Do you know who will be blamed if Merrick Garland does not prosecute Trump?

[kentuck]

Joe Biden.

After all, it was he that appointed Garland to be his AG.

It is very possible that a lot of Democrats would not vote for a second term if justice is not pursued vigorously.

Democratic voters will not blame Merrick Garland. They will blame Joe Biden.

We should not be naive about the political consequences.

[Fiendish Thingy]

1. So, since Biden won't fire Garland, should Garland be impeached to protect Biden & Dems in 22&24? Nt

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Are you implying that democratic voters would either stay home or not vote for Biden,

thereby allowing Donald Trump (the presumptive republican presidential candidate) to become (legitimately?) elected?

IOW, their wrath against the lack of prosecution would instead propel him back into the WH.

[dem4decades]

3. Yes, there are some that will just stay home if they're pissed off.

[revmclaren]

6. Then they are as deplorable as Magats.

[Rebl2]

42. YEP!

[JI7]

19. That's just seen excuse. They most likely want Trump in office

Just like how so many that trashed Obama for years on here ended up supporting Trump .

[Laura PourMeADrink]

37. Ok I've been here since 2004, and never ever heard

Anyone say they were voting GOP. You did? Also never EVER heard people here trashing President Obama. And you are saying that there were MANY that did this? I definitely missed that.

[JI7]

38. They said it after they were kicked off this site for revealing

where they stood though it was always obvious to those who didn't want to be fooled.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

49. Where did they say this? Many? Like how many?

[betsuni]

69. Never heard Obama bashing? Drones was very popular (war criminal, kill innocent children, empire

building, he'll start WW III, warmonger, unilateral military action). Sometimes if you debunked some Obama-drone attack or reminded them that these are NATO military things, not Obama's "kill list" conspiracy theory fantasy, you'd get a "Why do you like to see innocent children murdered?" Also government surveillance -- Obama blamed for Bush-era policies, being an authoritarian.

Third Way Manny. Obama was a third way incrementalist neoliberal corporate shill conservadem, etc.

POS used care salesman. Very famous DU post. There were people who didn't know the ACA passed the House with a public option -- they'd listened to trolls telling them Obama didn't campaign on public option, took it off the table himself (beholden to Big Insurance or whatever) -- years and years of explaining how a 60 filibuster vote in the Senate (zero Republican votes) necessary to pass the ACA lasted only four months and ten days and a few of those senators (like Lieberman) wouldn't vote for an ACA with public option, it wasn't Obama's fault or the Democratic Party's fault. Same thing now with BBB. Trolls are working hard to blame Democrats.

Obama was a disappointment. Very popular. People who imagined (or pretended to) that he was some kind of radical populist savior. "Ran as a progressive, governed like a Bush."

Trojan horse Republican. Popular too. "A corporate Trojan horse serving Wall St. donors."

Conservative Cave members bragged about trolling DU.

The insults and bullshit never stopped. Then 2016 happened. Same bullshit, many more trolls.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

70. Yes! But not HERE, on DU, by many, as claimed

[NurseJackie]

83. Lulz.

[CrackityJones75]

84. Huh?

So the people that are pissed off that trump isn’t in jail will decide to just not vote and let him sit in the oval office again?

Those would have to be some seriously stupid people.

[LakeArenal]

86. ✔️

[dem4decades]

92. Yep, you'll never go broke betting against the stupidity of some Americans.

[Demsrule86]

90. Then they get the government they deserve...you vote Democratic always or you are part of

the problem.

[walkingman]

10. I know several young people in my family that are obsessed

with their so-called progressive agenda and have not figured out yet that in America we have a binary choice. I fear that they will not vote simply because they are not getting their way. Not understanding that will be a victory for the GOP who they will really not like.

Personally I think young people these days act like "spoiled brats". I'm not sure they understand that it's their world that will be affected more than people like me who are old and on our way out.

Wake up, Wake up, Wake up!!

[CentralMass]

20. There would have been no shift in the party's platform/agenda if it weren't

for voters making it clear their votes should not be taken fir granted.
We are witnessing the "oligarchy" controlling the agenda again.. This time around the mechanism was Sinema and Manchin. The monied interest were not going to let this progressive legislature pass. I've rubber stamped the nominee for the last 11 presidential elections that I have been eligible to vote in. I can understand how young voters might say wtf, nothing is going to change.

