Quite a Few People Here Are Investing a Lot of Time and Verbiage

[MineralMan]

trying to sell us all the belief that the Department of Justice will do nothing about January 6 when it comes to the involvement of Trump and other high-level people. There are daily posts on Du to that effect.

Those who post such things have no actual information regarding the DOJ's investigation nor regarding its plans. No information at all. Such posts are pure speculation, often based on what some other Attorney General has done during another administration.

What has Merrick Garland done? Well, we don't know exactly, but he has told us more than once that the investigation is into all people involved in January 6, regardless of their positions in government. Many participants in the January 6 insurrection have already been charged. Some have made guilty pleas and are providing information to the investigation. Others have been indicted by federal Grand Juries and are awaiting trial. Many have been sentenced for crimes at various levels. Many got short sentences, because they were prosecuted for misdemeanors. Others, however, were charged with felonies and have entered guilty pleas and are cooperating with the ongoing investigation.

There is a House committee investigating this. It has taken testimony from hundreds of witnesses. Next month, it will begin holding public hearings where that testimony, which was given in private, will be presented to the public. We're going to get to hear much testimony, and supporting information.

Still, many people continue to tell us, over and over again, that the Attorney General, the DOJ, and Congress will do nothing. Those people have no more information than you and I have, and there is little information available at this point.

What do I think? I think that I do not have enough information to predict what the DOJ will do. In fact, I know that I do not, despite following this story very closely on a daily basis. I will not say what the DOJ and Merrick Garland will do, because I simply do not know. I will not say the DOJ will prosecute Donald J. Trump, but I will also not say that the DOJ will NOT prosecute him.

I DO NOT KNOW!
NOBODY KNOWS!

We will find out, though. Of that I'm certain. I'll continue to follow the story, but will not make predictions. I have to wonder, though, why some people are so intent on selling us on the idea that the DOJ will do nothing. Yes, I wonder about that.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

1. A huge K&R.

[Hoyt]

2. Exactly, no one knows. It's time Committee issues a preliminary report telling us what they have,

if anything more than tons of indisputable evidence that trump and his aides are unfit for office. Unfortunately, that is not criminal.

[MineralMan]

4. They will issue their report following the public hearings.

It's going to be a long, extensive report. Few will read the entire thing. I will, though.

What will happen after that, I do not know. Nobody does.

[Hoyt]

23. The big show, right before mid-terms. It better be good. Time to issue a preliminary report.

[Budi]

17. The time is coming but cannot happen until every T is crossed & I dotted.

I can't even imagine the stacks of data they've viewed to piece together who & how the events of that day came about, & where their findings must be absolute.

The path leads throught the upper eschelon of big money & influenced by global organized crime.

I want it concluded, but not until they can do permanent damage, once & for all, to those who brought it down upon our country.

It's being done by some of our most diligent pros, at their pace, not mine.
We wait....

[Hoyt]

31. "Permanent damage." If all they have is a bunch of unconnectable dots, the only damage

will be from an 18 month long investigation that, at best, will end in indictment of Roger Stone and a few other low level operatives.

I think people have a hard time separating (1) tons of evidence that trump and associates are unfit for office, from (2) provable criminal activity that will lead to a conviction.

[jaxexpat]

63. Could be that naive people think criminal activity is, in itself, evidence of unfitness for office.

Oh, and alas, pity the poor deluded people who pretend to divine such arcane certainty amid this dearth of evidence.

Who among us can possibly answer any of the following?
1) Did Trump pay off a porn star to silence her?
2) Did he run a fraudulent "Trump University" scam?
3) Did/does he misuse campaign finances?
4) Did he abuse his position to rake in profits from his Washington, D.C. hotel?
5) Did he repeatedly and intentionally undermine national security for personal gain?

We just can't get anybody with the power of the jailhouse keys to weigh in on those queries because Trump O.J.'d his way out of those charges. How did that happen? WTF? His hands were definitely small enough to fit easily into that damn glove.

Of course, I don't know the facts. How could I? It's so complicated. I'm so simple.
It was a little chilly this morning, proving global warming is a hoax. They can take my thermometer when they pry my cold, dead, fingers off the handle........well, technically there isn't a handle on my thermometer......nor a trigger for that matter......but you know what I'm trying to illustrate......right? There is an anorexic barometer though, at the bottom. Whatever a barometer is.

[Hoyt]

68. All 6 of those aren't even in the purview of the Select Committee. Agree, should have gotten him

with the Stormy payoff, but we didn't.

[jaxexpat]

125. We didn't because there were more committed to abetting Trump than.......

promoting justice and enforcing laws which most people live by. It's a rigged system. Until Trump and others like him go down, it is authoritarianism, oligarchism, classism, elitism, minority rule, totalitarianism and any number of other isms but it is not justice or democracy. It is a charade and a fools errand to create excuses for it's pre-engineered obsolescence. While well intentioned people debate how many angels could sit on the pin's head, the angels tossed their cards and left the ball. The "more-perfect-union" stuff has yet to get beyond the original imperfection of racial slavery. Low and behold it's the same rules of procedure which define the legal system that allow wealth to supersede justice. Perhaps it would be helpful to acknowledge just how arbitrary these traditions really are. While we're at it lets contemplate and compare just how contemporarily invalid the "necessity is the mother of invention" adage is for the adaptation and retention of procedures and rules which now separate rather than facilitate the workings of government and jurisprudence.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

164. I trust Chairman Thompson

The J6 Committee do not want to repeat the mistakes of the Mueller investigation. A report is not as powerful as hearings

[gab13by13]

3. I wonder about why people are not concerned that DOJ hasn't indicted top brass yet?

That is worrying. Even if DOJ is working methodically behind the scenes waiting to get its ducks in a row, it is getting to the point where if DOJ does indict BIg Fish it will be years before they go to trial and if a Magat president is elected in 2024 those Big Fish will all be pardoned.

DOJ has already chosen not to prosecute Trump for slam dunk cases which is real information to base an opinion on.

Why did Mike Lee, a top brass coup planner, ask Donald Trump to have Merrick Garland replace James Comey?

[MineralMan]

6. Do you? You know that the DOJ cannot indict anyone, right?

A Grand Jury must do that.

We will only find out about a Grand Jury indictment when it is issued.

You are convinced. However, you have no grounds for that. None at all. Yet, you predict. Day after day, you predict the same thing. you do not know. I do not know. We will find out, though, in the end. Then, we will know, and not before.

[hamsterjill]

15. A grand jury makes a determination based on evidence presented to it.

A competent prosecutor should be able to get an indictment if the case is being presented properly. There is plenty of damning evidence against Trump, and many legal scholars have asked why no indictment.

The fact that no indictment has been issued in the amount of time that has elapsed makes me believe that nothing is going to happen.

You’ll have to pardon me if my opinion OR the fact that I voice that opinion bothers you in some way.

[gab13by13]

43. I know you know what % grand juries indict v acquit.

Once a case goes before the grand jury the defense is not even present, it's DOJ prosecutors making their case which does not have to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

We know when grand juries are convened. There are some journalists who do nothing but watch who comes and goes from the building.

DOJ doesn't leak, I never said it did, but if someone like Mark Meadows was called before a grand jury I guarantee you that we would know about it before he was indicted.

[Bev54]

45. The house has filed a number of sealed motions in the case that

Meadows has brought against the house committee, these sealed motions could be in concert with the DOJ, that they are not ready for the information to become public, in their investigation or possibly Meadows is co-operating? I cannot see any other reasons they would file sealed motions.

Edited for link

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/09/politics/media-lawsuit-house-january-6-transparency/index.html

[Budi]

5. K & R....Well said. I'm sick of it as well.

"Why won't...!!"
Biden!
Pelosi!
Jan 6!
Garland!
DEMOCRATS!

🙄
There's an agenda....

