Dear Garland: Why is the Media doing your Job? Can we have an indictment now?

[Mr.WeRP]

Link to tweet

The New York Times has been able to confirm, for the first time, that there has been coordination between the Trump Campaign and Twitter, or in other words, Elon Musk. In a new article released this morning, the Times writes:

"The relationship has proved significant in other ways. After a reporter’s publication of hacked Trump campaign information last month, the campaign connected with X to prevent the circulation of links to the material on the platform, according to two people with knowledge of the events. X eventually blocked links to the material and suspended the reporter’s account."

If we had a real AG, Musk would be indicted by now.

Oh yeah, there’s also this:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-musk-vladimir-putin-conversations-threats-1235142693/

Musk Has Regularly Talked to Putin, Faced ‘Implicit Threats’: Report
The billionaire and Russian president have discussed personal issues, business, and geopolitics, according to the Wall Street Journal

Tech billionaire Elon Musk and Russian President Vladimir Putin have been regularly contacting each over the last two years, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday night.

The topics of discussion have included personal matters, business, and geopolitical issues, according to current and former United States, European, and Russian officials.

Among many of the deeply concerning revelations in WSJ‘s report include a request from Putin made last year asking Musk to not activate his Starlink satellite internet service over Taiwan as a favor to China’s top leader, Xi Jinping. Russia heavily relies on China for trade, including industrial equipment and consumer goods, and to weather Western sanctions.

ON EDIT: For those who complain Indictments and Prosecutions take time, Reality Winner was Indicted LESS THAN A MONTH after she leaked a classified document that showed Trump colluded with Russia.

[bigtree]

1. the federal government relies on grand juries to bring indictments

...they're not issued on Merrick Garland's will and whim.

That grand jury process of investigation would ostensibly begin, not only when DOJ felt they had enough material evidence to proceed, but that they had exhausted avenues to that evidence of criminality.

What you're telling them to do is rush into court half-assed. It's a wonder anyone considers these complaints anything more than a prescription for an indictment to fail, because the suggestion that they go into court without that grand jury process almost ensures they go in with a weak case that won't stand up to challenges and appeals.

I do not want these critics, or anyone who thinks cases are won by rushing into court based on a newspaper report or internet posts, without conducting a full investigation, anywhere near the DOJ.

It's absurd to believe that process is complete or has any chance of being complete right now. DOJ isn't the media, who is free to say anything they want without affecting cases and investigations before them, so it's really a bullshit comparison supposing the media is doing more than the DOJ who is charged with assembling a case that will survive the certain challenges and appeals from the richest man in the world.

It's as if you haven't been watching the Trump indictments moving through numerous courts with his challenges and appeals, and believe this process is like something you see on teevee.

In this case, the individuals involved associated with Musk's PAC who received notice their activities were being scrutinized by DOJ (investigated, for anyone with a brain) will be threatened with charges or indicted to compel their testimony against Musk.

AFTER that process of investigation, if what they've found supports it, the material evidence they've obtained will be presented to the grand jury, along with the testimony of all involved who aren't incriminating themselves (outside of an cooperating agreement) by talking.

DOJ will pursue evidence until they believe the benefit in continuing outweighs moving forward, or if they don't find enough they believe will convict.

[Mr.WeRP]

2. " according to current and former United States, European, and Russian officials"

Officials in the federal government KNOW Musk is communicating with Putin. Garland has probable cause to INVESTIGATE at a minimum, for multiple crimes. By the time he gets around to it, there will be a different President. So you can take your procedural bs and do whatever makes you happy with it. It won’t change the fact that Garland is a massive fucking failure.

[bigtree]

4. the process of gathering that evidence will take more than a few weeks.

...and most witnesses DOJ will need to rely on to prosecute this won't talk until they're convinced they're in legal jeopardy.

We can see they started with Musk's PAC. That's going up the chain, for folks who watch teevee investigations.

[Mr.WeRP]

5. Buh bye

[bigtree]

7. lol

...you say good bye, I say hello.

Hello, hello...

"The use of grand juries to charge defendants is not required by all states, but it is a requirement in federal felony cases unless the defendant waives the grand jury indictment."

https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/steps-federal-criminal-process


When a grand jury is convened, the jury members evaluate the strength of the prosecutor's evidence to determine if there is probable cause to issue an indictment. Probable cause means that there are enough objective facts to support the prosecutor's claim.

