Our DOJ IS MIA

[gab13by13]

Donald Trump had possession of confidential government documents for 18 months. According to the National Archives all of the documents have yet to be returned.

Waiting before acting is a piss poor way to investigate crimes.

The National Archives just sent a letter to the House Oversight committee stating that all of the missing documents have not been returned. Why is the NA going to the House Oversight committee? Is it because a Trump judge has shut down the FBI investigation? Is it because we are within 60 days of an election?

DOJ knew about the missing documents long before it took any actions, it allowed the NA to do the investigation up until the NA requested the DOJ take over the investigation. Think about this: DOJ has only acted upon Trump's inner circle after it got criminal referrals. Steve Bannon - criminal referral, Peter Navarro - criminal referral, fake electors - criminal referral, stolen classified documents - criminal referral.

Mark Meadows - criminal referral that was deep sixed by DOJ.

My small town public library takes better care of its books than our federal government takes care of our most sensitive top secret documents.

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-national-archives-fbi/

[gordianot]

1. There is always the old mental exersize what if the situation were reversed?

If the ex President in question was named Obama what would be the response? Not that any action by Donald Trump should be used as a measure of justice but retaining top secret documents is Egregious.

[Roy Rolling]

11. Another Reverse Mental Exercise

What if Trump were arrested for his first crime in the 1980s? Or ‘90s? Or the day he left office and absconded with top-secret documents? I don’t know the answer for decades ago, but the last is obvious.

Top-Secret SCIF folder and such would seem to be serialized and catalogued meticulously. You don’t think they knew Trump took them years ago? For some reason he took the bait and the DOJ has yet to reel him in.

Dozens of conspirator characters surrounding him have been revealed—Secret Service, Congressmen, and pardoned loonies—by Congress and DOJ.

Not perfect, but waiting has been fruitful. It seems to me putting Trump and family in handcuffs on day one would have been enormously satisfying, but left the rest of the embedded Russian operatives intact.

[gab13by13]

52. I never ever said that Trump should have put in handcuffs on day 1.

DOJ allowed the NA to investigate the stolen classified documents, only after the NA requested that DOJ get involved did it take on the investigation.

[BumRushDaShow]

73. "DOJ allowed the NA to investigate the stolen classified documents"

Newsflash - EVERY federal agency handles their issues INTERNALLY FIRST. It has nothing to do with anyone "allowing" anything.

Every agency has jurisdiction over a particular category by law - whether it deals with people, goods, or services, and NARA has regulatory authority over records management for the United States federal government as dictated by regulations found in these types of manuals (the below is an example of the first of the set that NARA falls under) -



They do have it all online nowadays - https://www.ecfr.gov/

So NARA's responsibility falls under Title 36 of the CFR Chapter XII - https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-36/chapter-XII

And specifically what we are dealing with is this - https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-36 and specifically Chapter XII/Subchapter B/TItle 1220 - https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-36/chapter-XII/subchapter-B/part-1220

(snip)

§ 1220.10 Who is responsible for records management?

(a) The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is responsible for overseeing agencies' adequacy of documentation and records disposition programs and practices, and the General Services Administration (GSA) is responsible for overseeing economy and efficiency in records management. The Archivist of the United States and the Administrator of GSA issue regulations and provide guidance and assistance to Federal agencies on records management programs. NARA regulations are in this subchapter. GSA regulations are in 41 CFR parts 102-193.

(b) Federal agencies are responsible for establishing and maintaining a records management program that complies with NARA and GSA regulations and guidance. Subpart B of this part sets forth basic agency records management requirements.

§ 1220.12 What are NARA's records management responsibilities?

(a) The Archivist of the United States issues regulations and provides guidance and assistance to Federal agencies on ensuring adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the Federal Government and ensuring proper records disposition, including standards for improving the management of records.

(b) NARA establishes standards for the retention of records having continuing value (permanent records), and assists Federal agencies in applying the standards to records in their custody.

(c) Through a records scheduling and appraisal process, the Archivist of the United States determines which Federal records have temporary value and may be destroyed and which Federal records have permanent value and must be preserved and transferred to the National Archives of the United States. The Archivist's determination constitutes mandatory authority for the final disposition of all Federal records.

