In case anyone wants to contact Merrick Garland about his lack of indictments here it is

[Maraya1969]

https://www.justice.gov/doj/webform/your-message-department-justice

Or just report the crimes since they are acting like they don't know of any.

https://www.justice.gov/actioncenter/report-crime

[onecaliberal]

1. But, but, but, he's working so hard.

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. Garland doesn't GAF what you or I think

Which is exactly how it should be when meting put Justice, otherwise we’d just have indictments decided by internet polls.

Or just report the crimes since they are acting like they don't know of any.

Oh brother…

[CivicGrief]

4. He apparently only cares what Maga think, or may think.

We all want the Garland cheerleaders to be correct, but it is hard to be patient when insurrectionists now run the House of Representatives. I guess it's kooky to be concerned, considering the history of accountability in government.

[Fiendish Thingy]

6. No a shred of evidence to support that statement

It’s funny, because we both want the same thing…

[CivicGrief]

7. Appearing political means offending republicans.

Read between the lines.

[Fiendish Thingy]

8. I looked between the lines, and saw nothing but blank space

Perfect for projecting one’s fantasies and biased assumptions onto.

I’ll stick with reality, thanks.

[CivicGrief]

11. Sounds more like sticking your head in the sand and wishful thinking.

An insurrection was incited and acted out in front of our eyes. That's the reality. Two years is plenty of time to sort that out. It's ridiculous.

[Fiendish Thingy]

31. Walk us through all the cases of seditous conspiracy

By a former president That you have prosecuted in less than two years.

[emulatorloo]

42. 3 years to finish Watergate investigation. Read some history books.

In addition, what Fiendish Thingy said. Seditious conspiracy makes Watergate look like a walk in the park.

[Emile]

49. That was an impeachment.

[Ocelot II]

60. No, there were multiple prosecutions arising from Watergate.

And Nixon was never impeached; articles of impeachment were issued by the House Judiciary Committee but didn't go to the full House because he resigned first. The Watergate scandal resulted in 69 government officials being charged and 48 being found guilty. The last of the defendants were tried in January of 1975, almost three years after the break-in. The last of the appeals, by Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and Mitchell, were exhausted in 1977.

[Emile]

66. and Nixon was never charged. . .

[Ocelot II]

67. He was pardoned before that could happen. And if he had been charged

he'd have been pardoned anyway.

[Emile]

69. Justice denied. . .

[Ocelot II]

71. Take it up with Gerry Ford. A lot of people were outraged when he did it

and later he realized that it cost him the 1976 election.

[Emile]

73. I'm old enough to remember.

That's why I doubt will see justice this time too. Taking way too long.

[ancianita]

184. Me, too.

One thing I remember is THAT DOJ was a lot different from THIS DOJ.

Not all things can be conflated or equated.

[Captain Zero]

82. So what are we waiting for ?

A Republican president to pardon him as soon as he's convicted??

[Ocelot II]

84. We need to make sure there isn't another GOP president during his lifetime.

[Emile]

110. Sure looks that way! History has a way of repeating itself.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

116. It looks like Biden is going to pardon Trump?

Interesting...

[Emile]

120. Get real, if Biden is reelected I sure as hell don't see him pardoning Trump.

You see that happening?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

123. You said history was repeating itself

What did you mean in a subthread about Ford pardoning Nixon?
You made the assertion that history was repeating itself. And Biden is the president now, so how did you not mean Biden was going to pardon Trump?
I don't see it happening, but I didn't post that history was repeating itself.

[Emile]

147. At the speed Garland is going it could be 2028 before we see justice on 45.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

148. Goalposts... MOVED!

[Emile]

151. .

🙄

[brooklynite]

20. Reality doesn't equate to "cheerleading"

Garland explained his process almost two years ago, and he’s followed that process methodically.

If the armchair prosecutors have concerns, maybe take it up with his boss?

[CivicGrief]

28. Methodically trying to find the best path to not indict trump.

That's my opinion. It's quite clear you have faith in the system. Good for you.

[emulatorloo]

35. Great opinion. Now where are the facts to back it up?

Try reading reputable online newspapers, there are lots of articles covering DOJ/Jack Smith’s actions as well as some interesting stuff about who is testifying to several active grand juries.

[Beastly Boy]

38. That's amusing, even for a mere opinion

Just curious, what makes your supposition so categorically certain to you?

[emulatorloo]

43. Over-confidence. See this DU thread:

Science has finally cracked the mystery of why so many people believe in conspiracy theories
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217593684

The article DU poster Behind the Aegis links to is well worth reading in full.

[Beastly Boy]

48. Oh my...

I wouldn't dare arguing anything of the sort in response to an individual post for fear of being immediately blocked.

[CivicGrief]

59. Don't you dare compare me to conspiracy theorists

for having doubts about the DOJ's handling of this. I resent it.

[Beastly Boy]

68. Dare I compare you to completely rational critical thinkers who express their doubts in pretty

doubt-free and incendiary terms?

[emulatorloo]

72. Dunno Civic, you have strong theories but no facts to back them up.

You don’t seem at all interested in providing supporting evidence for your Very Very Authoritative Statements.

You definitely assert (among other baseless claims):

- Garland only cares about MAGA
- Garland Methodically is trying to find the best path to not indict trump.

Neither of those things are supported by the facts

- that several Grand Juries are actively hearing testimony.

- Cases have gone through the courts to force witnesses to testify before the grand juries who were claiming “executive priveledge.”

- And that the DOJ and Jack Smith are actively pursuing new angles and collecting evidence to build cases.

Like I said, try reading reputable online newspapers and you’ll become aware of what’s going on.

[Cha]

87. Exactly! Well Done, emularorloo..

Thank You!

[AZSkiffyGeek]

112. You said that they are actively trying to find a reason NOT to indict

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me...

