Earlier today, someone on MSNBC cut through all the static, bullshit, and told the truth.

[fightforfreedom]

With the evidence already presented by the committee (a lot more to come) it would be a clear cut case of Dereliction of Duty if Trump and his inner circle were not indicted for Jan 6th. The evidence to indict is overwhelming already. I do not see Garland committing Dereliction of Duty

If Garland allowed Trump and his inner circle to simply walk away, not indict them, it would set off a firestorm. Biden would be forced to remove Garland. There is no way in hell Garland can let this historic, dangerous moment, this crime, remain open ended. It has to be dealt with. It has to be dealt with in a court of law.

Indictment does not equal conviction. Trump and his inner circle must have their day in court. They must be given a chance to present their evidence. This can only happen if they are indicted.

[SoCalDavidS]

1. President Biden Won't Be Forced To Remove Garland

President Biden has already said he's taking a hands off approach so far as the DOJ goes. And besides, he picked Mr. Garland, and was probably aware of his temperament and the potential lack of interest in indicting people like TFG or his co-conspirators.

I don't see Mr. Garland's job being in the slightest bit of jeopardy, whether he issues indictments or not.

[fightforfreedom]

3. How many people voted for Biden?

80 million? If Garland doesn't indict, what do you think those 80 million people are going to do. Tell Biden to give Garland a medal. Biden would be forced to act. It is ridiculous to think other wise.

In your post you stated Biden was aware Garland probably would not indict Trump and his inner circle. That's crazy, you should delete your post.

[stopdiggin]

5. the post was perfectly on point.

And perfectly defensible. Joe Biden has articulated an astute, and eminently ethical, 'hands off' position regarding DOJ (and one presumes Garland). Myself, and a whole load of others in the D camp, support him unequivocally in his efforts to depoliticize the Department. That does not mean that Biden has to abandon the 'bully pulpit' of his office - or fail to make his opinions of the hearings absolutely crystal clear. But it does mean that I don't in any way envision Joe Biden forced to take any action against his vision or judgement. And I don't see the 'groundswell' push for that action either. It seems we're going to have to disagree on this.
----- -----

[True Blue American]

62. Biden hires competent people.

Cases take a long time to build. The committee is doing a great job. People need to quit jumping to conclusions. It is clear the Justice Department is making a solid case. Garland is not going to jump into the facts being laid out and clear.

[Ferrets are Cool]

70. My question to you. IF Garland does nothing (we don't know either way), should the President

maintain his "hands off" stance, even at the risk of allowing an ex-president to be ABOVE THE LAW?
My answer is HELL NO. What is your answer?

[Trueblue Texan]

71. Your premise is ridiculous.

All the hand wringing over whether Garland will indict or not is a complete and foolish waste of energy. We should expect AG Garland to be guided by the facts, to build a solid case against all conspirators in the insurrection AND we should expect it to take lots of TIME! If all of that doesn't happen, we should worry a LOT about whether the conspirators will ever face justice. All this speculation about whether he will indict or not is like worrying about paint drying. It will, in the proper time.

[Ferrets are Cool]

76. You mean the way we "expected" Barr to be guided by the fact.

DO NOT call my thoughts rediculous unless you can back your thoughts up with FACTS. And, as a matter of fact, I CAN speculate ALL I want. Don't want to see my speculation, block me.

[Trueblue Texan]

78. Again, the premise is ridiculous.

I don't know anyone who expected Barr to be guided by the facts. Trump appointed Barr. Biden appointed Garland. We all, justifiably, have higher expectations of Garland. Barr and Garland are apples and oranges. When you compare apples and oranges, the premise is ridiculous.

[stopdiggin]

72. my answer is

that is what 'hands off' generally means. It is hard (for myself, and most I'd suggest) to defend a definition where it only applies when one gets the action or result wished for. That turns meaning on it's head, and reduces the concept to - well, frankly, nothing.

So my answer is, I fully believe Joe Biden's definition of 'hands off' means that Merrick Garland (and his team) make this decision on his own. And further - yes, I am OK with that - I think an independent AG and justice department is the right goal - and I support Biden in that stance.

