In the face of clear evidence of a coup, why in the world are we not indicting 45 and accomplices?

[Evolve Dammit]

We are burning daylight folks. There is no turning back if those that plotted. financed and conducted this coup on Democracy are not charged. It's been over 9 months. Does DOJ have any interest? The 1/6 committee has issued subpoenas. In another six months, maybe there will be responses. Maybe. Then we're into mid-terms and Dems may be in for a rude surprise. Not wishing, just observing both nationally and in my neck of the woods.

[FalloutShelter]

1. Worse than that .

Why the hell is any journalist acting like TFG can possibly be a candidate in 2024?

[Evolve Dammit]

8. The media is treating him as viable and not the criminal he is. Barely discussed is the near coup.

[FalloutShelter]

10. Maddening!

[KentuckyWoman]

131. Part of how we got him to start was media treating him a viable.

Mercer money talked louder than ethics.

[evolves]

94. Because

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[StarfishSaver]

98. Care to elaborate?

What exactly are you saying?

[evolves]

135. Think of who owns each media outlet.

It is not in their interests to support pulling back the curtain and shining light into the dark places where power resides. Too much risk of losing the power and money that they control.

[StarfishSaver]

137. You think that Biden's Justice Department is so corrupt that it is making its criminal justice decis

based on the power and money of the media - and Biden is so corrupt that he's allowing that to happen?

[evolves]

156. Not at all.

I think that the media is so corrupt that they are not providing coverage that would reveal the depths of that corruption in which they are complicit.

[StarfishSaver]

158. Gotcha!

[evolves]

163. ???????????

[StarfishSaver]

164. That meant I understand what you were saying

[evolves]

166. My apologies--

I thought you meant it as in a “gotcha” question.
Sorry if I was initially unclear.

[StarfishSaver]

167. ...

[FalloutShelter]

109. Yep.

[mopinko]

144. when are they gonna start telling him to quit whining and go away? like they did

to you know who.

[StarfishSaver]

145. Excellent question

Maybe because he doesn't know how to knit?

[lagomorph777]

148. The situation really is dire. Not just Turd but the entire GQP is being treated as legitimate.

They have thrown away all pretense of legitimacy; they are actively assaulting America and DOJ is enabling them.

[StarfishSaver]

149. You really think that President Biden's DOJ is enabling terrorists?

Wow.

[lagomorph777]

151. They're releasing them on plea bargains or even less.

So, yes. No serious sentences yet. Not one.

[StarfishSaver]

152. That doesn't answer my question.

Do you think the Biden Administration is enabling terrorism?

[lagomorph777]

153. That wasn't your question.

But to answer your second question, No. But I think Biden selected a weak AG.

[StarfishSaver]

159. Actually, it was my question

You think Biden's DOJ is enabling terrorism and he's allowing them to do it and not doing anything about it?

[malaise]

2. Won't be long

Take that to the bank

[Evolve Dammit]

9. I sincerely hope you are correct Malaise.

[Orrex]

22. I know that you're not given to blind optimism

So your reassurance gives me some confidence here.

[mn9driver]

3. For practical purposes, there is barely a year left to get this done.

If the GOP takes control of the House and the Senate, with no charges against the central players. they will have gotten away with it.

[Evolve Dammit]

11. that's what really sucks. They burn it down and half of America is fine with it.

[Caliman73]

4. What would you suggest be done?

How, in practical terms can the process go any faster?

[empedocles]

6. Point well taken

[Evolve Dammit]

12. The Repukes are better at it. Dems not so much. We're just too nice in situations that warrant immed

iate response with effective media messaging. Not talking Jen Psaki either. She's great. I mean more press releases/briefings from Congress/ DOJ/ FBI to define and articulate how the crimes are being addressed.

[Caliman73]

65. It isn't about being "too nice".

It is about access to media. It is about what the message is. It is about many things. Like I said, Democrats have to balance respect for the rules and traditions of governance because that is what we are fighting for. Republicans are only fighting for power and will try to get it however they can. They realize that their message does not resonate with most people so they are not interested in democracy.