[mopinko]

26. i think he's quite rightly at least concerned about what the madmen w guns think.

he’s not worried about keeping his job, he’s worried about insurrection round II.
he’s prolly also fighting a rear guard action against the embedded magats.

he’s correct to be concerned and cautious. this will need to be more than airtight.

[Wuddles440]

14. But he obviously GAF

what the GQP media/propaganda machine thinks, because he somehow felt the need to move with lightning speed to appoint a special counsel to investigate potential "criminal actions" by a cooperating President Biden! Why not a special counsel now for Pence (aka Q-tip)? Slippery slope. Two years and counting yet only some foot soldiers have been held accountable for the insurrection. Absolutely no one responsible for the planning, organizing, and execution of the attempted coup has been charged! Even more galling was that the fake electors scheme was a no brainer and yet nothing. Sends the wrong message to anyone that still believes that no one is above the law and we have an impartial/functional justice system.

[CivicGrief]

18. Exactly. There would have been no SC for trump had he acted like he was supposed to act.

But, sure, let's make an example of Biden who is cooperating fully. WTF!

[Beastly Boy]

44. I am confused. Are you saying Garland would have been on the Supreme Court if he acted like he was

supposed to?

What exactly was Garland supposed to do to get on the Supreme Court?

[Blues Heron]

45. SC means special counsel in this case I think

[Beastly Boy]

62. Truly, ambiguity through abbreviation is a friend!

South Carolina, StarCraft, Supply Chain, Source Code, Security Council, Senior Citizen, Sinaloa Cartel... Space Cadet?

It so makes me want to spend the rest of the week trying to figure out which one is right!

[CivicGrief]

65. Well, if you read the post I replied to, it should have been clear.

Sorry if that is too much trouble.

[Beastly Boy]

81. It was indeed too much trouble, and I accept your apology.

The post you replied to was even more verbose, full of abbreviations and fact-free innuendo than yours. Guilty: I get easily turned off by narratives not grounded in reason.

[Fiendish Thingy]

33. Your math is off

Garland waited two months to appoint a Special Counsel for Biden’s documents case; we waited two days following the announcement of Trump’s 2024 candidacy to appoint a special counsel for Trump’s investigation.

[Wuddles440]

53. Traitor Don...

has been out office since January 20, 2021! Announcing his candidacy should never have influenced such a decision, and especially one regarding crimes that were not only on-going after he departed D.C., but also occurred while he was in office. However I do agree about the "math" because something really doesn't add up and the clock continues to run without any action taken.

[Bev54]

83. Seriously? Do you have any idea what is required to bring down a former

president and his cabal of lawyers and grifters, especially when they are all trying to claim privilege of some sorts or another and each one needs to be taken to court to confirm they do not have the privilege they think they do. These are winding their way through the courts and after each they are then marched over to the grand jury to testify. Do you realize that the DOJ wanted and needed to get the temperature of the courts for convicting seditious conspiracy, which they have now obtained with the Oath Keepers and now the more difficult cases with some Proud Boys. The problem is you only look at what the MSM is giving you, which is not much. Try expanding your research to really good sites that have the know behind them and can explain what is actually going on. Instead people like to stand on their soap boxes announcing nothing is happening, when it is going on right in front of their faces.

[electric_blue68]

152. I still believe Garland might indict drumphf...

... What good sites should I be extra checking out?

[Bev54]

166. Check out sites like Empty Wheel, Lawfare and Just Security for a few

They are not hyperbolic and usually do deep dives into the subjects. On Empty Wheel be sure to read the comments as well as most of the long term readers are lawyers or previous government officials, who actually know how things are done. They also have great connections.

[electric_blue68]

180. Ty. I've heard of emptywheel (seen snips here). I'll also check out the others. 👍

[Wuddles440]

161. My observations...

are not only based on MSM accounts, but 30 years of federal law enforcement both investigating and prosecuting criminal cases. The difficulty to prosecute some of these matters in a timely fashion is not as challenging as you believe.

[Bev54]

169. What is a timely manner on a case as expansive and complex as this one? It is currently under

2 years since Garland took over, many cases take far longer and are less complicated. Did you ever have a case that included 26 lawyers involved that all claimed client privilege or several government officials all claiming executive privilege that you had to go to court to deal with what questions invoked privilege and which did not? I doubt it.

[secondwind]

39. Thank you! This Garland bashing is getting out of hand.......

[ancianita]

183. Right??

[Joinfortmill]

3. We know nothing, as it should be.

[Ocelot II]

5. Why do you think public pressure should influence the actions of an Attorney General?

Any Attorney General? Bill Barr was certainly happy to dance to the tune of TFG and the MAGAts, but the Department of Justice is supposed to follow the law, not the complaints of dissatisfied denizens of the Internet who have no knowledge of the particulars of an investigation or an understanding of how the process works.

[Maraya1969]

12. What do you think is stopping him from acting? I think it is pressure from somewhere

[Ocelot II]

16. Why do you think he's not acting?

There is an enormous amount of work that goes into the preparation of any complex criminal case, and that work will not be done in public. It took more than two years to prosecute the Watergate defendants, and this is much bigger. For obvious reasons - the likelihood of witness tampering being a big one - this investigation is going to be held under especially tight wraps. Just because you don't see something happening doesn't mean it isn't happening.

[CivicGrief]

27. Well, what exactly is the timeline for a crime that happened on live TV?

[Beastly Boy]

46. It's nearly 1000 crimes.

And the vast majority of those that happened on live TV have been adjudicated. If you are genuinely curious, you can look uo each one of them and find out exactly what the timeline was.