The grand jury has tools at their disposal to find out if there is probable cause. They can subpoena witnesses to testify in court. In a grand jury, witnesses are typically questioned by the prosecutor and cannot have counsel present during questioning.

If jury members think there is enough evidence, they vote to issue an indictment: a document that signals the start of criminal proceedings by listing the crimes the defendant is accused of and explaining the jurisdiction of the court. This act requires a majority vote, which is either two-thirds or three-fourths, depending on the jurisdiction.

In many ways, the grand jury acts as a check on the power of a prosecutor. Grand jury proceedings may also benefit prosecutors by giving them a chance to see if their evidence will be convincing for a future trial jury.

Unlike most other court proceedings, grand jury proceedings take place in secret.

https://www.thoughtco.com/grand-jury-in-the-united-states-3368320

as for the 'Reality' canard,

___Winner, in an interview with the FBI on June 3, 2017, admitted knowing at the time she stole and transmitted the intelligence report that it contained information about intelligence sources and methods, which information she knew was valuable to adversaries of the United States.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-government-contractor-sentenced-removing-and-transmitting-classified-materials-news

...not much of an investigation needed after that admission.

[Bobstandard]

10. Well said. nt

[Mr.WeRP]

11. Garland reminds me of Caesar Flickerman from The Hunger Games

Just orchestrating a charade as a host who likes to talk a good game.

[MotownPgh]

33. Thank you

Four years and no January 6th trial. If Trump wins with all of this help...grand juries etc will not happen.
It has been eye opening has ineffective our justice system really is.

[Mr.WeRP]

34. If Trump wins, it is on Garland's head. He allowed several cases against Trump expire under Statute of Limitations

Biden should have removed him just for this.

[onenote]

49. So I guess what you're saying is that it is on Biden's head. The buck stops here and all that?

[Mr.WeRP]

51. Biden regrets appointing Garland. So he knows.

Maybe that had something to do with him stepping aside for Harris.

[onenote]

53. So he stepped aside rather than remove Garland? Don't think so..

And why aren't you willing to put the blame on Biden -- he could've removed Garland a year ago. Or a year before that, since according to you, Garland hasn't been doing his job that entire time.

[Mr.WeRP]

55. Garland is awful and you know it. Deflecting to Biden is just dumb.

You have to put the failure where it belongs. Yes, the buck stops with the President. And yes, Biden should have replaced Garland, I agree. Garland created a political trap by FAILING to prosecute Trump until he announced his campaign. It made it look like the investigation was political. Maybe Garland did this intentionally so he could indict Hunter.

[onenote]

57. Pretty sure I'm not the one deflecting. But glad to see you acknowledge that you're also blaming Biden.

[Mr.WeRP]

58. You're the one who said it, not me. You blamed him.

[onenote]

61. Oh, so now its not on Biden's head that he let Garland mismanage DOJ?

A moment ago you posted that you agreed Biden should have replaced Garland.

[Mr.WeRP]

64. You keep flip flopping on what you want me to say

Maybe you should step back from the keyboard and figure that out.

[onenote]

70. Not the one flip flopping here.

One moment you agree Biden should've fired Garland. The next moment you're saying you don't blame Biden. Rinse and repeat.

This sort of saying things and then pretending not to have said them is a problem outside DU. I hate seeing it here on DU.

[Mr.WeRP]

71. Now you're just projecting. Seems to be in style these days

I don’t give a fuck about style

[Mr.WeRP]

72. One moment you are saying it's Biden's fault

The next you are saying I said that. Unreal.

[onenote]

73. Quoting your words:"Yes, the buck stops with the President. And yes, Biden should have replaced Garland, I agree."

You can run, but you can't hide from your own posts.

This is what I said:"So I guess what you're saying is that it is on Biden's head. The buck stops here and all that?"

[Mr.WeRP]

74. Quoting your words: " Can someone identify the law that Musk is said to have broken"

Really?! Are you really ignoring reality?!

[onenote]

77. And I'm still waiting for an answer: Medias claimed Musk coordinating with the Trump campaign was illegal.

And I asked what law made it illegal. And I'm still waiting for an answer.

