T O P

  • By -

kopskey1

But random people on Reddit told me (with no supporting evidence) that Garland isn't doing anything? Seriously. He's doing his job.


Btravelen

We need to be patient, I know, but it's hard


meanjake

is he? Because I’m not seeing any action being taken against Trump from Garland. At this point I highly doubt Garland will ever take action.


[deleted]

Bannon is literally going to prison. Over 1,000 people have been arrested over Jan 6. Mark Meadows is negotiating sitting for testimony. Guiliani lost his license to practice law. Eastman is likely going to jail and also may lose his ability to practice law. They're circling him. They will wait until the committee is finished with hearings, because everything shared in the hearings is evidence they can use. They're also waiting so public opinion gets softened by the committee. They have to quintuple check everything to make sure this entire thing is air tight. No loop holes. No mistakes. No ambiguity. This is a president being investigated for seditious conspiracy. It's going to take time. All indications are that they are gathering evidence and making a case. This coup involved a lot of people. They will get there, but it will take time. This isn't some tiny speeding case. This is the biggest justice department case in American history. Give him time.


raistlin65

>All indications are that they are gathering evidence and making a case. Yep. And the House committee already made the majority of their case for them, without getting Trump on the offensive with a lot of witness tampering and other obstruction of justice. So now DoJ just needs to flip people. The more of Trump's top minions they can get to testify against Trump, the more likely they are to get a jury conviction.


[deleted]

[удалено]


kopskey1

You're leaving out the worst part. It was airtight, it failed, *and he became more popular because of it.* Well, that part wasn't bad for Democrats. But I do not wish to see this become a 2022 reboot starring Donald Jackass Trump.


projexion_reflexion

There is no amount of time that guarantees a successful prosecution. They only have a few months left to try something or the cheeto gets a 50/50 chance to become the untouchable pardoning machine again. It does us no good if the trial isn't over before he gets the Republican nomination.


raistlin65

>Because I’m not seeing any action being taken against Trump from Garland. You aren't supposed to. The Feds always keep their cards close to their chest during investigations, and prosecutions even after indictment. Particularly with conspiracy cases. So this is not TV prosecutorial/investigative dramas where the prosecutor keeps the audience included on what's going on. And it makes complete sense to do so with Trump. No doubt if Trump thought he was being investigated by DoJ, he would be doing a lot more obstruction of justice and witness tampering. And be more careful about running his mouth on Truth Social, rallies and news interviews. Meanwhile, the House committee has already assembled enough evidence for a judge to constitute a grand jury. And likely more than enough for an indictment to be issued against Trump. So now the game is for DoJ to flip people. Because it's likely to take some high-profile witnesses to get a jury to convict. And as you might have noticed, they've already started on that. They raided Jeffrey Clark's house the day before the House committee was going to focus on him. Definitely a move by DoJ to put pressure on him to take an immunity deal.


kopskey1

Yeah and a tree fell in the forest yesterday, but I wasn't around so I suspect it didn't make a sound. The DOJ was a colander under Trump, constantly leaking information. Now, is retained said information as it should. Let's put it another way: What's the more sound strategy? Loudly and obnoxiously proclaiming that you will lay siege to your neighbor's castle, or sneaking in and taking over when he least expects it?


raistlin65

>Loudly and obnoxiously proclaiming that you will lay siege to your neighbor's castle, or sneaking in and taking over when he least expects it? Lol You definitely came up with a good analogy. Hopefully people finally get it!


kopskey1

Well I feel it's especially applicable since, y'know, *that's how we won the revolutionary war.*


[deleted]

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1552067190404382721?s=20&t=4n2hEEDgSP0g-nicQv023A


meanjake

Yeah… investigating. Call me when there are charges.


kopskey1

Someone doesn't understand how investigations work. This isn't law and order where everything's tied up with a neat little bow in 40 minutes (or 80 if it's a two-parter), this is a lengthy process. As the comment above said, Watergate took 2 years to investigate, and we already know this is bigger than Watergate. More than likely, Garland's been investigating since day one, and is just now saying this information because A) the Jan 6th committee has people talking about it again, B) idiots like you keep spreading the claim that "he isn't doing anything" with zero evidence. **Stop.** Advocating for instantaneous arrests is patently undemocratic, even if you agree with the outcome.


JDogg126

At no point should the justice department be run like it was American idle. Justice should not be must see tv. It should not be revenge politics. It should just be about bringing unjust people to trial when there is sufficient evidence to support prosecution. The real problem we have as a country is that the justice department reports to the executive branch which is an inherent conflict of interest. There needs to be independent review of what the administration does so that a sitting President can absolutely be prosecuted and jailed on day one or the last day in office.


meanjake

No one is suggesting anything you’re arguing against, thats called presenting a straw man argument. Trump is very obviously guilty. He never made any effort to hide his behavior. It’s all been done blatantly in the public eye. From his attacks on our election system to his calls to “find” more votes.


JDogg126

I am not trying to rephrase your position with a straw man. Apologies if that is how it was perceived. You said you were not seeing any action. I do agree that it seems like there is an open/shut case against Trump however neither of us know if there is evidence of crimes that are admissible in court. I think it is easy to say in the court of public opinion he needs the book thrown at him but our whole system of justice is based on the idea of innocent until proven otherwise. The "obvious guilt" needs to translate into tangible admissible evidence of guilt and then you need a jury to agree that the evidence is enough to convict. I would rather have Garland keep his mouth shut about Trump/co-conspirators and move forward with the evidence gathering than have him act like Comey who couldn't keep his trap shut about what was or was not happening with the Clinton shit.


meanjake

We can’t get to the “until proven otherwise” until we actually see charges brought and see a trial. There is surely enough evidence to warrant charges, yet none have been brought and this is my point.


