If Garland doesn't indict trump, if Manhattan DA doesn't, can I expect certain folks

[Eliot Rosewater]

to say they were WRONG???

Hey, how about this, instead of me worrying about whether or not the same individuals who NEVER miss a chance to attack those of us who do worry about this shit, that they will apologize, how about they just LOUDLY express FRUSTRATION about the INACTION of these departments.

Or would that be too much to ask?

Believe me, what I want more than ANYTHING IN LIFE (almost) is to have to come back here and say

I

WAS

WRONG

after Garland or DA indicts the traitorous scumbag.

But this NEVER ENDING "be patient" shit is MADDENING. You can be patient, so to speak, and LOUD at the same time so folks like Garland or Alvin Bragg know that we EXPECT this of them. We already know he is guilty of crimes.


I sure hope to FUCK the powerful and wealthy people who have the EARS of Bragg and Garland and others in that position are not being quiet!

Or do some of you think time is not of the essence?

[Wuddles440]

1. I feel your pain!!!

[Backseat Driver]

2. Wow, how long did it take to really "lay it between the lines" a hair-width away from

fast-fingered alert team? I "ken" the frustration, and "if you really say it, the forum won't really play it" is not a result of CoVid lock-down, LOL!

[smirkymonkey]

3. +1000

[enneacanthus]

4. I'm with you Mr. ER.

Just sent messages to my senators (worthless) and all other Senators on the other aisle that might have a sense of law and justice. I'm waiting on TFG to be indicted too. In the interim...

The message was about Ginni's e-mails and Justice Thomas's conflict of interest. I post below please use as you see fit:

Can Supreme Court Justice Thomas credibly carry on in office when it is revealed that his spouse was involved in a coup to overthrow the government?

Overthrow a duly elected President based on conspiracy theories promoted by the spouse and former law clerks of Justice Thomas?

Without his position on the Court the spouse would have had no special access to the White House via Meadows et al.

My answer as a voting tax paying citizen of the United States is NO; he can never be a credible Justice. Recusals won’t cut it.

This issue needs to be taken up by the Senate immediately. I think the possibility of impeachment is looming. The Court’s credibility has suffered but this may be a deciding blow.

[BlueJac]

5. They will say Garland is not letting the cat out of the bag yet

[Fiendish Thingy]

6. I'll be happy to admit I was wrong- how about yourself?

If January 20, 2025 comes and there has been no indictment of Trump or officials in his administration, as Garland and Biden leave office, then I will unflinchingly admit I was wrong about the assumptions, based on lack of public information, that nothing was being done to investigate and prosecute the crimes of the Trump administration.

If that comes to pass, It will undeniably be a dark day for American Democracy.

How about yourself?

I hope those who are constantly complaining, counting days, accusing Garland of being a corrupt Republican Federalist Society plant, and who are certain, based on the lack of public information , that absolutely nothing is being done to investigate or prosecute the crimes of the Trump administration, will also have the integrity to own up to how utterly wrong they were, if and when indictments are handed down.

When the time comes, I agree to post my admission of how wrong I was on your thread, if you’ll post yours on mine (whichever reality applies, of course).

Deal?

[stopdiggin]

15. +1. but actually ..

in the spirit that the OP was written ...
I'm not planning on apologizing for much. Quite comfortable sitting where I am. Sorry that so offends ... But really not that sorry.

[dem4decades]

7. Michael Cohen went to jail for paying off Stormy, DOJ let Trump off Scott free.

That's all you need to know about DOJ.

Wait, the woman in Georgia investigating Trump trying to overturn the election had to ask for security help for their safety, why didn't DOJ take over her investigation?

DOJ, at least Barr did something, crooked as it was, we can't even get DOJ to go after criminals.

[Grasswire2]

8. it's time for NBC reporters to go back to Biden for clarification on his philosophy.

The American people deserve to know if Garland is operating under this philosophy of Biden's.

Article is from 11/2020.

By Carol E. Lee, Kristen Welker and Mike Memoli

WASHINGTON — President-elect Joe Biden has privately told advisers that he doesn't want his presidency to be consumed by investigations of his predecessor, according to five people familiar with the discussions, despite pressure from some Democrats who want inquiries into President Donald Trump, his policies and members of his administration.

Biden has raised concerns that investigations would further divide a country he is trying to unite and risk making every day of his presidency about Trump, said the sources, who spoke on background to offer details of private conversations.

