Just a Garland reminder

[newdayneeded]

When Obama named Garland he was under pressure from the radical right, so he picked Garland who was centrist, NOT a hard left judge.
Possibly even slightly right.

Now you understand why some of us are skeptical Garland will do anything.

[mucifer]

1. I'm in wait and see mode Trying my best to be patient

[brooklynite]

2. So the important skill for an AG is ideology rather than competence?

How would being "hard left" have made the Trump/Jan 6 investigation more to your liking?

[TigressDem]

5. At the moment, those on the left are still solid on Democracy MUST thrive.

It isn't as much "ideology" vs "competence" because DEMs wouldn't run someone like Hershel Walker, for example.

We tend to want our candidates to always have the ability to do whatever job they are seeking. Unlike the REICH we don't expect our people to dismantle the government to prove it doesn't work.

It's more about if someone is more "centrist" or "right" then there may be more "pressure" to be "fair" to that side.

Unfortunately, the halfway point between the truth and a lie is a half truth, which is still a lie.

So at this point, the left is still attached to FACTS, SCIENCE and RULE OF LAW as basic day to day things that bottom line whatever work we do.

We look at what tRump has done and it's a no brainier that he broke the law. Did Garland "see it" right away and simply is getting the facts and evidence together in spite of a huge amount of obstruction? Possibly and most likely probably.

But there is a small doubt that if he is still pulled by any wish to appease the "other side" to be fair, it could be part of the delay.

[brooklynite]

8. "it's a no brainier that he broke the law."

Which law? Which specific statute? Which evidence points to a violation?

Far too many people start with "we know he's guilty". However, it's not the job of the AG to indict someone the far left "knows is guilty". The job is to build a ironclad case to achieve an indictment and a conviction. In the case of a senior Government official, or a former President, that apparently takes more time than the angry blogosphere is prepared to accept.

[Grasswire2]

11. So you think Trump did not break any laws?

Or are you just toying with a DU-er?

And by the way, there was an ironclad case against Trump built by Mueller that Garland chose to ignore.

[brooklynite]

12. To quote from A FEW GOOD MEN: "It doesn't matter what I believe; it matters what I can prove."

And to quote Ralph Waldo Emerson: "When You Strike At A King, You Must Kill Him". I'm not in a hurry if the job is being done right.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

13. Toi quote Denzel Washington's character in the movie, Training Day.

It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.
Wise words to live by.

[Beastly Boy]

16. I think you are missing the point.

The point is that what any of us think is irrelevant in proving someone guilty. The same goes double for calling a case ironclad.

[Orrex]

52. I'd be interested to hear how we justify his explicitly illegal possession of classified materials

Any mere citizen would have been jailed upon seizure of those materials and held without bond pending trial.

But Trump? He's thumbs-upping his way from one Nazi rally to the next, free as a bird.

[triron]

85. Me too

[TigressDem]

14. Here is the no brainer part. You leave a job. You don't take proprietary company documents.

BUT since there are at least 100 labeled Top Secret and some coded as sensitive, it goes to the 1917 Espionage Act

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

https://www.lawfareblog.com/donald-trump-and-espionage-act

The part of the Espionage Act that is likely most relevant in this case is § 793(d). It applies to individuals who lawfully accessed material:

“relating to the national defense,” and who proceeded either willfully to convey it to “any person not entitled to receive it,” or willfully to “retain[] the same and fail[] to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it.”


He took it. It was at Mar A Lago.

He willfully retained it. He was asked to return the documents. Gave a selected few back. Had his lawyer lie and then threw a hissy fit when the DOJ got a valid search warrant and came and took the rest.


Maybe you are new or just joined conversations here, but when we say, "We know," we've done some research.


Any other questions?

[brooklynite]

15. Was Trump alone in moving things to Mar a Lago?

Do you have evidence that 1) he ordered the files moved from the White House and 2) ordered his staff not to return them?

Again, "we know he did" isn't what the prosecutors will build a case around.

[TigressDem]

18. You don't read much, do you? I have seen at least 100 DU posts on this issue since January

Don't let my low post record fool you. This is my second time on DU. I was here in the W years.

He admits he took them, just says he had Executive Privilege to do so. He and his lawyers were in contact with the National Archives and supposedly cooperating.



ON DU there have been links to videos showing tRump physically present with the boxes moving out of the White House.



There have been in depth articles about how the DOJ could not have gotten the search warrant without sufficient reason to suspect what had happened.



https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/07/national-archives-retrieved-15-boxes-of-trump-white-house-documents-from-mar-a-lago.html

The National Archives and Records Administration retrieved 15 boxes of White House records that had been sent to former President Donald Trump’s resort-home Mar-a-Lago.

All of those records should have been handed over to the National Archives directly from the White House once Trump left office, as required by the Presidential Records Act, NARA said.

The documents include a letter to Trump from President Barack Obama, as well as Trump’s self-described “love letters” with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, according to The Washington Post.

[brooklynite]

22. "I have seen at least 100 DU posts on this issue"

Also not something a prosecutor builds a case upon.

[TigressDem]

32. Posts that go into depth about the merits of the case and steps taken.

The warrant was made public with minimal redaction.

The list of items found was made public with minimal redaction.

The process has been transparent and that means that we see a lot of evidence already.

People have linked legal reviews of the case showing the strength on what is in the public view.


Did you doubt that Derrik Chauvin killed George Floyd?

Did you even watch that video?

NO it isn't my "job" to determine guilt unless I am selected for a jury, but I can state with confidence that the case so far seems solid and there is likely more evidence that can't be shared due to the confidential nature of the documents.

AND the basic thing is, NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

So if police came to your house with a valid search warrant and found out after you lost your job, you walked out with proprietary company documents that were kept in a safe at the office with specific rules to not remove them but you broke those rules because WHEN you were still employed you had rights to those documents, you would be facing criminal charges of theft.

You would still get a trial and have a chance to explain yourself. But it would be a solid case.

[brooklynite]

42. "Did you doubt that Derrik Chauvin killed George Floyd? "

There were plenty of people here convinced that Chauvin would get off because "they" would get someone on the Jury. Perhaps taking the time to build a solid case helped.

