General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFor everyone complaining about AG Garland's performance, please impress us.
Lay out the specific charges, and the compelling case and evidence you could present TODAY to secure an Indictment of Trump et al from a Grand Jury and a conviction at Trial.
leftieNanner
(15,113 posts)Whatever the DOJ is doing regarding Trump's actions is certainly being kept under deep wraps.
We will hear about it all when they spring the indictment on him.
It is difficult to wait for something to happen though.
On Edit: Well, lookee there! 11,000 posts!
Glorfindel
(9,730 posts)11,000 posts is very impressive.
Aristus
(66,380 posts)Beartracks
(12,814 posts)Pepsidog
(6,254 posts)forward type. I dont want a nice guy, I want a viper. No more Muellers it's Garlands. I want Schiff, Yates, Letitia James, Jamie Raskin type. Smart, take no prisoners, natural-born vipers. I think the angst is that we are getting the impression by comments from Schiff that Garland may not be looking into TFG. You already have him named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case and the Mueller Report is supposed to be a road map for the prosecution of TFG when he leaves office. The work is sitting right there not including the charges from 1/6.
Thomas Hurt
(13,903 posts)At this juncture, it is up the J6 committee to expose any bad acts to Americans through public hearings.
Stuart G
(38,428 posts)...That ain't easy.....especially last 4 words....."a conviction at Trial".............................
(if it were easy, that would have been done already...(at least securing an indictment of Trump et al)
UnderThisLaw
(318 posts)to give up my newcomer designation . Its getting so I can tell who has created a post simply by reading its title
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,586 posts)Every day he is allowed to thumb his nose at the select committee's subpoena is loss of a tool Congress can use against other recalcitrant witnesses. The case against Bannon is simple: (1) was he subpoenaed? (2) did he show up? If he ignored the subpoena, ipso facto he is in contempt; punish his fat ass immediately.
onenote
(42,704 posts)grumpyduck
(6,240 posts)Made me wonder why they even issued a subpoena knowing full well what would come of it.
Like, why bother?
I know... I know...
Walleye
(31,027 posts)dem4decades
(11,296 posts)onenote
(42,704 posts)You must be quite the insider.
dem4decades
(11,296 posts)gab13by13
(21,349 posts)lamp_shade
(14,834 posts)gab13by13
(21,349 posts)Trump is "individual 1". He violated campaign finance laws. Slam dunk case, Michael Cohen was sent to jail for the exact same charge.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)John Edwards was not found guilty on a similar case
Michael Cohen wasn't tried on this charge he pled guilty on a plea deal that allowed him to walk away from a large pile of other charges mainly tied to illegal exploitation of taxi licenses.
Bobstandard
(1,305 posts)Let the chips fall where they may at a trial that the public can see
grantcart
(53,061 posts)If he beats it at trial he wins huge propaganda victory and undermines the next one.
Bobstandard
(1,305 posts)Tfgd people are committed and unreachable. Aggressively pursuing and charging tfg snd his minions send a message to our side that were fighting. Bad strategy is giving our side no reason to hope.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Whatever momentary boost your base would get would pale in comparison to the huge long term boost it would give to the other side when he is found non guilty.
Beyond being bad political strategy it is terrible policy and unAmerican.
Deciding to prosecute based on how it effects your base means you are transforming law enforcement into a political tool. Not only is it wrong ethically it gives the other side permission to do it when they are in power, I.e. "lock her up".
It is unAmerican because the founding fathers believed that the courts should be blind to political interference and independent of partisan fervor. It is why John Adams defended the troops charged in the so called "Boston Massacre". The charges were politically motivated and did not correspond to the facts in hand.
Bobstandard
(1,305 posts)The parts of the Mueller report we can see provide legitimate grounds to charge. Thats the job.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)It is about prosecuting on finance charges which you would have to prove that the reason he paid hush money was because he only cared about the election and not about concealing it from Melania, something that is impossible to prove and unlikely to be true.