[walkingman]

45. I can understand it also - I have been progressive all of my life BUT

that is what the primary election is all about. We have to all understand that even if our preferred candidate does not win it doesn't mean that we abandon our ideals by not participating.

The Democratic Party has given working people almost everything we now take for granted. By not voting we effectively are voting against our own interests.

[CentralMass]

64. Not voting is not an option but the outlook for any substantial change is bleak

Last edited Sun Dec 19, 2021, 05:01 AM - Edit history (1)

[JI7]

57. It's not the oligarchy, it's the voters of West Virginia that give

Manchin high approvals and Biden low numbers.

[JI7]

21. Young people have always had low rates of voting

As for their progressive agenda they claim to care so much about where did they go when it came to NYC Mayors Race ?

[sheshe2]

22. Then they are not Democrats. nt

[ecstatic]

4. He will be blamed if another insurrection occurs as well

Although at that point it might not matter, especially if it succeeds.

[gab13by13]

7. I have been one of the toughest critics of

DOJ's actions/non-actions, but the president must not interfere with the AG. Donald Trump having Bill Barr as his personal lawyer was shameful for our democracy.

[LoisB]

26. Totally agree.

[LoisB]

34. Totally agree.

[gab13by13]

5. Anyone who blames president Biden

because DOJ doesn't prosecute Trump needs to PM me and I will have a polite discussion with him/her.

I am 74 years old, I voted for McGovern. President Biden has only been in office for 1 year and so far he is the best president I have seen in my lifetime.

If DOJ doesn't prosecute Trump it doesn't have the goods on him. I just want them to investigate first, then decide.

[Walleye]

8. 👆I'm with you on all of that

[c-rational]

12. Well said.

[kentuck]

16. You and I may agree that Joe Biden has been a wonderful President...

...but that does not mean that every Democrat will feel the same way about it.

Some will blame Joe Biden if they feel there is not an adequate pursuit of justice.

That said, I think the DOJ is going at a speed commensurate with the present need. That is just my opinion.

I suspect the Select Committee will finish its work near the beginning of spring, including it's public hearings. Then it is in the hands of the Department of Justice.

What happens if the Attorney General appoints a Special Prosecutor (with his team of lawyers) to continue the investigation against Donald Trump and his criminal cohorts? Perhaps he could appoint a credible Republican as the Special Prosecutor? (But not Bill Barr)

And it really would not matter if the Republicans win both the House and Senate next November. Joe Biden is still the President and Merrick Garland is still the Attorney-General. If they wish for the investigation to continue, then there is little the new House and Senate could do to stop them. How could they "un-appoint" a Special Prosecutor?

In my opinion, this is the direction the investigation is headed.

[Progressive Jones]

44. I, for one, WILL blame Biden for lack of DOJ action, but I WON'T take it out on him at the polls.

I'm a Democrat, and I vote for the party nominees.

If Biden truly seeks action on the prosecution of this nation's domestic terrorists, he's going to have to push Garland for results, or replace him.

That being said, I'm hanging on and being patient for now. That won't last forever.

[Poiuyt]

48. This

There's no way I wouldn't vote for the Democratic nominee, but I still want the DOJ to be more aggressive here. I know Biden said he wouldn't interfere with the Justice Dept., but I wouldn't mind a little nudge.

[Polybius]

32. Better than Obama?

I'm curious as to how you can come to that conclusion after only 11 months.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

46. I am starting to think it may be one of those times in

history when it's very very difficult for anyone, even a President Obama, to truly make a mark at this time.

Tremendous headwind of taking trump's trash out ( and all the bags have broken and there's still garbage everywhere) plus divided congress, plus a deadly global health crisis.

Thank god we don't have a war too. Unfortunately, people seldom get credit for cleaning up.

[CaptainTruth]

47. +1000

[IzzaNuDay]

78. Truth!

A successful conviction means waterproof evidence in the courts. I am willing to be patient on this.

[Beastly Boy]

9. Question: who will be blamed if Garland prosecutes and loses in court?

My guess is, Biden.

Except, in this case, Biden will be facing a right wing martyr who was declared not guilty by the jury of his peers in a court of law.

Prosecution for prosecution's sake is meaningless. Worse, it's invites disaster.

