prove when Jan6 got Rudy's January 6 content, but there are at least 5,000 items from the phone seized on April 28, 2021 that were from Jan6 conspiring. Bc DOJ did a Special Master, it appears Rudy failed to invoke privilege over anything that was not his own lawyer.

emptywheel @emptywheel · 21h
And as this post lays out, not only was DOJ taking overt steps in the fake electors plot b4 J6C's first hearing, but their FOCUS was different--and in a way that might suggest DOJ's leads came from Rudy's phones.

“Nonzero:” On Evidence-Based Investigations and Rudy Giuliani’s Devices June 26, 2023, by emptywheel
https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/06/26/nonzero-on-evidence-based-investigations-and-rudy-giulianis-devices/

emptywheel @emptywheel · 21h
So JUST on the fact that this conspiracy was committed BY LAWYERS using ENCRYPTED APPS explains a great deal of what has taken 2 years. Now add in EP claims. It took from 7/22 to 4/27/23 to work through all the high level EP witnesses.

emptywheel @emptywheel 21h
Also: The investigation into Sidney Powell, CC3, was overt by September 2021.

No idea when or if they got her phone. But the investigation into her was literally overt before J6C issued their first subpoena.

emptywheel @emptywheel · 21h
Here's a list (as of January) of all the OTHER lawyers who were witnesses and subjects in this investigation. The list is now over 30. Again, with each one, you have to do privilege reviews.

emptywheel @emptywheel 19h
Incidentally if you think 6 months for a lawyer phone review is a lot, consider James O'Keefe. The review of HIS phone has been going on 636 days, since November 5, 2021.

thread unrolled here:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1687118267704651777.html

[H2O Man]

5. Why?

What makes you have this opinion of him? I have somewhat mixed feelings about him.

[Mark.b2]

6. He needs to be replaced in January...

along with Mayorkas and Blinken.

[bigtree]

9. I'd imagine that would be music to the Trump cultist's ears

..you've got not one, but THREE administration cabinet members in your sights.

All without one word of complaint about any of them from the President.

Who is this benefiting, and more importantly, who is prominently calling for these resignations right now?

[Mark.b2]

20. Along with Sec. of Treasury and DOD...

those three are probably the most important and prominet cabinet spots. Yellen and Austin, I think have done well. Garland has been meh. I’d like to see a more active AG. Someone like Eric Holder was for Obama. For Secretary of State, Clinton and Kerry set a high bar. Blinken has never had the gravitas the US Sec. of State should posess. I’d think Biden would have many options to replace him. And Mayorkas has be in over his head since day 1. Biden can do better.

[bigtree]

28. all I hear is anti-administration

...in the middle of a presidential election.

Kinda opposition-like.

When Pres. Biden indicates that he's not getting what HE wants in his cabinet, he'll respond.

What he doesn't need are folks second-guessing his administration choices who ultimately answer to him, and carry out HIS policies, not their own.

[Mark.b2]

39. Biden wins this November...

It’s a given there will be changes for his second term. Things arent so fragile that one random guy’s musings online will affect things.

I do hope he puts some 2028 prospects in key positions to strengthen the bench. SOS could set someone up nicely.

[agingdem]

11. When did you join the Marge Greene fan club??

[orange jar]

19. Why?

I can make a guess as to why you're bringing up Blinken… but why Mayorkas?

[TexasDem69]

8. Is there any specific reason he should resign?

Seems to me that he’s done a fine job.

[Think. Again.]

15. This is just an honest question...

...with everything that is known about all the people who participated in the planning, arranging, supporting, and facilitating of the insurrection on January 6th, do you feel that the Dept. of Justice has done the proper work in response?

[Mad_Machine76]

17. DOJ has been prosecuting lots of people.

Including Trump for J6. What more do you want?

[DemocratInPa]

21. Because there are people on here that were celebrating a few weeks ago and and saying..

How great the justice system is and we need to believe in the Justice system are now doing the opposite cause Hunter was found guilty.

They continue to ignore Hunter committed a crime, but for some reason think Hunter should be above the law, sort of how the other side thinks Trump should be above the law.

I think Garland is doing pretty damn well.

[TexasDem69]

25. Hunter literally admitted to committing a felony

Either enforce the laws or remove the laws, but it’s shocking—and the worst example of tribalism—when people on DU complain about Hunter’s conviction. It’s no different than Republicans complaining about Trump’s conviction

[Think. Again.]

27. If you're referring to me, perhaps you missed a post I wrote...

...stating that Biden should not be involved with Hunter's case and that Hunter's trial should proceed as any other trial would.

If you're not referring to me, then carry on.

[Think. Again.]

24. I asked specifically about...

....ALL the people who participated in the planning, arranging, supporting, and facilitating of the insurrection on January 6th.

Why would they be left out of the DOJ's work? Why would, or should, we be content with only a minimum of the cases that could be legitimate prosecuted?

[TexasDem69]

26. Who are "all" those people

That you contend were left out? Names and evidence of their involvement? Who facilitated it and hasn’t been charged? Who “supported” it, and are you talking about active support—which might be a crime—or just hoped it was successful, which probably wouldn’t be?

[Think. Again.]

30. I admit I wasn't in the rooms to be able to give a list...

...but obvious conspirators such as the people in the Hotel meeting, stephen miller, Congresspeople giving prior reconnaissance tours of the Capital, a pipe bomber, etc., etc.

[TexasDem69]

32. I guess I can't really opine on something so amorphous

The pipe bomber seems like an obvious person for prosecution but nobody knows who that was. “Congresspeople” is vague - anyone in particular?

[Think. Again.]

35. Yes, it would be up to the DOJ to...

...investigate who the bomber was.

And I believe I mentioned "Congresspeople giving prior reconnaissance tours of the Capital".