[Ocelot II]

50. The underlying crime isn't what happened on live TV. The worst crimes (and they are many)

are those that led up to what happened on live TV. The perpetrators of the live-TV crimes have been and are in the process of being prosecuted, tried and sentenced. About 950 people have been charged in connection with the attack on the Capitol. 18 have been charged with seditious conspiracy, 284 charged with resisting or assaulting a police officer, 295 charged with obstructing an official proceeding; most of the rest involve trespassing or property damage. Other charges involving weapons are pending. Many more charges will follow, probably for years to come, as more people are identified and located. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/06/us/politics/jan-6-capitol-riots-prosecutions.html

But the crimes of the people behind the insurrection, up to and including TFG, did not take place on live TV, and for that reason will involve far more intensive and complex investigations. We already know from the 1/6 Committee hearings that witness tampering was attempted, and will surely continue if the investigation is conducted in public in any respect. And especially when you are investigating co-conspirators, of whom there are many in this case, you can't let any of them know anything about the status of the investigation. The crimes of TFG et al. were contrived even before the election, and there is certainly much more to this case than we know about or, at this point, should know about.

[inthewind21]

74. Specifically

What crime on live TV would you be referring to?

[secondwind]

41. Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Beastly Boy]

9. Or how'bout checking this first?

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases

An then, by all means, contact Garland about lack of indictments and report the crimes he doesn't know of.

[CivicGrief]

13. It won't mean a thing without indictments at the top.

Is this them starting at the bottom and working their way up, or is it just grabbing the low hanging fruit and ending it there?

[Beastly Boy]

30. Convictions on seditious conspiracy charges are low hanging fruit?

Convictions on attacking capitol police don't mean a thing?

By what conceivable standards does this make sense?

Besides, this is not what my link intended to advocate or contest. I just intended to provide a reference to the immense work already accomplished by DOJ, not pass judgement on the relative significance of each individual indictment. This was outside the scope of the OP, and it was outside the scope of my response to it.

[ancianita]

186. You need to Google your issues in the Google search box above.

Google lists a LOT of DU discussion and information about all this over the last 18 months.

[we can do it]

15. I'm sure your email will speed things up. Great idea.

[fightforfreedom]

17. Yawn.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

19. Another graduate of the Veruca Salt School of Law nt

[Fiendish Thingy]

36. ⬆️⬆️⬆️TODAY's BEST POST ON DU!⬆️⬆️⬆️

I’m stealing it!

[emulatorloo]

37. ...

[Ocelot II]

51. You win the Internet today!

[newdayneeded]

55. Please save this post so you can

repost in 2024, 2025, 2026, etc.

[inthewind21]

75. Awesome!

[Cha]

92. It is pretty Good! Boom

[ripcord]

21. I don't think he jumps when you tell him to

[MineralMan]

22. More of this? Really.

Yuck!

[CatWoman]

32. where would we be without the obligatory, weekly "fuck garland" post?

[emulatorloo]

40. It would be a lot more interesting forum. More discussion, a lot less fact-free hyperbolic "rage".

[Cha]

93. lol Happy?

[iemanja]

101. Where are the indictments?

I love the faith in the absence of any evidence that action is being taken to punish the plotters of the coup. You all are certainly happy with seemingly nothing being done. Meanwhile, Brazil has arrested thousands of people and fired key military and political leaders involved in the insurrection. Things can actually happen if you have a justice officials not afraid of upsetting the insurrectionists.

But you keep the faith. Who cares about actions when you believe.

[Emile]

23. Thanks

[Kablooie]

24. He's scared indicting trump would look partisan to Republicans.

Last edited Mon Jan 30, 2023, 01:14 PM - Edit history (1)

And looking partisan would make Republicans mad and divide the country.
So there won’t be any indictments of upper Republican officials.

That’s the overriding attitude of the DOJ

[CivicGrief]

29. That's it in a nutshell.

Garland as AG was a mistake, in my opinion.

[Beastly Boy]

34. Scared?

Define scared.

Being non-partisan is in his job description. Are you saying he doing his job as intended because he is scared?

Mmm-kay!

[Kablooie]

47. Essentially not upsetting to Republicans is a higher priority

Than upholding the rule of law without fear or favor.
That reads as being scared to me.

But looking partisan to Democrats by allowing Republicans to commit as many crimes as they want without consequences is not an issue.

[inthewind21]

76. Well

That's your opinion. And you know what they say about opinions. Now, you have ANY facts? Any at all?

[Kablooie]

79. DOJ facts are hidden away at the DOJ.

So of course I don’t know for sure.
I would be delighted to find that I was totally wrong and will be happy to eat a big dish of crow, But that’s what it feels like to me up to now.

[Beastly Boy]

96. The fact that Garland's job demands being non-partisan is not hidden.

It is in the public records. I know for sure because I looked it up.

Before you commit yourself to eating crow, consider doing the same.

[Kablooie]

162. Indicting Trump for crimes committed is not partisan.

It would only be called partisan by Republicans trying to make it political.
That is what, I believe, Garland is reluctant to incur.

[Beastly Boy]

170. You nailed it. At first.

Then you hit yourself on the thumb.

You gave a perfect reason why America's top prosecutor must remain non-partisan. Because crimes are non-partisan. There are Republicans who commit crimes and there are Democrats who commit crimes, but there is no such thing as a Republican crime and a Democratic crime.

Garland knew full well that there will be pressures on him from all sides of the political spectrum when he took the job. Remaining non-partisan in this hostile environment is to be commended, not second-guessed. If Garland were to cave under political pressure, the tell-tale signs for it would be partisanship, not non-partisanship.

You know, if it quacks like a duck, the default conclusion should be, it's a duck, not a sniveling coward.

[Beastly Boy]

94. There must be some reason for you to claim that

Garland's fear of republicans makes him non-partisan.

His job demands being non-partisan. That's an objective measure, and it is evident from his job description.

If Garland were to do his job regardless of his being fearful of Republicans, he would be non-partisan, as his job demands
If Garland were to do his job while being fearful of Democrats, he would be non-partisan, as his job demands
If Garland were to do his job while being fearful of polar bears, he would be non-partisan, as his job demands

No distinction in his conduct in either case.

