Many thanks to folks who couldn't be bothered to talk about the actual investigation and prosecution of Trump

[bigtree]

...but spent all of the time they could have been working to convince voters to allow the process to continue, denigrating that legal process to the point of claiming there wasn't even an investigation.

Congrats to all the folks who spent their time deriding the prosecutors instead of the perps; bashing DOJ instead of the Trump-appointed judges and justices who obligingly set court dates on appeals to evidence seized as early as 2021 far enough into the future to allow the defendant to win and end his prosecutions.

Bravo to those who convinced enough Americans that nothing was being done to prosecute Trump, making it so they didn't bother to notice he was already in court before voters pulled the rug out.

Looking forward to when Jack Smith releases a report with all of the work DOJ did to prosecute Trump... anticipating all of the confusion over whether Garland critics can, nonetheless, use all of the stuff they claimed wasn't being done by his DOJ to then point to Trump's guilt.

Might be easier to just keep pretending none of it happened, and none of the evidence Garland gathered and fought through myriad courts, and dozens of republican judges and justices, to make available to use in grand juries and courtrooms actually exists.

My actual advice to these folks is to get as much denial about the prosecutions out their systems as possible before those historians everyone is talking about today -the ones who will supposedly judge Garland harshly in the future - get their hands on all of the facts and evidence in the final report and conclude DOJ actually had a prosecutable case; one that was brought forward extraordinarily fast for a high profile prosecution; and was ultimately upended by voters.

[RockRaven]

1. The results are the results. There are no participation trophies or partial credits

for showing your work. And the results are bad and inadequate.

[bigtree]

2. that illogic fails on so many points

...I'll just leave you to it.

[brush]

3. We all saw trump incite an insurretion on TV nearly four yeas ago...

and Garland somehow failed to prosecute and jail trump even though all the evidence he needed to convict was on TV, and still is on video.

A monumental fail.

[bigtree]

4. we also saw the election cut his prosecution off

...while he was prosecuting Trump in an actual court.

This reminds me of people who blame Democrats every time the numbers of our elected aren't sufficient to pass legislation, even when Dems vote unanimously.

Bottom line there is that Dems might not produce what we want for us in a slim majority where filibuster rules prevent them passing bills with a simple majority, but it's not because they didn't do their jobs and vote the right way.

Doesn't keep people from coming at them with a misrepresentation or disregard of what the actual obstacles to success were at the time.

But their stamping feet and insisting without proof or explanation that the outcome could have been different - in the face of evidence that it could not - is the stuff of tantrums, not debate.

[brush]

5. Who's blaming the Democrats or Joe Biden? No one I see here.

Last edited Tue Nov 26, 2024, 01:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Garland is to blame. Period.

[bigtree]

6. whoosh!

...

[brush]

7. Yeah sure, the whoosh isn't fooling anyone. Again, Garland, massive, fail, period.

[bigtree]

8. who are you talking to?

[brush]

10. Period.

[bigtree]

11. you saw this thread, and you were like, this is my chance!

"I'm going to join up DU and spread the gospel of Trump among the unbelievers!!"

What the fuck is wrong with you? Get a life.

[mercuryblues]

19. Some people have nothing better to do

or friends to do them with.

[struggle4progress]

12. In my now very-long-passed cowboy days, I heard a tale about a dude who sat backwards in the saddle

so he could see where he had been

Maybe you'll think about it while we're riding on cuz there's a long hard trail ahead

[bigtree]

14. or not

...I'll give heed to my own trail-worn homilies, thank you.

[struggle4progress]

15. fair enough. i'm sure we'll be on the same side

[bigtree]

17. I'm so glad you can see that.

...I thought that part of me had gone invisible or something.

[lees1975]

13. Four years.

There's NO excuse for a prosecution of a crime taking this long. The investigation made by Congress turned up all the evidence a special counsel needed, there was no need for Garland to slow-walk this process like he admitted to doing. Only one judge out of four cases was a Trump apppointee.

The justice system failed to provide justice. The built-in delays, side tracks and obfuscations worked to prevent a case from coming to trial. There are plenty of legal experts who are supporting the claim that this could have and should have been adjudicated two years ago. Wherever the blame falls, frankly, I don't care. It took four years and it never happened and the American people got screwed and that is the bottom line.

[bigtree]

16. the big 'no' makes it real

...really.

Congress not only had no obligation to prove anything they asserted in court, but they needlessly delayed sharing with DOJ any of all of that special magic formula you claim they produced until the fall, well after they'd adjourned, even after a YEAR of repeated requests from DOJ.

Believing a toothless congressional committee presenting one side of a case is sufficient for immediate charges and a quick conviction is really something.

It's not really law you're arguing here, but your ideal of a legal process where the thing you want is the only thing that is pursued by everyone involved; the perps, the lawyers, the judges,, everyone working to effect that thing you saw on teevee or read on the internet.

No obligations to appeals courts, no obligations to share ALL of the evidence, not just what you believe will convict - discovery obligations to the defense on pain of having your entire case collapse in court if you refuse to comply.

This is about feels. If it wasn't you'd bring more than that to the discussion; like specific evidence you believe was available to prosecutors when you say you expected Garland to act.

Things like that, not just feels.