[MineralMan]

8. Thank you.

I want justice to be served. I rely on our DOJ to help make that happen. I don't think anything is served by insisting that it will not follow through with indictments of crimes for which there is evidence. The only people who benefit from such insistence are Republicans.

I will maintain my faith in the process until that process is completed. If there are no consequences, I will be angry, but I will hold of on anger unless nothing happens at the conclusion of all of the ongoing work.

Others seem to think they benefit by naysaying and doom-saying. I see no benefit to that whatsoever. Those things accomplish nothing. I encourage the DOJ and the House Committee to continue their work.

[gab13by13]

51. Merrick Garland is an honorable man.

Merrick Garland is also an institutionalist. Institutionalists may choose to not indict someone who they know is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because doing so may harm our institutions. Merrick Garland chose to defend the office of the presidency in the E. Jeanne Carroll defamation law suit. Garland did not have to take the case but I guess he felt an official duty of the presidency was defaming a woman who accused the president of raping her. Garland went out of his way to defend the office of the presidency in this case which shows me he is a true institutionalist.

[2Gingersnaps]

64. Thank you and thank you too Mineral Man.

The non stop instant gratification continuing uncivil Civil War and daily chaos that defines the Trump era is on my last nerve, just like everyone else.

I do fear for this country. Not only what it has become, but the strong possibility that in the grand scheme of world history, it is a juvenile delinquent throwing a world class tantrum, and part of the correction is the comeuppance that indeed, you don't always get your way the minute you want it, you brought this on your self, look what arrogance and hubris brought you, now own it, understand where you went wrong, and include that in your mea culpa to those wronged.

Some special little men are going to their room, they are grounded. And if that looks like Guantanamo, I'm good.

[SYFROYH]

7. People are simply sharing their opinion -- nothing new on DU.

What is your motive for questioning their motives?

[MineralMan]

9. Truth is my only motive.

Speculation is not truth.

You see, I am also sharing my opinion, which I think I made pretty clear in my original post. It is my opinion that nobody knows what will happen as the result of these investigations. If you do know, please share what and how you know.

[Budi]

27. 👍. I want this completed in a way the entire global criminal org goes down.

Personal agendas need to be laid aside.

[SYFROYH]

35. It appears you like to speculate about why others post as they do.

What has your "wondering" led you to conclude about other DUers?

[MineralMan]

42. I don't know why people post as they do.

I only know why I do. I cannot peer into other people's heads or minds. So, I have made no conclusions about any particular DUers. Some may be well-intentioned. Others may be working against Democrats winning majorities. So, I look at the potential impacts of various points of view that get stated here. I can do that, and I do.

Why do I talk about winning elections as my highest priority? Because elections are the place were we get to vote for people who we think will do a better job of representing us. Overall, that means voting for Democrats, rather than for Republicans. Often, the Democrats I vote for do not agree with me 100% on everything that concerns me. However, Republicans never agree with my positions, so I vote for Democrats.

It's a pretty simple equation, really. I campaign for Democrats for the same reasons. In the past, when I was younger, I was more active in doing so than I am now. Now, my campaigning is done online, since I can no longer go door to door doing canvassing.

Elections are our fallback opportunity. All elections, from Presidential year elections to midterm elections and even odd-year elections where state and local people are running for office. That's why I vote in every election. I never miss one. Sadly, not everyone recognizes how important that is. I wish they would.

[brooklynite]

10. People here have been speculating without evidence since DU was established...

[MineralMan]

11. That's true. I have stated my opinion about that.

Is that OK with you?

[Scrivener7]

12. Expressing an opinion is not "trying to sell you." It is expressing an opinion.

[MineralMan]

13. I think that you know that many are not just stating an opinion.

Instead they are making declarations about what WILL happen. It is my opinion that they don't have the information needed to make such declarations. I disagree with those declarations, because I know that they do not know.

This thread is about my opinion about what is known and not known. You might have a different opinion, but I can post my own opinion here. I have made no declarations whatsoever. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN. Nobody does.

[Scrivener7]

14. Yes you can express your opinion about what will or won't happen. So can others.

And they can do that whether your opinion agrees with theirs or not.

[MineralMan]

19. Well, this is the thread I started.

So, it represents my opinion, which is no opinion at all. I do not know what will happen, and I'm saying so.

If you do know, please explain how you know and why you think you know.

Since I don't know, I am not making any statements about what will or will not happen. That's not an opinion. that is a fact. If you know something I do not, please share that information with me and the rest of us.

[Scrivener7]

24. I know that expressing an opinion does not equal "trying to sell you." As I said.

[BlackSkimmer]

40. This. Thank you.

I express my opinion frequently here, as many do, but I’m not trying to “sell” anybody anything.

[emulatorloo]

22. Usually best to back up opinions w fact. Most of the negative opinions appear to ignore facts

in favor of pure speculation and negative spin. Of course I’m not talking about you.

[hamsterjill]

38. Okay...

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/24/1088443399/ex-prosecutor-says-donald-trump-is-guilty-of-numerous-felony-violations

https://www.newsweek.com/merrick-garland-doj-trump-jan6-crime-joaquin-castro-1694649?amp=1

https://www.businessinsider.com/mary-trump-blasts-merrick-garland-not-prosecuted-trump-capitol-riot-2021-12?amp

Just a few others’ opinions.

[Scrivener7]

97. Can you provide some facts to back up that opinion, please?

[emulatorloo]

175. Lol. ' Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.' Daniel Patrick Moynihan

I said it was ‘usually better, which means it was a suggestion.

You’re free to do what ever you want. And besides I said I wasn’t talking about you.

[Scrivener7]

176. Did Mr Moynihan have any proof for his statement?

See how ridiculous that is?

[emulatorloo]

177. I think you're projecting. Again do what ever you want. You be you.

[Scrivener7]

178. I think this is a thread about how no one should express an opinion

unless they have inside information or incontrovertible proof. Which is simply silly. So no, I'm not projecting.

[emulatorloo]

181. Express all the opinions you would like. Nobody's stopping you.

[BlackSkimmer]

187. And it's the umpteenth thread on who knows, or doesn't know, yada yada.

Why so many threads saying the same thing lol?

[Beastly Boy]

28. With all due respect, even opinions need some basis to them

Last edited Wed May 11, 2022, 01:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Like the OP said, the only basis we have to form opinions on DOJ is that we don’t know. Basing opinions on other imaginary factors makes them baseless speculation. Repeating baseless speculations day in and day out does not add to the credibility of a speculation. It just makes it more annoying.

Just to add: stating that one is free to express an opinion is self evident and does not address the op.
Just be prepared to get an opinion back.

[emulatorloo]

16. Continuous misinformation/disinformation

It really makes DU tiresome IMHO. (Which is worth nothing)

[wryter2000]

18. They're assuming the worst so they won't be disappointed

Many of us were burned by Fitzmas and the Muller report. Also, cynicism is presumed to be more sophisticated than optimism.

I will say it's disappointing that nothing has happened to Trump, his family, and his close associates so far.

[MineralMan]

21. Personally, I don't see cynicism without evidence to be

sophisticated at all. I see it as pure speculation.

[uponit7771]

41. Probability is part of prudence and making the bar 101% assuredness in this context is ...

... cynical at best.

Past performance and everything ...

[Budi]

29. Bill Barr 'burned' Mueller's investigation.

That's the oft omitted fact.

Bill Barr.

[wryter2000]

47. Agreed

But then Muller went in front of a congressional committee and said things that still should have caused alarm. He said everything in pretty much a monotone, but in Watergate, his testimony would have created a stir.

In fact, even the Barr watered down portrayal would have raised serious concerns in Watergate. The world got pretty excited that Nixon had an enemies list.

[Budi]

52. Barr is the manipulator of all that came from the Mueller findings.

And all that we were forbidden to ever hear about.
Barr put a stop to that.