If Democrats start dismantling democracy to save democracy, then democracy will not exist to "save". It really sucks to be in that position but think about the analogy in the Batman movie where Alfred says, "Some people just want to watch the world burn". Republicans don't care if it burns. We do, so we cannot "fight fire with fire". The FBI and DOJ are autonomous agencies within the Administration. Biden and Congress can suggest, but they cannot order them to investigate their political opposition.

[EffieBlack]

69. You explained this very eloquently.

Kudos to you.

[Joinfortmill]

72. Well said.

However, it does seem to me that Biden would be certain to appoint an Attorney General who would pusue an investigation even if he doesn't interfere.

[Evolve Dammit]

91. I am not suggesting we "dismantle" anything. I am hopeful for an urgency and media coverage.

Both of which seem to be lacking. We also are hamstrung by "centrists" or more accurately those who don't want the wealthy to be taxed or are beholden to corporate donors.

[StarfishSaver]

96. There may be an obvious lack of urgency in the media - that's something we can see

But we have no way of knowing the degree of urgency within DOJ.

We don't know how many U.S. Attorneys, assistant USAs and career attorneys are working on this or how much of their time is being devoted to it or what they're saying and presenting to the grand jury. We don't know how many investigators have been assigned to this case, what they are doing, to whom they're talking, or what they're uncovering. We don't know how many meetings are being held every day about this. We don't know how often the AG is briefed on the progress of the investigation and who is briefing him or how much of his time he's spending on this matter.

We just don't know. For some reason, certain people here deeply resent being told they don't know something, as if it's an insult rather than just a fact. But we. don't. know. So to draw negative assumptions about the tenacity and commitment and courage of the Attorney General and his team, all of whom were appointed by the Democratic president based on what we don't know is illogical and, in my view, inappropriate on a Democratic board.

And, no, in case anyone tries to throw the "stop trying to stifle free speech" complaint that always follows when someone criticizes their point of view, everyone has a right to their opinion and everyone else has a right to say that that opinion is better left unexpressed in certain venues.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

129. There you go again slamming DUers.

[Demsrule86]

147. This is not a centrist issue...and please consider the only reason we have any majority is

because of centrists. Power is won at the ballot box. Centrists have a right to push their agenda and protect their seats. Again, you want progressive policy( I want that), vote Democratic in every election, and increase our majorities, but even then, we won't get everything. One never does.

[StarfishSaver]

150. So, let me get this straight

You're saying that if we want Democrats to successfully push progressive measures, we need to elect more Democrats so that we have the numbers to actually do that?

Wow! What a concept! And here, I keep hearing the way to do that is to threaten to boot out Democrats who aren't with the program, even if that means reducing the number of seats we hold because that's what Republicans would do and it will show how tough we are.

I think I like your idea better ...

[Caliman73]

162. Democrats do no control media coverage, which would allow for "urgency" to be seen.

There are media outlets that display urgency however, as I said before, media is interested in showing the conflict between two equal sides as that is more compelling and allows for higher ratings. Meanwhile you have an entire media ecosystem that is broadcasting pure propaganda for conservatives. 1. The propaganda seeps into the mainstream. 2. Conservatives effectively cow mainstream outlets into broadcasting their point of view by claiming a "lack of objectivity". 3. Mainstream outlets are owned and operated by the wealthy and corporations which have a vested interest in the status quo. 4. There has been a quantified bias (shown in studies) toward conservative points of view in terms of air time. The thinking is typically, when conservatives are in the minority, "We need to give them air time because listening to the minority is important" and when they are in the majority, "We need to listen to what the majority has to say since they are in charge". That way of thinking is rarely or never applied to the Democratic Party.

[Crunchy Frog]

16. If the Dems and Repukes were reversed.

The process would be going MUCH faster.

[Scrivener7]

18. This is definitely true.

[chowder66]

20. That's because they would only be laser-focused on indicting. Everything else would be left to rot.

[Caliman73]

67. Really?

How did those investigations of Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, etc... go?

This is the weakness of the Republicans. Where we play by the rules and it is a slow process, Republicans try to abuse the system and it eventually falls apart.

The analogy of "roles reversed" is not very apt either because Democrats would not engage in an attempt to overthrow the government. We play by the rules. Doesn't mean that every Democrat always follows the rules, but we understand that society is only as strong as the ability that people have in respecting the laws, rules, and ethical conduct. Our investigations tend to go slower, but they stick because they are actually based in reality and the law.