[Sewa]

11. People are asking for the DOJ to investigate

the “Coup Planners”. There has to be an investigation before anything else happens. Is that asking to much?💀🤙

[Beastly Boy]

15. It's definitely not too much to ask. But it may be too much to expect a favorable outcome.

But most people here don't stop at asking. They expect Garland to successfully prosecute most, if not all coup planners; anything short of this is portrayed as Garland maliciously sabotaging the effort, or something to that effect. I am exaggerating, of course, but not by much.

I believe the investigation is still ongoing. New details are being leaked to the media at a breakneck speed. Problem is, investigation ends before prosecution begins. I am not sure that DOJ has a comprehensive list of coup planners yet, let alone sufficient evidence to launch successful prosecution of a single one of them. It's not too much to ask for a reasonable chance of the coup planners paying the price, not just going through the motions that end up in acquittals, is it?

[dem4decades]

30. Seriously? We're not supposed to prosecute crimes because it might invite disaster?

That's ridiculous.

[Beastly Boy]

43. My bad! Botching prosecutions to let the accused walk free is so not ridiculous!

What aspiring legal professional wouldn't dream of a solid record of botched prosecutions? So what if the outcome paves way to the next insurrection and the end of democracy in the US?

What was I thinking?

[dem4decades]

50. Yes, your bad. Now DOJ is doing botched prosecutions so why bother?

I have no idea what you are thinking. I guess you're right, if DOJ doesn't investigate and prosecute crimes, they can't botch them.

Just out of curiosity how many prosecutions has the DOJ "botched" after they gathered evidence and chosen to prosecute?

[Beastly Boy]

56. What made you think DOJ is doing botched prosecutions?

Certainly, if you ever read my posts, you wouldn't have found a single suggestion that they ever did.

You know why? Because they didn't. They know they are not supposed to prosecute crimes because it might invite disaster. I wonder why you find this ridiculous. And they are certainly not about to botch a prosecution just to appease critics.

If you are still not getting the essence of my post, it was to warn against calls for DOJ to rush head first into a prosecution that has no reasonable chance of conviction. Thankfully, DOJ gets it even without reading my posts. They must be even smarter than I am. Also because, duh, it is so friggin self evident!

[CaptainTruth]

51. Yep, some people care more about prosecution, even if it's a losing case...

...than they do about conviction.

Prosecution without conviction is worse than worthless, it's harmful to Democrats & it helps Trump & his cult. I want conviction, & that takes rock-solid evidence, which takes time.

And, while we're having this discussion over & over again, Republicans are registering new voters & taking the lead in registered voters in some states where Democrats have traditionally held the advantage. SMH

[Crunchy Frog]

13. Garland may end up being the biggest mistake of Biden's presidency.

And a democracy ending one at that.

[Beastly Boy]

17. Or he may end up being a hero that saved democracy.

We just don't know, do we?

[Crunchy Frog]

18. Only time will tell.

[George II]

14. Another one?

[sheshe2]

27. Yep.

A never ending story.

A dozen a day.

[JI7]

23. So they don't care about voting rights ? They don't care about abortion rights ?

Whenever I see posts like this, that's what it says to me about the people that behave in such ways.

I would bet most of those types don't even vote democratic.

[Orrex]

28. Out of curiosity, what has this Democratic congress done for voting rights and abortion rights?

Last edited Sun Dec 19, 2021, 01:05 AM - Edit history (1)

Looking for specifics here, rather than lofty statements about what they'll ever-so-surely do when they return from their lengthy vacations.

[Polybius]

33. Great response

Because so far, nothing has been passed and signed into law.

[JI7]

36. Biden is appointing judges . We don't have a large majority but democratic states

like California where we have more influence are doing many things.

If we could get US Congress to be more like Califirnia they could do more. But for now just preveting Republicans from passing shitty things is better than nothing.

States with large percentage of racist whites have disproportionate influence at national level so until there can be more demogfaphic changes it will always be difficult to do things at national level.

[Orrex]

40. Ultimately meaningless as long as KKKonservatives control the SCOTUS

[JI7]

41. That's why it's important support Democrats which these people don't want to do

which is why I asked why they don't care about those issues.

[Orrex]

52. I think ithat it's a mistake to imagine that it's that simple

You seem to be framing it as "if they stay home because they don't like Garland's action, then they aren't Democrats to begin with."

