Thu Nov 17, 2022, 07:47 AM
infullview (884 posts)
Garland will not indict Trump, and here's why...
If they indict him, he will not be a viable candidate in 2024. If they leave him as is, then he splits the republican party and DeSantis doesn't have a chance of winning. If the republicans take Trump out of the mix, then DeSantis becomes a strong contender and possibly unites the party and wins in 2024.
Just a theory, but plausible. Personally, I think they should lock Trump up and throw away the key and then the Dem's should crow about being the law and order party. Unfortunately, the red part of this country isn't all that bright and would probably be corralled by Fox news into voting against their best interests as usual.
|
29 replies, 2023 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
infullview | Nov 17 | OP |
hlthe2b | Nov 17 | #1 | |
3Hotdogs | Nov 17 | #16 | |
malaise | Nov 17 | #2 | |
JohnSJ | Nov 17 | #3 | |
bucolic_frolic | Nov 17 | #4 | |
MuseRider | Nov 17 | #5 | |
newdayneeded | Nov 17 | #6 | |
Demsrule86 | Nov 17 | #10 | |
Emile | Nov 17 | #22 | |
48656c6c6f20 | Nov 17 | #7 | |
Beastly Boy | Nov 17 | #8 | |
Demsrule86 | Nov 17 | #9 | |
Tetrachloride | Nov 17 | #11 | |
msfiddlestix | Nov 17 | #13 | |
gab13by13 | Nov 17 | #12 | |
Goodheart | Nov 17 | #14 | |
marble falls | Nov 17 | #15 | |
gab13by13 | Nov 17 | #17 | |
3Hotdogs | Nov 17 | #19 | |
Earth-shine | Nov 17 | #24 | |
fightforfreedom | Nov 17 | #18 | |
infullview | Nov 17 | #20 | |
Genki Hikari | Nov 17 | #21 | |
Zambero | Nov 17 | #23 | |
LuckyCharms | Nov 17 | #25 | |
Fiendish Thingy | Nov 17 | #26 | |
Tommy Carcetti | Nov 17 | #27 | |
treestar | Nov 17 | #28 | |
jcgoldie | Nov 17 | #29 |
Response to infullview (Original post)
Thu Nov 17, 2022, 07:50 AM
hlthe2b (95,589 posts)
1. There is absolutely NOTHING in Garland's history and record to show such partisan motives
Response to hlthe2b (Reply #1)
Thu Nov 17, 2022, 08:35 AM
3Hotdogs (9,774 posts)
16. Either way, we win. Who doesn't want to see Trump in orange? But
a loose Gropenfuhrer, ruining the Republican Party: SWEET !
|
Response to infullview (Original post)
Thu Nov 17, 2022, 07:52 AM
malaise (252,937 posts)
2. This post won't wear well
Take that to the bank
![]() |
Response to infullview (Original post)
Thu Nov 17, 2022, 07:53 AM
JohnSJ (86,977 posts)
3. If there is evidence, which there is, and witnesses, which there are, for multiple crimes, if the AG
refuses to indict, then he is not doing his job, and would need to be removed
There is nothing to indicate that is the case as of yet |
Response to infullview (Original post)
Thu Nov 17, 2022, 07:54 AM
bucolic_frolic (35,405 posts)
4. Any facts?
Response to infullview (Original post)
Thu Nov 17, 2022, 07:56 AM
MuseRider (33,111 posts)
5. Nope.
That is not how this is supposed to work and no matter what you or anyone things of Garland there is no reason to think he would do this.
|
Response to infullview (Original post)
Thu Nov 17, 2022, 07:58 AM
newdayneeded (1,104 posts)
6. I agree he won't indict trump,
but it would never be for partisan reasons. It's simply because of the risk of civil outbreak with MAGA running around with AR15s. I hope I'm wrong, but I think it'll never happen.
|
Response to newdayneeded (Reply #6)
Thu Nov 17, 2022, 08:04 AM
Demsrule86 (65,368 posts)
10. No, not true...Garland isn't scared of the rightwing scum...he will base his decision on the
evidence.
|
Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #10)
Thu Nov 17, 2022, 08:48 AM
Emile (10,522 posts)
22. Evidence like top secret documents?
Response to infullview (Original post)
Thu Nov 17, 2022, 07:59 AM
48656c6c6f20 (7,638 posts)
7. Garland moves slow, but
I've seen nothing in his work or character that says he would base his decision off of pure politics. Feels like a bomb tossing post.
|
Response to infullview (Original post)
Thu Nov 17, 2022, 08:00 AM
Beastly Boy (5,411 posts)
8. I see no reason why Garland is going to start playing politics all of a sudden.
He will go wherever the facts lead him, as he has done so far. He is no Bill Barr.
|
Response to infullview (Original post)
Thu Nov 17, 2022, 08:01 AM
Demsrule86 (65,368 posts)
9. Garland is not political and will decide to convict based on evidence.
Response to infullview (Original post)
Thu Nov 17, 2022, 08:11 AM
Tetrachloride (5,083 posts)
11. The primary situation is military. Those nuclear documents
are the lead. Regardless of any other issue, the military / intelligence community is coming for Trump.
|
Response to Tetrachloride (Reply #11)
Thu Nov 17, 2022, 08:31 AM
msfiddlestix (6,158 posts)
13. Interesting theory
I grew up in the military, but it seems to have radically changed since the 50's and 60's it seems.
