Why can't---and why doesn't---AG Garland appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate Trump's

[Atticus]

OBVIOUS, in some cases ADMITTED crimes?

[PJMcK]

1. It's a puzzlement

Only one of two things can be true.

1. AG Garland has prosecutors digging deeply into Trump's crimes and they are building rock-solid cases before going public with any indictments or announcements.

=== OR ===

2. AG Garland is sweeping Trump's crimes under the proverbial rug to "move forward."


I hope for No. 1 but expect No. 2.

[Bettie]

3. That's my hope and fear as well

I expect 2, but boy it would be nice to be wrong and get 1.

[secondwind]

4. I firmly believe in 1...........

[gab13by13]

8. We already have rock solid proof of crimes.

We have written documents detailing how to overturn a certified election. We have audio evidence, we have evidence found on Mark Meadows' government G-Mail.

DOJ can at least do investigations, they are warranted, no excuses, no what ifs, and then decide whether to indict. This shit is crazy. If someone is sinking in quick sand and I am watching and there is a rope on the ground, I can 1. keep watching and see if he can squirm his way out on his own. 2. pick up the damn rope and throw it to him and pull him out.

[brooklynite]

10. You don't want an investigation...

You want an investigation where all the details are shared with you (and by extension, the defendants). This isn't how criminal justice works.

[gab13by13]

23. You are wrong at what I want,

I have listened to former experts in the field. The experts tell me that if investigations were going on by DOJ something would have leaked out by now, not by DOJ but by other people. These experts are telling me it is too quiet for the coup master minds to be under investigation. I am just a retired glass bottle worker mechanic who listens to people like Dan Goldman and Frank Figlusi, that's where I get my information. Hey, I agree, they may be wrong, but if they are right our democracy is toast.

[uponit7771]

24. People want to be confident that we have a government of laws not of men and secretly holding

... investigations to crimes done in the open doesn't give that confidence.

There are plenty of examples of high profile officials in other countries in the last 5 years being held publicly responsible for crimes they did out in the open.

This is not hard

[gab13by13]

26. Excellent point.

Hillary played by the rules and norms and sat for 11 hours, in public.

AG Eric Holder played by the rules and norms and met with Republican committees, 9 times I think, over Fast and Furious, a political stunt.

[uponit7771]

27. +1

[PJMcK]

15. If the proof is rock solid, where are the indictments?

That's what drives me crazy and makes me expect the worst.

My pessimism is directed not only at AG Garland and the DOJ but also at the NY State prosecutors, the NY City prosecutors, the Georgia attorney general and others.

What the hell are they waiting for?!

Time is quickly running out. The ability to bring any charges while Democrats still have some modicum of power will evaporate if they wait too long.

[gab13by13]

2. Amen brother!

I have posted the very same point a dozen times. Bill Barr appointed a special counsel to investigate the Russia investigation where there was zero proof that the investigation needed scrutiny. Barr also put in guardrails so that John Durham couldn't be dismissed. He is still today trying to dig up dirt on the Bidens.

Meanwhile the insurgency is growing by leaps and bounds. Our democracy is sinking in quick sand. Soon it will be Kornacki time when nothing gets done, then we can read the thousands of posts to GOTV because that will be the only option left.

[uponit7771]

6. +1, isn't that investigation into the investigation still going on?! Something so NAKEDLY partisan

... and self serving to Putin's Whore and its still going on?!

I think they indicted someone based off of a peripheral detail of who he was working for at the time he told the FBI about something ... even more naked partisanship.

Garland starting to remind me of Comey; protecting the institution above anything else and not understanding how he's degrading the credibilty with inaction.

[gab13by13]

9. Yes, Durham is still getting paid

to dig up dirt on the Bidens.

[uponit7771]

12. Whelp, that makes me lean towards #2 ... jus ..., damn

[uponit7771]

5. K&R, Putin's Whore ADMITTED to lying about the lethality of a killer virus to keep the economy up

... 500k people died and there's been no PUBLIC investigation of that alone.