[TigressDem]

44. I am not talking to other people. I asked you.

Could you by seeing with your own eyes understand that any thinking human being with police officer training should know better than to put their knee on someone's neck for that long?

Now various legal questions aside, what did you think when you saw that?

He looked like he was in a hunter stance to me waiting for a deer to bleed out to me. Smug look on his face.

As human beings we are brought up with some sort of moral guidance and are told it is illegal to kill another person.

When you see someone kill another person as a thinking, feeling, moral human being, you "get it".

Same thing goes for this basic act of theft writ large.

Basic moral principals of do not steal. You take what does not belong to you, there are consequences.

An average human being understands this principal.

That is all I am talking about.

Proving things is difficult at times, yes.

But this is a DISCUSSION BOARD, not a court of law. So we discuss.

[brooklynite]

45. "But this is a DISCUSSION BOARD, not a court of law"

It is indeed. But a court of law is where the ultimate decisions will be made. So what I "think" is irrelevant.

[TigressDem]

104. Not to me. People here on DU have their own perspectives and it can be enlightening.

But stick to your guns as you are in your own lane and don't want to do anything differently.

Whatevs.

[TigressDem]

34. And I am not the prosecutor or a wittness in the courtroom.

Garland isn't going to quote me, but from what has been seen here there is a lot of evidence that the DOJ has for it's case.

THAT IS THE POINT.

Is it enough evidence? Who knows?

Will tRump throw some crazy out there like he has been and get away with it?

Possibly.

BUT based on the law, he should have consequences for his actions.

Even someone walking out of a store caught on camera taking things they know don't belong to them get consequences.

[brooklynite]

37. "he should have consequences for his actions"

Yes he should, in an appropriate time frame.

A reminder that prosecutions of the Nixon Administration senior leadership took two years for indictments.

[TigressDem]

39. Do we HAVE 2 years if the Saudi's have those nuclear documents and start trouble with them?

AND if the 11th Circuit Court wasn't showing a spine, it would be a crazy worry.

Even if it goes to SCOTUS this could all get swept under the rug.


These aren't normal times.

We are facing an attempt to overthrow the government and other associated crimes.

Something HAS to stick for the country to have a chance to get back on track.

[brooklynite]

41. Just an observation: there is NO public evidence that Trump sold or gave secrets to foreigners

Once again, "we know he did" isn't the basis for prosecution.

[TigressDem]

43. I said, "If" on that one. We know Jared Kushner got 2 billion dollars from them for something.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/03/house-oversight-investigating-2b-saudi-investment-in-jared-kushners-firm.html

HAVE YOU EVER SEEN tRUMP pass up an opportunity to turn a profit since he was 3 years old and his daddy gave him an apartment building?

IF he took them, and evidence has been publicly presented that he did and he is NOT denying that, then why?

Goes to motive.

Does the fact that he tries to make money or bilk his followers at every opportunity for money give you any idea of WHY he would have had those documents?

I am not saying I know... that he did, but it is suspicious.

You don't think so?

BUT the point I am making is that there IS a possibility which means IF it can happen quickly, that might help.

BECAUSE it could affect National Security due to the kind of documents missing, we might NOT have time to waste.

AND hopefully that isn't the case and we are just all worrying in vain.

[treestar]

91. We objected to the Patriot Act

which might be what gives the government powers to deal with national security.

If as prosecutor, you would be satisfied with assuming the Kushner receipt of money is connected as circumstantial evidence, you'd still face the defense arguing there is no chain of evidence showing connection between TFG, the documents, Kushner, and the reason he got the money.

[TigressDem]

105. Jared is under a seperate investigation and what the court finds may determine a connection.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/03/house-oversight-investigating-2b-saudi-investment-in-jared-kushners-firm.html

They can look and see how many times Jared was at Mar A Lago or met with tRump during that time period.

But there is a family connection between TFG and he was an adviser to tRump during the 4 years of crazy. If there is not a good reason for the Saudi's investment, there is reason to dig deeper.

Anyway, it is speculation, but realistically whatever happened to this highly classified information could be a time bomb and our time is potentially limited.

My point was simply that because we DON'T know where the missing documents went, it is urgent that we do what need to be done to find out the truth and deal with the thief and any accomplises.

[TigressDem]

20. But realistically, he's at least a fucking adult. He took things from his former work place.

ANYONE else would already be indicted, arrested and in jail by now.

HE NEVER SAID that he did not take these items. THAT WAS NOT IN DISPUTE.

Again as a full grown adult who was PRESIDENT of the USA for a time, he IS responsible for his own actions.

NO ONE forced these documents upon him.



AND WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING HIM ANYWAY?

[brooklynite]

23. I'm not "defending" him...I pointing out what his defense will say.

And I'm maintaining confidence in him and the ability of his staff to resolve the matter effectively.

[TigressDem]

28. Which him do you have confidence in when you are whipping out tRump lawyer arguments?

You don't sound like you have faith in Garland when you know more about what tRump's lawyers would say than the merits of the DOJ case.

You don't sound like you have faith in Garland when you don't seem to know he got a valid search warrant and did it by the book.

I gave you benefit of the doubt that you might not have been following the conversation, but even so, when I give you proof you keep arguing like a troll.

READ UP ON THE SUBJECT and quit spouting RWing talking points as that is a violation of TOS her at DU.

[brooklynite]

30. I'm whipping out Trump Lawyer arguments that DOJ will be PREPARED for when indictments are issued.

Sorry he's not moving as quickly as you'd like.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

31. 1. It doesn't matter who moved them. He had them in his possession.

2. He certified, through his legal counsel that he had returned all when he did not.

[TigressDem]

36. Yep

AND he's an adult.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, especially when he, himself, amended said law with stricter penalties because he believed Hillary violated it.

[TigressDem]

7. And many would see me as centrist as I think Bi-Partisan cooperation is a strength.

It's been diminished because the other side is not faithfully working with us.

BUT if we can find solutions that work for both sides, I feel better about it actually going the distance and getting into law.

So there have been times here on the board that I stand up for say, Liz Cheney, as an ally of the moment because we need a full out resistance to this attempt to take our Democracy away by cheating, force and lies.