[Bev54]

79. This is one to watch.

[Mr.WeRP]

80. And I'm still waiting for an answer: why are you defending Musk and Trump?

[onenote]

81. I answered your bullshit accusation by calling it exactly that: bullshit.

I haven't defended Musk or Trump. I'd love it if there really was something Musk could be charged with. But unlike Republicans and you, I don't just decide that something is against the law without knowing what the law actually says.

[Mr.WeRP]

82. And I answered your BS. You are clearly in favor of rich assholes

[onenote]

83. You must have studied under the republicans given your posts.

Not saying you are a republican. Just that you kinda act them. And I don't think I'm the only one whose noticed that. I'd put you on ignore, but I think you warrant observation...

[moniss]

13. To a certain extent but you are wrong about

a grand jury only beginning when all avenues of investigation have been "exhausted". It is quite common for prosecutors to seek indictments and acknowledge that the investigations are ongoing and it is quite common for prosecutors to file for superceding indictments based on the results of new information.

[bigtree]

14. sure, if they have enough evidence to proceed

...in this case, they've started at the PAC, not with Elon.

This makes sense, unless there's some kind of confession from Musk, that they move up the chain by pressuring the minions.

I could guess they have enough to charge him, but what happens in court when discovery occurs? Why would the prosecution go into court without having in front of them ALL of the evidence available? Documents, texts, emails, phone calls, and all of the required cooroboration, espoecially from the ones being squeezed?

Is anyone suggesting they've already obtained those documents and statements from supposed perps?

We're not even in the realm of a complete investigation, which I believe is necessary when coming at people with more money than god. We've already been privy to this, so it's a wonder anyone thinks these high profile cases are as easy as just indicting and convicting in a few weeks, especially on campaign finance issues. That's just not the history of political and other prosecutions around election activities.

[moniss]

19. There is a great difference between

an indictment, the discovery process and trial. Discovery does not begin automatically at the filing of an indictment. There is a whole schedule of things before discovery would begin. Mostly a judge would schedule the case for initial appearances. Then the scheduling for discovery and preliminary motions would be discussed and it is not, especially in a case like this, going to be a short time frame. The discovery process is not a "closed" loop either and new information that comes in is subject to disclosure all the way through the trial. The prosecution does not have to have "everything" during pre-trial discovery and they are not limited to only what was turned over in that period. Cases all the time have new information become available even during trial and lawyers argue to the court whether the new material can come in based on relevancy, exculpatory nature/weight etc. and then the judge makes a decision. Happens all the time every day across the country.

The idea that I can't charge or ask for an indictment until an investigation is complete is false. As an example if Musk is drunk and gets into a car accident and kills a pedestrian I can file for OWI immediately upon determination of his being over the limit. I can continue the investigation into other circumstances like did he illegally modify the car and eliminate features that would have alerted him to the presence of the pedestrian, modify the braking system and impair it's performance and the brakes subsequently failed when he tried to brake for the pedestrian etc. All of that investigation can be concluded after the initial filing and then a superceding filing made with additional charges. Happens all the time. You can file on the charges you know you have evidence for at the time/seek a grand jury and it is done all the time. You indicate in filings that the investigation is ongoing and that a superceding filing is possible. Usually at that point if the charge/indictment is filed in court a judge will ask during initial appearances whether the prosecutor has an idea of how long they might need. That lets the judge put the matter on a schedule for status updates etc.

Thought of in more complex and serious cases we see criminal cases involving death or injury have the charges upgraded or downgraded all the time when the continuing investigation reveals more.

[bigtree]

25. not what I wrote

...everything they do in the process of investigation, not so much in the preparing of their presentation of evidence to a grand jury which is a lesser standard for an indictment, needs to be complete and in order for future discovery efforts by the defense.

Including looking at ALL of the evidence available and putting it in a form that can be made available to the defense, not just a sliver that someone might believe is enough to convict.

It makes zero sense to jump ahead without a complete investigation, and without obtaining whatever testimony or cooperation they can get from the people involved.

Whatever the circumstance in this case, it's obviously not one which can or should be cobbled together on the fly and rushed into court. That sort of absurdity used to be reserved for the angst about the election, as if a charge or even a conviction would prevent Trump from running or assuming office if elected.

