A contradiction?

[fightforfreedom]

We have seen some members of the committee putting pressure on Garland. They believe he should be doing more. This makes Garland look bad. It can leave the impression Garland is not doing anything.

However, the other day I saw Raskin on MSNBC saying he has complete faith in The DOJ. Which one is it, do you see the contradiction.
This is an example of how you should not draw conclusions from broad statements people make on the news.

We will find out what Garland is up to soon enough.

[gab13by13]

1. Except, Merrick Garland has a record that can be looked at.

He chose not to indict "individual one," not to indict Trump for 10 obstruction of justice crimes, not to indict for witness tampering.

Merrick Garland allowed a bogus pro-Trump Cyber Ninja company have access to ballots, voter information, and election material and equipment all in violation of Title 52 of the federal election code. Garland's non action (just a stern letter) allowed the Big Lie to spread, allowed more fraudits to spread across the country. Those are examples of Merrick Garland's non actions. The statute of limitations has run out on the cases I cited.

Yes, I have not given up hope that Merrick Garland will do the right thing and I believe that people like Adam Schiff and others on the select committee are pushing him to do the right thing. The problem is that time is not on our side.

[Fiendish Thingy]

7. You are wrong

Out of 15 possible obstruction charges, only 5 possibly met all legal criteria for conviction.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-mueller-report-heat-map



(Red means substantial evidence exists, peach = “evidence could support” or alternate readings of Meuller report, light blue = unclear, dark blue= insufficient evidence to charge)

https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/02/10/on-unrealistic-expectations-for-mueller-report-obstruction-charges/

As you can see, the SOL for some of the incidents have expired, but many have not.

[Phoenix61]

8. Wow! I wonder if Garland knows he has all the power you

think he does. Exactly how was he supposed to prevent the Big Lie from spreading? Seriously. Exactly what was he supposed to do? He didn’t take office until months after Trump lost the election and the Big Lie was already raging.

[Beastly Boy]

9. Can you be more specific?

-What are the circumstances of not indicting "individual one"?
-What is the evidence of Garland "choosing not to indict" Trump as per your post?
-Can you cite a specific section of Title 52 that may compel DOJ to not "allow" a company hired by the Arizona Senate Republican Caucus to examine the Maricopa County ballots?
-What are the legal instruments that would permit Garland, as the AG or otherwise, to "allow the Big Lie to spread" or "allow more fraudits to spread across the country"? Can you find the definition of "non-action" in any legal US code or precedent? Is "non-action" all you got?
-What are the statutes of limitation for DOJ to act on matters outside their purview?
-What is the evidence of people like Schiff "pushing" Garland in any consequential way?

[CentralMass]

2. You draw conclusion with nearly everyone of your posts.

[Scrivener7]

10. They do seem to be of a pattern, don't they?

[Sympthsical]

16. I try not to knock these things

Internships can be valuable experience.

[Magoo48]

3. Garland already looks bad. He's tight lipped and unenthusiastic.

My sense is he’s like a donkey being dragged somewhere he doesn’t want to go.

[gab13by13]

5. Then if that's the case,

someone needs to grab his lower lip and guide him. That's how my buddy moved his donkey.

[Magoo48]

6. Neither our politicos or grassroots appears ready for any lip grabbing yet.

I do hope there is someone or something that can light a fire under the dude.

[Novara]

14. If you find out later on that he was silent so he didn't jeopardize an investigation,

... will you admit you were wrong?

Prosecutors don't give public statements during ongoing investigations. They wait for indictments.

There are no facts you can report based on his silence. You only have inference, and you may be wrong precisely because you don't have facts. Just your impression.

Given that we are just now learning about how deep the rot goes via the J6 committee, that tells me that the investigation the DOJ is doing must be HUGE and very complicated with a lot of moving parts.

Merrick Garland doesn't have to rush into half-formed indictments that may fall apart because of haste just because people are impatient.

If Raskin has confidence, then I do too.

If Raskin is wrong and I am wrong and Garland doesn't indict, then I will admit I was wrong. But I feel strongly that the DOJ is working on building as tight a case as they can possibly build. If that's he case, we should all be more patient because the chances of conviction are much higher on that kind of case. If this is the case, it will be worth the wait.

[Magoo48]

17. Yes, yes, yes I will admit I am wrong. I hope like hell I'm wrong.

I base my statements on my own, admittedly limited experience and on my own historical observations. Yes, I do want t be wrong and wii offer massive mea culpas with glee.

[jimfields33]

4. People can have different outlooks on the same person

One politician being ok with the pace of an investigation doesn’t take away others who are critical.

[fightforfreedom]

11. The opposite is also true.

[H2O Man]

12. No, I don't

see any contradiction there.

[fightforfreedom]

13. You should.

[H2O Man]

15. No.

There isn't a contradiction there.