We've had some hard years and we can even snap at each other if we think someone isn't "true blue" in whatever way we think is "enough".

[MarineCombatEngineer]

9. +100. nt

[newdayneeded]

46. Are you kidding?

6 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices base all of their rulings on pure ideology and their lean in politics.

Do you think these recent radical law reversals are because of a constitutional read. All judges, whether we believe it or not, let ideology steer them in some amount.

[Hekate]

93. Kinda scary, isn't it? I think Garland's competence in domestic terrorism cases should count ...

… a lot

[blue neen]

4. Another Garland reminder:

Oklahoma City.

[Orrex]

50. 100% irrelevant to the current case, but ok.

[JohnSJ]

61. Not really. It took two years to prosecute the perpetrators and co-conspirators associated with

that incident

[Orrex]

68. It once took three hours to make a sandwich

Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that all sandwiches will take three hours to make.

[JohnSJ]

75. Come on. Your point was it was irrelevant to the case. The issue the OP was making was the

implication that the DOJ was dragging their feet, and I was presenting the case where a very publicized event took some time to prosecute.

The point is that prosecutions take time, and the fact that some of trump's appointed judges have delayed that process makes it even more aggravating

[Orrex]

77. As has been noted elsewhere in-thread, McVeigh was a nobody

Therefore, when someone invokes the McVeigh case as proof of Garland's whatever, the invocation denies the obvious and demonstrable reality that Trump is being held to a different standard of justice.

For anyone who disputes this, I ask again: what would happen to one of us if the classified documents that we'd stolen were seized in an FBI raid? We'd be held in jail without bond pending trial, most likely incommunicado.

But Trump? Meh. No biggie.

[Cha]

102. Irrelevant.

[newdayneeded]

67. see post #65

[intrepidity]

130. Oklahoma City? Was McVeigh in custody all that time? nt

[Beastly Boy]

6. No, I don't understand.

Why would you be suspicious of a centrist Obama pick for SCOTUS who also happens to be Biden's pick for AG?

And why would some of us would be skeptical of Garland doing anything now, after he has accumulated a mile long record of doing something? Faced with his undeniable record of accomplishments, isn't skepticism of him not doing anything a bit out of place? That makes absolutely no sense to me.

[TigressDem]

17. Again, I think it is the current environment and our impatience for tRump to have consequences.

When courts have been stacked and even the life of his VP was nothing to tRump, it's hard to know if Garland is under some sort of pressure to find "the right answer" to this issue.

Many of us have said the slowness of the process is because the case needs to be air tight with evidence stacked so high that it proves itself just by finally being given the light of day.

AND with the kind of documents stolen, how much can actually BE SAID for the public?

[Beastly Boy]

24. Passing judgement on Garland the way the OP did is pure speculation.

A kind of speculation that goes against Obama's judgement, Biden's judgement and Garland's well documented and very impressive record of accomplishment. Our current environment, our impatience, all contribute to speculations, not the rational analysis of events.

It's not at all hard to know whether Garland possesses the integrity his position requires. It is there for all to see. And what is there to see leaves no room for skepticism of Garland doing anything. Because he has already done a hell of a lot of something.

[TigressDem]

27. No I think he has his reasons. I just hope he isn't under Mike Pence type of pressure.

It's just hard sitting on this side of the situation to wait.

We can see how out of control and deranged tRump is.

We've seen that his words can send a mob to the Capitol with intent to kill someone.

How does an AG do their best job when there are threats to attack the FBI and potentially nuclear secrets sold to the highest bidder?

Mike Pence did what he needed to do.

Biden is doing what he needs to do.

Liz Cheney is doing what she needs to do.

It's just harder to build things up than to tear down. The other side has the easy job, attack and destroy.

Rebuilding over and over again when they keep trashing everything is exhausting.

[Beastly Boy]

35. He certainly has his reasons, but all of them are based on speculation alone.

None of the reasons given in the OP call for a rational person to be "skeptical Garland will do anything", if for no other reason than Garland is ALREADY way past not doing anything, as his extensive record of doing something is so evidently a matter of record. This is a false premise on its face, regardless of any reasons to promote it.

[Orrex]

59. Declarations of faith in Garland's investigation are likewise based on speculation alone

At this point, what odds would you give that Garland's investigation results in Trump's conviction?

After Fitzmas and the Mueller Report and two ultimately useless impeachment proceedings, it is entirely reasonable to express frustration about the pace of the current investigation, especially when Trump is running free and doing more or less whatever the fuck he wants while the Wheels of Justice grind slowly, if at all.

From the context of the OP, it seems clear that "skeptical Garland will do anything" refers specifically to "doing anything that results in a Trump conviction." No kidding Garland has done "things" already. One would sure AF hope so, by this stage of the game. But those "things" are comparatively minor next to the damage that Trump has done and continues to do.

At the very least, Trump should be treated as you or I would be treated if boxes of classified materials were found in our possession. Do you think that you or I would be free to travel the country and whip our Nazi kkkult into a frenzy while working deliberately to poison any potential jury pool? Or do you think we'd be jailed without bond pending trial?

[Beastly Boy]

63. True, declarations of faith in Garland are just as speculative.

This is why I refrain from declaring faith in him. I am declaring faith in the rule of law instead. And, I am bringing up Garland's impressive record, which stands in stark contrast to the innuendo offered by the OP, to show that any suggestion of Garland being somehow deficient or compromised in competently carrying out his duties is absolutely baseless and insulting.

[Orrex]

69. I have distressingly little faith in the rule of law

The rule of law is great on paper, and it sure likes to come down hard on ordinary people, but it seldom seems to land on anyone of wealth or power in any real way.

Again, if your home or mine were raided and dozens of classified documents found, how long do you suppose we'd remain free to travel while the investigation moved forward? We'd be jailed without bond pending trial, likely incommunicado.

The fact that this hasn't happened to Trump suggests very strongly that, regardless of Garland's record, a different standard of justice is being applied here.

Let's treat Trump like anyone else suspected of the same crimes.