(we recently weathered a storm where it became evident that the country was extremely fortunate in finding a few men and women who were not 'subservient' - it would seem to be a concept that could now garner support .. )

[Shipwack]

11. SoCalDavidS is not crazy, nor should he delete his post...

I like Joe Biden. I voted for him and will vote for him again if he’s on the ticket.

However…

Only in the US would he be considered to be “left wing”. He (and the Democratic Party in general*) are, at the most, left of center centrists.

He’s not going to rock the boat by firing the guy he handpicked… And, not being stupid (nor being surrounded by stupid people), he definitely knew what kind of person Garland was.

*i shouldn’t have to, but I probably need point out to (only) a few here, but DU members are not typical Democrats…

[True Blue American]

63. I am a moderate Democrat

Always was, will be. Never pretended to be anything else

So is Biden. He has many trying to push him too far left. Biden sees the big picture. He is working his brains out to clean up the Trump/ Republican mess. That will take years. He is actually accomplishing miracles by getting a few Republicans to go along with him.

Meanwhile you hear the constant chant, “ Go faster, do it yesterday!” Things do not work that way.

[oldsoftie]

12. Yeah, he should delete his post because you disagree with it. Good lord.

[fightforfreedom]

17. I suggested the post should be deleted for this reason.

The post suggested Biden knew when he picked Garland he probably would not indict Trump and his inner circle. That is factually incorrect and yes it is crazy.

[ZonkerHarris]

31. keep digging your hole. It's fun to watch.

[gab13by13]

34. The post should have been worded better,

From the git go I worried about Merrick Garland being an institutionalist. An Institutionalist, in general, may not choose to indict a guilty person if doing so damages the institution or does harm to the country.

My personal opinion means nothing, but I believe not indicting Trump would be far worse for the country than indicting him.

It is obvious that former and present members of Congress were complicit in the attempted coup. Would an institutionalist consider not indicting present or former members of Congress if he/she believes it would damage the institution of Congress?

These are all valid questions and has absolutely nothing to do with Garland's integrity, it has to do with his judicial philosophy, with his judicial beliefs.

The AG of the United States cannot always act like a federal judge, giving some here, and taking some there. The AG of the United States has to make binary decisions and it's time for Merrick Garland to make one.

[True Blue American]

42. I agree with you.

[GoodRaisin]

50. The post stated that as an opinion, backed up by a fact.

There is nothing wrong with the post.

[True Blue American]

79. Sorry but the post gave an opinion without one fact.

Not one of us has any idea what Garland is working on. Imagination does not help.

[GoodRaisin]

80. It's very much a fact that Biden had said he would take a hands off

approach with the DOJ.

[True Blue American]

81. That part is true.

Biden said that, chose competent people to fill the positions. I choose to let him do what I voted for him to do.

I choose not to second guess the President. He is doing a fine job and his Victory lap showed that. He is trying to clean up Republican messes, bring us back from a pandemic, heal the economy plus help Ukraine, deal with a corrupt Supreme Court, the Republican Party, a few deadheads in his own party.

He seems to be winning on those, 20 Republicans voted for his gun bill. Senema did that one. I watched her on the floor of the Senate. Wondered why she was alsways talking to Republicans. Then she came on the floor and announced the gun bill!

Now Manchin is joining in the Drug price reduction. I admit I do not like to hear Biden criticized when he is actually doing miracles.

The Press does enough of that. No matter what he accomplishes they start every story with,”Amid falling ratings!” The only thing Trump told the truth about was the press is not our friend. They put Trump if office, they pushed the Iraq war and now would love to push Biden into Ukraine. Just listen to the slobbering war correspondents.

[GoodRaisin]

82. Right. And, the other part of the post was an opinion

because none of us can get inside Joe Biden’s head as to what he was thinking when he appointed Garland. The poster could be right or wrong, but I think opinions are okay to post on DU, and okay to debate, as long as those opinions aren’t intended to be an attack on a democrat. I didn’t see the post that way.

When I think back to Obama picking Garland as Scalia’s replacement, the general feeling I came away with was that Obama picked Garland as someone who could get Republican votes because he was moderate in his views. Of course, that didn’t happen when McConnell cheated Obama.