But let's consider it this way: "Democrats haven't passed voter rights legislation or abortion rights legislation or Build Back Better or any of 100 other pieces of major legislation, and on top of all that Trump is walking around free and almost all of the actual insurrectionists who committed actual insurrection in the actual capitol are getting off with minor charges, and their enablers in congress are facing no consequences at all. You know what? Fuck this."

It's tempting to pigeonhole voter frustration as simple impatience with Garland's apparent lack of action, when in fact Garland is simply the latest in a long line of major disappointments and let-downs that, in the aggregate, can paint the Democrats as ineffective placeholders.

We can argue whether that perception is right or wrong, but either way it's the perception held by many, and they will vote or not vote accordingly, even if we scold them or dismiss their long-festering concerns as mere "outrage." It also doesn't help to write off their frustration as if it were simple ignorance of some "process" if the "process" can't actually be shown to be, you know, proceeding.

Garland may be building a strong case, and major indictments may be forthcoming, and real accountability may be in the future for Republikkkan traitors, but how can we assert any of that with confidence when we have no real indication that it's true?

[JI7]

55. Virginia passed many progressive things but they ended up voting

for a republican governor becsuse of critical race theory . The people you describe don't exist. There are people who will use it agsinst Democrats like Susan Sarandon and other trolls that want republicans to win. But nobody that cares about abortion rights or voting rights will.

[Orrex]

58. Keep telling yourself that

I can see Campaign 2022 now:

"Look, we didn't get much done, and what we did get done was seriously watered down in order to get our party on board, but vote for us again and THIS time we'll totally do all the things!"

Yeah, that'll bring 'em to the polls in droves.

Having read all of your posts in this thread, it seems evident that your goal is to dismiss as "non Democrats" anyone who expresses frustration at Garland's apparent inaction. If that helps to preserve your narrative, then far be it from me to assert otherwise, but I'll be interested to see where things stand come mid-November.

This isn't about the party faithful, like me, who will vote Democrat because they see the horror of the alternative, but rather it's about the "non Democrats" whose votes we need to win elections. We dismiss and ignore them at our peril.


I'm not outraged, and I'm not a contrarian: I would be delighted to be wrong, but it'll take more than assertions of faith to make me believe that The System is chugging away behind the scenes, ready to bring Trump et al to long-overdue justice.

[JI7]

60. I don't need to keep telling myself anything. The Voters show where they stand

And the ones you describe don't care about many important issues. They may not oppose it but they certainly aren't that concerned about it.

I look at how they have voted . Not what they claim .

[Orrex]

61. Dismissing others' "important issues" is a strategy for failure

I suspect that your important issues and mine are likely very much the same, but we're not talking about your vote or mine.

Other issues are important to other voters, and trivializing those issues is a great way to alienate those voters and lose their votes.


I wish that I could be convinced that Garland's apparent inaction will have no negative impact on Democrats' midterm prospects, but it'll take more than your assertion that voters concerned about such things do not exist.

[JI7]

62. I'm not dismissing the issues. THEY are doing it based on how

they vote or don't vote.

[Orrex]

65. You're dismissing *their* issues as trivial

And you've explicitly dismissed those voters as nonexistent and/or as not-real-Democrats, as if you get to make that determination.


At this point we're sort of going around & around here. You and I are both going to vote Democrat, so the disagreement is in how to treat others' frustration.

[JI7]

68. I'm judging them based on how they vote and based and they clearly

aren't democrats or liberals.

[smirkymonkey]

67. +1000

Too tired and burnt out to add anything, but completely agree here.

[Beastly Boy]

59. Not meaningless at all

SCOTUS gets to rule on about couple of dozen cases per year. The rest get resolved in district courts or circuit courts.

[Orrex]

63. Major issues, like voting rights and abortion rights?

Gerrymandering? Workers' rights? Sensible COVID prevention?

Which of those has gone as far a circuit courts and stopped there?

[Beastly Boy]

71. All of the above, except the few dozen cases that SCOTUS chooses to take on.

Bur even if SCOTUS looks into cases, it doesn't render lower courts meaningless. There are plenty of instances when SCOTUS referred cases back to lower courts.

[JI7]

24. Did they go to Trump U ? To be so lacking in knowledge about how

the system works yet so outraged

[Fullduplexxx]

25. And he should be

[Aussie105]

29. Smear Biden enough and . . .

people just won't vote for him.

