Will the Garland led DOJ make a statement

[Beachnutt]

on the bannon issue or will it just fade away ?

[lagomorph777]

1. Nope - just sweep him under the rug...

...next to all the other dust bunnies.

[mcar]

43. And you know this how, exactly?

[lagomorph777]

44. Hmmm, did I claim insider knowledge? I am basing my GUESS on the obvious lack of interest DOJ

is exhibiting in prosecuting the Jan 6th terrorists. Not a single one has been charged with insurrection; almost all are waling way with parading charges, at most. I see no reason for optimism in these facts.

[MineralMan]

2. And here's today's DOJ negative assumption post.

Thanks so much for sharing your pessimism...

[Beachnutt]

3. Nothing false here, I ask a legitimate question

will Garland have to explain if no charges are brought ?
Some folks here are so negative and quick to pop off .

[Orrex]

19. Well, these could be offset by some verifiable good news on the subject

Absent any concrete sign of forward movement, one can hardly be faulted for pessimism.

How long do we have to wait before we hear that it’s too close to midterms for DOJ to act?


I have no interest in the Pollyanna reassurances of those DUers who scold others for a lack of faith in the unseen.

[MineralMan]

21. The DOJ does not comment on ongoing investigations.

Nor does it release preliminary results of those. When a decision has been made, we'll be informed of that.

How could it function if it held daily press conferences about every investigation? Realism matters.

I'm not being complacent. I'm being patient with a slow-moving bureaucracy. Anything else is just a waste of time.

[Orrex]

25. That's not for you to say

As long as a DUer isn’t being libelous or violating the TOS, then what is the value, beyond your own self-satisfaction, of slapping them down? A lot of DUers see this as a sort of “safe space” where concerns can be voiced, even if you in your mighty wisdom should deem those concerns unworthy.

If you find those complaints so damned off-putting, perhaps you could make a habit of ignoring them, rather than declaring that other people’s anxieties are a waste of time.

[MineralMan]

40. Actually, it wasn't me. It was AG Garland who explained that.

I'm not going to ignore anything. Instead, I will comment in replies to threads started on DU, just as I have always done, and just as you do.

[Orrex]

45. AG Garland isn't patrolling DU to tell people that their anxieties are a waste of time

AG Garland, to all visible evidence, is doing nothing substantive at all about Bannon, Trump, or the insurrectionists in Congress, and despite your patronizing assurances I see no reason to question that impression until he has, in fact, visibly done something .

You're welcome to continue scolding people if that seems like a good use of your day, but I see no value in making people feel bad simply because it's apparently uncomfortable for you that they have very reasonable concerns about a very real threat to our nation.

[MineralMan]

46. Well, thanks for your scolding, I guess...

[Orrex]

47. You're scolding people for expressing natural, reasonable anxieties

Whereas I'm scolding you for behaving like a lout.


I'm ready to be judged.

[malaise]

34. Ding ding

Wehave a winner

[Celerity]

4. he said today he will not, and never will, comment on the ongoing case before a decision is made

[MineralMan]

7. Nor should he make any statement before a decision is made.

Anyone who expects him to is simply ignoring that fact, for some reason or another.

This is not TFG's Attorney General. Joe Biden is not TFG. The DOJ is investigating, as the DOJ always does. Announcements will be made when there is something definitive to announce, and not before.

[Celerity]

9. I know all this, I have not been one of the many who are all over him

I have said multiple times it may take up to a year, based off many constitutional lawyers' comments I have seen.

[MineralMan]

14. I'm not arguing with you - just restating your point.

My issue is with a couple of other folks in this thread.

[Celerity]

26. many on the board are, rightly or wrongly, wound up truly tight over this

I trust that Biden has it under control and is not going to sack Garland.

I do not remotely get anything remotely like Mueller vibes from Garland.

Mueller always seemed well passed his expiry date and not mentally up to the task, and I was unfortunately borne out, IMHO, as being correct. Mueller phoned it in, he did not even seem to have true operational control over his unit. His final testimony was so painful to watch.

Garland seems nothing like that at all, at least for me.

[MineralMan]

28. Garland has returned to the typical behavior of Attorneys General.

He is silent about the DOJ's investigations and plans until they are fully formulated. When he has news, he holds a press conference, as he did just yesterday. Such press events are announced only just before they take place.

He is bringing dignity and seriousness back to that important job. I welcome that, considering how far the Department had slipped into being just a mouthpiece for the President in recent years.

[gab13by13]

29. If it takes a year

for DOJ to make a decision on low hanging fruit like "what's his name" who wasn't in the Trump administration, then how long will it take to force people to testify who were in the Trump administration? If you are accurate with your time frame the select committee may as well disband.

[Celerity]

32. It is not my timeline, it has been stated by at least 7 or 8 different constitutional lawyers

I have seen on MSNBC, CNN, PBS, and the BBC.

I am not saying it WILL take a full year, only that it could.

[gab13by13]

35. The experts I saw,

claimed it may take a year for the trial to begin, not for Mr. Garland to make a decision.

[Celerity]

39. to be precise it was said that his arrest, IF he refused to testify, could take up to a year

[SoCalDavidS]

38. A Year From Now, When The repubs Take Over The House

This will all be tossed in the garbage.

For some of us, this will come as no surprise whatsoever.

