A challenge for Garland critics.
...tell us how YOU get to a Trump conviction on... anything.
More to the point, what evidence do you believe Garland has right now that he can take to court today and convict Trump? Not just generalities. Tell us what evidence, where it's to be found, and how it measures up against the probable defenses offered in court by perps.
If that seems impossible from where you sit, you might want to consider the challenges Garland's DOJ faces in building solid court cases with strong chances of conviction. Nothing reported is a slam dunk for a jury without an overwhelming amount of evidence against Trump. That's not going to be achieved by just reading articles from the NYT or The Nation to the jury.
I go hard at this because I haven't yet seen the state of DOJ's evidence, or measured any of that against the defenses that will be offered in court. I can certainly surmise that Trump and his cronies are guilty as hell. But, I can't tell from where I sit if DOJ prosecutors have all they need to overcome all of the obstacles that trials can present. It's just not possible.
What I can discern is there is an ongoing, if not recently ramped-up investigation and prosecution of the Trump WH, for Jan. 6, Mar-a-lago, and other criminal activity. NOTHING is out there to evidence that it has flagged or ambivalent in its efforts. Absolutely nothing. The evidence is to the opposite, considering the sedition convictions in the past weeks of individuals suggested to be linked to the Trump WH.
If anyone knows a better path to prosecuting these crimes, other than presenting news reports as actual evidence ultimately supportable in court on just the words printed, they should tell us and we can debate it with all due clairvoyance.
= new reply since forum marked as read
...down below. 
...wore me right out.
Feelings were frayed, and there were more than a few misunderstandings (my own included), but I think it was good, as an exercise.
I know we're all interested in the same things. We just have different views about how were proceeding. That's fine. None of us control the system, and informed dissent against our imperfect process of justice can be very productive.
I don't think we should necessarily feel alienated from each other when we disagree. Nor do I think it's necessary that we agree all of the time, or that our discussions read like a tea party. We're united in looking after each other through our activism and our politics, and that's the bond that keeps me coming here.
Giving this a rest.
I'm with you in spirit.
Anyone here can and does point out single indictments that he could have made yesterday. We've been through this.
For at least a year we've also discussed that that's just not how the DOJ works with this scale of investigation, the timeline for building consistent ruling precedents to get to the top dog planners of big crimes against The People -- which single indictments for documents cases don't require.
Critics of Garland come from a position of impatience at best, worldy wise cynicism at worst. Garland critics care more that their demand for justice be on their timeline. They dismiss the mountainous scale of work needed to successfully investigate and prosecute three or more criminal cases against a former president.
The scale of Garland's DOJ is beyond understanding, like the scale of America's problems.
A look at Main Justice's site everyday proves that.
The hundred or more moving parts -- timelines, warrant & grand jury evidence gathering beyond reasonable doubt, case building -- are what Special Counsel, Jack Smith, is handling, and not Garland, who runs the biggest law firm on Earth.
But somehow, Garland critics want Garland to handle single indictments as some 'low hanging fruit.' Garland's DOJ Special Counsel, Jack Smith, is handling an entire crate of fruit, low hanging right in there with the rest. Garland fends off criticism, anyway, even while he's accused of making incorrect decisions.
From four years of Republican drama before the court of public opinion, we should know by now that the consequences of single, easy-conviction cases create media cycles, rev up old narratives, and would produce a Koch army of Garland critics from the Right -- loud, outraged political victim headlines, platform drama, the right wing Bannon scream machines
-- intended to condemn all DOJ credibility, since they've already framed Garland as a "political" witch hunter. It worked for Trump and his Barr tool over the Russia investigation.
Critics of Garland are battle worn, and frustrations can just be triggered by an OP with Garland's name in it. But now and months from now are no time for anyone to slug it out to score points against someone whose job none of us could begin to do, whose work is leak proof, whose dedication is unimpeachable.
Have a good night, bigtree. 
...no regrets.
If the worst folks want is faster justice, I think I can bear that if the complaints come with something more to debate than just folk's gut feelings. I'm not much of an institutionalist, but I need the things I support to make sense, because I exhaust each and every thought in my head from front to back to front again.
It will sound self-serving to say so, but this thread was good for me, ping-ponging around my brain and jostling my own musty shelf of reasoning. I don't expect most people to understand that. This forum can take on a life of its own in our imagination, sometimes.
'night, ancianita
Why should I have to justify criticizing him on this site? It's not against the TOS.