[gab13by13]

56. Bob Mueller indicted or got guilty pleas from;

George Popadopoulos
Paul Manafort
Rick Gates
Michael Flynn
13 Russian Nationals
3 Russian companies
Richard Pinedo
Alex van der Zwaan
Konstantin Kilimnik
12 Russian GRU officers
Michael Cohen
Roger Stone
Sam Patten

Mueller also laid the ducks in a row to indict Trump for 10 cases of obstruction of justice and laid the ground work to indict "individual one."

Mueller was misled that the SDNY was following the money and Bill Barr limited his scope of investigation.

[wryter2000]

67. All of that would have sunk Nixon five times over

Yes, he laid the ground work for indictments. And as soon as Trump was out of office, he should have been indicted for them.

[Hoyt]

70. Yet, Mueller wimped out by saying over 20 times in his report, "We found no evidence trump or his

campaign" colluded/consprired/cooperated with Ruskies. After that, what were the chances of covicting him, even if charged.

Heck, Mueller even bent himself into a legal pretzel by saying that those at the trump tower meeting were too stupid to meet the requisite intent to charge them.

Next to Democrats who voted for trump or sat out in protest of their guy not winning the primary, Mueller is as responsible as anyone for trump's reign of terror.

[BumRushDaShow]

20. There was once a contingent that "guaranteed" that Obama would

-implement TPP
-implement chained-CPI
-implement the Keystone Pipeline
-cut Social Security and Medicare

and on and on (never mind that a President can't unilaterally do much of anything). Probably 90% were PPRd or FFRd or left. I suppose it is par for the course.

[emulatorloo]

25. Yeah I remember those folks well. And Hillary was going to be indicted any day now.

Most of them were acting in bad faith. Manny ‘too big to fail’ (until he did) and the Jack pine something something

[MineralMan]

26. One of the reasons I do not speculate on outcomes is because

I don't wish to have any such speculation proven wrong.

Your examples are good ones.

[BlackSkimmer]

36. Plenty of people "speculate" on outcomes.

You yourself have predicted outcomes. You were wrong. Perhaps you forgot those predictions.

Several other posters here issue predictions we can “take to the bank” and they do so regularly. I’ve never seen you take to an OP and complain those posters “don’t know” anything, even though they don’t.

My opinion is tfg will never face penalties for his misdeeds. Yep, that’s an opinion, and it’s just as valid as all those telling us the opposite.

I’ve no problem with you disagreeing, but making an insinuation about “motives” is irresponsible.

I’ve been here for many, many years. I have no ulterior “motives”, but I’ll keep expressing my opinion whenever I feel like it.

Hope that’s ok with you.

[kacekwl]

74. My speculation is based on history, factual history.

As GWB said, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice you won't get fooled again. Or some such thing.

[sheshe2]

158. +1000

I remember it well.

[Pantagruel]

30. Seems apropo

Barb McQuade

"The hand-wringing over DOJ’s “failure” to charge Trump and his ilk is based in a misconception of how long it takes to build a criminal case of this magnitude. DOJ must prove guilt to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, unanimously. I wouldn’t expect charges until 2023 at earliest."

Another lawyers opinion.

[MineralMan]

33. It's difficult to accomplish what we need to have happen.

No question about it. There will be juries, and those juries have to be convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" that crimes have been committed. That's not going to be easy, despite what we believe we "know."

So, the lawyers who are talking about the complexity of proving criminal cases are correct. It's going to be a difficult task and it's going to take considerable time.

Meanwhile, we the people will have an opportunity to vote on who represents us. I suggest we focus on that aspect of our political system.

[BlackSkimmer]

89. Please look up apropos. The spelling and meaning.

Eek.

[H2O Man]

32. Interesting.

It is certainly understandable that people are frustrated. There is enough evidence to prosecute some within the Trump circle, with the 95% certainty of conviction the DOJ needs. But it is very unlikely that any prosecutions will come between now and November's elections. That would seem to justify any and all frustration and disappointment, would it not?

[MineralMan]

34. What appears to be happening is that the evidence will be presented

to the public before any such actual trials of high-level people will occur. So, we will have that evidence, as voters, before the November election. Of that I'm certain. We will have an opportunity to make our wishes known in November. If we are smart, we will work very very hard to elect very significant majorities of Democrats in every possible jurisdiction, based on that evidence.

We will not win every race, of course. We will be thwarted in some jurisdictions. But, we need not win every race. We need to win enough races to give us substantial majorities in Congress and in state legislatures where we can regain majorities.

Criminal prosecutions are another matter. We have a government to elect in the meantime. As always, I suggest we focus on the election, rather than on convicting high-level Republicans of crimes. We can do that at any time. We can vote in November. Let's do that, OK?

[H2O Man]

39. Oh, definitely!

Every essay I post here is on the November elections. Yet, as anyone working on them knows, a certain percentage of people who are contacted about voting express frustration about the lack of prosecutions. The two are not unrelated.

[MineralMan]

50. Well, I think it is unlikely that the DOJ will

empanel Grand Juries for the major players until the House committee holds its hearings and issues its report. That can still happen before the November elections, and I hope it does. The report will probably issue soon after the public hearings, along with any referrals the committee makes.

June should be an interesting month, as should be July and August. Or even September. People tend to forget things rather quickly, so it may well be that later announcements of indictments are better than earlier ones. When it comes to the November elections, I mean.

We'll see what happens. We really have no other option but to watch for what happens, I think.

Am I optimistic? Cautiously, yes. Am I hopeful? Enthusiastically.

[H2O Man]

59. Right.

I'm confident that we can pick up seats in the House and Senate. And I'm living in rural, upstate New York, when the number of registered Democrats is lower than of republicans and independents. I think we have a good chance of winning some House seats usually occupied by republicans.

Locally, I'm involved in everything from school board seats upward. We have some rabid MAGA creatures wanting to restrict what students can read in school, etc. Not happening! With the current socio-political climate, we need to focus on elections at every level.

[Scrivener7]

60. When you say you don't think the DOJ will empanel GJs till the hearings, you are expressing

an opinion that you have no inside information to back up. Are you trying to sell us something?

Or do you see how silly it is to say people are trying to sell you something when they state an opinion?

I am fully able to read your opinion about that, understand that you don't have inside information, and STILL not attribute bad motives to you.

I can also read it and not start another thread on how awful it is to have the opinion you have.

[gab13by13]

65. It is pretty obvious

It's a given there won't be any trials before November, I just want investigations or indictments before November.

What evidence are we going to have before the election? From the select committee? What about the evidence from DOJ? Will we have that by November? DOJ has more clout, more resources, has the FBI, has search warrants and wire taps and a ton of agents and prosecutors.

You gave an opinion about evidence that is interesting but I'm not clear what you are predicting.

[Xoan]

37. I think Garland will punt.

But I won't know until he does.

[hamsterjill]

44. No one is trying to sell anyone on anything.

People are stating their opinions just like you did. You don’t like that? Sorry, that’s how DU works unless rules are broken.

May I suggest that you hide threads that don’t agree with your way of thinking? Or perhaps put the posters on ignore who you deem are doing this because it seems to bother you so much. You’ve posted about this before.

There is ample evidence for people to wonder about what the DOJ is doing. Too much time has passed and very real concerns exist about the upcoming midterm elections and the need to get things done before those elections.

Many of us believe Trump to be a traitor and feel he is an immediate and imminent threat to our way of life. If we are upset because the man walks freely, then you will need to pardon our commitment to democracy and patriotism.

[MineralMan]

53. In that, I think you are incorrect. I'm quite sure that

at least some are, indeed, trying to sell us something. Subtly, perhaps, but surely. That has happened in the past, as well. I don't know who is doing that, specifically, though. I can't know that.

[hamsterjill]

57. I feel the same way but with another intent.

I think there are posters who are trying to influence the narrative on DU from “it takes time to get a case and conviction” to “there’s not enough evidence to even try”. Those people don’t seem to care if Trump walks.