What makes you think that it is his fear of Republicans and not his professional integrity that motivates Garland to be non-partisan?

[Emile]

52. Sure looks that way! I would

love to be wrong.

[Beastly Boy]

98. No it doesn't.

It's a huge stretch bordering on fantasy. It calls for ignoring facts and speculating on innuendo.

You are wrong. Feel free to start loving yourself.

[Emile]

99. Until Garland proves us wrong I will continue to be a skeptic.

[Beastly Boy]

103. Garland proved you wrong time and again, and that didn't dampen your skepticism one bit.

His accomplishments, backed by facts and evidence, have been covered on DU ad nauseum. You have to be blind or in denial to disregard his monumental achievements.

Seems like being a skeptic is very important to you.

[iemanja]

106. What evidence?

Still n indictment of Trump or other coup plotters at the highest levels. Amazing how happy you and others are no progress. But keep the faith. You sure as hell don't have evidence, and its disingenuous to claim you do.

Happy Fitzmas!

[Beastly Boy]

111. Seriously... I posted this at least a dozen of times:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases

Yet I keep seeing posts that insist on judging Garland on what he is working on rather than on the work he already completed. This has been going on for months. As soon as Garland achieves anything, it disappears from the narrative, its very existence ignored, and the narrative shifts to the undisclosed and therefore purely hypothetical aspects of his work. There is persistent refusal to give Garland credit for what he has accomplished, accompanied by an equally persistent demand to judge him by the most ridiculous measure conceivable: his work in progress. Ordinarily, accomplishments are measured on the things already accomplished, but in Garland's case, these things are summarily swept aside to make room for unfounded guesswork and wild conjecture.

It's as if free-form speculations hold more value than known facts.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

118. I wouldn't bother trying to explain anymore

If someone can't count and doesn't know what "nothing" means, I wouldn't expect them to be able to read a website.

[iemanja]

132. Non-sequitur

Everyone knows they are prosecuting lower-level offenders, none with extensive sentences. The conversation is about Trump in particular and the other plotters of the insurrection. As long as you don't want to see the coup plotters prosecuted, Garland is doing a bang-up job.

[Beastly Boy]

140. The only premise you advanced that relates to my post is in your header.

Naturally, I responded to it, and my response directly follows from your premise.

The rest of your post neither questions nor offers any additional evidence. Calling my refusal to take the bait and switch subjects a non-sequitur is pretty creative, but completely out of order.

If you wish to take another shot and question the existence of the evidence I provided, please feel free to do so. Otherwise, look up non-sequitur. I don't think it means what you think it means.

[iemanja]

145. Yes, NY and GA may even act

as a result of their grand juries. There is lots of evidence gathering, and as yet no indictment, two years and counting. You're happy with that. Good for you.

[Beastly Boy]

153. You realize that you are still not addressing the only point that I made in my post.

In response to you questioning the facts of Garland's accomplishments, I provided you with those facts. Do you still have any doubts of their existence? If you do, why are you avoiding the subject?

And now you are taking upon yourself to dictate to me with remarkable certainty what the causes of my happiness are... Have we met before?

[iemanja]

167. I don't consider them accomplishments

I don't see Grand Juries as evidence of an indictment of Trump. I need to see an indictment to know that an indictment will happen. Terribly illogical, I know, when I should just believe in Fitzmas. Nor am I dishing out award medals for Garland's doing part of his job, what you refer to as his "accomplishments." What I know is that you are content with the state of the investigation the extent you are angry that I and others are not.

[Beastly Boy]

173. His record of indictments and convictions does.

Just because Garland is not living up to your expectations is no reason to claim the non-existence of his factually undeniable, well documented accomplishments. They exist independent of your opinions, or mine, and opinions never overweigh facts.

[iemanja]

175. Non-sequitur, again

That has no bearing on an indictment of Trump, which is the frustration voiced by the OP.

[Beastly Boy]

178. Did you look up the definition of non-sequitur yet?

For your information, a non-sequitur requires a response to a proposition. Long story short, I never responded to your attempt to divert a discussion of Garland's record into a discussion of Trump. Not biting, thank you very much. I consistently stayed on topic which was and is Garland's factual and well documented record of accomplishments, despite your repeated attempts to divert it into something else.

My response was to your challenge questioning the existence of evidence of Garland's accomplishments, not to the OP. A response that included undeniable factual information. A response you have yet to acknowledge. I refused to address any other issues you raised, which, like it or not, preclude any of my subsequent responses from being categorized as non-sequitur.

[iemanja]

172. You didn't provide evidence of an indictment

You pointed to lower-level prosecutions. Then you wrote this:

Yet I keep seeing posts that insist on judging Garland on what he is working on rather than on the work he already completed.
The issue is an indictment of Trump. That is the question on hand. You want to herald Garland for prosecuting the Oath Keepers and DOJ's convening Grand juries. Okay. Give him a star. It's still not evidence of an indictment.


This has been going on for months.
Actually it's been years. More than two years.

As soon as Garland achieves anything, it disappears from the narrative, its very existence ignored, and the narrative shifts to the undisclosed and therefore purely hypothetical aspects of his work. There is persistent refusal to give Garland credit for what he has accomplished, accompanied by an equally persistent demand to judge him by the most ridiculous measure conceivable: his work in progress. Ordinarily, accomplishments are measured on the things already accomplished, but in Garland's case, these things are summarily swept aside to make room for unfounded guesswork and wild conjecture.

This has nothing to do with congratulation Garland on his prior accomplishments. It's about an indictment of Trump. Nothing you have said provides evidence of that. Nothing you've said relates to evidence at all. Your entire appeal is that we should recognize Garland's accomplishments. Whether true or not, that is irrelevant to the question at hand. The OP spoke of indictments, clearly meaning Trump and the upper-level coup plotters. Your adoration of Garland is not evidence that those indictments are imminent.

It's as if free-form speculations hold more value than known facts.