(d) The Archivist of the United States issues General Records Schedules (GRS) authorizing disposition, after specified periods of time, of records common to several or all Federal agencies.

§ 1220.14 Who must follow the regulations in Subchapter B?

The regulations in Subchapter B apply to Federal agencies as defined in § 1220.18.

(snip)

The Department of Justice is NOT the entire federal government. It is just one part of it that handles a narrow set of circumstances that involve enforcement of the law on behalf of "regulatory" agencies, including criminal issues such as what NARA is dealing with now, and will handle other types of criminal investigations in partnership with states and local law enforcement entities.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

67. It also would've almost guaranteed he walked

But revenge is more satisfying than justice to authoritarians.

[Rebl2]

46. I think

we know what the response would be had it been Obama. They would not have said well he was president and I don’t know how the country would react, blah, blah, blah. They would have arrested him.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

58. It's easy to speculate about fantasy situations

[GreenWave]

2. We want convictions, so

[gab13by13]

3. I am going to church now - 8:30 Mass

There is a book in the back of the church for personal intentions. Today, I am going to write in the book that Merrick Garland grow a pair.

[Fiendish Thingy]

69. Here's a prayer to consider:

“God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference”.

Wishing you serenity…

[AZSkiffyGeek]

81. Certainly a better prayer than

“Dear God, give this man balls.” Which of course isn’t homophobic, at all.

[emulatorloo]

95. I wouldn't say it is homophobic, but obviously Garland has fortitude. OP obviously has ZERO clue

about Garland’s record as a successful prosecutor of the likes of Tim McVeigh.

[former9thward]

104. Tim McVeigh?

McVeigh was arrested 90 minutes after the bombing and did not put up any real defense at trial. It was a pretty easy prosecution.

[msfiddlestix]

97. Good reminder to tune out and drop out for good.

it's the only way to maintain cognitive and emotional sanity.

Fiddlers on the Titanic, say you? Nope. It's the Sernity Prayer in action.

[Fiendish Thingy]

101. Some situations call for extreme courage, others call for radical acceptance

Knowing the difference is critical.

Also, it’s important to note acceptance =/= approval.

[msfiddlestix]

102. I don't remember any words like extreme or radical in the Serennity Prayer.

and the thing I don't approve of, I'm told here I have to accept, because that's the way it is.

If I don't like it, well then tough titties.

that's the way our justice system works. (doesn't work)

[Fiendish Thingy]

103. Is there anything you have the power to change?

What could you do to change that which you cannot accept?

(Hint: posting on DU isn’t likely to result in the change you seek)

In this particular example re: the perceived inaction/slow action by DOJ, the only ethical action an average citizen could take to effect change, would be to petition Biden to fire Garland, or Congress to impeach him for dereliction of duty. This could take the form of either direct constituent contact of the relevant leader, or protesting DOJ’s perceived inaction in the streets.

Have you done either?

(Hint #2: Garland doesn’t GAF what you or I think about the speed of his investigation/prosecution of Trump and his coup minions, and Biden is apparently fine with the speed as well).

[msfiddlestix]

132. Powerless to do anything about anything outside of my own personal life.

to the extent of my own actions and reactions in dealing with people, institutions and the environment, etc.

As, related to the powers that be, the only action I can take is my measly little vote at the ballot box.

What happens with my singular vote is beyond my ability to do eff all about any actions or non action that my vote was intended to support or affect.

The decisions the government I voted to empower, whether it engenders optimism and hope or is demoralizing, is of little interest to those in power. Their decisions and/or actions are all beyond my control.

I do agree with the point, no one in power gives an eff about what I think or write on a message board, and nothing written here will effect change for good or ill. I get the sense you were attempting to shame me for doing so.

But maybe I'm misinterpreting your message overall.

[Fiendish Thingy]

133. You have a voice beyond your vote

If you sincerely feel Garland has been derelict in his duty, then don’t you have a duty as a citizen to speak out to your elected representatives?

I hounded my congressman (well mostly his staff) until he agreed to co-sponsor articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney. It was futile, of course, but it was important to speak out.

I don’t agree with your perspective, but you have every right to stand on a freeway overpass with an “IMPEACH GARLAND!” Sign if you feel so strongly.