[Beastly Boy]

79. You are talking about faith again.

And you seem to blame DOJ for undermining your faith. This blame is woefully misplaced. DOJ is following the law as it is given to them by the legislative branch. There is a rich legislative history to the reasons why the rule of law turned out to be the way it is. And most of it is based on decisions and precedents that came from the legislative and judiciary branches of government. DOJ is a part of the executive branch. Unlike Congress, who are in charge of making laws and the courts, who are in charge of interpreting laws, DOJ is in charge of executing laws in a way the laws are dictated to them by the legislative and judiciary branches.

If you have little faith in the rule of law, only Congress can change that. If you and enough of your fellow Americans want to overturn due process of law the way it currently is, you, and only you have the power to do it, but then you have to live with the consequences. Don't blame DOJ. Or, if you do, give specifics as to how DOJ has neglected to duly administer the process of law as it was given to them. You can't simply claim negligence or bias based on inaccurately perceived precedent, because Trump's case has no precedent. Any comparison of other cases to Trump's would be false. No other case can be genuinely compared to it apples to apples.

[Orrex]

82. Do you deny that the wealthy and powerful are treated differently?

Of course they are, and that is why I have so little faith.

Spare me that "hate the game, not the player" crap. You want specifics? Fine: Imagine that the classified documents that you or I had stolen were seized in an FBI raid or your home or mine. You or I would be sitting in a cell right now without bond awaiting trial.

But Trump? Walking free. Because he's being treated differently.

[treestar]

87. your hypothetical case could take as long

It just depends on the case. The rich have been sent to jail when there was proof. The problem is you don't have Garland's standard of proof for any case. Just that you think TFG is guilty. Garland has to consider how a jury will see it, the rules of evidence, and the law.

[Orrex]

95. Suppose that someone murdered your best friend right in front of you

Then investigation dragged on due to claims about dotting i's and crossing t's. And then the case fizzles out with zero (or minimal) charges filed.

You are asking me to believe that you would say "Justice has prevailed because the rule of law is upheld, and I praise the system that found insufficient evidence to charge the murderer."

Trump stole classified materials, which were seized on his property during an FBI raid. If you or I or any other citizen had stolen those materials, we sure as shit wouldn't be free to lead cult rallies while the investigation drags on.

When Trump said that his supporters would stand by him even if he shot someone in the street, he was thinking too small-scale; he can commit open treason in broad daylight and still walk free.

Will he eventually be charged? Maybe, though I'm not optimistic.

[treestar]

107. that case would have my eyewitness testimony

so it probably would not have to get into dotting i's and crossing t's.

This is about documents, so getting them into evidence can be a challenge. The rules of evidence require a chain of custody and proof they are what they purport to be.

[Joinfortmill]

106. A voice of reason. Thank you.

[TigressDem]

29. It's also human to fear getting our hopes up to have them dashed.

Maybe the OP is looking for reassurance that Garland has what it takes.

Maybe hoping the DU community has more information that would help.

I personally haven't had time to review Garland's accomplishments, but I know Obama had a keen vetting process for his people so if both Obama and Biden think he can do it, there is a good chance he can.

My fears are that with that huge list of MAGA's in law enforcement, are there people working against Garland at the DOJ?

Are there things we don't know?

Could they be dealing with the fallout of these docs behind the scenes to protect National Security?

I know someday we will have all the answers we need, as long as tRump and his MAGA's don't get their fascist hands on our Democracy and tear it apart.

It's just a nerve wracking moment in history to simply believe in the AG. I want to. I really want to, but it's going to hurt like hell if for any reason he can't pull this off and tRump gets away with treason.

[Beastly Boy]

38. It is not unheard of for humans to be inaccurate and irrational.

[TigressDem]

40. At times. Even when they suck it up and hang onto what truth and hope they can find.

It was so much easier to be confident in being a rational adult, looking up the actual bills and knowing my facts with W and Darth Cheney.

There was Faux Noise, but also most of the media wasn't sucked into the lies. Then there was Truth Out with in depth reporting. Huffington Post came along. Air America Radio gave us people telling our side of the story.

But now there are people fed up and shooting people for no damn reason in higher numbers than ever.

It's a sick world.

And I just as a human want to see one part of the cure, tRump in jail and not able to hurt US any more. Although, it has been said, he could still run for office from prison. Wouldn't that just be frosting on this shit cake?

[Cha]

103. NO snese to me, either.. I trust AG

Garland.. NOT those trying to Rush him.

And, with Pure Speculation.

[Brainfodder]

122. TFG clearly committed ESPIONAGE? No patience for that BS available? That is DEATH SENTENCE shit!

[Beastly Boy]

123. In our criminal justice system, none of this is clear until

the accused is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.

There are banana republics in which a mere accusation is enough to execute a man. But not in my country.

[Brainfodder]

124. You clearly missed my point.

[Joinfortmill]

10. No

[gab13by13]

19. It surprises me that people still don't see the importance of time.

Merrick Garland is a patriotic, competent, AG, a very patient and thorough man. I agree that an iron clad case is needed to convict Trump. With that said I believe his pyramid strategy was a mistake, he should have done a wheel and hub type investigation, like the J6 committee ran.

My question to the patient people; What year do you suppose a Trump trial would happen? When I hear that Mark Meadows has been in front of a grand jury, then I know we are getting closer.

It also surprised me that 20 Republican Senators voted to confirm Garland.

[Beastly Boy]

25. I think you are confusing calls for patience with calls for respect of due process of law.

Of course, I don't speak for all "patient people", but, speaking for myself, I never advocated patience for patience's own sake.

[mcar]

21. Oh, is it bash Garland week again?

It's been a nice break.

[gab13by13]

26. I'm counting on him to save our democracy.

He has been in office long enough to have a record that he can be judged on. Allowing the pro-Trump Cyber Ninja bogus company to violate federal election law, allowed fraudets to spread across the country, allowed the Big Lie to grow.

[betsuni]

33. No, I don't understand.

[JohnSJ]

47. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Are you even aware what AG Garland is

doing or has done?

What I understand is you don’t have any idea of the process involved

[Silent3]

55. What I understand is that "the process involved" is laughably far from our supposed ideal...

Last edited Mon Sep 19, 2022, 12:46 PM - Edit history (1)

...that "everyone is equal before the law".