[Miguelito Loveless]

35. Pretend he's poor and black

If he were he would have been arrested and beaten all the way to jall.

[Joinfortmill]

73. Sadly true

[uponit7771]

110. Act like Trump and his children are Muslim? He'd be in Gitmo tomorrow

[ecstatic]

134. +1000. nt

[budkin]

5. Trump is good for ratings!

It's so exciting!

[empedocles]

7. trump may also be good for underming trump over time.

Media helps

[Mr. Ected]

13. Due process grinds slowly. Politics move quickly. The media has no conscience.

The crooks know they can get away with it because it takes too long to mobilize, investigate, try and convict, especially while politicians throw obstacles in prosecutors' paths and the media won't engage in any conversation adverse to the ultra-rich.

By the time justice can be brought, the vast majority of people have already lost the thread and deem it to be sour grapes and politics as usual.

We're our own worst enemies.

[Evolve Dammit]

14. well said. We don't have the luxury of time right now. Where is Garland?

[triron]

15. I ask the same. He is burying his head methinks.

[StarfishSaver]

84. Or maybe he's busy doing his job

[Miguelito Loveless]

40. Every day in this country

People are arrested, tossed in jail to rot until trial. Then they are tried, convicted and tossed into prison to rot. The system is extremely vindictive when the mood suits and the victim is poor.

[Scrivener7]

17. Careful. Expressing a wish for an indictment of anyone connected to TFG is considered

the height of bad manners by some DUers.

We must all wait quietly with our hands folded. And for God's sake! Don't express frustration! You will be chastised roundly! I was told that we have no right to complain because if we really cared, we would have gotten a law degree and joined the DOJ, or parked oursleves outside of Mar a Lago to protest daily. (I live a thousand miles away.)


Myself? I am totally with you. We watched him and everyone around him break the law every day. I'd like to see something done about that. Give us an indictment of a low level conspirator. Give us something. The lack of any action emboldens them and their followers.

[Evolve Dammit]

21. Amen. I don't care anymore about what others think. It's the truth.

[Fiendish Thingy]

26. It's not the wish for an indictment that I object to...

It’s the toddler-like impatience of some folks who demand:

“I want the bad man indicted now, now NOW!!!”

[Scrivener7]

82. God forbid people should express frustration.

[gab13by13]

89. Nothing gets done in an election year,

how much time is left?

[StarfishSaver]

90. If nothing gets done in an election year, why rush an indictment?

If nothing will happen with it next year, what's the point?

[Evolve Dammit]

108. Time is not on our side at present.

[StarfishSaver]

114. That wasn't my question

If "nothing gets done in an election year," what's the point of indicting now. Do you think that Trump will be tried and convicted before January 2022?

Do you think that if Trump had been indicted on January 21, 2021, he'd have been put in jail by the end of this year?

[stillcool]

27. You have proof that laws were broken every day

and you know what actions are/and are not being taken by every Attorney General, and every FBI office in every state, and you have no respect for opinions of DU'ers. Jeeze.

[Scrivener7]

81. Sure. You go with that.

[Joinfortmill]

74. Its coming, I think.

[Scrivener7]

83. I sure hope so.

[fescuerescue]

113. Waiting with out hands folded.

As a practical matter. That's exactly it.

It's not like anyone here has the power prosecute.

We can write all the sternly worded threads we want.

[Scrivener7]

117. That can be said about just about any topic we discuss here. No one has the power to

prosecute those either.

And yet there are no posters scampering from thread to thread trying to decree what we say or don't say about those topics.

[fescuerescue]

142. You sure about that?

I think this place has more rules on what we can say and talk about than most.

[smirkymonkey]

157. +1000

[Bucky]

19. I'm impatient too, but you and I are biased. Justice shouldn't be.

I remember when Oliver North got off from embezzlement and gunrunning charges cause Congress was too eager to make its political points.

We don't want a repeat of that.

[Evolve Dammit]

24. He was a fucking criminal. Either we have laws or we don't. I want transparency.

[Bucky]

29. Me too. But...

We also need due process. We also need prosecutors to compile water tight cases and to go after all the coconspirators. Trump will assemble a dream team of lawyers. I'm gonna trust the experts to do their job thoroughly.
This will be a 2-3 year slog. Patience is mandatory.