You haven't provided a single fact. Your entire paragraph is about speculation. Your admiration of Garland's "accomplishments" are presented as "fact" that the OP is wrong to suggest that she would like to see an indictment. The ONLY evidence of an indictment is an indictment, not years without one.

[Beastly Boy]

176. Not only did I provide evidence of nearly 1000 indictments,

I provided evidence of roughly 350 convictions. All of them are, unlike your speculations, well documented and easily verifiable facts.
Don't tell me you can't tell the difference between fact and speculation.

Just because the list does not include the one indictment you are looking for, it does not erase the record of other indictments or Garland's accomplishments.

So it's a bit too disingenuous to now raise the issue of indicting Trump as the only issue being discussed. The issue was Garland's record, and the issue of Trump being the only measure of Garland's accomplishments is ridiculous on its face.

[iemanja]

177. OF TRUMP and the upper-level coup plotters

You live in the realm of non-sequitur. It defies logic.

You clearly ignored all my points or didn't bother to read them. I won't repeat them. It obviously doesn't matter. Your admiration of Garland is all that matters to you. Have at it. I clearly underestimated this sort of thing in my reference to Garland's fan club.

[Beastly Boy]

179. I am absolutely ignoring your points, except one. I am not interested in exchanging opinions.

The one I responded to has to do with facts. It relates to your non-response to a fact. And the fact in question is the undeniable and well documented record of Garland's accomplishments. It is my choice whether to respond to any of your other points, or some of your other points or all of your points. I chose one, the one that denied the existence of a well known fact. By definition, you may not claim a non-sequitur on the points I didn't respond to. And you are not touching the only point I responded to with a ten foot pole. Still, you indiscriminately cry "non-sequitur" at every opportunity, which, naturally, makes me question your understanding of the term.

If there is anything you underestimated, it is that facts matter to me. This appears to be a bad thing in your system of values. Seems a bit odd, but who am I to insist that facts are real? Right?

[Autumn]

157. Meanwhile the people in congress who were a part of the insurrection are happy as pigs in shit.

I am convinced that they know that they are not in Garland's sight. Republicans have connections in the DOJ and if they were going to be indicted they would be acting a lot different, they would be warned by their fucking leaders. I don't want the suckers, I want the powerful people who helped them to be shitting their pants instead of having a great time on the tax payer dime.

[Emile]

25. Report that we saw 45 on live TV orchestrating the insurrection.

Surely he saw that too?

[Ocelot II]

57. The "orchestration" started long before that. It's the tip of the iceberg

and involved multiple co-conspirators - Eastman, Giuliani, and who knows how many members of Congress, and began even before the election. This isn't like an episode of Law and Order that can be wrapped up in an hour, including commercial breaks. The Watergate prosecutions took more than three years, and this is exponentially more complicated.

[Emile]

58. See even you know the truth too.

[Ocelot II]

61. "Even you"? What does that mean?

[Emile]

63. Means I agree with you.

[inthewind21]

77. Oh well hell

Then Garland should arrest Trump today, right this very minute! And when he does, and he doesn't have the solid evidence yet to back it up and Trump starts filing violations, and he will, you'll be ok with him walking permanently yes? Because after all, it's just the indicting/arresting you're worried about, not making any of it actually stick right?

[Emile]

80. I guess we saw two different things that day. I

saw the twice impeached president declare war against the United States of America. He told his little army of right wing idiots to march down to the Capital and fight like hell. People died that day!

[inthewind21]

85. He did

I saw it too. Speaking words publicly and being able to prove mastermind and direct involvement are two very different things. It was no secret Al Capone ordered and committed murder. Funny thing, they never got him for that. Did they? Why, because they couldn't prove it.

[Emile]

86. So basically our justice system is totally screwed up

when you can't prosecute what the whole world witnessed.

[inthewind21]

88. I saw

Kathy Griffin holding a severed Trump head on Twitter along with millions of others. Why hasn't she been prosecuted yet? Or Sarah Palin for those cross hairs, and Gabby Giffords was shot in the head shortly after for fucks sake and we all saw it on live TV! WHY ISN'T SARAH PALIN IN JAIL!!!!!!! Get it now?

[Emile]

91. Whataboutism. .

Red herring to distract.

[inthewind21]

95. I see

So you want what you want based on what you saw but not others. Got it!

[Emile]

97. I want justice.

[Beastly Boy]

100. Yet you don't want justice to take its due course.

You either get justice or you get your wish granted. You can't have both.

[Emile]

108. Amazing how quickly justice can move depending on who you are.

In this country if you are rich and republican, you are innocent until proven broke. Thank God they didn't take 2+ years to arrest and charge 5 cops.

[Beastly Boy]

113. You are not proposing to fight injustice by equal and opposite injustice, are you?

[Emile]

115. Nope not one bit! Arrest and charge the sob

for orchestrating an insurrection on LIVE TV!

[Generic Brad]

189. That only ensures he gets away with it

Half the country watches different news than you apparently do. They don’t think an insurrection even occurred. If you want a jury to convict, you need overwhelming evidence. We saw it with our own eyes, but a large chunk of the country think something else entirely happened that day.

[Emile]

190. I guess everyone is entitled to an opinion, but

he is and will continue to get away with breaking laws. I find it hard to believe a large chunk of the country thinks he didn't break any laws.

[Chakaconcarne]

54. I will, but please post recommendations for how he should conduct the investigation differently.

[iemanja]

105. Follow Brazil's lead

and carry out justice without worrying about upsetting the insurrectionist and coup plotters. That would be a start.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

127. I forget, when did Brazil arrest Bolsonaro?

Or request his extradition?
It sure sucks that Biden didn't arrest all the Jan. 6 insurrectionists on Jan. 6.

