Poll: What is the reason Trump hasn't been indicted yet?

[brooklynite]

The number of people who claim that "they" won't indict Trump because he's one of "them" seem to ignore the fact they "they" is currently "us".

42 votes, 6 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	AG Garland is working methodically and the case isn't ready yet
	20 (48%)
	AG Garland is intentionally delaying the progress of the prosecution case
	0 (0%)
	AG Garland never plans to indict Trump for political reasons
	22 (52%)
	AG Garland's prosecutors and US Attorney's aren't doing what he wants
	0 (0%)
	6 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[hlthe2b]

1. I hope it is #1. I honestly don't have a sense but I do think Garland would be strategic.

[ShazamIam]

2. I'll credit our media for keeping the pressure, off.

[brooklynite]

3. You're saying Garland needs to be pressured?

[ShazamIam]

4. No, I mean if the media pressured, the DOJ would have been on a hiring spree; immediately after the

false election claims which they amplified, or after the Jan 6 attack which they dropped their outrage as soon as they could find a nice distraction to interrupt, like the Cuomo affair, etc.

or have you forgotten the three years of urgency ending in days before the election kind of pressure rendered by lies about an email server?

[brooklynite]

5. "the DOJ would have been on a hiring spree"

What is the basis for your assertion that DOJ doesn't have adequate staffing, other then they're not moving fast enough for your taste?

[ShazamIam]

7. I'm only basing it on my near instant recollection of the crimes of the Trump administration. Of

course that is my opinion and I am entitled to it. And you to yours and what I mean is what is your goal here, my only goal was to type what I was thinking. I don't have any more to say at the moment.

[brooklynite]

9. "my near instant recollection of the crimes of the Trump administration"

Since you're not a Federal prosecutor, perhaps consider that an indictment calls for more than "we all know he's guilty".

I'm not a Federal prosecutor either, but my wife was. It's not an instantaneous process.

[ShazamIam]

13. I don't know. What do you think, is it projection?

and sarc

[Historic NY]

6. WTF knows

[dpibel]

8. What is your answer?

Seems a person as interested as you in transparency and intellectual rigor would let us know. Because, after all, you are pretty darned wise.

[brooklynite]

10. As stated before, I'm comfortable that indictments will be forthcoming when there's a case...

[dpibel]

11. So safe with all outcomes!

If indictments happen, you knew it all along, and were just wisely patient

And if they don't, there wasn't a case!

I think I've got it, but do help me if I'm missing something.

[brooklynite]

12. "And if they don't, there wasn't a case!"

Actually, yes. The fact that bloggers and Democratic activists "know" that he's guilty doesn't mean that a compelling case can be made to a jury. I'll go with the judgement of the Attorney General over that of armchair prosecutors.

[dpibel]

14. Fascinating

I assume you would also go with the judgment of the prosecuting attorney over that of armchair prosecutors in the case of Ahmaud Arbery.

Or do you have a principled way to distinguish the two cases.

(Just went with an easy one. But surely you know that prosecutors, all the way up to the attorney general, exercise a pretty high degree of discretion.)

[brooklynite]

15. Can I distinguish between the two cases? Yes.

The Arbery case isn't Federal. What does this have to do with AG Garland?


FWIW - the current DU poll says 2/3 of respondents think Garland is acting responsibly. Perhaps you should make your case to them?

[dpibel]

17. Oh, my

You honestly don't understand the principle of prosecutorial discretion?

That's not a state/federal issue.

As for the DU poll, what case am I making? I just wanted to know where you stand on your own poll. Seems like a legitimate inquiry to me.

I mean, really. We're not talking polls here in any meaningful sense of the word. DU polls, like any online poll, are editorial.

I just wanted to understand what your editorial was saying.

[brooklynite]

19. Of course I understand prosecutorial discretion. Provide evidence that it's occurring.

As for me, I've been clear that I believe that AG Garland is responsibly handling his investigations.

[dpibel]

23. "Provide evidence that it's occurring"??

I have no more evidence that it is than you do that it isn't.

I know you can do better than that if you do not rush. Take your time.

[brooklynite]

26. The difference is that my assessment doesn't then require an assumption that.....

...the DEMOCRATIC Attorney General (previously nominated to the SUPREME COURT) appointed by the DEMOCRATIC President is acting irresponsibly, if not unethically. What's your explanation?

[dpibel]

29. Well, gosh

That's an interesting question. Because, now I think about it, my general reaction to your "poll" has to do with whether you've covered all the options. And I think maybe you haven't.

I think there should be one that's something like: "Here in America, we don't ever prosecute former presidents, regardless of the facts."

That's actually not partisan. It doesn't have to do with the DEMOCRATIC attorney general doing this or that.

It has more to do with the fact that the status quo says that people who are very powerful generally are not held to account.

I understand why that might make you uncomfortable.

But I think it's a valid point.

[brooklynite]

33. "Here in America, we don't ever prosecute former presidents, regardless of the facts."

That would be option three: Garland doesn't intend to prosecute.