Election fraud cases don't normally get rushed into court, because the road to conviction using laws designed by politicians to allow all sorts of chicanery is complicated and uncertain.

Read the opinions beyond the folks just screaming for the administrator of the department to act, instead of the DOJ prosecutors who would investigate and pursue any criminality. The only thing clear is that a prosecution on these actions by Musk's PAC isn't the slam dunk some are suggesting by posting a screenshot or cut and paste of the legal language of the law.

It's really hard to not jump in and remind these folks that their storyline isn't what's actually happening in the actual show. I'm going to be following the DOJ without the undue cynicism that some bring to this, including paying less attention to what Garland is doing, and following the actions the career prosecutors take (or don't take), assuming they care about convictions just as much as anyone else.

The only thing Garland should be watched for is any attempt to interfere or influence that process of investigation away from any of those involved.

Since that unlikely event isn't evident or apparent, I'll be satisfied waiting to see what they come up with to address all of this.

Btw, I don't really believe what the PAC got was a 'warning letter.' which has not bearing in anything DOJ does or would do, imo.

I'm convinced, since the DOJ did not respond, what they got (and leaked to the press) was a 'target' letter that the pac perps termed a 'warning,' and then proceeded to try and change the terms of their contest rules to comply with the law they were informed of by Justice Dept. election integrity officials, having already committed the crime.

It's not very likely they aren't under investigation, and not likely DOJ won't find crimes to charge them with.

[moniss]

32. I think it's obvious that

you fail to understand what I'm saying to you because you keep jumping from what's enough to indict for anything to the idea of a "complete" investigation. Do you really think the cops stop investigating a case once a grand jury is empaneled, an indictment is handed down or a charge filed in court?

[bigtree]

45. you failed to address what I wanted to convey in my post you responded to

...and you want to argue your own premise instead of listening to what I'm saying about what I believe.

I mean, you're coming at me off of a response of mine to someone else, with a very specific aim in posting on this thread, which I did to my satisfaction. I don't have any interest in parsing the points you're making anymore.

I read what you wrote and I somewhat disagreed.

It's absurd to expect a quick indictment on an election violation that occurred weeks ago, for all of the reasons I stated. That's what I want to convey. Nothing more.

Last word from me on this unrealistic demand.

[Emile]

3. It shouldn't take four years to prosecute a traitor

who orchestrated an insurrection against the United States.

Garland is weak on Crime.

[yourout]

6. He is Bidens biggest mistake....

[Think. Again.]

9. I think Biden said something like that recently.

[Mr.WeRP]

12. He did

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/wake-up-call-biden-said-he-regrets-garland-as-attorney-general

[Bev54]

28. It isn't Garland holding up the trials of Trump it is the courts.

The investigation of 1/6 and the fake electors started almost immediately and the proof is out there, IF you want to look for it. The courts slowed down the process in every way, when all those affected decided they had privilege and Trump had immunity. Nobody here has any idea what is going on at DOJ and whether the IC has been providing them information, that we have yet to see because again, THE COURTS.

As we have all seen the crimes before our eyes the courts have still dropped charges in some cases, so just because we see reporting means nothing if you cannot get it before the court and let's remember how much Barr buried and put up walls on.

So please stop bashing Garland, especially right now, during an election and if you want to feel indignant turn it to Barr.

[Mr.WeRP]

36. Let's review the timeline, shall we?

Garland assumed office in March 2021.
Jack Smith appointed as Special Counsel in November 2022, only AFTER Trump announced he was running for President.

How many federal cases against Trump expired under Statute of Limitations? At least 2 during the time between Garland’s taking office and the appointment of Jack Smith.

THAT is the reason cases against Trump have not been executed in a timely fashion.

If Garland had appointed SC immediately after office, many of these cases would have gone to trial and been decided by now.

[Bev54]

38. If you think Garland waited for Smith, you are really really out of touch.

The investigation started before he was even confirmed, within the office. He got Giuliani and Powell's phones in Sept 2021 and can't remember the date but also got Perry's phone. It was a fight in the courts for a year or more to even get approval to search the phones and still longer to even crack the codes to get in. Giuliani had successfully deleted all his information. We don't even know yet if the FBI successfully got into Perry's yet. They have had to go to court for every little thing because they all fought against them and delayed, delayed, delayed.