I'm not naive enough to believe that's ever really been true, but for fuck's sake, we're supposed to try to move in that direction. That's not happening in Garlard's DoJ. "The process involved" is pathetically slow and riddled with fear of going after someone powerful and suffering embarrassment if you fail, which means that evidence that would be more than good enough to indict your average Joe isn't considered anywhere near good enough to indict powerful and/or well-connected prominent people.

[JohnSJ]

60. The fact that enough self-identified progressives decided not to vote for Hillary in the general

election, by either voting third party or not voting, because in their infinite wisdom there was no difference between Hillary and trump, allowed trump and the republicans to push through judges like Canon to rule based on ideology and conspiracy assumptions without evidence, helped bring us to where we are

and it didn’t take much. In every critical swing state Hillary lost by less than 1%, while Jill Stein received 1% of the vote in those critical swing states

Between what happened in 2000, and 2016, no one should be surprised why it isn’t a slam dunk. Elections have consequences

I find it interesting that the OP doesn’t even care to defend his opinion, but just post the OP to stir things up, and disappear

[betsuni]

62. +1

[newdayneeded]

111. I'm here, stood in line to vote for

Hillary.

Part of my position on Garland also is that there may be a very real possibility of Civil unrest if he does prosecute. They may not pursue the indictment based on risk assessments of this unrest.

Am I speculating? I sure am. But, can you sit there and tell me 100% that Garland will bring charges on trump without speculating? You can't.

As stated many times on this thread, if any of us took just 2 of these documents we'd be on our 3rd day of trial already.

After all is said here, we ALL want that fucker locked up. I'm positive we are all in agreement with that.

[JohnSJ]

112. I was not referring to you about not voting, and I applaud and appreciate your response. Thanks

[treestar]

88. that could be

the hypo cases against ordinary people - no one has ever heard of, no one knows how they actually turned out and what proof they had.

But imagine TFG getting acquitted. That indeed could have consequences.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

48. He sent the FBI to Motel Mar a Loco,

to collect the stolen top-secret files, that's doing something!

[newdayneeded]

110. The thing is, that's usually the final

straw of an investigation. They would have discovered and verified the evidence and its location. The "raid" should mean the shit just hit the fan for that person, next stop, a trip in cuffs to the station.

[malaise]

49. Tell that to the murderous white supremacist McVeigh

That is all

[newdayneeded]

65. This is apples to dog turds

Mcveigh was a murderous piece of shit, but just your average citizen. He was not a former president with 30+ million cult members ready to take a bullet for him.

[Orrex]

51. I see that you've been scolded by the cheerleaders

The most important thing--far more important than securing a Trump conviction--is that we never lose faith in or disparage The System.

Even though there's minimal actual sign of any forward motion, and even though Trump is running free around the country to sow discord and hate and to poison any potential jury pools, nothing is more important than closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears, and saying "Garland's got this, you'll see."

Never mind that the materials collected @ MAL would be more than sufficient to lock up any of us pending trial, we must have Faith that Garland et al are chugging along toward The Correct Resolution. And if the invisible investigation produces nothing? Well, I'm sure that we can rationalize it by saying some crap about "the mountains of evidence must have been insufficient."

Look, I would be delighted to be wrong, and I will post an unambiguous mea culpa if Garland gets it done. But if Trump isn't jailed at the end of this and barred from running for future office, then IDGAF about which of Trump's criminal associates have to pay fines or serve time.

[Silent3]

53. I won't be posting "mea culpa"s, because justice delayed is justice denied

What you said about "Trump is running free around the country to sow discord and hate" is all I need to feel quite justifiably pissed at the glacial pace of serious action being taken against Trump and his top cronies, even if some day in the vague and indefinite future indictments and, gosh, maybe even convictions, come.

I also feel righteously irate because of how very, very far we are from the ideal of "everyone is equal before the law". It's never been true, but Garland's DoJ isn't trying very hard to even push a little in that direction.

[Orrex]

54. You make an excellent point

Perhaps instead of a "mea culpa," I'll post an "it's about fucking time" instead.

What particularly frustrates me is that some seem absolutely devoted to belittling, insulting, and humiliating anyone who expresses frustration or anxiety about the glacial pace of Garland's proceedings. God forbid we articulate a legitimate human reaction to Trump's impunity!

[Emile]

66. +1

[betsuni]

56. Bookmarking.

[Emile]

64. +1

[treestar]

92. This is emotional only

what the "mountains of evidence" are - have you reviewed it all?

[Orrex]

97. Why yes, I have reviewed every last scrap of evidence, in defiance of the DoJ and the Special Master

[treestar]

101. good because how else could you know

it's a slam dunk case?

[DFW]

57. Another kind of Garland reminder

I understand that in this age of Marvel action movies, in which the world is attacked, nearly lost, and then regained, all in the space of 123 minutes, that workings of the real world Justice Department may seem snail-paced. But the fact is that a competent AG must be conservative (small c, no article) by nature in bringing his indictments. Bringing a headline-grabbing indictment that has no solid case behind it only makes DOJ look foolish when the defense's expensive law team blasts its way out of its dilemma.

Dotting every "i" and crossing every "t" not only seem tedious and time-consuming. They ARE tedious and time-consuming. But that is the ONLY way to get convictions, especially convictions that stick and are not successfully appealed. It's how another generation landed John Mitchell and John Ehrlichman behind bars.

This is why some of us are weary of hearing that Garland "needs" to act on "our" schedule, and not on that of a jurist so experienced that someone as well-versed in the law as Barack Obama nominated him to the Supreme Court. Indeed, the three people who were seated on the Court after his nomination was scuttled by Republican sleaze-bags are less than lightweights by comparison. Combine their judicial acumen, and you STILL don't get to the level of Merrick Garland or Barack Obama.

[betsuni]

58. +1

[Orrex]

70. Your condescension is charming

I know it's not a Marvel movie, for fuck's sake, but when the villain & their allies stand a fair chance of burning down the actual theater before the third reel has played, then I'm not impressed by finger-wagging or scolding that "these things take time."

Notwithstanding Garland's vaunted acumen and attention to detail, it is already clear that Trump is being held to a different standard of justice. But I guess the important thing is to denigrate those who find this appalling.