Regardless of whether you think "that's the way we do things", we're dealing with an Attorney General NOW who's dealing with criminal investigations NOW. If criminal activity has occurred and the DEMOCRATIC Attorney General chooses NOT to prosecute them because "we don't do that", you've made your choice.

[dpibel]

37. That's one of the oddest things I've ever read

I think you don't mean what you wrote.

"If criminal activity has occurred and the DEMOCRATIC Attorney General chooses NOT to prosecute them because "we don't do that", you've made your choice."

In that case, I haven't made my choice. The DEMOCRATIC Attorney General has.

I think you were trying to say, "If you believe X, then Y."

But you got a little lost and didn't actually say that.

[brooklynite]

40. The POINT is that YOU'RE jumping to: "the AG has chosen not to prosecute"

I'M sticking with: "the AG is moving as methodically as is required to build a winnable case".

[dpibel]

43. I'm sticking with

I don't know and you don't know.

But your poll is biased.

That's really my only point, which seems to be a bit hard for you.

[brooklynite]

45. This poll is absolutely biased. And isn't intended to reveal facts...

...but ask yourself why so many people who hang out on the same blog and have the same Democratic leanings disagree with the assertion that Garland and the DOJ are refusing to prosecute for any reason other than an absence of evidence.

[dpibel]

46. Duly asked

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that, for instance, LBJ should be remembered as the greatest president since FDR. He put the screws the the Dixiecrats and forced through the greatest civil rights legislation in history. He CREATED MEDICARE ffs.

And he is remembered for escalating Vietnam.

That has not one thing to do with whether he was a democrat or not. It has to do with the fact that the political expediencies, in his estimation, demanded that he stay the course in Vietnam.

How hard is this?

The political expediencies militate toward nonprosecution of former presidents.

Oh. I did not miss: "and absence of evidence." I'm sure that was just careless verbiage on your part.

Since your real argument is "absence of ironclad, conviction before trial evidence."

In any case, there is a pretty big gulf fixed between "Garland is declining because of absence of evidence" and "Garland is declining because he cannot prove his case, BRD, prior to trial."

But you know that. You're a sophisticated guy.

[brooklynite]

47. I didn't vote for Johnson (because I was 5)

What he chose to do is irrelevant with respect to what Biden (and Garland) will do. Perhaps my opinion is affected by the fact that I've actually met Biden and talked policy with him.

[dpibel]

48. Well, OK. I accept your concession.

Whether you voted for Johnson, or your age at the time, is, as you know, utterly beside the point.

The point is, that you have been arguing that Garland cannot be questioned because he is THE DEMOCRATIC ATTORNEY GENERAL!!11!!1

I am simply pointing out, in my apparently far too subtle way, that Democrats can, in fact, do things that are driven by politics, by systemic realities, by many things that are not necessarily matters of right and wrong.

But you have now played your trump card and what can I say? You have met Biden and talked policy with him!

How can I possibly question your judgment?

Seriously, my friend. You have revealed yourself here.

Not that this is, by any means, the first time.

[brooklynite]

49. Of course being a Democrat doesn't equate to being ethical...

...now provide data that points to Garland (or Biden) being unethical.

[dpibel]

50. Prove your unicorns!

For. Gods. Sake.

Did I say LBJ was unethical? (Spoiler: I did not.)

You have, for reasons you have assiduously revealed, seeming difficulty distinguishing between morality and political expediency.

It can be a gray area.

Your position seems to be that identifying something as politically expedient, or even necessary, is an accusation of evil.

I am saying that these are hard questions, and that Garland can make a range of decisions, all of which are ethical and justifiable, but all of which are questionable morally or ethically.

I am sorry that you demand that everything be black and white.

I am pointing out that you may not be entirely on solid ground demanding that everyone else adopt your Manichaean dichotomy.

[StarfishSaver]

35. The Georgia state prosecutor isn't even close to being in the same category as Merrick Garland

Among other things, Merrick Garland has not been and is not likely to be indicted for using his office to protect three racists who stalked and then murdered an innocent Black man in cold blood on the street, as the prosecutor you compared him to was.

It's pretty disgraceful for you to try to equate the two anywhere, but it is especially disgusting that you would do so on a Democratic discussion board.

[dpibel]

44. I'm sorry that you don't understand

that saying, "Trust the prosecutor" necessarily includes all the prosecutors.

I'm not equating the GA prosecutor with Merrick Garland. The person who argues "You must not question what is going on because, PROSECUTOR" is.

Hope that helps.

[gab13by13]

16. Michael Cohen served time for campaign finance violations

re: Stormy Daniels, Donald Trump was "individual 1," but ...

[brooklynite]

18. Okay, let's parse this...

"Donald Trump was "individual 1," but ..."

Do you know this? Did the DOJ tell you this? Or did the media report this?

I'm sure its true, but we don't frame indictments based on what the media reports.

[dpibel]

20. Given what Cohen has said

who is your nominee for alternate Individual 1?