Of course, you are free to limit your expressions of frustration to DU, but shouldn’t expect those expressions to go unchallenged.

[msfiddlestix]

134. I was one of those with the signs over a freeway pass too.

Don't know if you caught that iconic photo shot taken at the Women's March back in 2017, of an old lady with white hair holding up her hand made sign that read: "I can't Believe I Still Have to Protest This Shit"

She represented me at that moment. A lifetime of protesting.

I'm loathed to admit I'm exhausted, but there you have it. I think of all the heroic endeavors by so many acidists over the decades, tireless and willing to risk life and limb.

At times I feel somewhat ashamed of my own exhaustion with an aversion to risk these days. Thinking of those who did lose life or limb, because they literally put their bodies on the line.

I'm a grandmother of teen girls, and I think of them everyday. what their futures might be like under this Justice System with this Supreme Court which will be there, ruling over their bodies, their health, their livelihoods, their futures.

it sickens me. And I mourn we didn't do better.

[Skittles]

111. a pair of what?

THE most delicate body part?

[gab13by13]

4. I know this,

if I had taken out 100 books from my public library and never returned them. I instead went around town telling everyone about how terrible the library was, how terrible the librarians were. If I had written letters to the editor in my local newspaper claiming that I was being persecuted, claiming that the local police were corrupt, I believe I would be in trouble, unless I had dirt on the local magistrate, dirt on the local judge, then maybe I could skate?

[bigtree]

6. not this shit again. It was Trump's administration who oversaw those documents he stole

...and that process Trump used to obtain those docs didn't involve the DOJ, and certainly not Biden's Justice Dept. which has jettisoned the majority of Trumps political appointees and is now run by our Democratic administration.

You superimposed your uninformed bias against DOJ onto this article which reports the extent of Trump's crimes has yet to be determined.

You complain about their declining to move forward on a petty contempt charge as if that was going to make some big difference in an probe about treason and espionage.

Worse, you didn't even bother to post the WSJ article which outlines actual actions by the DOJ which put these complaints to shame. I personally don't think it's credible to rail against DOJ without actually presenting their investigation in a true light. You've posted plenty on this and have had more than enough time to recognize the untruthfulness in the assertion in the op.

Stirring up resentment against DOJ with straw men is a strange way to support their ongoing investigation, but you do you.

[rubbersole]

10. Ding.

[agingdem]

15. I'm with you..

I have an idea...how about we designate Sunday as Trash Garland/DOJ Day?..you know, kind of get it out of the way so we can deal with less important stuff like abortion rights, voting rights, domestic terrorism, climate change, gun control, the midterm election...who's with me on this????

[Ilsa]

16. Thank you. I'm going to trust

that the DOJ knows their job better than I.

[2naSalit]

17. +1

[gab13by13]

23. I clearly stated my complaint against DOJ,

waiting too long to act. When the NA was aware of the missing documents DOJ should have immediately taken over the case, not waiting for a referral from the NA.

When has DOJ acted against the inner circle of traitors without first getting a criminal referral?

DOJ knew about the fake electors way back when the National Archives revealed they received fake elector documents. When did DOJ act regarding the fake electors? It waited until after the Michigan SOS sent DOJ a criminal referral with the statement that if DOJ didn't act then Michigan would.

The DOJ pyramid scheme has been a total failure, waiting before pursuing know crimes is a terrible way to do prosecutions. How many traitors destroyed their cell phones, destroyed other documents, got their stories straight?

The insurrection is ongoing, it is worse now than on 1/6, Magats are in place to steal elections.

The one that really pisses me off is when DOJ allowed a bogus pro-Trump company have access to ballots, voter information, election material and equipment all in violation of federal law, Title 52 of the election code. The Cyber Ninjas have never paid their 50k per day fine for not turning over documents, the leader of the Ninjas moved on to another state to keep pushing the Big Lie. Merrick Garland made a huge mistake by only writing a stern letter to the Cyber Ninjas, it gave the Magats permission to spread the fraudits across the country.

I don't read any rag that Rupert Murdoch owns.

[bigtree]

36. this

"I don't read any rag that Rupert Murdoch owns."