[StarfishSaver]

33. Due process is also a law that must be followed

[Evolve Dammit]

37. like the Bhengazi hearings?

[StarfishSaver]

38. No. The Behghazi hearings had nothing to do with Due Process

That was one of the problems with them.

[Evolve Dammit]

43. It was relentless and effective. It was in the public eye. MSM covered it. Are you seeing that now?

[StarfishSaver]

46. So you think Democrats should violate due process and hold public kangaroo hearings

in order to convince the public that our political enemies did something they didn't do?

Gotcha.

It's always good to be reminded that some people on our side are just as comfortable with abusing the system as Republicans are - as long as WE'RE the ones doing it to achieve OUR ends, it's all good.

[Evolve Dammit]

47. You're way off base. And missing my points.

[triron]

120. of course. kidding

[Fiendish Thingy]

23. I prefer a successful, rather than quick, prosecution

That way, there’s a better chance of Justice being served.

It took over a year to convict Chauvin of murder, and that was with a video and eyewitnesses, and a defendant with limited financial resources compared to Trump, and who couldn’t hide behind the presidency as an excuse.

[Evolve Dammit]

25. He appealed. Think he'll lose? I'm sure he has gobs of cash rolling in.

[Fiendish Thingy]

45. Everyone is entitled to an appeal

And I don’t think his “gobs of cash” are anywhere near the size of Trump’s gobs…

And meanwhile, Chauvin sits in prison; I would prefer a well-prepared case that results in Trump’s conviction, so he too can await his appeal in prison.

[Roy Rolling]

28. Any other crime

Bank robbery, murder, kidnapping, car theft…how many times do the authorities just let it go?

I mean, don’t do shit for six or seven months? WTF? It’s like police have just forgotten about the crimes these miscreants committed with impunity. They are daring the DOJ to arrest them.

Why don’t they charge Trump with passing a counterfeit $20 bill and see if we can get some law enforcement.

[Evolve Dammit]

30. A twenty dollar bill. That brings it down to reality.. Miss Mr. Natural BTW

[Jon King]

31. He is treated by the media as a 'bad boy' rich guy like Elan Musk, instead of a coup leading traitor

Just crazy how the media acts like "oh boy, what did that Donald do this time". The SOB is not Dennis the Menace for goodness sake, he is a sociopathic cult leader who is trying to destroy the USA and convert it into a mafia like banana republic. He literally could not care if every living human on earth perished as long as he can be a dictator. And he has made progress towards that goal by Repug legislatures changing the laws for him.

But yeah media, keep giving him play as a legitimate political force rather than a crazed criminal. Not like the climate is to the point of no return and the infrastructure is crumbling. Plenty of time to mess around with democracy I'm sure.

[Evolve Dammit]

34. well said. It's like an abusive relationship. Has been for 5 years.

[StarfishSaver]

32. Why do you think they haven't yet been indicted?

There are only a few options:

1. DOJ is conducting a thorough investigation in order to bring the strongest possible case and that takes time and can't be done in a few months if it's to be done right

or

2. DOJ isn't conducting a thorough investigation because they aren't interested in bringing 45 and his accomplices to justice

or

3. DOJ isn't conducting a thorough investigation because they don't understand why it's important for them to bring 45 and his accomplices to justice

or

4. DOJ isn't conducting a thorough investigation because they are corrupt and want Trump and his accomplices to escape justice

or

5. DOJ is conducting a thorough investigation but they are too incompetent to do it quickly.

Which of these options do you think is at play here?

[Evolve Dammit]

41. I'm not in DOJ so I would not know. Charges are unknown and a danger to us all if they don't act.

[StarfishSaver]

55. Interesting response. But it's an honest one.

You don't know.

[Evolve Dammit]

63. I have nothing but an honest opinion of how I see things. Somewhat novel in todays world I guess.

[gab13by13]

97. I'm with you,

we now have a record from Eastman which shows that the coup was planned, we have it in writing. People here who are telling us to stay calm were 100% wrong when they told us that the 1/6 counting of electoral votes was just a formality, boy were they wrong. I have a tendency to take what they say now with a grain of salt. The fact that we don't know if DOJ is investigating gives me zero solace.