We can do better

[Meowmee]

7. We were just saying that the other day

He’s murdered 780,000, an insurrection and so many other crimes. Wth are they playing at.

[gab13by13]

13. We have audio of him,

talking to a Georgia election official trying to get him to change the results of a certified election. Plus his Chief of Staff used his government G-mail to do the same thing.

[uponit7771]

18. +1, We should have a list of shit he's done in public that would get ANYONE at least publicly ....

... investigated, he's done some shit just out in the open.

[JI7]

11. What is there to investigate ?

we already know he is shit and all the shitty things he does .

The problem is people protecting him including elected officials and corrupt judges .

The only way to deal with it is for people to stop voting for shitty people.

[uponit7771]

16. He literally admitted on tape to lying about the lethality of a virus killing 100s of thousands of

... people for the sake of the economy which was going to crash anyway when folk started dying by tghe ton !!

He did stupid shit like sending tons of US masks to China KNOWING this was an airborne disease ...

That alone would be a public investigation in a state of laws, I just read the nakedly partisan Durham investigation is still going on ... for what? To pacify a bunch of people who support attacking the country violently for Putin's Whore?

[JI7]

19. That's what i'm saying. THe problem is large numbers of people in the country and the people that

vote for support him and protect him.

[uponit7771]

22. Then we're not a country of laws but of popularity and that's it. People are serving to support ...

... a democracy of laws not men, we're doing the opposite with that mindset.

[Zeitghost]

29. Just to focus on one charge:

What law specifically was violated by downplaying the seriousness of COVID?

[uponit7771]

30. federal reckless endangerment, quick google search

[Zeitghost]

34. I think we both know

That's not going to work...

[uponit7771]

35. No, we both do not know that and it's solid since he ADMITTED to it

[gab13by13]

17. Well then we are doomed to autocracy for a generation.

Just 1 example; Texas moved Sheila Jackson Lee and Al Greene into the same district. Who do we vote for; Lee or Greene?

[JI7]

20. It doesn't matter who you vote for there . That isn't the problem. The problem is people voting for

right wing trash .

[gab13by13]

25. You missed my point,

the Big Lie is only growing stronger since 1/6. GQP controlled states are rigging the 2022 election. My Texas example is a concrete example of where we lost 1 House seat because of gerrymandering, how many more states are doing the same thing? It will be harder for them to rig the Senate because that vote is state wide, but still they are suppressing the vote and putting goons at polling places to intimidate voters and other means of suppression.

I live in central Pa. and every election year more people vote for Democrats than vote for Republicans in the House and state seats, and every election year Republicans gain seats, look it up if you don't believe me. I vote every year with the knowledge that a Democrat will never ever win my district.

[JI7]

28. And the seat was lost because people keep voting for right wing trash

[uponit7771]

21. +1

[BlueJac]

14. This furthers my opinion that we don't like facing facts.

And would rather move on than hold people accountable! I am so disappointed in our new Attorney General. Walk quietly and carry no stck! No justice.

[sarcasmo]

31. I had hope back in February, that hope has turned into Lowered Expectations.

[onenote]

32. Special Counsel Regulations May Explain Why

To appoint a special counsel, Garland would have to find the following:

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and
(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.


Chances are, Garland is loathe to declare that DOJ conducting the investigation would create a conflict of interest since that admission might be used to derail investigations of other Trump administration officials.

[Sancho]

33. Honestly, my impression is that Garland is more of a judge than anything else...

...he'd be great on the SC. I was a little worried about him as AG for exactly the reasons we are seeing. He's cautious and overly "fair". Garland will never charge up the hill.

Garland may prove to be effective, but Obama nominated him as a centrist concession to get the GOP to confirm him on the SC. As it is, he will be good for the DOJ, but I think it's unlikely he will push the limits and nominate a special prosecutor - or even go after the orange idiot while legislators and state governments and private lawsuits are already investigating.

I was actually hoping the AG would be someone like Letitia James or Stacy Abrams who would counter-act the damage done by Barr.

Just my view from the cheap seats.