I care! I want the threat of Trump neutralized by legal means. I don’t ever want to have to wake up again and worry that SOB is going to hurt this country any more.

[GoodRaisin]

201. I feel like "wolf" has been called too many times, and,

it really doesn’t even come from opinions I read on DU. It’s more like a feeling from what is in the air, what’s transpired since Trump became a candidate, and even before (like when the court stacking by McConnell started during Obama’s presidency) and the knowledge that those who are really responsible for all this “parade of shit” continue to go on and on enjoying their freedom and continue their quest to destroy America from within.

People have a perfect reason to feel skepticism, and express it, with all that has taken place. There is really nothing that has to be sold by anyone. Not if eyes and ears are open.

[hamsterjill]

206. Great post!

I am starting to see a narrative “there not enough evidence to charge Trump” to which I say “bullshit”. There is evidence on tape that many legal scholars have LAID OUT for Garland. If Garland can’t or won’t make the case, he needs to let someone else do it who will get a conviction. A case is only as good as the attorney making the presentation to the jury.

[GoodRaisin]

207. Oh, the evidence has played out right in the open. Riot inciting, election tampering.

It’s just taking so long that it’s perfectly normal for people to be skeptical of anything being done about any of it. Yeah.

[BlackSkimmer]

76. What is this weird insinuation about some people "selling" anything?

I believe just about nothing I read on DU, and I sure as hell don’t “buy” anything.

I know there are gullible folks here, but your barely concealed allegation that someone is trying to sell something is just bizarre.

Are the people who constantly post that tfg is going down selling something? Are the posters who claim Gaetz is about to be indicted, thrown in prison, etc., selling something?

They post all the time, but you never claimed they were “selling” someone. I don’t believe a word of a single prediction I’ve ever read on this forum. To my knowledge none have come true.

So I don’t care what anyone might be selling. I’m not buying.

[StarryNite]

79. Where is your proof that some are trying to "sell us something"?

You don't realize you speculate a lot on here. And that's fine. But don't criticize others for doing it just because you don't agree with them. The ones of us who are skeptical believe we have very good reason for feeling that way because so far nothing has happened to convince us otherwise. The fact that the statute of limitations has already run out on some of the crimes of tfg is enough to leave many of us wondering if he will ever be held accountable for any crime he has ever committed. Do we have proof of what will happen? No. But that doesn't mean we should be muzzled for expressing our thoughts and concerns.

[SunImp]

83. 1+

[hamsterjill]

116. Well said!

Thank you!

[BlackSkimmer]

69. Again, thank you. nt

[wnylib]

71. You are also free to ignore OPs and posts

by Mineral Man if his views disturb you.

Nothing wrong with expressing opinions on DU, as both you and Mineral Man are doing. Many people here do not agree with each other. But this OP contains more than mere opinion. It states a fact, that none of us know what DOJ is doing so opinions for or against Garland's handling of the case are only speculations. There is nothing untrue about that factual statement.

Opinions are based on something. So far, both sides of this subject are basing their speculations only on what we can observe on the surface because we do not have information beyond that. So the views being expressed are more speculation than opinion.

[hamsterjill]

117. This OP is Mineral Man

The opinions of others don’t bother ME to the point that I do an OP trying to shame others for expressing a differing opinion.

Obviously, it does bother the OP enough that he felt the need to (yet again) do a lengthy OP as to his opinion. Or have you not seen the previous ones?

[BlackSkimmer]

118. Lol.

Well said.

[hamsterjill]

121. Thanks!

You replied to someone else’s post about “not buying anything” from a message board. I’m too busy right now to find that, but your response was awesome.

I think some here actually believe that posts on a message board are going to impact voting or something. I try to keep it all in perspective. DU is informative and entertaining. But I don’t believe the impact goes much beyond this website. It’s kind of sad that some take it all so seriously.

[BlackSkimmer]

123. Very true.

I really wonder about the OP’s motivation lol, now that he seems to think that motivation is a worthy OP topic.

Yes,,I’ve seen posts here where people are certain that anyone not 100% sure that Dems will win any time, anywhere, are accused of hurting voter turnout. Simply because they stated an opinion on DU.

[hamsterjill]

129. Yeah, we're gonna change the world!

With all those “negative” posts, right???!!! LOL

[BlackSkimmer]

135. Over my years here, I've noticed several here who like to lecture the rest of us.

At least four male posters, and at least two female posters.

Somehow they think they know more than the rest of us.

[hamsterjill]

137. Absolutely!!

I know exactly what you are saying. Someone called them “DU Royalty” once and I cracked up. They are royalty only in their own minds.

I have a grief with one in particular. Always name dropping as if he/she has special connections that the little people here don’t have. I’ve noticed that they are “always having a meeting with (fill in the blank)”, or “always having dinner with (fill in the blank)”. But I’ve never seen a follow up post about what was achieved by that meeting or that dinner conversation.

So I’ve always been laughing. I could Google the name of the DNC Chair, too!!! LOL

The point that some will go is at a minimum entertaining.

[BlackSkimmer]

138. Lol! We have at least two name droppers!

You are so right…it’s hilarious. At least one of those is one of the lecturers to us lowly DUers.

I’ve been here longer than both of those two.

I’ve never heard DU “royalty”, but that almost made me fall off the couch laughing.

[SunImp]

147. Those types of people also seem to get away with abusing others too

I wish they didn't have a fan base here

[BlackSkimmer]

149. They really don't.

Don’t believe it.

[Orrex]

208. You're referring to our local Message Police

I've run afoul of them many times myself.

God forbid anyone here express doubt in The System or in Garland's apparently immobile Wheels of Justice.

We must have faith, because if we don't clap hands and believe, then the Jan 6 committee will vanish in a puff of steam.

[XanaDUer2]

120. This

[wnylib]

130. .

[XanaDUer2]

133. Welcome to ignore nt

[BlackSkimmer]

140. Allow me to make it equal lol.

[XanaDUer2]

142. Hey!

Yeah, keeps bp down!

[BlackSkimmer]

144. Hell yes.

[wnylib]

128. Oops. I will go back and correct my post on the name.

Yes, I have seen the other posts. They do not come across to me as shaming, only as reminders that we really don't have enough knowledge of what DOJ is or isn't doing to develop an informed opinion. He is right about that.

[hamsterjill]

134. No worries as to the name.

But I disagree that he is “right about that”. I believe there are certain facts that back up the claim that the DOJ isn’t doing anything. The fact that Trump hasn’t yet been charged being the most obvious one.

Or perhaps Garland is waiting to charge him posthumously? The clock IS ticking and that is a fact that cannot be ignored.

Have a great afternoon.

[AngryOldDem]

197. Shame or insult.

Sometimes it’s hard to tell.

[yaesu]

46. Didn't I read yesterday that one of the crimes he's being investigated for has succumb to the

statute of limitations time limit? If so we need to kick this investigation into high gear.

[Scrivener7]

58. Many of them.

[maxsolomon]

48. Sure, it's cynical and speculative.

American history makes that cynicism a pretty fair bet.

I try to qualify my speculation with "I think", "I believe", "probably", etc. That's the best I can do.

[wryter2000]

49. You're far too reasonable.

Why qualify when you can spout off obvious truths for which you have no proof? How did you get in here?

[wnylib]

132. +1000.

[twodogsbarking]

54. I intend to live forever. So far so good.

Steven Wright.

[MineralMan]

55. LOL!

I'm a realist. At 77 years of age (in July), I know better than that. I shan't live forever. I hope to live to see Democrats get majorities in both houses of Congress that will ensure that progress occurs. That would make me happy.

[twodogsbarking]

62. Those who say that Trump will not be held accountable.

So far so good.

[Scrivener7]

180. The statute of limitations on the obstruction case ran out yesterday.

That's not so good.