So perhaps the poster had a point that Biden MAY have been thinking that way when he picked him for AG. For the record, I don’t know, so I tend to stay out of the arguments DU posters have about what the DOJ is doing or not doing. I just felt there was nothing wrong with the post with respect to the posting rules on DU.

But, I do support Joe Biden, supported him in the primary, and believe he has done a good job as he can be expected. I agree with you the media has taken him down (in the way they spin the news) and that is why I don’t pay much attention to the talking heads and more attention to what is actually happening.

[True Blue American]

83. Thanks

[sop]

15. No, it's not "crazy," and "delete your post" is totally uncalled for.

[iemanja]

38. Shortly after the election, Biden said he didn't want Trump prosecuted.

Still, Democratic nominee Joe Biden reportedly does not want to open investigations into Trump, saying such an effort would consume a new administration and further divide the nation, according to a new report.

“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,” NBC News reported on Tuesday.

“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.'”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-reportedly-doesnt-want-trump-investigated-after-he-leaves-office

Has he said anything since then to suggest his views have changed? I haven't heard it.

[summer_in_TX]

41. Biden said that on November 17, 2020 - before J6

On April 2, 2022 he told his inner circle he believes Trump should be prosecuted.

https://www.businessinsider.com/president-biden-believes-trump-should-be-prosecuted-for-jan-6-riot-nyt-2022-4?amp

Opinions changed after the insurrection attempt, clearly.

[iemanja]

56. I'm glad to see that

Thanks for the link.

[True Blue American]

65. Thank you.

[True Blue American]

43. Where are you guys getting this info? Biden made it clear from the begging his AG

Last edited Sun Jun 19, 2022, 05:26 AM - Edit history (1)

Would not be tampered with. He has not toubched or said anything about Garland.

Garland is Laying his case. Very carefully. His asking the committee for their transcripts for on going and future cases is proof of that. Biden is not touching this.

[iemanja]

55. I provided a link to an article

You can also find it from other sources. That is where I am getting it.

[True Blue American]

61. Someone on MSNBC?

You posted what someone said on MSNBC! That is no fact.

President Biden said from the start his AG and Justice Department would be independent.

After Barr we need An AG this is. Biden will not interfere and will not fire.

He chose a man with ethics. One who should be on the Supreme ourt now if not for lying, slime ball Mitch.

[iemanja]

77. NBC news reported it

and they are more factual than random wishes on the internet. NBC is a reputable news source, whether you like the news or not. Now, another poster linked to a source that says Biden had since changed his mind because of Jan 6.

[summer_in_TX]

57. Agreed.

Both things can be true. That Biden will not try to influence Garland AND that he believes Trump must be prosecuted.

The article I linked shows Biden expressing his beliefs in private, not public.

[stopdiggin]

74. both things can be true ..

yes! An independent DOJ means - wait for it - independence! And - quelle surprise - other people (including the president) might have differing opinions.

[Magoo48]

8. If Garland doesn't hold tfg and his mob responsible, why the fuck would Joe keep him?

Garland would become a further embarrassment before the world, a world already watching in horror as our Democracy is under siege by the forces of internal fascism.

[fightforfreedom]

16. Exactly.

And saying Biden was aware Garland would not indict when he picked him, is crazy. That is factually untrue.

[agingdem]

9. Why do you say Garland won't indict Trump

because he hasn't cuffed him, yet?...the J6 committee's task is to tell the "story" of January 6...and almost a year after the committee's inception they are doing just that... and yet, they are still interviewing witnesses and asking people to come forward because of the almost daily revelations...

The DOJ's task is to indict within the parameters of the law...consider this: January 6 and the lead up to that day is unprecedented and yet the law has to fit the "crime"..

Of course Biden is taking a hands off approach, but he knows we as a country need a reckoning..not just a six part mini series, but real accountability...Garland knows that too...

[NonPC]

13. Garland Will Indict

You have to remember that this is a former President with millions of rabid, idiot followers. Garland needs to have a bulletproof case with numerous, indisputable witnesses and mounds of evidence before he indicts. He knows the case is going to end up at the Supreme Court, so there can't be anything that might let the orange slime off the hook. Garland is probably looking at how he is going to make sure that he can argue before any one of the Republican buffoons on the bench and win hands down.