If Mike Pence follows the plan laid out by Eastman and his cronies, Donald Trump is still president, er dictator.

The coup, the insurrection has only grown since 1/6 with states passing voter/election discriminatory laws. Now the states are starting to gerrymander districts, just what Texas is planning will give the House back to the Trumpers. Why did this happen? It happened because our DOJ did nothing to stop the fraudit in Arizona. Ballots, voting systems and other election materials were no longer in the possession of election officials. Since our DOJ only wrote a stern letter to the Cyber Ninjas these fraudits have moved on to other states.

The coup is gaining strength, Trump people are being put in positions to decide who won the election, regardless of the vote.

So, what to do, eliminate the filibuster, do a carve out for voter/election bills and pass S1 or our democracy is gone, for generations. Democrats in Congress have a choice - democracy or keeping the filibuster, we can't have both.

[Evolve Dammit]

101. Agreed.

[Fiendish Thingy]

50. Some folks are willing to wait for Justice...

While others want instant gratification/vengeance.

[StarfishSaver]

51. ...

[Fiendish Thingy]

66. I'll be here all week; don't forget to tip your server...nt

[Joinfortmill]

75. #1

[TheRickles]

85. What's your best guess about when indictments will start to be handed down?

I'm guessing you think Option 1 is in play (so do I), but you seem to know quite a bit about the processes involved, so I'd value your opinion about what sort of time frame to expect.

[StarfishSaver]

87. I honestly have no idea when they'll be handed down

So much depends on so many different factors that we just can't know.

For example, by all accounts, a grand jury has been convened in DC and is likely hearing evidence. But we don't know what or how many charges the US Attorney is presenting evidence on, who the targets are, what witnesses have testified and will testify, who is cooperating, etc.

I do think that the first indictments will probably disappoint a lot of people because they probably won't be the big players - Trump, Giuliani, etc. They'll very likely be mid-level people who are being squeezed in order to get to the top guys - and if it happens that way, some folks will jump to the conclusion that Trump is escaping justice.

I also know that Garland, the US Attorneys and their team know to the minute what statutes of limitations they are dealing with and know exactly what evidence they are working with, what additional evidence they need, and how they need to proceed to put together the case(s). So while I haven't the first clue when any indictments will be handed down by the grand jury, I do know that whatever the prosecutors are doing, they are doing it based on everything they need to know - most of which we don't know at all from where we sit.

[TheRickles]

140. Thanks, though w/r/t timing, I'd be more worried about the rapidly approaching

run-up to the 2022 elections than the statute of limitations.

[Doodley]

36. Democrat lawmakers and media assumed Trump could not possibly win in 2016, so they gave him a pass

on all his racism, his misogyny, his corruption, and his mental instability. We are heading towards the same situation again in 2024. He has been normalized and nothing is being done to address his lies or educate his followers. Remember, he got more than 10 million more votes in 2020 than in 2016. Despite being the worst president in history, he is more popular than ever. Polls show him ahead of Biden. We (Democratic lawmakers) have not taken and are not taking the threat of Trump in 2024 seriously.

[Evolve Dammit]

39. Yep.

[Initech]

42. He should be arrested and tried for conspiring to commit treason.

The fact that he's going around right now unpunished is a crime itself.

[Evolve Dammit]

44. Totally agree.

[NurseJackie]

48. Good lord. Stop.

[Crunchy Frog]

54. The hide thread feature is your friend.

[NurseJackie]

58. No. Rational thinking is my friend.

[Snackshack]

49. Why the Dems

Are not raising hell on TV, the floors of both chambers and social media everyday I don’t understand at all. Everyday people should be reminded that almost 700k have died due to incompetence or criminal negligence, everyday that a coup was attempted on Jan 6 that looks to include many gop members and now a Supreme Court justice. Everyday the in 4yr 8trillion was spent by Republican and every phucking day the DT lost the election to President Biden 81 million to 74 million that 60 lawsuits for supposed fraud were all tossed out because of lack of evidence and that gop members and DT are still lying about it

EVERYDAY DEMS SHOULD BE HAMMERING THE GOP.