Yet, you drafted this entire screed of yours in the op off of a clipped WSJ article posted by the clickbait Rawstory. Take responsibility for the WSJ propaganda you catapulted here.

[gab13by13]

54. You are right, I did cite the WSJ through Raw Story,

I apologize. I need to do better reading comprehension.

[emulatorloo]

96. FFS you are quoting Murdoch's Wall Street Journal to justify your baseless screed?

How embarrassing. You need better sources.

[we can do it]

39. You left out 967+ times - ad nauseum.

[uponit7771]

63. Yep

[msfiddlestix]

98. ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ n/t

[CaptainTruth]

70. Yep. 919 people arrested for Jan 6 is MIA?

919 = 0, is this is the "new math" I've heard about?

But what do I know, I only took years of calculus, differential equations, linear algebra, & statistical analysis & modeling.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

92. They don't count because "Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied" or some nonsense

Probably something about "If a Democrat did it" or "Rich people!!!!"

[msfiddlestix]

100. something like that. interesting how and why it's all nonsense.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

7. Trashing thread

[Tadpole Raisin]

8. I would think that the finding of classified documents at Maralago

and the knowledge of still missing documents -possibly for months - would serve as probable cause for searching all TFG’s properties he has been at since leaving office.

Is DOJ or any legal scholar really going to assert that there is not enough probable cause given recent findings?

Ironically except for Cannon, it appears even many members of the judiciary are flummoxed by DOJ’s lack of aggressive protection of our national security.

Are they proactive, within the laws of our country, or reactive? While the right wing fascists march on in their efforts to destroy this democratic republic and learning valuable lessons about the soft spots we never thought would be violated,the law abiding believers of democracy tip toe around crime.

Daily I wonder who will win and what damage will be wrought. I guess this is one of my ‘down’ days…..

[BumRushDaShow]

18. It's not a matter of "probable cause" - that is established.

It's that "goddamn pesky U.S. Constitution 4th Amendment" ( ) -

Fourth Amendment

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment

Just last week, they were going through the whole gauntlet of back and forth dealing with the "inventory" of what was searched and seized back in August, including providing revisions as needed/requested. And from what I recall leading up to and during that August seizure, apparently they had "help from inside" to suggest where to look (literally rooms) during and after their initial visits, and then they could go from there to develop the warrants to specify "where" they planned to search and "what" they planned to seize. This is why at the end of the seizure, you have this level of detail for "things seized" -



THAT type of attention is what will be needed if they plan to go to any other properties and do the same thing.

[Tadpole Raisin]

20. Thank you, sigh...

Maybe part of my frustration is in how republicans do investigations. They manage to convict dems with help of congressional hearings, media conjecture and Fox expert pundits such that even if no indictments occur or if their Prosecutors take someone to trial and lose, their base is already convinced of guilt even as they move on to the next conspiracy. Losing is still winning if you set the stage.

So we follow the rules and are viewed as weak kneed libtards. If this is the way it is going to be with strikingly different M.O.s and increasingly one sided destruction of norms then the only way to change things is education (e.g., Civics instruction as per Sandra Day O’Connor) - except Rs are trying to take that avenue away..

Or changing laws to make outlets like Facebook just as responsible for not filtering truth from lies - big resistance against that!

It would also be nice if they could change the speech and debate clause. I understand protecting members of Congress from ridiculous lawsuits but if a member gets a classified briefing about something and knows what the truth is they shouldn’t be able to go to the floor and say the opposite.

Without trying to correct things at the source we are left with just words, drowned out by the screams from the right. Everything becomes a dumpster fire and there are so many of those to be put out it overwhelms the system and the conscience.

Sorry for the babble. Guess we just need more DEMS, GD it!!

[reACTIONary]

43. Now we move on to that...

... "goddamn pesky U.S. Constitution 1st Amendment". Civil liberties are such a nuisance.

[Tadpole Raisin]

49. Nope, not gonna bite. I wouldn't want to rescind that just to satisfy my frustration.

That would be lowering myself to the rwnj level. Hopefully you weren’t implying that is my desire cuz you would be wrong. Sorry if I misunderstood. Words in text so often can be taken the wrong way. I’ve certainly done that.