[Beastly Boy]

71. Many demands for instant "justice" made on DU show fundamental disregard,

intentional or uninformed, to due process of law. Time and again, I am being asked whether I think so-and-so is guilty. This is supposed to be the mortal blow to all of my arguments about letting due process take its course or deferring to professional prosecutors to administer justice without ignorantly second-guessing them every step of the way.

One big problem, though: even if my answer is "yes" (and it usually is) in bold typeface and in all caps followed by a dozen exclamation marks, rule of law doesn't give a flying fuck about what I think, or the bold typeface or the number of exclamation marks. If it did, every prosecution would end up with the loudest voice in possession of the most exclamation marks winning all the cases, every time. If it did, the criminals would have won and America would have lost.

[Orrex]

73. I've been on DU a long time and have never seen a single demand for "instant justice"

I invite you either to show me such a post or to abandon that complaint.

Regarding the years-long investigation into Trump, people are indeed saying that we all know he's guilty, but the actual objection is that he's simply and objectively being held to a different standard of justice than ordinary citizens would be.

That may be because Garland is being super-careful or because Trump's KKKult would riot or because there's a fear of creating the impression of political motivation, but regardless of all that, if you and I had stolen classified materials we would be in a cell right now, and Trump is not.

And when we throw in the bullshit notion that the DoJ might be concerned about the "60 day" thing, then it is unambiguously clear that factors are at play beyond "dotting every i."

[Beastly Boy]

81. How about unreasonably poor justification to demand expedited justice?

If you accept this, I would be happy to abandon my complaint about instant justice. It was a hyperbole anyway.

[Orrex]

83. That's another straw man

"Unreasonably poor justification" is your choice of phrasing, and I haven't seen anyone "demand instant justice."

Before you cite posts that say "lock him up" or the like, you must recognize that these, too, are hyperbole.

AFAIC, I simply want Trump to be treated the same way that anyone else would be who's suspected of the same crimes. Cops raided a house down the street from me and found drugs and guns, and they arrested the resident on the spot.

The MaL raid found stolen classified materials, and Trump is walking free.

[Beastly Boy]

86. I dont think "strtawman" means what you think it means.

First, there is significant difference between "instant" and "expedited". You can't seriously claim they are one and the same. Yet, you just keep coming back to something I, to assist your understanding, already identified as a hyperbole and offered to replace it with something that is not. If, with complete disregard to the offer I made at your request, you wish to stick to a hyperbole and call it a strawman, why insist that I withdraw the hyperbole in the first place? And if you changed your mind and intend to stick with a hyperbole, please assure me that you understand the difference between it and a strawman. I am not at all certain you do.

Second, you don't seem too eager to contest that there has been a significant number of posts containing unreasonably poor justification for demands of expedited justice. This alone tells me that you fully realize the difference between "instant" and "expedited", and that your attempt to conflate the two is disingenuous. Nor do you seem to be eager to consider the legal parameters within which DOJ is obligated to operate.

Your observation that "The MaL raid found stolen classified materials, and Trump is walking free" demands a direct connection between the two, bypassing the aforementioned parameters within which DOJ is proceeding. Unfortunately (or fortunately) what you want and expect has no effect on DOJ.

Oh, and I have no intention of bringing posts like "lock him up" into this exchange. I know a hyperbole when I see one.

[Orrex]

96. Whoops, I did indeed erroneously swap those two words. That was a mistake.

And yes I know what a straw man is; it's the weak rephrasing of an opponent's argument in hope of attacking that weaker form rather than the actual argument. My swapping of "instant" for "expedited" was not a straw man but rather a straight-up bone-headed mistake.

However, with your phrasing, you are recharacterizing the opposing position in a way that favors your view while weakening theirs.

You seem also to be suggesting that it is normal for persons suspected of a crime to remain on the street after illegal items are found in their possession, or at least that there is no direct connection between the commission of a crime and walking free. Am I incorrect?

Two facts seem plain:
1. The MaL raid found stolen classified materials
2. Trump is walking free

I'm not implying a causative relation in this, but for citizens the typical progression is this:
1. The authorities find convincing evidence of a crime
2. The suspect is arrested

If you disagree, I invite you to peruse the daily police blotter of just about every city in the natiob.


Can we also set aside the crap about having "no effect on DoJ?" I mean, no shit. Do you imagine that anyone on DU suspects that their posts here will turn the tide of the investigation one way or the other? Of course not, and there seems little reason to mention it other than to belittle.

[Beastly Boy]

99. I chose both words myself.

One in the context of a hyperbole, and the other in the context of offering, at your request, an alternative explanation for the hyperbole. The hyperbole was offered in response to the post I never argued with, and the explanation of a hyperbole was made in response to you taking it literally. Neither one was offered as a response to anyone's arguments. Your claims of a strawman falls apart in both cases all by themselves, without any need to elaborate. According to your own definition of a strawman, it's just does not apply in either case. No argument - no strawman. The degree of difficulty you may experience in responding to either one doesn't change a thing.

You also seem to misunderstand what I am suggesting. It is not normal for a person suspected of a crime to remain on the street. It is required by law. Anyone suspected of any crime remains on the street until reasonably conclusive legal custody of stolen items is established beyond being challenged and an arrest is made. The few select facts you listed are by themselves woefully insufficient to establish custody, let alone make an arrest. If you disagree, I invite you to peruse the daily police blotter of just about every city in the nation. And the legal custody of items found in Mar a lago is currently in the process of being challenged in court by the suspect.

And I remain pretty fond of the "no effect on DOJ" crap. It goes well with persistent and unfounded accusations of making fallacious arguments.

[Silent3]

109. When a crime is a crime of possession, possession of an illegal item is enough for arrest.

Possession of something that even looks a lot like an illegal item or substance, but, yes, might possibly be proven later, by lab tests or other closer examination, to not in fact be illegal, doesn't stop an arrest from happening.

If the cops enter my house, and they find a pile of drugs that were left there unbeknownst to me by someone else, I'm still arrested, even though it's not wildly unthinkable I didn't know this stuff was in my home. No long, slow, ponderous soul-searching examination concerning my particular involvement or state of mind when the drugs entered my home is done before the search warrant is sought, issued, acted upon, or before I'm arrested as a result.