I mean my gawd one party used to be lucky if they came across 1 or 2 issues or scandals to hammer the other with. Look at Dukakis and Willy Horton or Bush and read my lips. DT and the GOP have given the Dems and entire library of things yet it’s crickets from the Dems…

[Evolve Dammit]

52. This! Thank you

[Bettie]

61. Yes, they should

but they don't do that.

[NullTuples]

53. Remember back in October, when we worried time would run out on his crimes...

...if he stayed for a second term? And then he wouldn't be prosecuted for them?

Good times.

[Evolve Dammit]

56. Orange Julius will use everrything in his Cult operating system to burn us down. Enemy #1.

[StarfishSaver]

57. Remember back in 2019 when many of the same people who think DOJ will NEVER prosecute Trump

insisted that the House Democrats would NEVER impeach him?

Good times.

[NullTuples]

60. Impeaching him meant nothing to him, the GOP or their base.

Unless there are real repercussions, flouting the rules (& laws) becomes a show of strength in that mindset.

[StarfishSaver]

64. LOL

That's not what the "Impeach him NOW!!!!" folks thought. And they certainly didn't appreciate anyone telling them at the time that impeachment would mean nothing.

And I have a feeling that when Trump IS indicted - and I'm sure he will be - the same folks who are demanding that he be charged will find some reason to complain about it still. "Why'd they charge him with this instead of that?" ... "Big deal. He won't be convicted or do any time," etc. Or they'll just go silent like they did when Democrats impeached Trump, not once, but twice.

[gab13by13]

104. I totally disagree

that impeachment meant nothing, that is a defeatist statement. The House did its duty, the GQP Senate played partisan politics that may enable Trump to run again for office. Democrats did their duty, Republicans voted to ignore a coup attempt, I'm proud of what Democrats did, they acted.

I know you are aware that the House cannot bring criminal charges against anyone, it can only refer information to Justice. It would be a lot quicker and have more clout if our DOJ was investigating the coup.

I will have to Google the DC grand jury, I missed that one, hope you are right.

[StarfishSaver]

115. I think you meant to direct this to someone else

[Evolve Dammit]

105. The post was valid. The base and the crime boss family is not daunted, but encouraged.

[hadEnuf]

59. People are starting to lose interest in 1/6. The legal system was not created to meet the needs of

the instant media gratification now demanded from the public. So now one of the most heinous acts of treason and insurrection in our history is being talked over by the same scum who caused it.

I think that's half the reason the GOP kept having hearings about Benghazi. They knew there was nothing there, they just wanted to keep it in the news cycle and on the front pages. Then Fox news "confirmed" whatever the GOP said and it's all wrapped up in time to sit down and watch "The Bachelor".


People may listen but they often don't think and right wing media plays them skillfully

[Evolve Dammit]

62. and it worked. HRC lost.

[EffieBlack]

70. Hillary didn't "lose" because of the Benghazi hearings.

She didn't become president because of Russian interference, voter suppression, and too many Democrats more interested in making a point than in protecting democracy, among other things, all unrelated to Benghazi.

[Joinfortmill]

79. YES!

[Evolve Dammit]

88. You are correct. It was just one piece of the right wing conspiracy that she spoke of 25 years ago.

[sprinkleeninow]

116. Robt. Mueller greatly contributed putting the kabosh on HRC's chance to secure the win.

[StarfishSaver]

122. Are you sure you mean Robert Mueller and not James Comey?

Mueller wasn't in the picture until after Trump was president

[NanceGreggs]

68. What looks like "clear evidence" to some ...

Last edited Mon Sep 27, 2021, 08:30 PM - Edit history (1)

... may not be deemed "clear evidence" in a courtroom.

You can't go into court and say, "This guy looks and sounds guilty, so shouldn't that be enough?"

Building a solid legal case involves research, witnesses, depositions, establishing timelines, etc. - and then all of that info has to be organized into a cohesive presentation that a judge/jury can easily understand.

And it's not enough to know your own case in-and-out - you have to anticipate the other side's case, and have the facts to dispute it at your fingertips.

I've spent over thirty years in courtrooms as a court reporter, and I've seen what many would think of as a slam-dunk case fail because I's weren't dotted and T's weren't crossed.