[TexasDem69]

45. So which Congresspeople are those?

I assume you have names in mind.

[Think. Again.]

46. Nope, I do not recall the names...

...but if my faulty recollection of their names means it never happened, which everyone knows for a fact that it did, then reality is in deep trouble.

[TexasDem69]

47. Well fuck

Since you don’t know the names and I don’t know the names I’m not sure why you think Garland did something wrong. If you can’t even identify the individual can you at least give some hint about what they did that was a crime!

[Think. Again.]

57. Are you saying that your and my awareness of people's names...

...is what creates reality?

DU needs a Philosophy forum.

[Celerity]

49. Congress members led 'reconnaissance tours' of Capitol before attack, evidence suggests

The revelation resurrects a line of inquiry into the involvement of House Republicans in the insurrection

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/19/january-6-panel-congress-reconnaissance-tours-capitol

The House select committee investigating the Capitol attack revealed on Thursday that it had evidence to suggest certain “reconnaissance tours” took place in the days before 6 January, potentially providing some rioters with a layout of the complex.

The panel said in a letter requesting cooperation from Georgia Republican congressman Barry Loudermilk that he gave a tour the day before the Capitol attack. The startling disclosure resurrects a contentious line of inquiry that connects House Republicans to the insurrection.

“Based on our review of evidence in the select committee’s possession, we believe you have information regarding a tour you led through parts of the Capitol complex on Jan 5, 2021,” said a letter from Bennie Thompson, the chairman of the select committee, and the vice chair Liz Cheney.

The select committee noted in the letter to Loudermilk that Republicans on the House administration committee that reviewed security camera footage of the Capitol before January 6 recently claimed there were no tours or large groups or anyone wearing Maga caps. “However, the select committee’s review of evidence directly contradicts that denial,” Thompson and Cheney wrote.

snip

[TexasDem69]

71. Was that a crime?

[Celerity]

72. No way to know if there is not a deep dive into it. I was just putting out info that the other poster said they couldn't

remember.

[TexasDem69]

73. Got it, thanks!

[MorbidButterflyTat]

38. It wasn't even a functioning bomb, was it?

I thought it was like some wires hooked up to an egg timer.

What crime is that I wonder.

[Think. Again.]

42. All those convicted bankrobbers who didn't actually have a real gun thank you.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

53. What's that mean? That makes no sense.

And I wasn't responding to you.

[Mad_Machine76]

61. Are they not still investigating and finding people?

I didn't realize that they had stopped hunting down J6ers and/or prosecuting people where warranted? This takes time, apparently.

[Think. Again.]

62. Yeah, they definitely are going after...

....the lower level insurrectionists, still.

[Mad_Machine76]

63. Unless you count Trump

He's about as high-level as you get right now. If they have evidence on any Congresscritters, I hope that they indict any of them who were involved too.

[Think. Again.]

64. Ha! yeah, as if trump...

....dreamed up, coordinated, and made the whole thing happen himself.

It seems to me they're trying to "catch and kill" as many prosecutions as they can for everyone other than the pawns.

[Mad_Machine76]

70. "Catch and kill"?

Who? DOJ? Garland?

[TexasDem69]

22. Hundreds of people have gone to jail/prison

What more should the DOJ have done?

[Think. Again.]

31. I asked specifically about...

....ALL the people who participated in the planning, arranging, supporting, and facilitating of the insurrection on January 6th.

Why would they be left out of the DOJ's work? Why would, or should, we be content with only a minimum of the cases that could be legitimate prosecuted?

[TwilightZone]

12. That would be stupid.

And completely unproductive, not to mention a major distraction in an election year.

[Stuckinthebush]

65. This

Bad move that is a distraction.

[ForgedCrank]

13. How would

you suggest he handled this whole thing then? I'd like to hear the alternative and better way this could have been handled.

[gab13by13]

16. Not a fan of Garland but

Can’t resign until after the election.

[Celerity]

50. Agree, and if he refuses to resign at that point, Biden hopefully sacks him.

I was neutral on Garland for ages, but on balance, he has been Biden's worst major appointment. The final straw for me was when he appointed Trumper RWers Robert Hur and David Weiss as Special Counsels.

[Mountainguy]

23. Thats something Trump would do

There is no reason for him to resign.

[brooklynite]

29. The New York trial concluded four years after the crimes occurred...

...the Georgia trial is only scheduled to occur this year,

...the Michigan and Arizona trials have only reached the arraignment phases.

Funny that nobody's ranting about unacceptable delays in prosecution anywhere but in Garland's office.

[Think. Again.]

33. Yes, all of THOSE prosecutions have begun.

[brush]

40. Not until after the election. He does need to go though as he hasn't done a good job.

The J6 case should've been tried. The year long delay in appointing SC Smith should've never happened. Garland himself should've taken personal charge of the gravest threat to our democracy since the Civil War, but no, he doddled around for months going after the small fry while trump and his cabal stayed scott free. It should've been tried before the crooked SCOTUS 6 got involved with the immunity bs, which of course will never happen as even trump is not above the law...except for the delays his corrupt judges keep coming up with for him.

Snow Garland the door after the election.

[Paladin]

59. Agreed. (nt)

[LexVegas]

43. Rec. nt

[triron]

44. Me too.

[emulatorloo]

52. Hell No - Absolute hottest of the hottest takes. Next you'll be calling for Jack Smith to resign "for reasons."

Has Jim Jordan hijacked your account?

[budkin]

55. Agreed

He’s been the wrong AG from day one.

[republianmushroom]

66. This posting brought the cheer leaders out

40 months and counting (includes a lot of foot dragging)

[brooklynite]

68. Apparently the armchair prosecutors were here already?

[republianmushroom]

69. Yup, and their numbers seem to be growing and they are getting more vocal.