[KS Toronado]

28. Here it is in a nutshell

Largest crime ever committed against The United States and by a former President no less will be very
time consuming to bring him to Justice. Garland has charged other Jan 6th insurrectionists with crimes,
he's working his way up the ladder and we should support his efforts instead of complaining
what's taking so long. Excellent input NonPC.

[True Blue American]

46. Thank you.

[jaxexpat]

40. How about this for a scenario.

Garland, knowing that any case he brings against Trump will most probably go before the USSC. That court is overbalanced with conserva-hypocrites and possibly 2-3 are rabidly and blindly servants of pro-Trump politics before justice. There is a REAL possibility that the USSC would, in a 5-4 decision, ignore the facts and decide for Trump or one, any or all of his minions. They'd justify their stance with some precedence or the other which they'd gladly ignore if the shoe were on the other foot. Hell, they may even cite the US senate twice unable to find Trump guilty of an impeachable, much less removeable offense. Hey, I know that flips logic on its head but remember this is the "August Body" that made W president.

If Garland truly anticipates a total judicial shutdown of the facts he presents, how could he proceed with the case? Why would he proceed? What is the following chapter to be if he proceeds and his case fails? What is it to be if he simply doesn't indict Trump but instead proceeds against one of the higher minions, intentionally omitting a case against Trump altogether? He might try that because he's afraid the country will explode if he goes after Trump but it would be a sham anyway since everybody knows it was Trump at the wheel.

The thing is, since Jan. 6th, 2021, the possibilities include the unthinkable, civil war. What sort of society will we have if Trump walks and 60% of the country knows he's guilty as hell while half the remainder is armed and itching to kill some "libruls"? That question is most important because that's where we are right now. Even before Garland makes his call.

[KS Toronado]

59. This is worthy of it's own post.

[True Blue American]

64. Garland is dotting all his I's.

Setting up a solid case!

[Joinfortmill]

10. I don't agree about Garland "potential lack of interest in indicting people like TFG"

Garland said he would follow the law and no one was above the law. I don't know how much clearer he could have been. As for Biden taking a 'hands off' approach, I think he will do that because he chose Garland and he knows he's honorable. Frankly, the world knows they are both honorable.

[Magoo48]

18. This is not in step with today's context, an evolving context much different in appearance

than the one on the day Garland was announced. There is no sound logic which suggests Garland not following through with holding tfg and his mob responsible.

[getagrip_already]

22. You may be correct... especially since Joe himself is hesitant...

Joe has said he doesn't want his presidency to be defined by 4 years of tfg trials.

He has to balance that against 4 years of tfg bullshit and another run.

The country quite frankly is more important than the definition of bidens term.

But none of that seems to be swaying garland.

[True Blue American]

47. The President said

Before he chose Garland the Justice Department would be completely independent

Just because Trump interfered there is no way Biden would. He knows the law after being in the Senate since he was 29!

[wnylib]

58. What Biden said before J6

is not the same as his view after J6.

Not surprising that a major criminal attack on the US government would alter Biden's perspective.

But he is, correctly, leaving it up to DOJ to pursue, which AG Garland is doing, as evidenced by DOJ's request for transcripts from the J6 committee.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

2. Trump and Gang should welcome indictments and trial to prove the election was stolen!

They should shout from the heavens, get me to trial and I will lay out all the evidence of the theft!

But….

[stopdiggin]

4. well - if they said it on MSNBC .... -(nt)-

[Joinfortmill]

6. Garland said he will follow the trail wherever it leads, no one is above the law. I believe him.

[LogicFirst]

7. Trump could be indicted, and Garland could refuse to bring him to trial.

[MineralMan]

14. Why would he do that? It defies logic.

Where did you come up with that?

While anything is possible, working with probabilities probably makes more sense, and the probability of what you suggest approaches zero.

[sop]

24. Garland will inevitably find himself on the horns of a dilemma.

If the DOJ indicts and prosecutes, Trump's followers will take to the streets; chaos, violence and bloodshed will surely follow, and Trump's prosecution will take years and tear the country apart. On the other hand, if the DOJ decides not to prosecute Trump, the damage done to our democracy and the rule of law will be immeasurable and lasting. I believe Garland will choose the path that results in the least damage to our country.