Bobstandard
(1,305 posts)Wrong. This thread is about whether Garland and his DOJ are doing a CIS level job. A Federal Court judge agrees with those of us who say hes not
During a sentencing hearing for a man who breached the Capitol on Jan. 6, Judge Beryl Howell took the federal government attorneys to task over their prosecution of Capitol rioters, saying they were failing the American people by allowing defendants to take plea deals for minor offenses. Howell said, No wonder parts of the public in the U.S. are confused about whether what happened on January 6 at the Capitol was simply a petty offense of trespassing with some disorderliness, or shocking criminal conduct that represented a grave threat to our democratic norms. Let me make my view clear: The rioters were not mere protesters.
Go ahead. Move the goalposts. Try to make it about something between tfg and the former ffl. The more you dig in the more reddiculous your arguments become. I thought we were almost in agreement early in this sub thread but now, sorry. We can start over if you like
LymphocyteLover
(5,644 posts)krawhitham
(4,644 posts)PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,861 posts)Fitzmas.
Evolve Dammit
(16,736 posts)know, and through inaction we are all left to wonder. Pressuring elections officials? Campaign finance siphoning? Money laundering through Deutsche Bank? Others? I guess it must all be kosher?
onecaliberal
(32,861 posts)Except they do it all the time with everyone else.
Evolve Dammit
(16,736 posts)Mr.Bill
(24,299 posts)and subpoena and enforcement power, and we'll get back to you in a week.
stopdiggin
(11,313 posts)'cause I have never seen this as even within hailing distance of the 'slam dunk' you seem to imagine. So I guess that's "any one of us" - minus at least one.
----- -----
LymphocyteLover
(5,644 posts)10 obstruction cases that were laid out very clearly
stopdiggin
(11,313 posts)even in the face of 'sitting president' and executive privilege? Sure there's a consensus siding with that point of view? Me neither.
LymphocyteLover
(5,644 posts)say they are solid and chargeable. The whole 2nd half of the Mueller report laid out the legal case for them.
stopdiggin
(11,313 posts)bringing charges, whether winnable or not. I remain in the camp that continues to point out the downside and cost involved in such shortsighted stratagems. Ask you're legal buddies how many of them recommend going to trial with a 'sorta', maybe' kind of case? (Because that's exactly what this amounts to. "Some people say ...".). If you can't make it stick - then you're just stirring up a hornets nest. And there's plenty of good reason to wonder whether this (meaning Mueller) would ever stick.
LymphocyteLover
(5,644 posts)The real hindrance for these cases was always political and people worried about bringing an ex-president to trial. I don't know why you are trivializing his crimes.
stopdiggin
(11,313 posts)I was wonder how long ....
LymphocyteLover
(5,644 posts)stopdiggin
(11,313 posts)to prosecute - is a gaping chasm away from saying there is no crime, or perhaps only a trivial one.
Did I really just have to say that? Sigh. ---- ----
LymphocyteLover
(5,644 posts)And given the stakes here... it couldn't be more important. IMHO.
stopdiggin
(11,313 posts)and there I just fundamentally disagree. There are (often huge) costs involved in losing. (in this case that would seem almost overwhelmingly obvious) And, as as good portion of my previous posts reflect, I'm strongly committed to the proposition that if you don't have at least a really decent shot of winning going in - you're better off not going in.
I suspect you (and others) don't agree with that take - but that's where I stand. A failed attempt to prosecute TFG - offers virtually zero benefit - at the expense of tremendous cost.
LymphocyteLover
(5,644 posts)sends an important message to the public, no matter the outcome.
stopdiggin
(11,313 posts)the 'message' sent by a failed prosecution - is nothing short of disastrous - in the public realm.
LymphocyteLover
(5,644 posts)stopdiggin
(11,313 posts)that ended up injuring the police department, the DA's office, and the judicial system as a whole - at least as much, if not in all probability a great deal more - than the defendant in the end.
F-ups and failures have consequences. That's why I'm comfortable on this side of that fence.
LymphocyteLover
(5,644 posts)apart from damaging OJ's reputation, it did expose corruption in the LAPD and the foibles of the legal system.
Any high profile trial is bound to expose these things.
LymphocyteLover
(5,644 posts)stopdiggin
(11,313 posts)-"indicative of a crime?"- and yet you don't bother to specify.
Did Giuliani, Sidney Powell and Lin Wood commit 'crimes' by running around and filing all sorts of ridiculous lawsuits (with precisely the same end in mind)? Is giving a lame duck president real crappy advice a crime?