[reACTIONary]

74. +10 nt

[Tadpole Raisin]

86. Agreed!

[BumRushDaShow]

61. "They manage to convict dems with help of congressional hearings"

I'm trying to figure out what dems they "convicted with help of congressional hearings"?

I know of a Republican - Steve Bannon - who was convicted "with the help of a congressional hearing" and whose sentencing is scheduled October 21st. He also has fresh charges against him from the State of NY.

You had MOOnves and Gymsuit and Icky Issa, and even Conehead Gowdy doing a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing, but nothing came of it except their sound and fury circus act (and maybe some media ratings).

Let me try to unpack the rest -

Maybe part of my frustration is in how republicans do investigations. They manage to convict dems with help of congressional hearings, media conjecture and Fox expert pundits such that even if no indictments occur or if their Prosecutors take someone to trial and lose, their base is already convinced of guilt even as they move on to the next conspiracy. Losing is still winning if you set the stage.

Faux Snooze is nothing more than an "entertainment" channel according to them. But they are not infallible -

Fox Settled a Lawsuit Over Its Lies. But It Insisted on One Unusual Condition.

Why did the network insist an agreement with the family of a murdered young man remain undisclosed until after the election?

The Fox News newsroom in New York.Credit...Ryan Jenq for The New York Times

By Ben Smith

Jan. 17, 2021

On Oct. 12, 2020, Fox News agreed to pay millions of dollars to the family of a murdered Democratic National Committee staff member, implicitly acknowledging what saner minds knew long ago: that the network had repeatedly hyped a false claim that the young staff member, Seth Rich, was involved in leaking D.N.C. emails during the 2016 presidential campaign. (Russian intelligence officers, in fact, had hacked and leaked the emails.)

Fox’s decision to settle with the Rich family came just before its marquee hosts, Lou Dobbs and Sean Hannity, were set to be questioned under oath in the case, a potentially embarrassing moment. And Fox paid so much that the network didn’t have to apologize for the May 2017 story on FoxNews.com. But there was one curious provision that Fox insisted on: The settlement had to be kept secret for a month — until after the Nov. 3 election. The exhausted plaintiffs agreed.

Why did Fox care about keeping the Rich settlement secret for the final month of the Trump re-election campaign? Why was it important to the company, which calls itself a news organization, that one of the biggest lies of the Trump era remain unresolved for that period? Was Fox afraid that admitting it was wrong would incite the president’s wrath? Did network executives fear backlash from their increasingly radicalized audience, which has been gravitating to other conservative outlets? Fox News and its lawyer, Joe Terry, declined to answer that question when I asked last week. And two people close to the case, who shared details of the settlement with me, were puzzled by that provision, too.

The unusual arrangement underscores how deeply entwined Fox has become in the Trump camp’s disinformation efforts and the dangerous paranoia they set off, culminating in the fatal attack on the Capitol 11 days ago. The network parroted lies from Trump and his more sinister allies for years, ultimately amplifying the president’s enormous deceptions about the election’s outcome, further radicalizing many of Mr. Trump’s supporters.

(snip)

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/17/business/media/fox-news-seth-rich-settlement.html

And along that line, I would keep an eye on the Dominion Voting Systems, et. al., lawsuits against them. For example, the latest on that.

So we follow the rules and are viewed as weak kneed libtards. If this is the way it is going to be with strikingly different M.O.s and increasingly one sided destruction of norms then the only way to change things is education (e.g., Civics instruction as per Sandra Day O’Connor) - except Rs are trying to take that avenue away..

If you don't "follow the rules", your cases will be thrown out by a court (whether state or federal at some level). We watched over 60+ nonsensical cases that didn't "follow the rules" get thrown out during and in the aftermath of the 2020 election. It wastes the courts' time and can and has lead to law license suspension and/or disbarment, as we have finally seen with Ghouliani. The Ghoul's D.C. hearing is set for October 24.

Hearing on stripping Rudy Giuliani's D.C. law license set for October

The panel declined to accommodate the embattled Trump lawyer's request to continue to host his radio show during proceedings.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani speaks during a news conference.