[Kablooie]

61. It's frustrating that we are waiting so long with no idea if a reckoning will come.

The big question is, will indictments occur before the November election and if so will it help Democrats to hold both houses.

If there is no public movement by the DOJ, both houses will likely be handed to Republicans and the next two year's news will be nothing but the impeachment of Biden, investigations of Democrats and blocking of anything Biden needs to do.

[DanieRains]

66. After Watching All Them Banksters Going To Jail After 2008 Meltdown

Thinking powerful people may pay a price for treason / sedition would be a stretch.

[Whiskeytide]

72. I've yet to see any reporting of actual evidence that Тяцмp is ...

… guilty of a crime. Lots of speculation trying to connect dots here and there, but no actual evidence that his outrageous and unprecedented conduct violated any Federal Statute.

There is ample evidence he’s a dick. Reams of evidence that he’s incompetent and unfit for office. We could certainly prove he’s a self interested narcissist lacking character and morality. He’s a con man, a liar, a misogynist, a racist, and generally a bad man. But none of that is a crime in this country.

There is a difference between efforts to challenge the election or even undo the election, and efforts to overthrow the government by insurrection. There is a difference between organizing and participating in a stop the steal rally, and actually breaking into the Capitol building and attacking police officers.

We conflate his efforts to undo the election with the assault on the Capitol Building. They are two distinct things. We want all of his character failings to have consequences. I get that. I want that too. But just being a irredeemable asshole is not a crime.

So - my belief is not that the DOJ is incompetent or taking too long. I’m not questioning Garland’s commitment to the rule of law. I just really don’t think they have the elements of a crime. At least not that they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

But - alas - that is my opinion at this time. I genuinely hope something comes to light that causes me to change it.

[Demsrule86]

92. Trump likely never got his hands dirty. I would say Georgia is the best opportunity to stick it

to him, but it is Georgia so I think it is not going to happen. Trump spent a lifetime conveying what he wanted without words...no emails either. He is basically a mobster and a slippery one at that. I am honestly OK if he is never convicted and dies an old sick has-been which would be awful for him. Losing the election was the worst thing that could happen to Trump IMHO...because now he is a big loser and will die a loser...the sooner the better.

[Whiskeytide]

99. I agree with most of your post - and have ...

… much the same desires for his end.

But I think we give him too much credit for being some kind of Machiavellian monster boss who is adept at covering his crimes. I think he’s more like a spoiled brat who complains and whines all the time, but never actually DOES anything. Not to keep his hands clean, but because he’s lazy and doesn’t know how to do anything anyway. He’s not particularly bright. He’s manipulative. But not really strategic.

[Demsrule86]

111. He is not smart...he is cunning...there is a difference...and it has been said that

Trump never directly asks for anything but conveys his wishes and his underlings just 'know'. Michael Cohen testified to this. My Dad who was an inventor in his later years worked in the waste handling business and he designed garbage shoots in New York City apartments and was forced to deal with Mafia. That is how they operate. Georgia seems to be the only exception with the taped phone call but it is Georgia so I don't think they will indict him.

[Sympthsical]

73. I've also used this on bosses in the past

"It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I promise I have a lot going on right now."

I mean, mines don't sweep themselves.

And yes. Some people do spend a lot of time. And verbiage. On things they don't know.

[LudwigPastorius]

77. Valid points, but...

I think that as the the next presidential election draws near, the less likely it is that Trump will be prosecuted by the DOJ.

I don’t believe that the Attorney General and the Department want to be seen going after a direct political opponent of the president, no matter how justified it would be.

[inthewind21]

119. That's been a long standing

stance at DOJ. To not indict or prosecute a former President. Because it would be "too divisive" Think Nixon and Watergate. Not impeached OR indicted, he was pardoned. Regan and Iran Contra, a few people got rolled, but the TOP walked. GW Bush and War Crimes, nothing, nadda. in the US, you are in fact above the law if you are a former president.

[LudwigPastorius]

159. Yes...I guess Anacharsis was right.

Laws are like spider webs; strong enough to hold the poor and weak, but too flimsy to snare the rich and powerful.

[Ohio Joe]

78. I am often very vocal on this topic...

Duh

It is true we do not know what will happen. I think there is a LOT that has happened and is happening that gets very little attention and is even dismissed because... I don't know... It just seems 'because'. I myself am very encouraged by the direction of the investigation based on what we know. I try... Though I expect I am not always successful... To separate what is known from what I think.

I don't mind people being concerned or worried... I don't even mind people being angry about it... I'm angry. I have no doubt in my mind that TFG was at the top of an insurrection on 1/6 and planned for months to overturn an election. I don't think much, if any, of the 'how does this get done' came from him... He is a moron... But it was done at his direction... He is the mob boss. I very much want him to pay for these crimes. We have a lot that we know that allows me to make that logical assumption. We have not yet seen all the parts in a provable state to win in court.... But I think they are coming together nicely to do so.

I also think there is a LOT more that is known to the committee and the DOJ that we have not seen.

I also, also think leadership on the right is terrified of what is coming... Like shitting their pants terrified. I base this on one single bit on complete non-evidence... What is missing. That is their almost complete silence on the whole matter. When TFG was president and knew there would be no consequences, the words 'witch hunt' were screamed loudly and often from all quarters on the right. They get mumbled now and again but... I suspect there are some people high up on the right that are very scared. They know a hammer is coming down before long and that they will get squashed.

The only thing that bothers me is the growing insinuation that Garland is some kind of plant or is doing nothing based on the fact that some repugs voted for his nomination. I find this very troubling.

[KPN]

80. A lot of people told us, over and over again, that Mueller, the DOJ and Congress -- impeachment 1

and impeachment 2 -- and the Manhattan DA investigation would hold the scoundrels accountable. T

And you wonder why some people worry that DOJ will not actually do enough to accomplish accountability for those who, at the highest levels, were actually responsible for and incited the January 6 attack on the Capitol?

No offense MM, but I don't believe anyone is "trying to sell" anything as you portrayed it. In my view, expressions of concern are unquestionably warranted. In fact, to me -- and I'm guessing many others -- complaints about those expressions seem more questionable. One only needs to ignore them if they don't like them.

Bottom line: given the recent track record and overall significance of events, I'd find it infinitely more disturbing were no or even fewer expressions of concern about whether DOJ/Garland are effectively pursuing accountability of those at the top.

[Demsrule86]

87. I and others said repeatedly that would never happen...these were all Republicans and they

held the majority. People fooled themselves into believing what they wanted to believe...not unusual. When you don't hold the majority, often you are screwed...take heed and vote in the Midterms as if your life depended on it as it likely does. And a shout out to those who in a thinly disguised manner...say, essentially 'nice midterm you got, it would be a shame if...some voters who want XYZ don't get it and are not excited to vote. I would simply like to say...yeah because Republicans will give you what you want for sure and with the situation with Roe...anyone who actually does this is part of the problem...and can I just say, I hate the Greens. It can never be said enough.

[KPN]

90. Specious argument. No facts. Opinion. We have different opinions, whereas mine is based on facts.

Last edited Wed May 11, 2022, 02:46 PM - Edit history (2)

What is the record on real accountability for tfg and his lackeys?

The fact that we didn't carry more seats in the Senate or lost quite a few in the House can not be attributed to people saying, "oh what the heck, no one's going to be held accountable anyway. why vote?"

Now if you said some people look at our two party system and say "my vote doesn't matter; nothing will change" I might agree with your view. But that has nothing to do with this specific debate.

[SunImp]

95. +1

[Demsrule86]

124. Trump lost that election...that was likely the only accountability we will get. I don't want

want Trump tried assuming we have enough to charge him with something which I have not seen yet because he will likely be found not guilty as there will be at least one Trumper jury member who will vote for non-guilt- no matter the evidence. An exonerated Trump is a nightmare Trump.