The federal case that you are talking about with the $10 million from Egypt was because Barr had his puppets close the case entirely, shut it down, nobody was even advised on it when Biden came into office.

So until and unless you know the actual facts, which are readily available, if you do the research, many of which we were well aware of at the time but there seems to be a lot of amnesia here, you might want to limit your animosity to what you actually know.

I don't agree with Garland's handling of Hunter Biden's case, allowing RW prosecutors and RW judges, but that is a different matter, when it comes to 1/6 the investigations started right after Biden took office. I am far more worried about Chris Wray's actions or lack thereof than I am of Garland. Also it would be the FBI investigating Musk as well.

[Mr.WeRP]

43. And yet in all that time, not one indictment

Damn. And Jack Smith had indictments less than 6 months after appointment. Ans it was not built on any imaginary investigations Garland may have attempted.

[Bev54]

44. He was brought in to do the indictments, after Garland's office had worked through a number of

court cases, seriously where were you when all this was going on? It has all been reported on.

[Mr.WeRP]

46. Links to cases?

[Bev54]

47. I have linked many articles on this here on DU and am not going to spend my time going back

to find them. Try doing some searches at Emptywheel.org. She and a number of other independents have reported extensively. It is up to you to do your own research.

[Mr.WeRP]

48. Then your claim is bogus because I know there are none

[Bev54]

68. My "claim" is bogus because you failed to do your own research?

Well that is some gaslighting for sure. I don’t know if where you have been but you should know better than making ridiculous arguments here, it is your responsibility not to make blanket statements without knowing the fact. Just because you are too lazy to do the research tells me everything I need to know. You are not interested in truth only your own opinion.

[Mr.WeRP]

75. Your claim is bogus because you are asking to prove a negative

No cases were filed by Garland against Trump. The onus is on you to prove that wrong.

[onenote]

78. +1

[Intractable]

15. If Kamala wins the presidency, and the Repubs take the Senate, she might not be able to have a different AG

confirmed.

[gab13by13]

17. Then do what Republicans do

Appoint acting Attorney Generals.

[newdayneeded]

31. I think she can appoint anyone.

Which actually is fine, because it's usually a position that only last the president's term anyway.

[Mr.WeRP]

42. She can. And as she has said she would have Rs in her cabinet

I can Trump’s ass puckering at Liz Cheney being appointed as AG. She probably won’t pick her, but Cheney did an excellent job on the Jan 6 investigation.

[gab13by13]

16. The point isn't about the procedure to indict someone

the point is why do journalists have to be the people who uncover the crimes?

Fucking Merrick Garland is my #1 person to blame if TSF becomes president.

Michigan AG Dana Nessel is prosecuting her fake electors because Garland ignored her criminal complaint. She waited 1 year for Garland to investigate and then she did the prosecution herself.

Dana Nessel will make a fantastic US Attorney General.

I have been posting for 6 months that Leon Musk is a Putin puppet, maybe I should send a stern letter to Garland asking him to investigate Musk?

Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito need to be investigated.

I would not be surprised if TSF wins if he doesn't leave Garland stay on.

[Mr.WeRP]

18. Well said, sir.

[Emile]

22. I would not be surprised if TSF wins if he doesn't leave Garland stay on. Scary thought,

but a very real possibility.

[Mr.WeRP]

66. He's got Aileen Cannon lined up for that job. He needs a total sycophant like Hitler's generals.

[republianmushroom]

20. Oh boy, another possible letter.

[Xavier Breath]

21. Yeah, but this time he'll be double-dog daring him.

[republianmushroom]

23. Believe we are getting to that stage.

[Mr.WeRP]

29. Whoa there! The double-dog stage is pretty extreme. Not to be taken lightly.../s

[harpua74]

24. Current "Policy" means Garland must schedule....

Current "Policy" means Garland must schedule a lunch to discuss the planning of a briefing on these news articles that MAY lead to a meeting where options of opening an investigation are discussed while making sure both sides are examined before a final decision roundtable group is established and tasked with submitting a report within 90 days on whether an investigation should be launched.