[kacekwl]

18. Seems like

the decision has been made.

[Orrex]

24. But the most important thing is that no one express frustration

Thank goodness we have DU’s team of message police ready to chastise anyone who voices dissatisfaction.

The insurrectionists are, as a group, facing penalties usually reserved for people with overdue library books, but don’t let that discourage you, unbeliever! The System Is Working! And if you don’t daily reaffirm your pious faith in The System, then maybe YOU are the problem!

[gab13by13]

31. People refuse to acknowledge the fact that there isn't that much time left,

when it gets close to the mid terms the DOJ has a norm not to reveal information that may influence the outcome of the election, unless James Comey is available.

[Orrex]

36. I agree completely

That’s been my concern for some time, that The System will take so long that DOJ doesn’t actually act until it’s too late to act.

But then, oh well. So what if Repubs take over the House and Senate, in part because no action has been taken against the insurrectionists in the legislature? I’m sure that we can trust Cruz and McConnell to act in good faith to protect the republic.

[msfiddlestix]

8. There we have it, then. No Comment. Neither Denying or Confirming.

Bannon who?

[Celerity]

11. it is just the way things work in a by-the-books DOJ

[MineralMan]

12. No. No comment is standard practice. No decision? No comment.

[FBaggins]

5. Yes...

at any point in the next six months to a year or so.

[msfiddlestix]

6. Wasn't yesterday's Presser's silence on the subject a message to us?

That message of silence, I read as : "Bannon who?"

[MineralMan]

10. No. It was no comment at all.

There will be no comment until a decision is reached on the matter. What you want is irrelevant. DOJ policy is what is occurring. The AG will not comment on this until he has something definitive to say. No matter what you might demand.

[msfiddlestix]

15. I know I'm irrelevant. You don't have to rub it in repeatedly.

I only matter to my friends and family. And on election years for politicians who want a donation and my vote. But what they vote on is none of my business or my concern because I am irrelevant.

I don't need to be reminded how irrelevant I am at this point in my life.

I don't yet have dementia. I'll let you know though when that happens so you can remind me of how irrelevant I am.

[MineralMan]

20. I did not say, nor did I suggest, that you are irrelevant.

I said that what you want with regard to action by the DOJ is irrelevant. There is a big difference.

The DOJ does not answer to individuals who want things done the way they want them done. Nor should it.

The process is underway, according to the rules and practices in place at the DOJ. Those do not include notifying the public on a regular basis on the status of any investigation or decision.

You're relevant. What you want the DOJ to do is what is irrelevant.

[world wide wally]

13. What does it take to get his attention?

An act of Congress or something?


ooops... Nevermind

[MineralMan]

16. He is already attending to it. What makes you think he is not?

Do you expect him to hold a daily press conference on the subject? That's not going to happen. We'll hear his decision once it has been made. Until then, the DOJ is doing its work.

[lagomorph777]

22. I expect him to level appropriate charges against the Jan 6th terrorists, for starters.

Not a single one has been charged with Insurrection or Rebellion. Most are being charged, if at all, with parading. It wasn't a fucking parade; it was an Insurrection.

[MineralMan]

30. Do you expect him to give you (and defendents) briefings in advance

of decisions being made? Really?

[lagomorph777]

33. That's what you read in my post?

Really?

I am speaking about cases that have been publicly revealed. Those cases are the only evidence we have as to what, if anything, DOJ is doing. And it is very discouraging.

I said nothing about revealing upcoming cases. I said that the cases already adjudicated are evidence that DOJ doesn't consider insurrection to be an issue.

[MineralMan]

37. Insurrection is a very difficult charge to bring.

So far, most of those who have been charged and/or been tried or made a plea deal, are being charged for more minor offenses. Not everyone who was there could be successfully prosecuted for insurrection. So, they're doing the easier, lesser charged cases first.

And yes that is what I read in your post. You are demanding things without actually knowing what the process involves nor what is going on inside the DOJ with regard to others of the criminals involved.

Meanwhile, the DOJ is also investigating and prosecuting many, many other federal crimes. You can see what they're doing at the DOJ's press release web page. I highly recommend a daily visit:

https://www.justice.gov/news

[lagomorph777]

41. It could be added to the list of charges, even if juries might not care about it.

I don't think we're going to be able to communicate well; my post contained not even a hint of wanting Garland to reveal secret cases. I commented only on cases that have been publicly revealed.

[hamsterjill]

42. How do you know he's "attending to it"?

Do you have some inside connection that the rest of us do not have? Or are you just surmising like everyone else here?

None of us “know”. We just feel and think based on the fact that nothing has been done and the clock is ticking. Please don’t take the words of a few DU’ers. The are plenty of legal scholars who are insisting that Garland isn’t doing anything. So you have information that these people do not have?

https://www.salon.com/2021/11/05/law-group-calls-on-merrick-garlands-removal-from-doj-for-failure-to-hold-accountable/

[Cracklin Charlie]

17. What if Bannon is a cooperating witness?

And he’s helping the DOJ sweep up the rest of the nest of traitors? He sure doesn’t mind inviting them on his show, to spew about their treason.

I think we don’t know, at this point.

[lagomorph777]

23. Ha!

You're funny!

[gab13by13]

27. He is on his freaking pod cast every day,

pushing the Big Lie and promoting the insurrection.