[nolabear]

81. It's hysteria. It's understandable but it's harmful.

We’re prone to it when there’s a massive emotional investment and no real info. Speculation becomes “fact” even when not exactly claimed to be. We respond “as if” and it rips off in all directions. I think the fear of no response is like not crossing yourself or not throwing salt over your shoulder. You’ll do anything not to feel helpless, even when the time to act isn’t here yet. But the constant restocking of unfounded fear is terrible for us in visceral ways. We burn out. We get sick. And we run right back to the same behaviors to try to calm what they created in the first place. Because we wrongly believe anything is better than feeling powerless.

So, thanks. Im with you.

[BlackSkimmer]

85. It's hysteria to read the writing on the wall?

Nope, no it’s not.

Bookmarking this thread lol.

[nolabear]

115. It is when nearly everything is extrapolation without knowledge.

As I said it’s understandable. People are traumatized and expect the absolute worst. They talk about it again and again and again as if it’s already happened. It foments hopelessness and doesn’t actually offer protection against bad outcomes if they do occur.

I’m not advocating naïveté or laissez faire. We need to be diligent and ready to act. But I do think preemptively expecting the worst of those trying to do the work isn’t good for us or them.

Btw I don’t use hysteria as a pejorative. I mean it clinically. It’s a fraught term so I understand how it might sound.

[Midwestern Democrat]

186. Agreed. It's true that nobody knows for certain what is going to happen, but it's not like nobody

has ever followed news coverage of a criminal investigation before. Even when the prosecutors are keeping silent, you generally can get a pretty good sense that the target of the investigation is in pretty serious trouble - and I'm just not getting that sense with Trump at all.

[Demsrule86]

82. I don't believe Trump will ever be judged guilty in any trial...there is always a Trumper

somewhere. However, we are going to prosecute his underlings. This is clear to me and that will be almost as good as getting Trump. And Merrick Garland is a very good prosecutor. He will do what is possible and people have to accept the vengeance they crave may not be possible.

[MineralMan]

84. I'm not sure of what will happen.

You could be right, of course. It will be very difficult to get a conviction on a former President. Even prosecuting a former President is a very difficult thing to do, I'm certain. Will he be prosecuted? I hope so, but I won't be surprised if he is not. But, he's not the only person who could be prosecuted, either. There will be prosecutions of high-level people, I'm pretty sure, but who and when I don't know.

What is more important is that the people elect Democrats as a majority of lawmakers. That is the primary goal right now, in 2022 and again in 2024. If we can accomplish that, we will see a great deal of progressive legislation passed. If we do not, it will be a very bad thing. So, my focus is on elections, not on the DOJ. That's not a popular point of view, but it's the only one that will ensure that we come out of this positively.

It could be our last chance to do that.

[inthewind21]

122. Wait...what

You went from scolding people in the OP then down thread say basically the same thing you are scolding others for.

[NQAS]

86. Of course we don't know

But we have opinions. We believe things. And that’s what we post. And that shouldn’t be an issue.

Someone posted this morning that he believes the supreme courts roe ruling will be watered down. He doesn’t know. It was an opinion. A belief. An expectation. Should that not have been posted?

I and many others have expressed pessimism on the prosecution of trump and others. No, we don’t know. We opine. We believe. And we will apologize if we are wrong and say I told you do if we are right. It’s a forum. It’s not a political science seminar.

And why does anyone post what they post? Something is on their mind. They read something somewhere. They in a bad mood. They’re anxious or actually depressed. They need an outlet. A vent. Nothing wrong with that.

[Bettie]

195. And this is a place where we can express that

and get some other opinions.

I have felt doom and gloomy and been uplifted by people who come at an issue from a different angle. It can be helpful.

It can also be helpful to argue points with others, which often results in changing perspectives. It's just good to get other people's takes on things, even when we disagree with them.

Of course, there are also the "dang kids get off my lawn" posts as well, in which we are told to stop talking if we can't say that everything is perfect, like that dog cartoon in a burning room saying "this is fine, everything is fine".

(Yeah, I still suck at getting pictures off the internets onto the DU. LOL)

[Lucky Luciano]

88. If any high level people go to prison I'll apologize and owe you a coke.

[hay rick]

91. The appearance of inaction is extremely damaging.

I don't know what the ultimate outcome of the investigations and prosecutions will be but the cost of "waiting" for high-profile accountability is real and, in my opinion, deadly for both our party and our democracy. We are well into the 2022 election cycle and too many of the volunteers that my local (Florida) party relies on are staying home. When I speak to them I get excuses and general remarks about how discouraging everything seems these days. We are in the phase when we should be getting ready for GOTV in the fall and every day we fall further behind. If and when the morale improves, it may be too late to rescue the winnable races.

[Demsrule86]

96. Really, by inaction I assume that means not getting your desired outcome...and I must say

I tire of the blackmail. And if your local 'Florida volunteers stay home'... Greens and third-party trash I suppose...My suggestion is to find some new and more dependable volunteers because anyone who believes Republicans should be elected if they can't have what I poetically refer to as a unicorn, is not on our side. They are so discouraged and think electing more Republicans is the answer( aw boo hoo)...not concerned about Roe or the LGBTQ community just their own pouty selves. Frankly, I am disgusted by such people.

[Snackshack]

93. Never say Never...

But when the statute of limitations is literally running out on crimes it is a pretty good indication the DOJ has no plans to take any action. Hopefully I am wrong…IMO it would be a-shame if President Biden made the same mistake his previous boss made.

[SoonerPride]

94. At what point will you give up?

A month?
A year?
A decade?
50 years from now?

At some point you come to a realization that the DOJ won't do jack shit.

Some of us just came to that conclusion faster than you will.

But one day you will get there.

[Demsrule86]

98. Has it ever occurred to you the evidence isn't enough for conviction? I truly don't give to

shits about this. I wish to win elections so we never find ourselves in this position again.

[SoonerPride]

101. It could be that or that they don't think they can get an impartial jury so why bother

or it could be that they think trump and his top level aides are too big to prosecute and would cause too much political upheaval and won't do it for that reason.

Any number of factors could be in play.

But I gave up hope that the DOJ would go after trump a long time ago.

Maybe I will be surprised. That would be lovely.

But I am curious to those that still hold out hope that they will indict trump and or his top level conspirators how long they are willing to hold onto that dream? I never hear anyone answer that question. They tell us to be patient and yet never are willing to set a limit on their hope. Maybe it is endless and 40 years from now they'll still be pining away that tomorrow is the day the DOJ indicts trump.

[Demsrule86]

107. All of the above could be true but I expect if they know they can't really charge Trump or

convict Trump (always a Trumper on the jury most likely), they may just not say anything and watch him squirm...he could also make a mistake if he is worried...the guilty flee where no man pursueth.

[MineralMan]

102. Well, it sounds like you have already given up.

[SoonerPride]

103. I did. A long time ago.

20 years from now will you still hold out hope that the DOJ indicts trump?

Is your faith in the DOJ endless?

If not, what time limit do you put on giving the DOJ the benefit of the doubt?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

[MineralMan]

104. I don't have a cut-off date.

I'm still thinking about the November election. After that, I'll start thinking about the 2024 election. I do elections, not court cases.

Have you given up on elections, too?

[SoonerPride]

105. Elections are a different matter.

The question of your OP was when, if ever, the DOJ will indict trump and his pals.

Again I put the question point blank and get no reply.

You apparently are willing to wait until the end of time.

Enjoy the wait.

[MineralMan]

106. I didn't ask a question in my OP. I don't know when we'll get indictments.

Nobody does - at least not on DU.

[Demsrule86]

113. Elections must always be considered in all actions. We live and die by elections. If Trump isn't

sent to jail...it won't really affect us. But if we lose the midterm...it will be awful in so many ways.

