Sorry folks but this isn't an episode of Law & Order.

[sheshe2]

Link to tweet

Sorry folks but this isn't an episode of Law & Order. Successful prosecutions can take years to come to fruition. Blame Hollywood for your unrealistic expectations not the Department of Justice.

[elleng]

1. Good point.

[mcar]

2. No, no, Garland needs to put them in jail NOW!!11

[Celerity]

3. Adam Schiff says he 'vehemently disagrees' with AG Merrick Garland's reluctance to investigate Trump

https://www.businessinsider.com/adam-schiff-vehemently-disagrees-with-ag-garland-on-trump-2021-10?r=US&IR=T

Rep. Adam Schiff told Yahoo News' "Skullduggery" podcast on Tuesday that he vehemently disagreed with Attorney General Merrick Garland's hesitation to investigate former President Donald Trump. "I think there's a real desire on the part of the attorney general, for the most part, not to look backward," Schiff said on the podcast. "Do I disagree with that? I do disagree with that, and I disagree with it most vehemently when it comes to what I consider even more serious offenses."

Schiff was asked about Garland's reluctance to revive old investigations or pursue new ones that focused on the former president, including the 2018 report by former special counsel Robert Mueller, which concluded, "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."

In 2018, Mueller's team did not charge President Donald Trump or anyone on his campaign with coordinating with the Russian government, although prosecutors said the campaign "expected it would benefit" from Kremlin interference. In the second part of Mueller's investigation, his team inquired whether Trump obstructed justice in the Russia probe, and Mueller declined to make a "traditional prosecutorial judgment" on whether to charge Trump with obstruction of justice, citing a 1973 Justice Department memo that said a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime.

"In my view, you don't ignore the crimes that have been committed by a president of the United States. They need to be investigated. You may reach the judgment once you've investigated something that the public interest in not prosecuting a former president outweighs the interests of justice. But I don't think you could ignore the crimes," Schiff added. He called the 2018 report "a factual basis to charge the president with multiple crimes of obstruction."'

[JohnSJ]

9. The problem with Schiff's analysis is he doesn't know if nothing is being done

Last edited Wed Oct 27, 2021, 01:07 AM - Edit history (1)

Bannon’s ignoring of the subpoena will be the first test

[Celerity]

15. He knows far more than most anyone on this board, although the usual name-dropper may disagree.

Successful prosecutions can take years to come to fruition.

We may not have enough years if it is truly dragged out.

Also, if we lose the House (and/or the Senate) in a little over 12 months time, there goes a huge chunk of Congressional oversight.

[cadoman]

16. I trust Schiff a lot more than Garland at this point

He's done a lot more for the cause and proved himself by being a huge thorn in TFG's foot for his entire term.

If Schiff says Garland is dragging his feet, then he's dragging his feet.

[msfiddlestix]

54. you don't think it's likely that Schiff DOES, IN FACT KNOW?

Like Schiff is just a someone ranting on the internets with NO possible connections to Garlands office?

[JohnSJ]

60. Because Schiff has admitted himself he doesn't know in the New Republic

“……..Schiff himself conceded, a federal investigation into Trump’s crimes may actually be underway but not publicly known. He and other Americans may have grown accustomed over the last few years to regular reporting about investigations into and imminent charges against various Trump associates. While the absence of that reporting now could be taken as a sign that such investigations do not exist, it is also not conclusive proof of their nonexistence.”

https://newrepublic.com/article/164095/adam-schiff-merrick-garland-trump

[msfiddlestix]

63. He has to provide that caveat, but apparently it isn't obvious to you?

we know it, because we've witnessed this for decades.

[JohnSJ]

64. Why would he have to provide a caveat? As I said a good indicator will be how he handles

the Bannon subpoena

[Grasswire2]

66. his statement is not exactly what you said he said.

Just because he said a federal investigation may be underway but not publicly known doesn't mean HE doesn't know the status of it. He said the public doesn't know.

[msfiddlestix]

56. What makes you think Schiff doesn't know if nothing is being done?

Are you an assistant, or clerk in Garland's office?

I would suggest that Schiff knows people in that dept, in that office. He knows Garland. He's likely informed precisely on this matter, and is telegraphing to the public fairly directly.

[sheshe2]

75. I will ask you the same question you asked John.

What makes you think Schiff doesn't know if nothing is being done?

Are you an assistant, or clerk in Garland's office?