[MineralMan]

27. Well, since I do not know AG Garland, I have no idea

how he will think about that. Perhaps we will find out at some point. Until then, I have no way of predicting what he will do.

First, we will have to see if an indictment of Trump actually occurs. We don't know whether a grand jury to consider such an indictment has even been seated, so we will have to wait on that, as well.

As you say, any prosecution that comes from it will take a very long time before it actually goes to trial. There are many ways that such a trial could be delayed, and likely it will be.

I believe that a grand jury will consider the evidence presented by the DOJ's selected prosecutor. Most likely, it will indict. At that point, we will see what ensues after that.

Until then, speculation seems to me to be a useless waste of our time. The entire process is out of our control, and always has been. We are spectators in this, spectators with zero influence whatsoever on the course of events.

We shall see. That much I can predict.

[True Blue American]

48. Trump is going to trial brought by several AG's.

His crimes are too big and numerous to ignore.

[fightforfreedom]

29. You nailed it. That is exactly what Garland is facing.

That is why I believe he will indict. Indicting Trumps inner circle is a no brainer, people like Eastman. Garland is going to have to decide what to do with Trump one way or another. In a recent post I suggested there could eventually be major discussions between Garland and the Trump legal team.

[True Blue American]

66. People forget how many

Of Reagan and Nixon people went to jail. Ask John Dean or Oliver North who came out of prison more rabid than ever. Dean came clean on Nixon. Reagan forgot. Nixon resigned, Ford gave him pardon. Trump is still out there spouting his ignorant, crazy lies.
The truth is most people do not know the past. For them only now exists.

[agingdem]

20. Are you assuming the optics of a Trump indictment is sufficient for Garland?

that an indicted but not criminally charged Trump is a reckoning?

indicting Trump, the coup's puppet master, is not the same as declining to charge Meadows/Scavino with contempt of congress for refusing to turn over documents... Meadows is in a shit-ton of trouble for election interference, destroying documents, sedition..and yet, that pales in comparison to Trump's overt attempted coup to overthrow the government of the United States..Meadows will not walk and Trump will be held accountable...

[Calista241]

19. I think everyone involved at DoJ is hoping Trump will keel over and die

before they have to make a decision.

[JanMichael]

32. Play out the clock. Very passive aggressive (?) but if it works great.

[True Blue American]

49. That would be a solution.

[Lonestarblue]

21. I think the concern everyone has is the pace of the DOJ's investigations.

At the end of May, Peter Navarro revealed that he had received a subpoena to appear before a federal criminal grand jury for federal prosecutors’ investigation of the Capitol insurrection—the first subpoena of a Trump official to be made public. If he is the first, then it has taken 18 months just to get to this point. How many more months will it be to get to any point close to an indictment?

I have doubts that it will happen before the midterms, giving the Republicans the opportunity to tell voters that the whole January 6 investigation is a nothing burger because the DOJ has done nothing in almost two years. We know that isn’t true, but how closely will independents who lean Republican follow this?

It’s promising that there is at least a seated grand jury, but the Mueller investigation had a grand jury in August of 2017. Not until April of 2019 was a final report released. If it takes a similar couple of years for the insurrection investigation, any indictments would hit in 2024 and take on a whole new set of issues, especially if Trump is the nominee. No indictment gives him a free pass. An indictment raises a political firestorm. That’s why wrapping this up as soon as possible makes good sense. Garland may not be thinking of politics and future elections, but his timing will have an effect.

[fightforfreedom]

25. If people would look at the entire picture, put things in perspective.

The pace of the investigations have not been too slow. Garland took office in March of last year I believe. The amount of work done by the DOJ from then till now has been staggering.

People just see no one at the top has been indicted yet and then say Garland is doing nothing, no one will be indicted.

[SoCalDavidS]

30. I Said That TFG Would NEVER Be Indicted Far Before 1/6/21

The fact that nobody has been indicted since then, does not change my belief. If anything, it confirms it.