[MineralMan]

168. Nope. I am 77 years old. 20 years from now, I'll be dead.

[treestar]

154. lol what will you do if there is an indicatment

after you gave up?

[SoonerPride]

155. I'll be happy to admit I was wrong.

I answered your question now please answer mine.

Now how long will you wait and keep hope alive??

1 year
5 years
50 years?

[treestar]

156. 2 or 3 years maybe

the legal system is always slower than people want it to be.

[SoonerPride]

157. I see.

Well I wish you good luck with that.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

162. I think 45 may be indicited, but he'll probably skate

A few of the other biggies may get some time, but it doesn't matter because the Repugs and conservatives will never stop-this is a fight that will last long after we're gone, unfortunately

[treestar]

189. 45 will skate

It is tougher to prove things than people think. In a courtroom, that is. What 45 said that is so obvious as evidence to many can be argued away. It's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt of his intentions.

[Stuart G]

100. K and R

[malaise]

108. K & R

There will be consequences

[Stargleamer]

110. What happens when Garland dawdles.. .

Statutes of Limitations run out:

Link to tweet

[Scrivener7]

112. Yep. The statutes of limitations are dropping like dominoes.

[CrispyQ]

114. Some of us are concerned because some committee members are concerned.

If they issue subpoenas to people for the hearings & they all thumb their noses at the committee, how does that make the committee look? How does that help dems this November? IMO it feeds the narrative that the dems are weak, but maybe it's not a narrative, huh? I'm damned sick of looking forward.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/january-6-committee-merrick-garland-donald-trump

“The Department of Justice has a duty to act on this referral and others that we have sent,” Rep. Adam Schiff said. “Without enforcement of congressional subpoenas, there is no oversight, and without oversight, no accountability—for the former president or any other president, past, present, or future. Without enforcement of its lawful process, Congress ceases to be a coequal branch of government.”

Rep. Zoe Lofgren echoed that statement, saying: “Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell rightly said that the public needs to know everything about what caused and occurred on January 6. Now, to inform both the American people and legislative reform proposals, this committee needs to speak with Mr. Scavino. He has to fulfill his legal and his moral obligation to provide testimony and documents, or he should face the consequences. That’s why we’re taking this action today. In the United States of America, no one is above the law. This committee is doing its job—the Department of Justice needs to do theirs.”

And while those were the most fighting words we’ve heard directed at the DOJ from the committee thus far, Rep. Elaine Luria was even more explicit, officially dispensing with the niceties and fully putting the man in charge of the department on blast.

“When given the opportunity to tell the truth about the attack on January 6, both Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro continue to put loyalty to Donald Trump before the Constitution and the American people,” she said. “Tonight, I will vote to hold Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro accountable for their actions, and recommend that the House of Representatives cite both of them for contempt of Congress. And the Department of Justice must act swiftly. I will echo what my colleagues have already said, but more bluntly: Attorney General Garland, do your job so that we can do ours.”

This is not the first time that Schiff has expressed concern that the DOJ is not on board for prosecution of Trump. If Adam Schiff is concerned, I'm concerned.

[Hoyt]

127. The Committee Members will get action from Garland when, and if, they come up with hard evidence.

Otherwise, the DOJ is not going to put trump on trial with "you know he's guilty" as the cornerstone of their case.

[dpibel]

170. You do know what subpoenas are, right?

The quotes to which you are trying to respond do not chide DOJ for failure to put Trump on trial. They are addressing the fact that Congressional subpoenas must be enforced by DOJ, and that's not happening.

Know what you can get with subpoenas?

You can get hard evidence.

See how that works?

[Hoyt]

171. In other words, they don't have any criminal evidence, but they'll keep looking

because they just know it’s got to be there.

Evidence trump is unfit for office is plentiful, but that’s not a crime.

[dpibel]

173. Wow. So you actually don't get it.

Gathering evidence via subpoena is how you develop "criminal evidence."

You seem to be positing that there has to be evidence before you can gather evidence.

I don't expect you to understand that, given how this exchange has gone. But it's a fair summary of your position. At least to the extent you have tried to articulate it.

[Hoyt]

174. They've talked to hundreds of people, gone through phone calls and emails, we've been

told repeatedly that such and such is flipping on trump, they've conneceted dots, etc. Thousands of investigative reporter wannabes have been looking in every rathole. I suspect FBI, CIA, hundreds of top level government employees, have been looking.

They've either got the evidence (even if it needs a bit more detail), or they don't and won't ever get it.

And what if the subpoened people don't have any evidence? I'm sure they have lots of stories to prove further that trump is unfit for office, but criminal evidence is what's needed.

[dpibel]

179. (even if it needs a bit more detail)

What part of that don't you understand?

This is a pretty mindbending exchange in a thread that started with a scold about people jumping to conclusions, from a poster who, as near as I can tell, you generally agree with.

But you are now saying "all is lost."

Do I have that right?

[Hoyt]

182. If I'm not mistaken, you jumped into this sub-thread. Unless we get some hard evidence,

I believe the Select Committee's findings -- with what we know -- is going to hurt us.

And I'm saying it does not appear they have any hard evidence other than trump is unfit for office. We already know that, we didn't need months of this for that.

That's supposition, as is everyone else's opinion here. The OP is correct, he doesn't know, I don't know, and you don't know. That means any one of us could be right, perhaps all. I do suspect all 3 of us would like the same results.

[treestar]

190. That doesn't make the committee look "weak"

it shows the limits of the law, or a loophole in the law perhaps.

[Hekate]

126. KnR

[BlackSkimmer]

131. I get what you're selling.

I’m not buying.

[XanaDUer2]

136. Hee

[MineralMan]

139. The Hurt Dog Yelps...

[BlackSkimmer]

141. I bet you're a bit sore.

[MineralMan]

145. Just my knees. Arthritis.

I'm old.

[BlackSkimmer]

146. Replying to yourself speaks volumes.

Go lick your wounds. Come back tomorrow with another lecture.

And let me just say again, NOTHING is going to happen to tfg. Probably not even his henchmen, but certainly not him.

I’ll check back with you on this prediction, k?

[Just_Vote_Dem]

153. I sure hope he does, and I'll be reading

I enjoying reading people who start threads and have interesting ideas-as opposed to those whose main contributions are making snarky remarks about other posters.

Now you have a nice day, bless your heart!

[BlackSkimmer]

188. Aw, you too honey bunches!

Back atcha!

[Vinca]

143. Let's just say I'll believe it when I see it.

Trump has skated on everything his entire life and there's no reason to believe he won't skate again. Quite honestly, I expect him to be elected again in 2024 and then everything comes to a screeching halt anyway. I'll happily eat crow on all of this.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

150. Yeah and I've been following the tax evasion deal where trumpco

was paying people with tuitions and apartments instead of payroll. When it first broke it was a huge deal - they called it systemic fraud for 10 years.

The last article I saw they said it was now minor. And W won't likely see prison. And then...although Weisselburg's indictment said they were unindicted people involved they weren't going to indict them. And boom grand jury disbanded.

So there's that

[Scrivener7]

151. And there are the pesky statutes of limitations that are dropping like flies.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

184. EXACTLY! Fuel to the fire.... Fix in. Don't know who

Is behind it - could be any human being or group on earth... But the devil incarnate will not face the music. Hope it's worth it. Kinda like avoiding a potential nuke war is the reason everyday we are watching people being slaughtered.

[AngryOldDem]

196. Agreed.

Blind faith is nice, but I need some kind of sign that things are moving in the right direction. So far, I see none. In many respects Biden is already being treated like a lame duck, as are other Democrats. I really hope people turn out in November over Roe, but that might not be enough to stop the MAGA train.

Serve uo another heaping dish of the crow if I’m wrong as well. I’ll gladly eat it, too.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

148. Why? Because history has shown and proven inaction to us !

We all want the same thing, but It is only natural, absolutely 100% natural to anticipate this continuing. And I think talking about that is okay - if only to prepare ourselves for another let down.