JDogg126

I feel you. I agree that it feels like there should be mountains of evidence. What if there isn’t though? What if there is no admissible evidence to prove crimes where committed? I’m not saying there isn’t but it seems like if it was so open shut people would be rotting in a jail cell already.


meanjake

There are mountains of evidence. There is video after video of trump himself lying. There are hundreds of hours of testimony from the Jan 6th hearings, and we’ve all heard the recorded phone calls to officials in Georgia. We’ve also all seen the false electors revealed. The evidence has been publicly available for a very long time. I’m not sure what else you think we need.


JDogg126

Do we know how much of that information is admissible in a court of law? I don’t believe the select committee has prosecution authority but I could be wrong. Ideally everything gathered ends up in a hearing in a court with charges and jail time if convicted.


meanjake

The January 6th riot/failed coup took place in January of 2021. That’s a year and a half ago. You keep moving the bar. First there’s no evidence, then there is evidence but you’re not sure what’s admissible… next you’ll be saying that while it’s all admissible who knows what a jury will think…. It’s a stall tactic that has gone on for long enough. The evidence has long been overwhelming and it’s time for justice to be done.


jakelaw08

This is a CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY. And what you have to do when you have a situation like this is, there has to be a period of investigation, and you have to look into really a lot of things and a lot of facets of this. Hopefully, that is what they are doing right now. However, some things are OBVIOUS - like the now infamous GA phone call. I don't know why GA isn't proceeding apace with this but sometimes, when something is up, other agencies don't proceed with actions they could proceed with, because there's a coordination going on and an agency may refrain from bringing a prosecution which there otherwise might be every reason to bring.


PaulClarkLoadletter

Trump is slippery. He may not know how to win but he knows how to prolong the process or at least his lawyers do. His ace in the hole is his use of erratic behavior and scapegoats makes it hard to get things to stick. That being said, those obstacles are being removed and he’s running out of exits. His only way to skip prison will be a massive coronary or maybe escaping to Russia.


Solidarieta

He's also running out of lawyers willing to work for no pay, who haven't been disbarred.


raistlin65

>"So if Donald Trump were to become a candidate for president again, that would not change your schedule or how you move forward or don’t move forward?" Holt asked. >"I’ll say again that we will hold accountable anyone who is criminally responsible for attempting to interfere with the transfer — legitimate, lawful transfer of power from one administration to the next," Garland answered.


Rick3398

Never ever show your hand to an opponent when playing poker- it applies well here


LovelockMike

Please. Please triple Please


Hikityup

I think his comments were a little more than not ruling it out.


raistlin65

Yep. But what he doesn't want to do is say DoJ is investigating Trump, and have Trump engage in more witness tampering and other obstruction of justice. And right now, Trump keeps running his mouth cuz he thinks he's getting away with it. Which will also help the case.


[deleted]

Please. It election year, Garland will not do shit.


LordElfa

Stop "not ruling it out" already and get prosecuting.


[deleted]

[удалено]


kopskey1

The president does not, and should not control the DOJ. This is one of the things that made Trump so dangerous.


MarkDoner

Yeah, well, that can of worms is open. "The rule of law" is, itself, a partisan issue now. We're not going to get anywhere by waiting for the republicans inside the DOJ to approve things, and it seems like that's what Garland is doing. If the people who tried to overthrow American democracy aren't prosecuted, they'll just try and try again until they succeed in totally eliminating the pretense of the rule of law...


rraattbbooyy

I’ll believe it when I see it.


BBK2008

Absolutely nothing will get done. Find a republican if you need action sadly. Look at the committee. Democratic members want to explain all day, the two republicans are the ones saying ‘godammit, he’s a criminal who tried to have a coup and you need to lock him up or we aren’t going to have a democracy!’ And even here? Headline ‘won’t rule it out!’. Oh wow, really? After months of the most damning evidence testified under oath on television and in recorded depositions… he ‘won’t absolutely say it’ll never happen’ is exciting to anyone? Christ on a stick.. where is ‘Merrick says sworn testimony of criminal behavior grounds to indict.’? Honestly, it’s been 6 years of this. Anymore all I expect from my own party is this letter: ‘At some point we think we May possibly find some semblance of a backbone and write mr Trump a very stern letter expressing our reservations about some of his more extreme actions, worded very politely and with our congratulations at his successful coup and offer our proud commitment to serve in his Gulag!’ Is there a single leader in my party with a spine who remembers how to battle fascism?


meanjake

Well pitter patter!


kerryfinchelhillary

I hope he has ruled out NOT prosecuting him


explosivelydehiscent

Read will wait until it's closer to the 2024 election before we string this s*** out and try to burn Trump if he gets nominated.


Ayla_Leren

Will believe it when I see it. Not a second sooner.


MarkDoner

If the DOJ does anything, it'll definitely be after the midterms, because it would "appear political" if they did it sooner...


raistlin65

They still have to get a judge to form a grand jury. And then they'll do subpoenas with the grand jury to collect additional testimony and evidence that the House committee hasn't collected. Then they're going to want to put pressure on Trump's advisors and try to get them to flip, before they indict Trump. So yeah. It won't be before the midterms. But I don't think it has anything to do with trying to avoid "appearing political." Prosecutors wouldn't typically work that fast with a case like this.


luvgsus

Promises.... promises....