[iemanja]

134. They've arrested far more than the US has to this date

and it's a month out. But then you knew that. Lula just fired the head of the military, who stood in the way of arrests.
Two years out, and you are perfectly happy without an indictment, despite the mountains of evidence against him. Yet you complain about Bolsonaro, for whom that evidence hasn't been uncovered.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

150. You know the history of people arrested in Brazil?

I certainly hope Lula isn't cut from the same cloth, but swift Brazilian justice isn't the flex you think it is.

[iemanja]

165. Over 1500

I read the newspaper.

[BannonsLiver]

56. I had zero expectations when Garland got the job.

And those expectations have been met.

[JanMichael]

78. Keep the bar low and never fail.

It's not that I am lazy I just don't care.

[bigtree]

64. why do every one of these posts whinging about Garland lack ANY info about the actual investigation

...every one of them.

DOJ will keep advancing their investigations, with absolutely zero support from these folks. This fantasy advocacy is not only delusional, it's just more bashing of the people working to hold Trump et al accountable.

One side complaining that Garland is being too partisan, the other complaining that he's doing nothing. Anyone with any sense can see that both positions are just noise, without any effect on anything except fueling cynicism and apathy.

Lol at the suggestion to call DOJ with this nonsense.

[onenote]

70. Right, because this would be so very helpful

Not.

People should stop with the childishness.

[tritsofme]

89. Wow, this is dumb.

[nini]

90. This is embarassing

Honestly, I don't get this stuff on a site where folks claim to understand the issues of the day.

There's NO way you can know what is going on in the DOJ since their work covers so many confidential and still lingering security risks.

We all wish it would happen and that pus bag gets his due justice, but we have no idea what is going on in all the deep branches of this situation.

[iemanja]

102. Keep telling yourself that

Over two years and counting with no indictments. But you keep the faith. What else have you got?

[nini]

109. I don't buy in the legal turnarounds seen on Law & Order..

It's a bit bigger than all that.

[iemanja]

136. It works in Brazil

but then they aren't tippy toeing around the chief insurrectionists for political reasons. It's nice that you are so satisfied with no indictments at the top levels well over two years past the date. Imagine wanting justice within the same decade as the crime, so unreasonable.

[Elessar Zappa]

171. Brazil's legal system sucks.

The US has a far better judicial system than Brazil. Criminal impunity reigns in Brazil with few criminals getting indicted and even fewer convicted. It’s similar to Mexico in that regard. So no, we shouldn’t look to Brazil for how to obtain justice.

[iemanja]

174. Well, I actually prefer that perpetrators be arrested and prosecuted

Brazil is now and has been since its founding a highly legalistic society. In the colonial period, the elite were all educated at Coimbra law school in Portugal. The Empire was structured around legal codes and constitutional law. In a bizarrely sick twist, even during the military dictatorship, the tortures were documented in court records, and the release of those court records remains the highest selling book in Brazilian history.

Brazil's prisons suck. (As do ours, but theirs are worse). Their police are terribly violent, as are ours.
I don't agree with your ethnocentric views that our racist justice system is superior. They abolished the death penalty in 1898. We can't say the same. I guess I'd need to know more other than "look 3rd world" to agree with your assessment that Brazil's judicial system "sucks."

You prefer delayed justice. I don't. I don't agree with giving deference to the insurrectionists because they happen to be of the opposing party. I don't agree with a DOJ that places such a high priority on avoiding political conflict. I think there is something useful about actually arresting insurrectionists on the day and then firing the head of the armed forces who stood in the way of those arrests. I don't see anything laudable about delayed, or perhaps what will turn out to be non-existent, prosecutions of upper-level coup plotters. Justice that never happens is not justice at all.

[emulatorloo]

114. Pay attention. Read reputable newspapers. There's multiple active grand juries.

There are multiple witnesses from White House Council office whom courts just released from Trump’s false “executive privilege” claims so they could finally testify freely about Trump’s behavior during the run-up to January 6th. There have been stories about Jack Smith pushing into other areas of Trump corruption.

You keep claiming nothing is happening. That is simple not true.

[iemanja]

135. and there is a special prosecutor

because Garland lacked the courage to issue an indictment, after announcing that politics and status wouldn't play a role. Your Jack Smith "stories" only exist because Garland punted in the first place.

[emulatorloo]

137. Another very authoritative "opinion" with no factual basis.

Catch you later. Have a good one!

[iemanja]

146. No factual basis

Perhaps you should read some online newspapers?

[iemanja]

104. The Garland fan club is out in force

Oh so happy with absolutely nothing being done, over two years and counting.

[emulatorloo]

117. There is plenty being done, you just apparently refuse to read online newspapers.

That’s why you think nothing is happening.

[iemanja]

143. Yes, the proud boys and Oath Keepers are being prosecuted

So people have emphasized many times in this thread, as though that is remotely relevant to the discussion about not seeing an indictment of Trump or the other upper-level plotters. BTW, which online newspaper carried the story about Trump's indictment? I must be incredibly stupid for missing that. I'm so glad you're thrilled with the progress so far. I guess not everyone wants to see the coup plotters punished.

[bigtree]

119. supporting the Democratic administration's Justice Dept. well into their investigation

...should be the standard... for Democrats supporting this administration.

But it's become the fashion for some to act as if this Democratic administration is less concerned with justice then the average poster; the former with active grand juries, subpoenas, and if you accept the Jan.6 committee suggestions of a link between the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers and the Trump WH, actual cases in court right now with actual convictions of those same perps; the latter with a handful of fact-free angst.

[Emile]

121. Is the DOJ of a Democratic administration non partisan?

[iemanja]

142. Again the lower level prosecutions

Which is entirely irrelevant to the criticism about Garland. No one disputes that there are prosecutors of some of those who were involved that day. This is about Trump and the plotters of the coup.