[Cha]

152. I've Noticed & TRASH the

******* threads.

💙💛

[sheshe2]

160. Thank you!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

161. Thank you for this post

This is not my area of the law. I have had clients who have had issues including one client who had to hire Abby Lowell. These matters move at their own pace.

The midterm elections are a deadline for the Jan. 5 Special Committee, but such deadline does not apply to the DOJ other than the policy of not indicting anyone 60 days before an election which would not necessarily apply to TFG in that he will not be on the ballot. The DOJ is going to be moving at their own pace.

I saw that the Proud Boys and related insurrectionists may be headed to trial in September. The DOJ will want to get that trial done to have leverage to flip people.

I trust Barbara McQaude in this area since this is the type of law she practices

Link to tweet

[Emile]

163. I know one thing, the DOJ refused to enforce house subpoenas

from the Jan 6 committee.

[Cha]

165. PS.. I should have Thanked you in

my previous post.. So Thank You, MM!

💙💛

[PTWB]

166. Hmmm

Today in May, 2022 you write:

What do I think? I think that I do not have enough information to predict what the DOJ will do. In fact, I know that I do not, despite following this story very closely on a daily basis. I will not say what the DOJ and Merrick Garland will do, because I simply do not know. I will not say the DOJ will prosecute Donald J. Trump, but I will also not say that the DOJ will NOT prosecute him.

But six months ago you wrote:

What is Merrick Garland's DOJ Doing Right Now?

Well, the week after Christmas is very slow for almost everyone, so no big announcements will probably be made this week. However, it's easy to keep track of DOJ's public announcements. You needn't wait for media outlets to feed them to you.

Just go to this link on a daily basis:

https://www.justice.gov/news

There, you'll see all of the press releases and news issued by the DOJ. Multiple releases are issued every business day. It's fascinating, and the DOJ appears to be very busy, going about its regular work. Big investigations, though, aren't discussed until something happens. Anyhow, you'll see it first on that website. Before the news media reports it.

Hint: Expect big things to start dropping, beginning next week, the first week of 2022.

I’m glad you learned your lesson about making predictions. 🤣

[SoonerPride]

167. Bringing the receipts. Hahahaha

That is excellent.

And five months later we’re still waiting.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

169. Actually, he was right

Hundreds of people have been charged since then, none with a name you'd recognize but it has begun.

Too bad you are like some others who are obsessed with those who don't share your point of view. How sad.

But-bless your heart! Have a nice day

[PTWB]

172. LOL

😂

[dpibel]

183. Big things you won't recognize!!

So you're saying hundreds of charges of no-name people is "big things"?

K den.

Special pleading is a thing.

[BlackSkimmer]

191. Lol, I remember that prediction. And the one about the "boot about to drop". Lol, never happened.

I also remember other predictions made here: that tfg is going down! Gaetz is being indicted! Jr is going down! God, so many others that I’ve lost count.

[PTWB]

192. Some people sure are proud of their own opinions, don't they? 😂

[BlackSkimmer]

193. Nothing wrong with that I suppose, but

why do they object to others having opinions? Or put some sinister spin on others’ opinions? Weird, huh?

I remember expressing my fear that tfg might be elected in 2016…just my opinion.I was attacked for expressing that, as were others. Many left the site during that time. I took a long break.

[PTWB]

205. Yep, that's it exactly.

They are so proud of their own opinions and predictions that they proclaim them at seemingly every opportunity, while admonishing others not to do the same. It’s a real treat to witness the hypocrisy.

[empedocles]

185. Scanning through here this morning. I've seen the 'dropping like flies' kind of

arguments - but no citations.

[Emile]

194. The January 6 committee is in the DISCOVERY INVESTIGATION step. The DOJ is blocking

the discovery process by ignoring house subpoenas. Why make excuses for the DOJ?

[MineralMan]

198. Refusing to honor a House Committee subpoena is a relatively minor offense.

In the case of the current House committee, referrals have been made to the DOJ for only two people: Stephen Bannon and Mark Meadows.

In the case of Bannon, he was arrested after a Grand Jury indictment. His trial is scheduled for July 18. He is out on bail and has appealed the case. The potential penalty is described below:

Mark Meadows contempt has been referred to the DOJ, but no action has been taken in his case.

Here's the thing: The maximum penalty for Contempt of Congress is this:

Following a contempt citation, the presiding officer of the chamber is instructed to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia;[20] according to the law it is the duty of the U.S. Attorney to refer the matter to a grand jury for action.

The criminal offense of contempt of Congress sets the penalty at not less than one month nor more than twelve months in jail and a fine of not more than $100,000 or less than $100.[9]

In Mark Meadows case, it could well be that he will be charged with a more serious crime, or will cooperate with the DOJ in exchange for dropping the Contempt of Congress charge. I do not know what is going on with that. No announcements have been made with regard to Meadows by the DOJ.

Following a contempt citation, the presiding officer of the chamber is instructed to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia;[20] according to the law it is the duty of the U.S. Attorney to refer the matter to a grand jury for action.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

In both cases, it is possible that they will be charged with more serious federal crimes, but I have no information regarding whether that might be the case. The DOJ has not said anything about that, just as it has not said anything about other parts of its investigation.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

199. Professor Tribe is encourage by the grand jury on classified documents

I like this investigation in that it is separate and independent of the Jan. 6 insurrection

Link to tweet

[MineralMan]

200. Looks like there are multiple investigations into different areas.

Clearly, the DOJ is looking for a solid case in one or more of those areas.

It appears that not everyone is paying much attention to what is actually being done, preferring to form opinions without information.

Thanks.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

202. There are clearly multiple DOJ investigations

This is a clear violation that does not require the cooperation of other witnesses. The Jan. 6 investigation is a complex investigation that will involve many parties. A potential Jan. 6 insurrection indictment against TFG could involve a good number of members of Congress, former members of the DOJ, a good number of layers such as Rudy, Eastland and Powell, members of the TFG administration such Mark Meadows. fund raisers, media members like Alex Jones/Roger Stone and members of the various militias.

The proud boys and some other militia types are headed to trial. At least three members of these groups are cooperating and after a trial, I bet we see more.

Building these cases take time.

[MineralMan]

203. Yes, and we'll be hearing more about them.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

204. Tribe-"It's reassuring to me that Merrick Garland is carefully dotting his Is and crossing his Ts.."

Link to tweet

[LetMyPeopleVote]

209. 'Pretty savvy' DOJ just sidestepped legal battles that have slowed Jan. 6 committee's probe

I have been following the complaints about the DOJ not moving fast enough on the Jan. 6 investigation. I like Glen Kurshner but he has been down on the DOJ. That changed to a great deal with the latest announcement. The DOJ made a very savy legal move to let the Jan. 6 committee investigate this matter and will be able to use the Jan. 6 committee work. In addition, the Jan. 6 committee will be able to inform the public as to the whole story.

Link to tweet

https://www.rawstory.com/glenn-kirschner-msnbc/

Federal authorities opened a new direction in their criminal probe by requesting transcripts of interviews conducted by congressional investigators, and MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner explained why that move was "savvy."

"I think we've all experienced some frustration because it doesn't look like the Department of Justice has been investigating this the way it would ordinarily investigate, you know, even large-scale conspiracy cases because they don't appear to have been sort of carpet-bombing folks with grand jury subpoenas the way we ordinarily would," Kirschner said.

Kirschner praised DOJ investigators for waiting until the Select Committee had conducted its interviews instead of pursuing the same witnesses.

"If the Department of Justice had gone after everybody with grand jury subpoenas, they probably would have been battling witness after witness after witness, these thousand-plus witnesses," he said. "They would have been battling Congress, who gets which witness first and who has the greater priority. Now what the Department of Justice can do is take a thousand-plus transcripts and they can use that to build their criminal investigation.