[OLDMDDEM]

26. At the very least, Musk should lose his government contracts.

[Clouds Passing]

27. Common Garland!

[Emile]

30. What is Merrick Garland's political affiliation?

[Mr.WeRP]

35. If he is blatantly not doing his job, does it matter?

[-misanthroptimist]

37. Musk for Prison 2024!

[joshcryer]

39. Reality Winner wasn't a billionaire, she was made an example of.

She's also a hero.

[Hotler]

40. Title: "Why did it take the DOJ more than two years to indict Donald Trump in the 2020 election case?"

(snip) 'A wariness about appearing partisan'

An investigation by The Washington Post, based on anonymous interviews, said that it took prosecutors and FBI agents more than a year to launch a formal investigation of Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 attack. An earlier plan to directly investigate Trump associates was quashed by Justice Department officials, and prosecutors initially focused on the rioters — not Trump, The Washington Post reported in June.

"A wariness about appearing partisan, institutional caution, and clashes over how much evidence was sufficient to investigate the actions of Trump and those around him all contributed to the slow pace," the investigation said.

J.P. Cooney, chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s public corruption division, proposed investigative steps in February 2021 that were rejected by the FBI and senior Justice Department officials, The Washington Post found. Cooney later joined Smith’s team.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/aug/03/why-did-it-take-the-doj-more-than-two-years-to-ind/

[Lars39]

41. Another comparison... 2022 German coup d'tat plot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_German_coup_d'%C3%A9tat_plot

[onenote]

50. Can someone identify the law that Musk is said to have broken by being a Trump cheerleader?

[Mr.WeRP]

52. Sticking your head in the sand so you can't see there is a crime is not an excuse for Garland.

[onenote]

54. Not answering the question suggest that you don't have an answer.

It's not a complicated question and I'm not saying there isn't a law that he's broken. But it would be helpful in analyzing the accusation to know wha law you and others think he should be indicted for violating.

[Mr.WeRP]

56. Probable Cause is enough to get an indictment.

Talking to the head of an enemy state when you're a government contractor with classified information is probable cause.

Try again, I enjoy the fact that you're kicking this post.

[onenote]

59. Talking to Putin might be a Logan Act violation but how is it probably cause for charging election interference?

As you undoubtedly know, no one is going to be prosecuted for an alleged Logan Act violation -- not in the past 170+ years and not now. And even if would be prosecuted, how is Musk talking to Putin election interference?

The issue raised in the Medias post isn't really about the contacts with Putin, it's the coordination between Musk and the Trump campaign. So what is the election interference that such coordination is probable cause for?

[Mr.WeRP]

60. If there is probably cause that he could have leaked intel or was asked to turn Starlink off for China

Then that would be considered espionage. Why are you defending Trump and Musk?

[onenote]

62. Accusing me of defending Trump and Musk is bullshit.

I'm not defending anyone. I'm asking a question that you don't seem to be willing or able to answer. The issue raised is whether, as Medias suggested, Musk has committed election interference by coordinating with the Trump campaign. It's not whether Musk's contacts with Putin are espionage or a Logan Act violation. And speculation isn't probable cause in any court I've ever practiced before.

[Mr.WeRP]

63. You seem very interested in making the argument that Musk has committed no crime

That was your original challenge at least. I didn’t accuse or attack you. I asked why are you defending them?

[onenote]

69. No, I'm asking what crime he has committed.

I haven't argued one way or another and haven't defended what they've done which I certainly oppose his doing. But I also am not blindly assuming that what he has done violates the law, especially when the specific crime people are saying he should be indicted for hasn't been identified.

[brush]

65. Garland again. Such a poor AG. Always foot dragging and delaying in trump's favor.

And Musk, who has multi-billon dollar contract with our satellite/space programs, is also in cahoots with Putin, our nation's arch enemy.

What could possibly go wrong?

[msfiddlestix]

67. The question I keep wondering is why must a grand jury be the determining body to determine evidence?

Why isn't a federal crime dealt with like any other serious crime, when hard evidence is at hand,?
An arrest should then be made followed by all the normal court procedures following the arrest?
If Elon Musk or TSF shot someone or robbed a bank, they would require a grand jury first, not an arrest apparently. If I committed fraud, and evidence was in hand, I would be arrested and charged. no grand jury would be required.

I feel like GR;s have been considered status quo procedures, but not actually required by law.