I don't know why some people think that if Garland and the DOJ aren't sending out daily press releases about what they're doing, the automatic assumption is that they're doing nothing.

[Evolve Dammit]

92. You need to have a spokeperson to articulate what is happening. People have short attention spans.

And we had a fucking reality TV, pseudo billionaire cut through it all through constant "we're (WE ARE) going to fix it" messaging. It worked, and it's going to work again if there is protracted accountability.

[NanceGreggs]

99. Do you want it done quick ...

... or do you want it done right? Because sometimes those are the only two options.

No, you don't need a spokesperson to articulate what's going on behind closed doors in the lead-up to a trial, because if you're smart, you don't show the other side your hand until you're ready to play it.

[Evolve Dammit]

103. How many months (9 and counting) or years does it take?

[NanceGreggs]

107. It takes exactly as long as it takes.

Not a minute more, and not a minute less.

[Evolve Dammit]

111. Yeah. Lemme know when Bush /Cheney cabal are charged with war crimes. How about a Mueller report FCS

[StarfishSaver]

118. Do you assume that since Bush and Cheney weren't charged, no one will ever be charged with a crime?

[NanceGreggs]

121. Why are you changing the subject?

And let me know when you realize that prosecutors don't make public announcements about what they're investigating and what they've found, thereby giving the other side a heads-up.

[Joinfortmill]

71. It does seem slow.

[StarfishSaver]

77. It may seem that way to you and others who aren't familiar with the federal criminal justice system

But there's a reason most of the lawyers here keep trying to explain that complex investigations and prosecutions take time and the amount of time that has passed since Biden took office is NOT a lot of time for building and bringing a case. This isn't done in a matter of a few months. In fact, it often takes years.

[onenote]

78. Based on your experience?

[Scrivener7]

86. Your experience tells you different?

[onenote]

93. Forty years of legal practice does, yes.

[Scrivener7]

95. What kind of legal practice?

[onenote]

106. legislative and regulatory with pro bono criminal

[Scrivener7]

112. That is truly impressive, and I mean that sincerely. But unfortunately, there are posters

who scamper from thread to thread telling us we are wrong to express a desire to see indictments. They insist that we are only allowed to express our opinions on the subject if we have legal experience working in the Department of Justice.

The confusing part is that the rule-making posters have stated that they themselves don't have that experience. But, nevertheless, these are the rules they have decreed.

I regret to inform you that your experience will not satisfy their requirements.

[StarfishSaver]

119. I missed the posts where anyone was told that they're not allowed to express an opinion unless they

have legal experience working in the Department of Justice.

Got a link to any of those posts?

[Scrivener7]

123. Did you miss them? How odd!

[StarfishSaver]

125. Not odd at all.

What's odd is that you keep making that claim without backing it up. It seems that if that is happening, you'd be able to offer some proof of it.

Or it could just be an example of how some people so resent having their opinion challenged - especially by someone who is more knowledgeable about the topic than they are - that that they try to push back by falsely complaining that they're being told they aren't allowed to have an opinion at all

[Scrivener7]

127. Who are you referring to? It can't be yourself because, as you said about yourself:

"I don't have any more information than any other member of the general public about what DOJ is doing regarding these investigations"

[StarfishSaver]

128. No, I'm not referring to myself

Because unlike some people here, I don't pretend to know what I don't know. And also,unlike some people here, I know that the fact that I don't know what DOJ is doing doesn't mean that they aren't doing anything, that Merrick Garland is an incompetent hack, or that Donald Trump and his henchmen will never be brought to justice.

In addition, when people who know more than I do about a topic I have no experience with explain to me how processes work in their field of expertise, I listen and learn from them and don't pout and whine and - in your words - "scamper from thread to thread" complaining that they won't allow me to express my opinion (although I do recognize that their knowledge and experience outweigh my opinion and I appreciate them taking the time to help me make my opinions more informed).

[Scrivener7]

136. And because of that, no one is allowed to express frustration or voice a wish for indictments?

Okay.

Have a lovely day.

[StarfishSaver]

138. Your continued insistence that I've ever suggested that "no one is allowed to express" an opinion

much less, tried to stop them from doing so, is now beyond laughable - especially considering how freely and often you express your own opinions not only about my opinions, but about me personally, just about anytime I post a view you disagree with.