When I see otherwise, I'll celebrate, until then, I'm prepared for the status quo, and perhaps the repub nomination of TFG in 2024. I find that to be much more likely than any indictment or accountability.

I told friends that I'm prepared to throw a party if TFG is charged, and I stand by that.

[Hulk]

23. You realize what the jury would be comprised of...

I am not suggesting he not be indicted. He needs to be.... for every crime he committed.... and every court of law possible.

But remember.... 40% of the country are maggots. They will vindicate him for any and every crime he has committed. I honestly don't believe he will ever be convicted of anything and this sick and ailing nation.

But by the same token.... I want to see him miserable for the rest of his days fighting in the courts. Such a pathetic criminal piece of shit.

[fightforfreedom]

26. That is no reason not to indict.

[Hulk]

33. Just keep your expectations in reality

[Fiendish Thingy]

35. Fewer Trumpers live in DC, where the federal trials would be held

But remember, even in Georgia, they convicted the murderers of Ahmed Aubrey.

[Hulk]

52. We are talkin djt here. They would drink the Kool-Aid for Jim Jones

These cult members are extremely dedicated to the devil.

[Fiendish Thingy]

53. So, thousands of Trumpers will move to DC to increase the odds that one will be chosen for the jury?

That’s koo koo

[gab13by13]

36. People really need to understand what an institutionalist is;

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/institutionalism-cant-save-us-now-garland-doj

[jaxexpat]

45. That's good info on where we are and how we got here re: DOJ.

Folks, if you haven't perused the article, you probably don't know enough about Garland's DOJ to speak to the subject.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/institutionalism-cant-save-us-now-garland-doj

[lees1975]

37. Take a realistic look at what is developing

This committee is laying out a complete and detailed scope of events, who is involved, when, where. They're handing a winnable case over to the DOJ. And a significant segment of voters are watching and it is changing minds.

Let the process work itself out. The last thing Joe Biden needs is something else to divide his own party. The best thing those 80 million voters can do is show up and vote for their democratic congressmen and senators in November.

[Lil Liberal Laura]

39. I don't know what the Hell Garland's doing

Or, to be exact, not doing!

[Emile]

44. Judgment Day is coming for Trumpy boy!

[tiredtoo]

51. personally i think this thread is a waste of time.

We should be spending our time working on maintaining control of our government. Remember that dude in Germany spent time in prison and came back to devastate the world.

[soldierant]

54. I thought this was accurate when new

Two and a half months later it seems even more accurate.

I stand with tiredtoo.

[ecstatic]

60. It would be the greatest law enforcement failure of all time

A failure that would directly lead to the end of our democracy. It would also solidify the idea that our justice system is a racist, double standard filled joke, not that that would matter much in the United States of Gilead.

[AngryOldDem]

67. Was that the man on Ayman who compared it to the Beer Hall Putsch?

That was maybe the best analysis I’ve heard of this.

[Javaman]

68. The time line

The 1/6 committee sends the referrals to the DOJ. DOJ takes the referrals and indictes the bastards. Then a court date is set.

We are rapidly approaching the mid terms. If the court dates are set for AFTER the midterms and AFTER the new Congress people are sworn in and the Dems have lost control of one or both ( house and senate) we are fucked.

It will turn into a complete and utter side show of madness.

If there ever was a time and place to kick off a civil war, of some type, it will be then.

I say “some type” because I think it will be. Type of sectarian violence.

I hate to be that Debbie downer, but quite honestly, I’m not hopeful at all. And I’m fucking terrified.

[YoshidaYui]

69. Well then

DO-IT ALL-FUCKING-READY!!

[JuJuChen]

73. "They must be given a chance to present their evidence."

Oh please do........

[gulliver]

75. We keep hoping someone else will solve the problem for voters

All of the zealous words and deeds on both sides need to be assigned only the attention and empowerment justified by their one-person-one-vote uptake. In the current environment, where one side's tiny few (self-elected) yahoos noisily rile the other side's constantly, an indictment might not be such a great idea. There will be at least one Trumpie yahoo on any jury I can imagine, and said Trumpie yahoo will nullify the law, just as the Republicans nullified the Constitution in the impeachments. The last thing we need is to see Trump declared not guilty.