It's not the "fashion." Obviously far more posters are happy to make any and every excuse for Garland under the pretense of "supporting Democrats." This isn't about supporting Democrats. It's about Garland's worrying about the political sensibilities of the party of insurrection. The entire reason that Smith is in the job is because Garland pretended that a special prosecutor would free him of charges of acting politically. Of course, it hasn't. Those cries only grew. So the excuse for Garland not acting himself at the time has proven hollow.

People aren't automatically superb at their jobs just because a Democrat appointed them. That notion is absurd. I'll believe Garland plans to prosecute Trump if and when I see an indictment. I don't rely on faith.

[bigtree]

149. what evidence other than angst do you have for disbelieving this administration's Justice dept.?

...you haven't posted any.

The DOJ investigation has moved from the grand jury to the courts in the cases of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, two groups of individuals the Jan. 6 committee took pains to highlight as the likely link to the Trump WH. It's a canard to point to trespassers convicted of trespassing and claim those are the end-all of the DOJ prosecutions. It's sophistry, at best.

You, like most people who take swipes at Garland for not indicting Trump yet, don't account for the actual state of the investigation as we know it.

'As we know it,' because the details and status of the investigation is known only to the DOJ, and can only be gleaned from actual court activity, like the Proud Boys and Oath keepers court appearances and convictions.

We also know of a flurry of subpoenas at the end of last year directed at dozens of WH principals at the direction of the new Special Prosecutor.

That's what we know as FACT. DOJ is well into their investigation of the Trump WH's involvement in Jan. 6. That's incontrovertible. It's documented and evident.

What's NOT evident is the speculation and criticism that Garland or the DOJ is flat-footed or errant in their effort. You can't credibly show that by just pointing to the delay in indictments of WH principals. You can't credibly show that by pointing to the misdemeanors issued most of the trespassers, or by ignoring the harsher sentences given to the violent rioters.

Outside of this ridiculous expectation that DOJ move faster than the courts, supposedly unfettered by pesky things like defense prerogatives and challenges, there's nothing you or anyone else has shown that is proof of this charge that Garland is inept or feckless.

So what is the basis for attacking this administration? I can give you concrete reasons to discount the claims that Garland has feet of clay. You don't provide anything more than this angst. I'm not buying it.

[iemanja]

164. Evidence for disbelieving? Do you hear yourself?

You are operating on "belief," which is by nature something that operates in the realm of faith rather than evidence. Your claim for your belief is that we don't know what's going on--the absence of information is not fact. You claim it fact because you believe it. You are entirely within your rights to believe in any article of faith you like, whether a faith in Garland or a faith in anything else. I need evidence to share that belief in Garland because I have not yet seen an indictment. When I see an indictment, then I will believe a prosecution is likely. I don't consider that at all unreasonable. In fact, it's quite rational. It doesn't depend on reading tea leaves or "believing" in the infallibility of an official because he was appointed by a Democrat.

That lower-level prosecutions are taking place is not evidence of an indictment against Trump. You are again within your rights to be ecstatic that some characters are getting 6-month to 7-year sentences for their involvement that day. What that is not, however, is evidence that a prosecution of the coup plotters at the top will be prosecuted. Nor are subpoenas of former administration officials. I don't need evidence to "disbelieve." Rather, I require evidence of an indictment to believe that an indictment will happen exactly because I don't consider faith to be enough. That they are what you call "far into" the investigation is all the more reason for an indictment, not less--yet we still don't have one. (There is a certain contradiction between your assertion that we don't know what's going on at DOJ and your claim that they are "far into" an investigation. It can't be both.) We may well see an indictment in the future, but I have every right to be frustrated that it hasn't yet occurred and that Garland already refused to prosecute Trump based on political factors, which he essentially admitted in making his announcement for a Special Prosecutor by insisting Smith would maintain the avoidance of an appearance of a political motivation. That has been far from the case, yet it shows how sensitive Garland is to that assertion.

Additionally, I think it far less likely now that we'll see an indictment of Trump for the documents case because of the discoveries of documents at Pence and Biden properties.

I maintain that I have a right to my opinion based on the evidence I see. It upsets you that everyone doesn't share your belief in something Garland has yet to do to the extent that you demand I provide evidence for "disbelieving." It doesn't work that way.

[Emile]

188. +1000 Well said!

[Emile]

158. Is Merrick Garland a Republican or a Democrat? I never seen his name on any ballot

when I voted. I know he is regarded as a moderate and is also respected by democrats and republicans in Washington.

[Meowmee]

107. ...

according to those who are so sure there will be any result some say we need to contact him if we complain but some also say he doesn’t gaf what we think.

Most of the people there that day were allowed to leave and go home after committing crimes and will also never face any consequences. And the ones who were charged, convicted etc., most had very meager accountability. So the message sent is it is ok to participate in an insurrection whatever level of it you are at because there will be no real accountability.

Those are the sad and very disturbing truths. This is where we are at. La la land in the twilight zone. Meanwhile insurrectionist inciters and fascist crooks are running the house. But don’t worry, all is ok because a dh sc is going to make sure that Biden is held accountable for no crime. And hb lt will be investigated by doj to the ends of time.

[bigtree]

122. that's not true about those charged and convicted

...many are serving substantial sentences.

Not to mention the CONVICTIONS of several perps on the rarely successful charges of SEDITION, with others in the dock as we speak; those perps who the Jan. 6 committee suggested were linked to the Trump WH through Stone and others.

It's really remarkable how each and every one of these swipes at Garland come with zero accounting of where the prosecutions and investigations stand today.

[Meowmee]

124. It is true

Very few have had any real accountability.

[emulatorloo]

128. no it is not true. I just linked you to an article in my post below.

[Meowmee]

130. A very few people were charged with sedition

Most were not charged with anything and were allowed to leave and go home. The truth.

[bigtree]

138. that's disinfo. Only a quarter of the sentences had been adjudicated as of the beginning of Jan.

More than 840 people have been arrested for storming the U.S. Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021, with charges ranging from obstruction of an official proceeding to assault. But 17 months after the attempted insurrection, a significant number of rioters are still awaiting their sentencing.