For someone who thinks their ability to express an opinion is being quashed by a stranger on an anonymous website, you sure do express your opinion an awful lot, as is your right.

But claiming they "aren't allowed to express" themselves is not an altogether unusual response from those who are incapable of offering any substantive rebuttal to stated facts - an online version of pounding the table. The consistency and vigor of their complaining is usually directly proportional to their inability to hold their own on the substance of the discussion.

So, pound on. No one's trying to stop you (not even me ...)

[Scrivener7]

139. That's a shame. Because you have such a lovely laugh.

[StarfishSaver]

141. Nice of you to notice!

[traitorsgalore]

100. Is that a real question? Because corruption is always the answer

Why did the U.S. open torture camps? Corruption
Why do we have predatory for-profit "health"? Corruption
Why did we pay $300 million a day for 20 years of war? Corruption
Why do we have state Governors that deny science and kill their own citizens with germ warfare/covid? Corruption
Why do we have climate change deniers in positions of power in government? Corruption
Why do gas prices constantly go up while demand is going down? Corruption
Why do "insurance" companies constantly deny claims? Corruption
Why do police shoot people on TV everyday and rarely go to jail? Corruption
Why do repukes gerrymander every election? Corruption
Why don't huge corporations pay fair taxes or any taxes at all? Corruption

So the real question is, why doesn't anyone ever do a goddamn thing about corruption? Because the U.S. is full of paid-off psychopathic criminals that most people put up with because most people are too fucking cowardly to confront them.

[StarfishSaver]

102. You think that Biden's Justice Department and Attorney General are corrupt?

Or are you saying they are "too effing cowardly to confront" corruption?

[Marius25]

124. Garland is from the Federalist Society

[StarfishSaver]

126. No, he's not

You need to check your facts before you repeat falsehoods - especially when it comes to Democratic figures.

It sounds like you've bought into the latest smear on Garland based on the fact that he has spoken on panels at some Federalist Society events - not an uncommon activity for federal judges of all stripes appointed by presidents of both parties and certainly not unusual for the Chief Judge of the DC Circuit. The smear has grown into the "Merrick Garland is associated with the Federalist Society/."

But you've taken it to a completely new level by accusing him falsely that he is "from the Federalist Society."

As I said, you should check your facts before you smear the Democratic Attorney General.

[ecstatic]

130. Exactly. They're going to steal 2022

and 2024, then any chance of an investigation is done with. And any chance of ever removing them will be gone as well. Wake TF up!

[radius777]

132. Our system works well for high-status white defendants,

very slow and deliberative, with most getting a slap on the wrist. Remember the judge saying that Manafort had 'lived a blessed life'.

But if a poor black kid steals a backpack, chocolate bar etc - the system is ready to move full force into actions.. cops ready to use deadly force, judges ready to lock'em up and throw away the key.

Basically our legal system benefits lawyers/judges etc who want to get paid, so they drag out cases as long as possible, especially when the defendants are richer, who ultimately tend to get a slap on the wrist. Trump and his family will never see a day in jail.

[uponit7771]

133. THIS !!!! ☝🏾☝🏾☝🏾, If Putin's Whore were Muslim he'd be under the jail.

[we can do it]

143. Evidence is being presented for a strong case, chill.

[Demsrule86]

146. This is not an easy thing to prove...knowing something and proving it are two different things.

[Patton French]

154. Sometimes it seems like they're just going through the motions..

..but what do I know?

[Hotler]

155. I think they know the whole story and the list of those involved and they're sitting on it.

Waiting for the right Friday night news dump to announce that for the sake of healing the nation it's time to move forward. Prepare for fascism folks.

[StarfishSaver]

160. You think the Biden administration isn't indicting because they're sitting on it and

Last edited Tue Sep 28, 2021, 12:57 PM - Edit history (1)

will let it all go away and allow fascism to take hold?

[brooklynite]

161. Last week, I saw where the FBI busted a sex trafficking ring in THREE HOURS!!!

It was three episodes of a TV show. I understand that actual criminal justice takes longer.

[StarfishSaver]

165. Three hours is too long

The did it in an hour once on "Law and Order." So why did they take three hours and three episodes to do it?

[brooklynite]

168. Drama!