. |
Response to infullview (Original post)
Thu Nov 17, 2022, 08:23 AM
gab13by13 (14,748 posts)
12. I am as tough on Garland as anyone,
but one thing for sure, Garland is no Bill Barr, there isn't a partisan bone in his body.
|
Response to infullview (Original post)
Thu Nov 17, 2022, 08:32 AM
Goodheart (4,527 posts)
14. Er, no.
Garland might not indict trump, but that won't be for the reasons you state. Garland seems quite apolitical to me.
|
Response to infullview (Original post)
Thu Nov 17, 2022, 08:32 AM
marble falls (47,684 posts)
15. You're over thinking this stuff. It's not 3D chess, it's a criminal prosecution. Indicting him ...
... is the easy part.
|
Response to infullview (Original post)
Thu Nov 17, 2022, 08:35 AM
gab13by13 (14,748 posts)
17. Something else,
I don't even know if Garland is a Democrat or a Republican, if I had to guess, I would guess he is a Republican.
|
Response to gab13by13 (Reply #17)
Thu Nov 17, 2022, 08:39 AM
3Hotdogs (9,774 posts)
19. If I recall, he was nominated to the Supreme Court by Obama because he was a centrist Republican.
Obama figured he could get Garland past the Repukes in the senate.
|
Response to 3Hotdogs (Reply #19)
Thu Nov 17, 2022, 09:28 AM
Earth-shine (2,298 posts)
24. Garland was recommended to Obama by Orrin Hatch.
In early 2016, after Justice Antonin Scalia's passing, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) suggested then-President Barack Obama nominate Judge Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court. The Democratic president took the advice and sent Garland -- to borrow McConnell's phrasing, a "qualified, experienced, and mainstream nominee" -- to the Senate for consideration.
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-acts-if-its-completely-forgotten-merrick-garlands-nomination-msna1147411 |
Response to infullview (Original post)
Thu Nov 17, 2022, 08:37 AM
fightforfreedom (4,215 posts)
18. No. Garland does not work that way.
Response to infullview (Original post)
Thu Nov 17, 2022, 08:39 AM
infullview (884 posts)
20. And I hope to god the majority of you that Garland will act is true
as I said this is just a theory - I hope I wrong, but we are living in unsteady times right now. A split republican party would certainly be a good thing heading into the next election cycle.
|
Response to infullview (Original post)
Thu Nov 17, 2022, 08:44 AM
Genki Hikari (1,766 posts)
21. None of this has anything to do with why Garland can't indict anyone
He can't indict anyone--not a mafioso or a serial killer or even that local gangbanger caught selling drugs by the DEA.
Only grand juries can indict for federal crimes. Maybe if people understood that, they'd stop expecting the impossible of someone like Garland. |
Response to infullview (Original post)
Thu Nov 17, 2022, 09:08 AM
Zambero (8,132 posts)
23. If Trump is somehow not indicted, this will not be the reason
Say what you wish about Garland, but he has a history of being far more judicious than partisan.
|
Response to infullview (Original post)
Thu Nov 17, 2022, 09:36 AM
LuckyCharms (14,102 posts)
25. Consider this:
If Garland does not indict, he will have to explain his reasoning for not doing so.
With so much evidence right in front of the world's nose, what is he possibly going to say to support his lack of indictment? How will he explain that tfg is above the law without telling the entire world not to believe their lying eyes? My opinion: He will follow the law. Period. Politics will not be a consideration. |
Response to infullview (Original post)
Thu Nov 17, 2022, 10:20 AM
Fiendish Thingy (11,636 posts)
26. You're right Garland won't indict him...
But a grand jury will.
Garland’s team seek indictments from the GJ, and once the evidence is available, the GJ will grant the request. Your political theory on withholding indictments is not supported by the facts. |
Response to infullview (Original post)
Thu Nov 17, 2022, 10:21 AM
Tommy Carcetti (41,817 posts)
27. Whatever he does, Garland's not going to play politics.
He's not Bill Barr or any other of Trump's toadies.
|
Response to infullview (Original post)
Thu Nov 17, 2022, 10:25 AM
treestar (80,853 posts)
28. Not sure he would not be a viable candidate
MAGATs will not care and will say it is persecution.
|
Response to infullview (Original post)
Thu Nov 17, 2022, 10:26 AM
jcgoldie (10,056 posts)
29. I do not believe politics motivates Garland
If it did he would have indicted him prior to the midterms.
|