They said he has specifically told advisers that he is wary of federal tax investigations of Trump or of challenging any orders Trump may issue granting immunity to members of his staff before he leaves office. One adviser said Biden has made it clear that he "just wants to move on."

More at link below.



https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/president-elect-biden-wary-trump-focused-investigations-sources-say-n1247959?msclkid=49c9de3aa7bc11ec88a919028c198773

[CrispyQ]

10. I totally missed that story & it's damned depressing.

I think Biden is wrong. People didn't stand in long lines risking their well-being just for roads & bridges & "let's all get along." One of the reasons the GOP keeps trying to get away with this shit is we keep letting them get away with this shit. Hard not to believe that Garland isn't influenced by the White House.

[Grasswire2]

11. I found it shocking, too.

Not surprising. But shocking that it has not been revisited, considering everything we know now about the crimes and the coup.

[stopdiggin]

12. Garland is not required to 'adopt' anyone's philosophy

or anyone else's time-frame. (it's called being independent. a servant to the country, and the constitution. we use to believe in such things)

[Gaugamela]

9. I'll admit I was wrong. I question it everyday. Moreover, I don't attack anyone

over this.

The way I see it, the Democratic Party is the party that still believes in our institutions and the best of what America stands for. So for the time being I choose to retain some faith in those institutions and ideals. But if Garland fails to indict, if it all gets swept under the rug like the Bush/Cheney war crimes and the 2008 financial meltdown, then I will take it as proof that our entire system is hopelessly and irredeemably corrupt, and that voting doesn't matter. In that case I will likely stop voting, because in such a system voting is simply passive complicity — an endorsement of corruption. If there are no indictments, then it's time for the left to adopt the radicalism that the right accuses us of.

But I'm not ready to go there yet. I prefer to hold out on judgement.

[BlackSkimmer]

13. I wouldn't hold your breath.

Either about any of those treasonous cretins paying for their crimes, or about anyone apologizing for saying they will.

[Beastly Boy]

14. How encompassing is your definition of "certain folks"?

Does it only include the certain folks who insisted that Trump will eventually be indicted?

If, as it appears from your post to be the case, this is what drives your expectations, you are setting yourself for a disappointment. The anticipated apologies, if they ever materialize, will be drowned out by "I wasn't wrong". Personally, and you are welcome to prove me wrong, I am not aware of anyone on DU who definitively stated that Trump WILL be indicted by anyone, in any venue. I do, however recall at least one DUer (yours truly, if I may be so humble) who predicted that the goal post of the folks claiming to be "frustrated by inaction" will progressively move, from claims of inaction towards rioters, to claims of inaction towards insurrectionists, to claims of inaction towards the nebulous "big fish", to now claims of inaction towards Trump alone, progressively excluding previous targets as they become indicted, casually dismissing the known so speculations about the unknown can go on.

So how about an apology from all those folks who had been hurling endless accusations of inaction, while DOJ has been doing their job with substantial results to show for it; the folks who had been frustrated with imagined failures that rarely materialize? The apology is past due, based on known facts, not speculations about the future.

[Eliot Rosewater]

22. I dont belong in that category, I have been talking about trump and trump alone for years.

Starting with calling him a traitor a month after the election 2016, and being challenged on that here.

I could go on, I wont.

Should others go to jail who assisted in the insurrection? Of course.

One person has commited crimes almost every day of his LIFE and still has evaded all justice.

And KNOWING IN MY GUT that Garland will never indict the traitor, and what that will mean to our future, our system of justice.

Again, LOVE TO BE WRONG, cant WAIT to be WRONG

It was a no brainer according to the DA's in Manhattan to indict, yet


Remind me, of all the politicians who were obviously part of the coup, which have been indicted????? Let's include non pol's like Giuliani and Hannity and others.

Any? Sincere question, I dont believe there are any, but could be one or two.

If not, how about low level people AROUND them? Any?

We cant even get people to testify to Congress, so Congress could then make a criminal referral. This is BULLSHIT but it isnt all the fault of those in charge like Garland, and I am not faulting him yet, but getting close. It is the problem of a media and populace who applies completely two different sets of rules.

[Beastly Boy]

27. If you have so far been talking about Trump alone, you are not anymore.

Now you are talking about Giuliani, Hannity and others, and people around them (just to set the record straight, Bannon, Manafort, Flynn, Cohen and seven other "people around" Trump have been indicted or plead guilty. Whether they paid the price for their crimes is a whole 'nother story).