I would suggest that Schiff knows people in that dept, in that office. He knows Garland. He's likely informed precisely on this matter, and is telegraphing to the public fairly directly.

Are you an assistant, or clerk in Schiff's office? Are you privy to to his inner thoughts?

" He is likely informed?" "He is telegraphing to the public fairly directly?"

[JohnSJ]

4. The problem is we really don't know, but it should be on an expedited path, because if we don't

Prevail in the upcoming elections, 2022 and 2024, it will never happen, and it will be swept under the rug

His first test will be Brannon ignoring the subpoena

[sheshe2]

18. Exactly, John.

I was reading a long twitter thread about the bills before Congress, many were saying that if we don't get it ALL then they won't vote. See, it is already happening. To win 2022 and 2024 we need all hands on deck or we sink.

[JohnSJ]

62. In the New Republic Schiff admitted he doesn't know what the DOJ is doing in regard to trump

Last edited Wed Oct 27, 2021, 09:37 AM - Edit history (1)

“……..Schiff himself conceded, a federal investigation into Trump’s crimes may actually be underway but not publicly known. He and other Americans may have grown accustomed over the last few years to regular reporting about investigations into and imminent charges against various Trump associates. While the absence of that reporting now could be taken as a sign that such investigations do not exist, it is also not conclusive proof of their nonexistence.”

https://newrepublic.com/article/164095/adam-schiff-merrick-garland-trump

[Hekate]

5. Thank you. Just, thanks.

Another poster wants to start a recall petition for Sinema, because he’s looked up the law in Arizona and it’s super easy. Why don’t people just read the US Constitution?

[JohnSJ]

10. I don't believe a Senator can be recalled. Only impeached

[dweller]

26. Nope

Only resignation, expulsion by 2/3 majority of congress, or death will replace a sitting senator …
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL30016.html


✌🏻

[JohnSJ]

29. Thanks. I know they can't be recalled

[sheshe2]

19. Saw that one.

Thank you, Hekate.

[Grasswire2]

25. I want to know who it is, exactly, that decides what the American people have no right to know.

How can we the people consent to be governed if information that would affect our views is kept from us by fiat, by "someone(s)"?

Information from the past and the present that would seem to belong to us is too often denied us.

Good ol' Senator Blumenthal keeps going in front of cameras and telling us "....the American people have a right to this shocking (or horrifying) information!"

And yet there are still toooo many secrets.

[Voltaire2]

7. The clock is running out.

[gab13by13]

11. The Iowa primary caucus begins in 126 days.

[onecaliberal]

8. Which would be fine except DEMOCRACY is hanging in the balance.

[ecstatic]

12. Simply put: they have until November 2022 to conclude the investigations

Time is of the essence. Whatever they're doing they need to speed it up.

[gab13by13]

14. I disagree,

nothing gets done in an election year. The Iowa primary is March 1st. When it's Kornacki time it's lights out.

[gab13by13]

13. Chris Hayes just asked Sheldon Whitehouse,

should Garland be investigating Trump and his friends involvement in the insurrection. Whitehouse answered yes and went further saying that (now this is a legal word) there is "predication" that indicates an investigation should be held, including members of Congress.

Shame on Sheldon for not answering he doesn't know what Garland is or isn't doing.

By the bye, Garland will appear tomorrow before the Senate judiciary committee, assuming it will be shown on C-Span.

[halobeam]

45. I spotted this, thought it might be helpful for those interested -

Watch Merrick Garland LIVE On October 27 | 9am ET | C-SPAN

[Skittles]

17. actually, no

I will blame it on the fact that so few seem to ever be truly held accountable.....you know, like....for starting a war based on lies, for example.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

20. It's a common strategy I had to use against a vindictive NYC landlord.

My lawyer drew out the threat of eviction until he finally relented. And he stopped his eviction threats. One of which was a Hollywood story on its own. Bradley Whitford was subletting while attending Juilliard and he kept the sheriff at bay while getting a stay of the eviction. My hero!

[uponit7771]

21. +1, looks like the timeline for putting Nixon minions in jail was 2 - 3 yrs

[malaise]

22. Years ago a woman called a radio program to complain about hte length of a tria; in

the courts and literally said if they could solve everything in an hour on TV (Law and Order) why did it take so long. I never forgot it.

On the other hand, an entire series of Law and ORder takes less time than these urgent cases.

[Gaugamela]

23. True. And anyway they're busy dealing with the Bush/Cheney crime spree in the Middle East.

Anyone know when the trickle-down dividends from the Reagan tax cuts are supposed to materialize?