You get arrested, and if you've got a defense that may or may not succeed later, you're told "tell it to the judge!" while the cuffs get slapped on.

If I'm not guilty, let the courts sort it out. That's the attitude of law enforcement toward the average Joe.

Clearly Trump is not being treated in this manner. Why does the DoJ nicely plead with Trump for months and months to return classified documents, and when that doesn't work, when they finally confiscate what Trump never should have had in the first place, why is Trump not arrested?

You would have us believe there's no favoritism here, no stratification of how the laws of the land are applied to some people, but not to others?

[Beastly Boy]

114. You may be interested in this:

Possession and Intent

In civil cases intent is rarely a part of possession. However, in criminal cases possession usually requires conscious possession. In other words, the person must be conscious of the fact that the item is illegal and that he or she possesses it. A person with possession of illegal drugs may avoid conviction if he or she believed the drugs were legal. Generally, to be guilty of criminal possession, a person must either know the item is illegal when it is received or must keep possession of the object after learning it is illegal.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/criminal+possession

Trump's is a criminal case. Trump claims (no matter how meritless his claim may be) that his possession of documents found in Mar a Lago is legal. This allows him to challenge the legality of the raid itself in court, which is what he is doing. Until the raid is deemed to be legal despite his claims to the contrary, Trump's arrest could have been challenged as illegal as well. The result would have been the same: FBI finds classified documents, and Trump walks. It would just take more time in the long run. And in the mean time Trump would have a chance to sue FBI for illegal arrest. The fact that he would eventually lose in court is immaterial to the delays it would have caused.

[Silent3]

115. "may avoid *conviction*"

Avoid conviction, not arrest.

[Beastly Boy]

117. His claim makes an arrest questionable.

Let's assume he gets arrested. He sues FBI for false arrest while he is on bail. This, as well as all the appeals to follow, drags on for months. And then, several months later, we are back to the point we are at right now. After he loses his false arrest case, he asks for special master.

Who wins?

[Silent3]

119. All that fraught concern over what happens if an arrest doesn't lead to a conviction...

...which doesn't enter into the equation for most people is what is putting people like Trump above the law.

[Beastly Boy]

121. The concern is there for good reason.

I understand that most people are unaware of the undesirable consequences that may result from actions they are calling for. Still, I get pissed when some of those people insist on faulting the dedicated professionals who work their asses off to avoid these consequences for not addressing their frustrations.

Their lack of awareness is not putting people like Trump above the law. They may believe it does, but that is a consequence of their lack of awareness of being unaware, not lack of proper and meticulously thought out actions by DOJ professionals in charge.

[Silent3]

125. Oh, I'm well aware of the possible blowback that isn't there for arresting Joe Shmoe...

...and failing to convict.

I just don't give a fuck.

Pay too much attention to that, and you create a situation that puts some people like Trump above the law.

[Beastly Boy]

126. That's the difference between you and Garland.

He swore an oath to give a fuck. Giving a fuck about the rule of law is part of his job description.

There is no such thing as paying too much attention to rule of law. It's just that most people have the luxury, depending on their mood, of not paying attention to it, and Garland doesn't. Paying attention does not create a situation that puts Trump above the law, it just that not paying attention creates an illusion of Trump being above the law in the minds of those people who choose not to.

[Silent3]

127. You're confusing avoiding political blowback with "rule of law"

I'm fully onboard will Garland caring about the rule of law.

DoJ policies that protect the reputation of the DoJ and save prosecutors from the embarrassment of going after a big target and missing is not "rule of law".

If you need ten times or a hundred times more evidence to feel confident about going after Trump than you need to feel confident going after the average citizen, then Trump can get away with a whole lot more law breaking than other people can get away with.

[Beastly Boy]

128. To assume that certain DOJ policies are not part of the rule of law is not only wrong but dangerous.

I am not aware of a single policy that exists exclusively for the protection of DOJ's reputation or for shielding prosecutors from embarrassment. I doubt such policies exist, but even if they do, they would do nothing to protect DOJ's reputation or save them from embarrassment. Only adhering to all the policies without distinction can protect the reputation of DOJ and save prosecutors from embarrassment. They are all part of what makes up the rule of law. Policies don't protect DOJ from political blowback or embarrassment. Just consider the perpetual shitstorm of political bowbacks Garland and DOJ find themselves in on a daily basis, especially recently.

Their only defense is to follow their policies without favor or distinction.To claim some policies make up the rule of law and others don't puts all of DOJ policies in danger of being applied arbitrarily and capriciously. This is an invitation to chaos and lawlessness.

[Silent3]

129. You don't know about the policy of not indicting a sitting President?

That doesn't ring a bell?

That's a policy, not a law. Congress didn't pass that. The DoJ, rather questionably, decided that internally. It doesn't protect anyone but a sitting President and keeps the DoJ from "looking political". How is that "without favor or distinction"?

How about not announcing anything about investigations of people running for office within 60 days of an election? Does anyone but someone running for office get that protection? Hasn't it been said pretty openly that this policy is meant to protect the reputation of the DoJ as well as the candidates? Will you twist that into "without favor or distinction", because, gosh, anyone can run for office or become a sitting President if they choose to?

That's like reasoning against gay marriage, that it was "equal" for everyone because no one, gay or straight, was allowed to marry someone of the same gender, and everyone was allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender.

That kind of "equal" doesn't work for me.

I've heard people who were former DoJ employees discuss how they judged whether or not to pursue a case based not just on evidence, but based on how the public would react, based on whether it was "worth it or not" to go after a prominent person with a charge that might seem too minor or too political or would look bad to lose against in court.

[Beastly Boy]

131. You may not realize it, but you are making my point.

Not indicting a sitting president is the policy that protects the institution of the Presidency, not DOJ. Nor does this policy protect a person who occupies that office at any given time.

Not making announcements about investigations of people running for office is a policy that protects people not running for office, not DOJ. And we have seen in 2016 how easily favor and distinction can make the violation of this policy detrimental to free and fair election.