Like you, I have, since 2016, been warning everyone who would not shrug me off about real dangers of Trump taking power. Many on DU found my warnings overly alarmist or plain amusing. But coming back with "I told you so" is, at this point, meaningless. I too suspect Trump and Co. of committing crimes, with good reason. But a suspicion, or an accusation will not go far. Just look at how easily the people I mentioned above escaped punishment, and now they can't be charged for their crimes the second time. Due process of law is unforgiving to prosecutors who fail. In fact, the consequences of failing to convict are often more severe than the consequences of failing to indict.

The above is just a hypothetical. I have no idea of what DOJ is up to, or whether Trump and Co. will be indicted. Like you, I pray he will be. But, given the extent of my ignorance, I would rather refrain from judging anyone, or anticipating anything. My outrage, like my hindsight, is meaningless. And, since I can offer nothing but speculation on a subject whose outcome I cannot possibly comment on with any degree of authority, some may even find it annoying.

[SoonerPride]

16. Me waiting for the DOJ to indict trump

[Algernon Moncrieff]

17. My guess is that Manhattan DA doesn't want to prosecute a case they aren't 100% certain they'll win

A hung jury or an acquittal would be bad.

[Eliot Rosewater]

20. 100% in that case we dont need a justice system...

[Tree Lady]

30. I can just see the defense insisting

that half the jurors need to be republican to make it fair. If a jury of all democrats or people that voted for Biden convicted then it would get appealed to supreme court and we know what they would do!

So while I am very upset about the justice in this country being crap, its a lose lose again.

[Demsrule86]

18. You and I disagree...knowing someone is guilty and proving it are two different things.

And I doubt there is a jury that could be convened anywhere that would find Trump guilty. Why not get every f'ing person who was involved in this so if it happens again...some will think twice about helping a criminal president. That being said, I trust Garland to do his job.

[Eliot Rosewater]

19. Those assistant DA's didnt quit in Manhattan for no reason...they must have believed

trump could be successfully tried.

Garland is different in that we dont know what those around him are saying, I wish we did.

[Demsrule86]

28. That is New York politics and has nothing to do with the feds...but even so, the DA didn't

think he could be successfully be prosecuted...There are Trumpers everywhere and it just takes one which is a sad thing IMHO.

[brooklynite]

21. Saying "be patient" is an "attack"?

[newdayneeded]

23. Let's fast forward:

He'll be running with a God complex knowing he can get away with anything. Can you imagine his next term, he'll be doing corrupt things on prime time TV. why not, they'll do shit about it. This is so dangerous with not doing anything to prosecute! Not to mention all the right wingers in congress, they now think they can get away with anything.

[Eliot Rosewater]

24. I keep hearing all day everyday "He wont even run again"

Jesus fucking krist, we have learned NOTHING...

YOU are RIGHT not only will he and GOP in the House and Senate abandon all rules and law, the media will play along as usual.

What happens WHEN not if, in Nov red state officials refuse to certify elections they lose...

NOBODY is talking about it

Trump wont need to win, he will just have to have each red state refuse to certify if he loses.

[Eliot Rosewater]

25. And for FUCK SAKE someone who is high up in the D party PLEASE reassure me that

officials are planning for red states NOT TO CERTIFY any election their candidates lose?

I dont know how you prepare for that, but PLEASE GOD someone tell me they are at least Talking about it?

[anarch]

26. well not me; I've said from the start that nothing is going to happen to him

I'll also be happy to come back and say I was wrong about that, but I'll also be very surprised if that's the case.

There may be some more indictments of people in his organization, but it will stop short of taking any legal action against the orange fuckstick himself, or likely any of his family either.

The NY state angle is done; money has changed hands or threats have been made or whatever--as they say, "fuggetaboutit", I wouldn't expect any justice to be done there.

And I'd expect the DOJ to keep spinning their wheels like they've been doing, and hope that people just lose interest after a while, mostly because "it would look bad to prosecute a former president" and if the whole truth came out about his administration's crimes, it would make our nation look like a complete joke for tolerating it while he was in office.

I would predict he will never spend a day in jail; we may hear some more juicy details about how awful he was after he dies, but I'd guess that will be about it. Unless something drastically changes.