[KPN]

31. Good question. I keep hearing soon -- for 40 plus years

now. Still waiting.

[lagomorph777]

58. Also, all those prosecutions for the Wall Street robbers who crashed the world in 2008.

Any day now, I'm sure.

[Lucky Luciano]

24. My offer still stands.

If anyone important pays the price for the attempted coup, I’ll owe you a coke (along with all the others who tell us we don’t know how things work).

[KPN]

27. Maybe Bodak Red should stick to recipes?

[AZLD4Candidate]

28. The Rosenbergs and George Stinney were prosecuted PDQ if you ask me

So were Sacco and Vanzetti. So was John Scopes.

No, when powerful or rich people are involved, we are told to wait and then we lose interest and nothing happens.

[tclambert]

30. I absolutely completely hate it that this is true.

[stillcool]

32. I can't take a side, because I don't know

I have no knowledge of what proof is needed to bring charges, especially when so many people are involved, nor do I know what crimes that are being prosecuted have resulted in evidence against others, and other crimes. Probably a lot of parallel investigations...and I don't think that anyone knows what is going on in all the various federal offices throughout the country. I am glad that people are exasperated and are voicing their concerns. Regardless of what is, or is not happening, expecting the Justice Department to investigate crimes that threaten the rule of law would not be necessary if our government worked. It would be nice if there was some communication, but what would they say? 'We're working on it?' It's a shame voicing concern requires ripping apart a person one knows nothing about, but I guess that's the only way it's done these days.

[Javaman]

33. We have 6 months maybe 9 months

If some is not in jail by that point, we as a nation are fucked.

Because the next election will soon follow and if the Dems don’t show they mean business we are sooooooo fucked

[gab13by13]

35. Totally agree,

I figure that Bannon won't go to trial for 6 months at the earliest. This is why I keep saying that DOJ must be involved, it has more clout than the select committee. DOJ shouldn't have to wait for referrals from the select committee.

Most of the dirt, no maybe all of the dirt we have heard about the insurrectionists has come from reporters.

For those who say relax, we don't know what DOJ is doing, I say this, Garland should have appointed a special counsel 7 months ago, and put in guardrails to prevent him from being dismissed. John Durham is still working, still trying to dig up dirt on the Bidens.

[relayerbob]

34. Thank you!

[Act_of_Reparation]

36. Blame Hollywood all you like.

It won't change the fact the expectation is there and no amount of twitter scolding is going to change that.

People. Aren't. Rational.

[bamagal62]

37. Time is of the essence.

My gut says we’re about to be screwed.

[George II]

38. Where's Lennie Briscoe when you need him?

[sheshe2]

40. Been years since I watched that show.

[Xolodno]

39. Political crimes are baked to take a long time to prosecute.

Just the nature of it. You don't have a Senator in a sleazy motel room with a dead sex worker. Instead its all witness testimony, record gathering that gets constantly challenged, etc. And often, the time you have a case, they realize they lost and plead it out.

People like Jack Abramoff are the exception, because, he managed to piss off everyone that mattered.

[Equomba]

50. Speaking of a Senator in a hotel room with a dead sex worker,

it's impossible for me to pick a favorite scene from the Godfather trilogy, too many from which to choose, but this one is certainly memorable...

[Arazi]

41. Michael Cohens almost done w his sentence in the Stormy Daniel's affair. Individual 1 is uncharged

That investigation is finished.

Individual 1 aka #Traitor should have been charged for that crime months ago.

What is Garland waiting for?

Why hasn't the unredacted Mueller report been released?

Why continue to defend #Traitor in the EJean Carroll case?

Why hasn't there been any indication that anyone is being brought before grand juries? Houses searched? Subpoenas issued?

There are some things we already know. The inaction is obvious. #Traitor and his minions grow stronger and forge better connections to overthrow our democracy every day there is justice delayed.

[Silent3]

42. There are people who are certainly in-the-know about such things who have grown impatient

If people like Adam Schiff and Claire McCaskill are pissed at the lack of progress, I feel like I'm in pretty good company being pissed too.

Some investigations are complicated, some are not. I rather doubt that every single guilty party (apart from the Joe Schmoe rabble) involved in the 1/6 insurrection just happens to be a difficult and complicated case to determine.