It's a repeat of 'I can't possibly vote for her!' attitude against Hillary when she was running that got Trump in all those years ago.

It worked then, it may well work again. People just didn't question how they developed that attitude, nor did they question Trump's obvious (lack of) political talents.

Smear Biden enough, and voters will sulk and stay home.

Not GQP voters of course. They will smell victory and smile when they line up to vote.

TFG has unfinished work. He may get chance to carry on.

Unfortunately the collective intelligence of voters is such that this long view plan may just work.

[kentuck]

39. You call it a "smear"..

I would say that we are not part of a 'cult'.

There are no loyalty oaths.

We believe in free speech and people's ability to weigh the value of that speech.

What might happen if we don't weigh those words carefully is a fair proposition?

[NurseJackie]

77. Agreed! This OP is just another opportunity to shit on Joe Biden and the Biden Administration.

[NurseJackie]

85. "Reality Deniers." 🙄😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😜

Reality Deniers.

🙄😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😜

In 2021, Biden has:

- Nominated 73 federal judges, flipping the Second Circuit and Fourth Circuit
- Signed the $1.9T American Rescue Plan into law
- Signed the $1.2T Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act into law

Arguably the most successful Year 1 for a Dem in modern history

[SayItLoud]

31. We have known for a looooong time

Who Individual 1 is and STILL he’s free as a bird. Don’t use the “ MG will indite if there is something there”. There’s something there!

[relayerbob]

53. Just stop already

Turn off your TV. Quit doom-scrolling. Stop fear-mongering. You have exactly zero idea of what the DoJ is doing.

[Progressive dog]

54. Demcrats who blame Biden should stay home.

If there are any such "Democrats", they will find another reason not to vote for Joe if that reason goes away.

[David__77]

66. It's bigger than Biden.

It seems that there’s little appetite to do what’s needed to continue the US.

[LakeArenal]

72. " It is very possible that a lot of Democrats would not vote for a second term"

That’s the biggest piece of conjecture, opinion and bs.

You can only conjecture your own vote.

[kentuck]

73. Are you saying it is not "possible" ?

Rose-colored glasses and denial doesn't help, either.

[LakeArenal]

80. It's a possible as have a blue wave in 2022.

It’s all conjecture and this is divisive conjecture.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

74. It is conjecture because so much depends on who the GOP candidate will be in 24

Don't see any viable GOPer at this point. But, I read a poll that said only 30 something % of Dems even want Biden to run for a second term - which IS reality. But ALL that could change if we can get fucking Covid under control.

[LakeArenal]

82. YOU can talk about it. A frail body does not mean a frail brain.

Pelosi shows that a brain at 80 is still a good brain.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

87. So much about the person too, eh? But numerical age does play a role

in people's mind. Conversely, without considering anything else you might not want a very young person either.

Of course exceptions to both! And both can be overcome, just starting from below zero.

[Demsrule86]

91. There is an incumbent advantage...and if Trump runs they are close in age...we can't run anyone

else or we lose. Who else can win the rust belt or Georgia...you should look at the map...it is very discouraging.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

95. Hadn't thought about that. Incumbent advantage that will help

[LakeArenal]

81. Polls are definitely not reality to me.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

88. To me, Morning Consult poll hard to complete blow off.

Even if they were off by 50% LOL. Especially since more people want trump to run again than for Biden to run again which is inexplicably sickening right there.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2021/12/15/more-voters-want-trump-to-run-in-2024-than-biden-poll-suggests/amp/


KEY FACTS

The poll found only 18% of 1,998 registered voters surveyed December 11-13 believe Biden should “definitely” run, joined by 16% who said he should “probably” run.

When it came to Trump, 25% of voters said he should definitely run and another 14% said he should probably run.

There’s a large enthusiasm gap between the two and their bases, with only 35% of Democrats believing Biden should definitely run, compared with 49% of Republicans who definitely want Trump to run

[LakeArenal]

93. Time will tell.

[NurseJackie]

76. Oh brother. 🙄

[Demsrule86]

89. I do not believe Trump can be successfully prosecuted personally...and I won't blame anyone. I know

that knowing something and proving it are two different things...I am way more concerned with winning the midterms.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

94. Still amazes me that out of all these people who support him,

of which they say some are scared for their families not to, that not a single one has gotten anything on tape or in writing. Agree.... Only way he will be successfully prosecuted is if there is hard evidence.