Only around a quarter of those arrested—185 individuals—have received criminal sentences, while the rest are waiting for their trials or haven’t yet reached plea agreements. According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, 80 defendants were sentenced to periods of incarceration, with longer prison terms for those who engaged in violence or threats. So far, the median prison sentence for the Jan. 6 rioters is 45 days. An additional 57 rioters have been sentenced to periods of home detention, while most sentences have included fines, community service and probation for low-level offenses like illegally parading or demonstrating in the Capitol, which is a misdemeanor.

Hundreds of additional cases are expected to be adjudicated in the coming months, with a number of sentencing hearings already on the calendar this fall.

https://time.com/6133336/jan-6-capitol-riot-arrests-sentences/


...most people realize that the convictions that lead to Trump won't be the bulk of the rabble that followed the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers and Trump to the Capitol. It's meaningless to this carping at Garland for not indicting yet that most trespassers got just that charge of trespassing, and that the violent rioters got prison. The rest of the cabal is still in the process of investigation and conviction.

[Meowmee]

156. As I said and no disnfo

There were over 2000 probably more like 3000 people who entered the capital building illegally. Only 975 have been charged, 475 of pled guilty most to very lenient charges of parading and such. No one who didn’t enter was charged. Most were allowed to leave the building and go home and have never been found much less charged with anything- here is a case study.

https://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article271167087.html

A federal judge sentenced a Charleston County man Friday to serve 21 days in jail for his involvement in the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol riot. Chadwick Clifton, 48, must also serve 90 days home detention, three years’ probation and pay $1,000 in fines, Judge Beryl Howell decided. Clifton, who runs a Charleston-area construction company, will serve his jail sentenced in two stretches — one of 14 days and one of seven days, said his attorney Nathan Williams, of Charleston.

Clifton was charged with misdemeanor of “parading, demonstrating or picketing” in the Capitol, after he joined the rioters knowing he did not have permission to be inside the federal building where Congress was set to certify the 2020 election results, charges said. Clifton had no criminal history, was supporting his family and is engaged his children’s lives, Williams said in a memo to the judge. He could have received a maximum of six months in prison and a $5,000 fine.

* he was allowed to plea to the lowest of charges and got off with a slap on the wrist.

Very few charged with sedition or with what they actually were doing which was participating in an insurrection to try to overthrow the new gov and to stop a peaceful transfer of power.

[bigtree]

159. what do you suggest for trespassers?

...this is hilarious.

You fail to even acknowledge the people who got jail time, trying to represent this one case (or the charging and convictions of the rabble) as the totality of the DOJ prosecutions. What a joke.

More importantly, you completely ignore the Proud Boys and Oath keepers who are in court RIGHT NOW, several already convicted, their crimes ostensibly leading to the Trump WH. In court right now.

You've presented this absolutely false view of the DOJ prosecution effort, and you can't even get the state of convictions and sentencing right, much less put them in a credible context. It's just a shitshow of Garland bashing without a clue about what's actually occurring.

[Meowmee]

160. People who got severe sentences or charges

Are NOT the majority. You are failing to acknowledge that. This one got 21 days 😹 and 90 days house confinement, $1000 fine and probation. The maximum for this lowest charge he pled guilty to was 6 months in prison, and $5000 I believe.

And that is what this country is calling participating in an insurrection now- parading and “trespassing” in your words. But that is not actually what they were doing is it?

Meanwhile people are rotting away in jail because they had a little bit of pot.

[bigtree]

163. so what?

..what are you questioning here? Are they guilty of more? Are their juries wrong?

WTF do they have to do with DOJ's resolve or effectiveness? Trespassers are prosecuted for trespassing, violent rioters are prosecuted for violently rioting, seditionists (those who can be prosecuted successfully on this rarely prosecutable charge) are being convicted of sedition.

The whinging about this is absurd. It should be applauded that almost 900 rioters were found and prosecuted, but you do you.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

168. Apparently they want Brazilian justice

Without knowing what that entailed until (hopefully) recently.

[Meowmee]

181. So what?

Ok you are obviously fine with how things are going. I and many other people are not ok with it. Nothing more to discuss here….nothing that I said was misinformation.

[Meowmee]

182. I think I replied to this already but let me say again

I suggest more than 21 days and house confinement etc. more than a slap on the wrist

For “ trespassers” who were willingly part of an insurrection which was and still is trying to overthrow our government

[emulatorloo]

125. Your math is off. More than 950 people are charged with federal crimes.

I expect there a big push at the DOJ to “flip” the recently convicted Proud Boys/Oath Keepers to give evidence on the bigger fish. That’s how criminal prosecutions work.

There’s a good summary here:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/1/6/january-6-capitol-riot-charges-convictions-trials-two-years-on

January 6 Capitol riot: Charges, convictions, trials two years on
More than 950 people are charged with federal crimes, some already convicted of serious charge of sedition for trying to overthrow the government.

By Al Jazeera Staff
Published On 6 Jan 2023

[Meowmee]

126. My math is fine

Very few have had any real accountability which is in line with the crime. No one at the top has been charged even. Most were allowed to leave and were never charged with anything there were WAY more than 900 people there.

[emulatorloo]

129. Did you read the article? It is kinda long.

Bye for now.

[Meowmee]

131. I have read a lot on this and watched it

I know what has happened.

[ancianita]

187. Did you watch the Jan 6 hearings?

[mcar]

133. When did the weekly DU Garland bashing move to Monday?

I thought it was scheduled for Sundays.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

139. NFL Championships preempt them?

It was surprisingly quiet yesterday, wasn't it?

[mcar]

141. That must be it

[tritsofme]

154. Whiners gotta whine.

[ancianita]

185. Have you taken your own advice? Please get back to us after you've spoken with

him, or anyone, in the largest law firm on planet Earth.