What kind of iirresponsible idiot was Merrick Garland?

[bigtree]

53. I'm wondering why this should matter as much to Democrats

...as it seems to be vexing Trump.

Trump asks why Democrats didn’t release Epstein files if there was ‘smoking gun’
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5408202-donald-trump-democrats-jeffrey-epstein-files/


...besides, there were all sorts of Maxwell appeals at the time that any normal AG or prosecutor wouldn't want to muck up by releasing evidence to the public.

Sep 17, 2024 -United States v. Maxwell, No. 22-1426 (2d Cir. 2024)

Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York of conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, and sex trafficking of a minor. She was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 60 months, 120 months, and 240 months, respectively, followed by concurrent terms of supervised release. Maxwell appealed her conviction on several grounds, including the applicability of Jeffrey Epstein’s Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), the statute of limitations, jury impartiality, constructive amendment of the indictment, and the reasonableness of her sentence.

The District Court denied Maxwell’s motion to dismiss the indictment, holding that Epstein’s NPA with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida did not bar her prosecution by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. The court also found that the second superseding indictment complied with the statute of limitations, as the relevant statute extended the time to bring charges of sexual abuse for offenses committed before its enactment. Additionally, the District Court denied Maxwell’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial, finding no abuse of discretion in its handling of a juror’s erroneous answers during voir dire. The court also rejected Maxwell’s claim that its response to a jury note resulted in a constructive amendment of, or prejudicial variance from, the indictment.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The appellate court held that Epstein’s NPA did not bind the Southern District of New York, the indictment was timely, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial, and the response to the jury note did not result in a constructive amendment or prejudicial variance. The court also found Maxwell’s sentence to be procedurally reasonable.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/22-1426/22-1426-2024-09-17.html

She's still in the process of appeals to the SC.

What would there have been available for any responsible prosecutor to release?

This op loses sight of the fact that it has been republicans who have demanded the release of a 'list' they claim exists. And, Trump isn't demanding anything be released now, quite the opposite. He's making a cynical argument about Biden which screams knowledge of guilt, as well a hypocrisy.

But here we're echoing this as if it's Merrick Garland or Biden who blocked something from being released, or even demanded it. They're not the ones who made the sweetheart immunity deals in Florida which precluded witnesses from pursuing other perps, and is the subject of the present Mazwell appeal to the SC.

I think the op is skating past the point of all of this, and needs to address what Trump's obsequious DOJ is doing in open collusion with the president; something that never occurred under ANY Democratic president.

So, I think all of this speculation that Garland was sitting on something ignores that the process of actual legal accountability doesn't run through the internet and the media before it runs through the courts, no matter how much Trump has debased the judicial process with this blatant interference and contempt on every level.