It's pretty clear from our history that the rich and powerful and well-connected simply don't get prosecuted as much as they should be. Often, if they suffer any penalty at all for their crimes, loss of office or power or reputation is treated as if it's more than enough punishment, without bothering with the convictions and jail time the riffraff would incur.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

69. Sad, but true.

Justice is a rare commodity. Most innocent, but accused, people can't afford it. Wealthy guilty people rarely get accused and, if accused, can afford to subvert the course of justice.

[hadEnuf]

43. How come the Republicans don't seem to have a problem sticking it to those they think

deserve it, namely Democrats?

We need to get real nasty with these people. Real nasty.

[onenote]

46. They dreamt of sticking it to Hillary. Didn't even try.

[Bobstandard]

48. The Benghazi investigations don't count?

Just trying to understand. Are you saying the Republicans didn’t try ‘sticking it’ to Hillary Clinton? Because I seem to recall that they certainly did. The Benghazi investigations are an example of that and there are others.

[onenote]

49. The subject here is prosecutions

We impeached Trump twice, once for the insurrection. Doesn't that count?

[marble falls]

44. Absolutely true.

[lame54]

51. Law & Blind Faith

[Sewa]

52. Sorry Garland apologists your tactic

of belittling those who criticize the AG won’t stop the legitimate criticism. We have seen how this plays out in real life for 50 years. Enough is enough. This time action is required. 💀🤙

[msfiddlestix]

57. This 10,000 %

[lagomorph777]

59. Well said.

Enough is enough. We have video evidence of Trump inciting an attack on our democracy. He should have been jailed on the spot. He should have been jailed on Garland's first day in office. He should be rotting inGitmo right now.

[ecstatic]

68. Exactly. Even TFG's own team expected an arrest. NT

[Grasswire2]

67. "Look forward, not back!!" /sarcasm

Get with the program, won't ya?
...............

I've been saying thirty years. You may be closer to right.

[brooklynite]

72. No objection to criticism. Show that yours is legitimate.

Still waiting for someone to lay out the obvious case that would be successful today.

[msfiddlestix]

53. hmmm

So... who is Bodak Red is Scary? or is it AFarray? Who is that? A Justice Dept Prosecutor?

[lagomorph777]

55. Sorry folks, years of delay will be too late to save the Republic.

It was nice while it lasted.

[Mosby]

61. Maybe so, but it shouldn't take years. Nt

[brooklynite]

71. And it hasn't

[msfiddlestix]

65. Who is this individual? She someone from the Justice Dept? a Prosecutor? a Lawyer? FBI Agent?

or is she a hollywood actress?

[lagomorph777]

70. A scold.

[sheshe2]

77. My guess would be someone with an opinion just like you and I.

Are you someone from the Justice Dept? a Prosecutor? a Lawyer? FBI Agent?

I am not.

[msfiddlestix]

78. Ok. So, this anonymous individual has an opinion, not necessarily based on anything factual

just another random patronizing, snobbish condescending scold based on opinion.

duly noted.

[sheshe2]

79. As you just did to me?

msfiddlestix

78. Ok. So, this anonymous individual has an opinion, not necessarily based on anything factual

just another random patronizing, snobbish condescending scold based on opinion.

duly noted.

Not sure your need to attack me.

[msfiddlestix]

80. I didnt know that was your twitter account.

my response was to the author of the tweet you posted.

It didn't occur to me that is your twitter account.

Apologies I didn't recognize that person was you.


why mix id's that way I'm not sure. or why not disclose that it was you in the first place? Maybe you did and I missed it.

Again please accept my apology.

[sheshe2]

81. Not my account.

I posted the tweet, never said it was mine. Yet by scolding her" just another random patronizing, snobbish condescending scold based on opinion." You are scolding me as well.

just another random patronizing, snobbish condescending scold based on opinion.

Much of what is posted on DU is an 'Opinion' that some agree with and some don't, no need to attack an opinion with the words like " patronizing, snobbish, condescending".

[CrispyQ]

73. We don't have years. The fascists will have taken over long before then.

Our side has been ignoring what the other side is up to for 50 years, & now the chickens are coming home to roost.

[Texaswitchy]

74. We do not have the luxury of time.

The Republicans will be back in power and the investigations are over.
They will be in charge.

They will go after the Democrats.

Staring with the President and VP Harris.

[DeeNice]

76. It's just that they are all basically thumbing their noses

at the very idea that they are not above the law.
We know it takes time but it's excruciating seeing them live it up while the wheels of justice aren't even in gear yet. And I better quit before I come out with some even more tortuous metaphor. I agree, we have to get this right.