Hell, most of DOJ's infrastructure runs on rules and policies, not laws. And most of these rules and policies are in place to make sure DOJ operates without favor or distinction. The examples you chose are no exception. They are the rule, if you pardon the pun.

If this rule of law is not to your liking, you are free to insist on your own rule of law. I am not here to change your mind. Way beyond my pay grade.

[Silent3]

132. You have a remarkable capacity to avoid the obvious and construct really weird...

...rationalizations for your fantasy of a noble DoJ.

Not indicting a sitting president is the policy that protects the institution of the Presidency, not DOJ.

By protecting the Presidency (which you clearly favor viewing as an abstraction), the individual human being of the President gets a lot of extra protection in that bargain that average citizens don't get. Justice delayed is justice denied, and skating for 4-8 years without accountability clearly is a big advantage, making you unequal before the law.

Possibly being held accountable, after 4-8 years, when you get to use that 4-8 years to appoint judges that'll do your bidding, in no small unequal advantage.

Then there's 4-8 years for memories to fade and for documents to be lost and/or destroyed. Put off an investigation or prosecution that long and there will be a definite, "Gosh, do you really want to dig all that up again? / It's time to look forward, not back!" effect.

As for "...not DoJ". Bullshit. Claim it all you like, but bullshit. Pay attention to what people who worked in DoJ during the Nixon administration had to say. Dealing with Nixon's and Agnew's corruption was a hot potato they clearly wanted to avoid for both political and career reasons, not just noble ideals about "rule of law"... or should I say "rule of internal policy"?

[treestar]

90. How do you know the standard is different?

You have no details on cases against average Joes. A lot of them may have been dismissed, even. Or they plead to lesser charges.

It's just not so easy and so either/or as presented.

[Silent3]

72. The whole system is fucked if it takes this long to dot every "i" and cross every "t"

As far as I'm concerned, Trump is MORE dangerous to the country than having a serial killer on the loose, and we wouldn't fuck around this long making sure the case against a serial killer was absolutely air-tight before arresting him and getting him off the street. And, if we needed an air-tight case, we'd have large teams working night and day to make it happen FAST.

I get the impression that the pace at DoJ is determined by monthly meetings and emails going back and forth that take a week to get a response.

Further, it's precisely that fear of "mak[ing] DOJ look foolish" that's a big part of the problem, and where people like Trump are NOT equal before the law, but far, far more privileged than people who the DoJ doesn't worry will be a source of embarrassment if they indict, but fail to convict.

Yes, Garland knows more about how this system works than any of us here on the sidelines. But he's also a creature of that system, and far too comfortable with its typical leisurely hey-don't-rush-yourself pace.

[Orrex]

74. Excellent response. (nt)

[newdayneeded]

84. Agreed!

[Emile]

100. +100000

[treestar]

89. +1

[hamsterjill]

76. I am quite skeptical as to Garland.

To me, he comes across as milk toast. He would have been better on the SC. He’s just not tough enough IN MY OPINION to tumble with assholes like Trump who don’t color inside the lines.

[tritsofme]

78. Your entire narrative is absolute bullshit.

Garland wasn't chosen because Obama was “under pressure” from Republicans, that is nonsense.

President Obama knew that Republicans would never confirm anyone he nominated, he chose Garland to embarrass and shame them, because many of those senators praised him and previously voted for him.

Obama was under no illusion that Garland would be confirmed, though he had few tools, he tried to make it as politically painful as possible.

When you base your argument from such a faulty premise, it’s not surprising it is so far removed from reality.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

94. +1

[betsuni]

113. +2

[Fix The Stupid]

116. Umm...you're two statements contradict each other:

"Garland wasn't chosen because Obama was “under pressure” from Republicans, that is nonsense. "

then the VERY NEXT SENTENCE:

"President Obama knew that Republicans would never confirm anyone he nominated,..."


That's 'pressure'...sorry.

[tritsofme]

118. It would be accurate to say Obama was under pressure from Republicans to not make any nomination

at all.

Not a single Republican was “pressuring” Obama to nominate someone like Garland. That is pure disinformation.

[Hekate]

80. So you want "hard left" judges and AGs? How about someone who knows domestic terrorism?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/merrick-garland-oklahoma-city-bombing/2021/02/19/a9e6adde-67f2-11eb-8468-21bc48f07fe5_story.html

How the Oklahoma City bombing case prepared Merrick Garland to take on domestic terrorism

The truck bomb leveled a section of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City, killing 168 and injuring hundreds more in one of the deadliest domestic terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. But as Merrick Garland huddled with the lead prosecutor on the case, he urged caution in presenting the massive amount of evidence from the wreckage.
“Do not bury the crime in the clutter,” he said.
Garland, then a top Justice Department official, was encouraging prosecutors to speed the trial along and jettison superfluous findings in their case against Timothy McVeigh, who was convicted of carrying out the 1995 attack and executed in 2001, said Joe Hartzler, the team’s lead attorney. Hartzler said he found the advice so compelling that he wrote the words on a sheet of paper and hung it on an office wall as a rallying cry for his team.

More than two decades later, Garland, 68, is preparing to lead the Justice Department as attorney general and facing a domestic terrorism threat that has metastasized, with white supremacists and conspiracy-minded anti-government types emboldened by their acknowledgment from former president Donald Trump.
Capitol attack will spur broad crackdown on domestic extremists
Those who worked with Garland on the Oklahoma City case — and the prosecution of another notorious domestic terrorist known as the Unabomber — say the experiences shaped him, and make him well-positioned to confront the current threat.

“This almost feels like a precursor. How much more experience could you possibly have in domestic terrorism?” said Donna Bucella, a former Justice Department official who, like Garland, was sent to Oklahoma City in the attack’s aftermath to help manage law enforcement’s response. “He’ll be very methodical. I think he’ll demand it’s being done the right way.”

[EX500rider]

98. I love Garland!

[BlueIdaho]

108. I'm done waiting for the imminent announcement of TFGs indictment.

I’m over the whole breathless handwringing by news media that “any time now” we will see Donny up on charges. Do me a favor and wake me up when he’s in handcuffs and standing before a judge. Until then we still have one legal system for us commoners and another for the rich and powerful.

[Emile]

120. My patience has ran out! It's time to arrest the SOB!