And the answer I chose here is (again) - if the DOJ and Garland decide that something in this is deserving of prosecution - then have at it. But I am not (at least at this point) prepared to second guess them in that judgement.
LymphocyteLover
(5,644 posts)stopdiggin
(11,313 posts)Did Giuliani, Sidney Powell and Lin Wood commit 'crimes' by running around and filing all sorts of ridiculous lawsuits? How about the 6-7 senators and over 120 House members who voted in objection to ratification? People in statehouses that voted for superfluous audits? Are these individuals also guilty of conspiracy? They all certainly have/had the same objective in mind. Anybody that participated in or had knowledge of 'war room' discussions? This too criminal activity?
If somebody actually gave orders for people to go to the Capital and beat and kill police officers .... That's criminal. Prosecute (if you can secure the evidence). Gaming and scheming, and political ploys surrounding the election .... Labeling those things criminal is (at least from a legal standpoint) questionable at best.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)onecaliberal
(32,861 posts)stopdiggin
(11,313 posts)so glad that you settled that for us.
----- -----
onecaliberal
(32,861 posts)The mirror of a man's heart is his actions.
stopdiggin
(11,313 posts)but you jumped into a string where the advisability (and timing?) of bringing charges against DJT was the general thrust. And I guess that coupled with your statement denying any claim to executive privilege ...
Led me to believe we were still talking ...
Sorry, my mistake.
stopdiggin
(11,313 posts)can wait to hear the many (thousand) ways that the 'experts' are going to frog-march Trump directly to jail. Oh, wait .....
lame54
(35,292 posts)wellst0nev0ter
(7,509 posts)But the former guy doesn't, even though they committed the same crime?
stopdiggin
(11,313 posts)And if that's the case (and you can get a conviction - which is rather important you would agree?). Then by all means go for it!
wellst0nev0ter
(7,509 posts)It's an open and shut case, by any looks of it.
stopdiggin
(11,313 posts)and as I say - if you've got a slam dunk sure thing (and can get past the 'sitting or former' and 'privilege' things) - then by all means ....
wellst0nev0ter
(7,509 posts)I like it when internet randos tell people with no power to exercise said power
stopdiggin
(11,313 posts)are better qualified to make those calls - than lil 'ol me sitting back in the pea patch (or internet comment section). I'll leave it to others to tell Merrick Garland, and the DOJ, what their job is.
wellst0nev0ter
(7,509 posts)Me, I'll fight to make sure that our public servants do what's right.
Jon King
(1,910 posts)No one thinks he should indict Trump tonight. We get that is a long process that would take years to build a case.
But every single legal expert on TV said when he took over that he could add charges to the relatively light charges against the 1-6 arrestees.
You have on the ground prosecutors and even judges yelling about how these charges seem very, very light. Yet Garland's DOJ has not added any additional charges? Why not? Send a strong message. Make these people spend more and more for lawyers. Destroy them with charge after charge, any possible thing a good prosecutor can think of. Some cases will be lost, some won, that is not the point.
The point is Garland appears very reluctant to go strongly after those involved in 1-6.
mikelgb
(6,021 posts)but anyway, he could be indicted on the Mueller Report alone.
LymphocyteLover
(5,644 posts)ecstatic
(32,705 posts)There are multiple crimes he can be tried for right now, even stuff that preceded the coup attempt. Garland can start with obstruction of justice, which is a crime.
Or how about the extortion attempt with Ukraine's president?
Or his illegal phone call with the SOS in Georgia in which he basically threatened him to find 11,000 votes?
Are you seriously saying that none of these crimes should be addressed? And if so, how is that not complicity?
msfiddlestix
(7,282 posts)articulate and compelling arguments.
How about YOU offer compelling reasons NOT to bring charges.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Not very compelling reasons, mind you. But reasons. Apparently some here think that Rudy and Kraken need help defending these felons.
Autumn
(45,096 posts)imagine that on a political discussion board. But hey, the Mueller report was shut up too to the best of the Orange turds ability.
Celerity
(43,392 posts)The Jan. 6 panel voted Tuesday to hold him in contempt. Things will get complicated from here.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/19/jan-6-commission-steve-bannon-criminal-contempt-516233
Arazi
(6,829 posts)Individual 1 remains uncharged.
Why?