To be honest, "we" don't frame indictments, if that means you and me. Prosecutors do. And if there is no reasonable other person to be Individual 1, then that must be as clear to the prosecutors as it is to you.

You're sure. What do you figger the prosecutor's doubt is based on?

[brooklynite]

21. "What do you figger the prosecutor's doubt is based on?"

The ability of the prosecutor to convince a Jury who hasn't read Cohen's book, doesn't hang out on political blogs and doesn't spend endless hours watching cable news. That's why building a prosecutorial case takes longer than the blogosphere wants.

[dpibel]

25. You're out of your element

Do you truly believe that no prosecutor brings a charge unless it's slam-dunk given?

[Effete Snob]

22. Same reason Jesus hasn't come back yet

[questionseverything]

24. "They" might be "you" but it's not "us"

My journal shows an article detailing the bush/cheney torture

They beat prisoners, put hoods on their heads and
Attached clamps to their genitalia to periodically shock them as they continued beating them, hanging from the ceiling

They put the “terrorist” children in little metal hot boxes with deadly bugs

No one was prosecuted then so I don’t expect anything different now

[brooklynite]

27. So President Obama and his Attorney General wasn't "us" either? This is getting confusing.

[dpibel]

31. It really shouldn't be

You are confused that presidents are not entirely one thing or another?

You believe that because Barack Obama was a democrat, there can be no criticism of his policies?

You believe that there should have been no accountability for the Bush/Cheney administration because the Obama administration called for no accountability?

I'm beginning to think we are speaking different languages.

[brooklynite]

34. You can criticize his POLICIES all you want...

But asserting or implying that criminal activities were known to occur, and that the DOJ (under Obama OR Biden) chose not to prosecute them is a significantly higher accusation which calls for a higher level of evidence.

[questionseverything]

51. The evidence is all over c span this morning

That creep that molested many young girls was reported to the fbi in 2015 and nothing happened to him for years

The agents that covered it up still haven’t been punished

[iemanja]

28. If there is a prosecution

It will be in the state of NY.

[Calista241]

30. It's going to be hard to make a case against Trump.

He doesn’t text, he doesn’t email. Anything he said, unless it was recorded is going to be hearsay.

[LeftInTX]

38. Exactly

It's always hard to get anyone at the top too

Look at Oathkeepers. They can't get their head guy even though, you know he's behind the 1/6 attacks.

[StarfishSaver]

42. It will be hard to prove a case against him, but testimony about anything he said is not necessarily

excluded by the hearsay rules.

Some of the things he said can be admitted because they are not actually hearsay, which is defined as an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserte.. For example, if someone testified that Trump said to them, "I ordered the insurrection," that would be hearsay if the point of introducing the statement was to prove that Trump ordered the insurrection. But if someone testified Trump said, "I am the T'Challa, King of Wakanda" during a trial in which Trump's mental state was the issue, that statement would not be hearsay because it was not being introduced to prove that he was actually the Black Panther, but that he was delusional.

And then, even if a statement is hearsay - for example, "I ordered the insurrection" - it could still be admitted if it fell under one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. One of those is a "statement against interest" exception because it was an admission that could expose him to criminal liability and, thus, could be inferred to be more reliable than some other kinds of hearsay (since it's presumed that people don't generally lie in ways that get them in more trouble). Or if in his excitement during the insurrection, he punched his fist in the air and shouted to everyone in the room, "I DID it! I DID it! I made this insurrection happen and now I'm going to get to stay in office!" that could be deemed an excited utterance - a "statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused" - and therefore would be admissible.

I hope that makes sense.

[Johonny]

32. They never went after Bush Co.

I have no belief they learned their lesson. They won't touch Trump if they haven't by now.

[LymphocyteLover]

36. The cases against Bush were much more complex. The shitbeast is more of a blatant criminal.

OTOH I will be rather surprised if the US DOJ ever indicts him, but hope abides.

[Johonny]

39. I disagree

the war crimes were out in the open. They freakin' tortured people.

Obstruction of justice is much harder for the average voter to understand. The stuff that came out on torture disgusted everyone and it was on film!

[LymphocyteLover]

52. I agree the torture was a clear cut case for an international court but it was never going to be

prosecuted in the US for various reasons, but mostly the politics of terrorism.

Weren't those two psychiatrists who were supposed to be in charge of the torture program sued?

https://www.aclu.org/cases/salim-v-mitchell-lawsuit-against-psychologists-behind-cia-torture-program


Seems like it never went anywhere...

But in terms of Trump, the Mueller report documented 10 clear cases of criminal obstruction that the DOJ could prosecute.

I don't care if the average person can understand it or not, DOJ lawyers said it was prosecutable.

[Hoyt]

41. Doubt DOJ has trump high on their list at this time.

Despise trump, but just don’t see a jury convicting him for anything remotely political. I doubt a jury would acquit him either, but there will always be at least one trumpite on any jury.

[AZProgressive]

53. Trump is rich and powerful

That is why he is treated less harshly than a poor person.