Because Merrick Garland isn't bringing charges in a case that's already been thru the courts with a co-conspirator
KG
(28,751 posts)uponit7771
(90,346 posts)... Hispanic and Trump would've been black and said the shit he did to get the J6 assholes to the capital building
1. 50% of the non whites on the capital grounds would've had napalm thrown on them and burned alive
2. 30% that were left alive chard bodies would've been thrown in jail that day
3. Deondre Trump would've had the shit beat out of him, shot in the back a couple of times and put in Gitmo by now.
4. The non white congress people who EVER thought about thinking about talking to the J6 assholes would've been called traitors
5. the non white congress people who DID ever talk to the J6 assholes would've PUBLICALLY forced to police stations and questioned for a couple of years or some bullshit ..
no ... the countries record on prosecuting crimes quickly if depending on the people involved is ... WELL ... documented and established.
There are less than 1000 of these assholes who've been charged by now !!!
WTF !?
At ***MINIMUM*** the optics here don't look right and I'm mostly just talking about going after the low hanging fruit of gathering up people who took videos and pictures of themselves attacking America's capital building !!!
OhioChick
(23,218 posts)ecstatic
(32,705 posts)lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
Here's the damning proof:
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial
Now impress us. Defend Trump. Persuade us that he's innocent. Tell us why you like him so much.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)Arazi
(6,829 posts)lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Autumn
(45,096 posts)of the Muller report redacted. Of course that would help prevent any specific charges, and any compelling case and evidence that could help to secure an Indictment of Trump
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-attorney-seeks-secret-mueller-report-materials/2635867/
That little nugget impressed the fuck out of me.
BannonsLiver
(16,387 posts)Though we can all take comfort in knowing Air Frances first class hard and soft products are to die for, as was pointed out recently.
Bettie
(16,110 posts)won't have to suffer flying like the "little people"...smh.
Bettie
(16,110 posts)why we should feel hopeful about any of this?
What evidence do you have that ANYTHING is happening, except for lowballing charges and sentencing for insurrectionists and the DOJ acting as TFG's personal law firm?
brooklynite
(94,581 posts)Maybe you think he should be Primaried in 2024 if he can't hire competent staff or manage them appropriately?
Bettie
(16,110 posts)100% expected.
Oh, and I never said that he should primaried, that's you putting words in my mouth.
brooklynite
(94,581 posts)Do you feel that Garland is doing a competent job? (I do). If not, then its Biden responsibility for picking him in the first place, and especially his responsibility to address the problem.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)Bettie
(16,110 posts)"well I'm sure he's doing plenty behind the scenes" anymore.
Which, I guess is an answer.
brooklynite
(94,581 posts)It seems odd the all the people who DON'T have confidence don't seem to think they should do anything about it.
Bettie
(16,110 posts)OK, well, you have confidence. Good for you.
And "do anything about it". Um, you may have the ear of all of the powerful people in the universe. Most of us don't.
brooklynite
(94,581 posts)The White House has operators standing by 24 hours a day so you can share the opinion with Garlands boss. Although it certainly is convenient to just say that theres no point doing anything, because nobody will listen.
Bobstandard
(1,305 posts)Any manager can make a bad hire. When that happens, you replace them. Thats what many of us think Biden has done and should do.
brooklynite
(94,581 posts)Bobstandard
(1,305 posts)You fight for those who fight for you. Tepid support isnt going to win this one.
Demsrule86
(68,582 posts)opinion that Trump will never be convicted in any court. Also, conspiracy is very hard to prove.
Bobstandard
(1,305 posts)Im worried about the Why should I bother if our side wont fight voter. And I think there are enough of those to make the difference
mcar
(42,334 posts)I read it today on DU.
AZProgressive
(29,322 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/28/politics/dc-federal-judge-january-6-cases/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/judge-howell-capitol-riot-case/2021/10/28/8f6da2c2-3809-11ec-9bc4-86107e7b0ab1_story.html
It ain't just DU. The Biden Admin needs to right the DOJ ship ASAP. Democrats are FED UP with there being no repercussions, from Fat Nixon on down to the MAGATs who stormed the Capitol.
Polybius
(15,423 posts)Cotton also said thank God you're not on the Supreme Court. Garland should have ripped him a new asshole.