Rudy Giuliani's right to practice law in New York was suspended by a court there in June 2021. | Joshua Roberts/Getty Images

By Josh Gerstein

08/04/2022 12:17 PM EDT

A Washington, D.C. attorney discipline panel has set a hearing for October on charges that Rudy Giuliani violated attorney ethics rules during litigation related to the 2020 election. At a scheduling session Thursday, D.C. Bar Board of Professional Responsibility hearing committee chair Robert Bernius said he’s planning to open the hearing Oct. 24 and has set aside two weeks for the proceeding, although a bar official pressing the ethics complaint against Giuliani said the case challenging his D.C. law license should take only two days to present.

However, Bernius turned down a request from Giuliani’s attorneys to truncate the proceedings each day to allow the former New York mayor and federal prosecutor to host his daily radio talk show on WABC-AM. Giuliani’s team said the radio show is currently his only source of income since his right to practice law in New York was suspended by a court there in June 2021.

Bernius, a litigator with the D.C. office of Nixon Peabody, said cutting off the hearing at 2 P.M. each day to allow Giuliani to host his 3 P.M. show would prolong the overall length of the bar proceeding and pose challenges for the court reporters who transcribe the sessions.

Last month, the D.C. Bar’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel brought formal ethics charges against Giuliani over his handling of an unsuccessful federal court challenge in Pennsylvania shortly after the 2020 presidential election. The complaint said Giuliani lacked evidence to support his claims of fraud in the presidential contest there and that his handling of the matter interfered with the administration of justice.

(snip)

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/04/hearing-rudy-giuliani-license-00049827

Or changing laws to make outlets like Facebook just as responsible for not filtering truth from lies - big resistance against that!

Well that's the "goddamn pesky U.S. Constitution First Amendment" ( )

It's up to those private entities to manage their products and services or get sued for big bucks for libel, slander, defamation. And in fact people have sued, and probably 99% of the time, there's some settlement that is barely reported in the news (imagine that).

It would also be nice if they could change the speech and debate clause. I understand protecting members of Congress from ridiculous lawsuits but if a member gets a classified briefing about something and knows what the truth is they shouldn’t be able to go to the floor and say the opposite.

Some of what you suggest requires amending the Constitution and you know how that goes. We can't even get the damn ERA passed.

Without trying to correct things at the source we are left with just words, drowned out by the screams from the right. Everything becomes a dumpster fire and there are so many of those to be put out it overwhelms the system and the conscience.

Honestly - the "average person" is NOT drowning in any "politics". It's just the political junkies. Thanks to a billion channels - digital OTA, cable, satellite, and streaming (and yes even Redbox), there really is a lot that people can do to tune out the noise. And if you do go to the store and hear a few "talking politics", it's usually just "a few" and the rest in the store are standing their rolling their eyes. They may have an opinion but just aren't into it enough to say anything.

Sorry for the babble. Guess we just need more DEMS, GD it!!

Well I know DU gets frustrated and it's difficult unless you at least have some background knowledge about what usually goes on behind the scenes. This is an unprecedented, incredibly huge series of cases that DOJ is dealing with. I had posted this last week because I thought it gave a good idea at all the angles that have to be investigated -

I had that in a post here - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=17190327

There are multiple grand juries that have been impaneled dealing with much of the above, but note that these grand juries don't operate like municipal "juries". I.e., they are not showing up every day as if in a trial and dealing with stuff. They might only meet once a month or in one instance, I did see an article by one of the court monitor reporters mention that one of the grand juries met once a week "on Fridays". And their duty is basically to hear the evidence (physical as well as testimony) that will help them decide on whether a charge should occur - and this is really because the alleged "crime" didn't happen with an LEO there to see it happen and then be able to arrest/charge on the spot.

(sorry long... )

[Tadpole Raisin]

72. LOL, man it's gonna take awhile to get through all that but

much appreciated!

What I mean by convicting dems with hearings…

No they don’t convict, they don’t have to. They lie with their questions and statements. They imply guilt, they string together all kinds of unrelated events or ‘facts’ knowing that their favorite news outlets will show the senator or congressman grilling the person (like Hillary and Benghazi) and that is all their supporters need to decide guilt. Who was the R who got caught on open mike saying they were just doing those hearings to trash Hillary? It worked.

Dems would never lower themselves to that level, that consistently, that broadly as a group just to trash someone politically. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen but Rs have it down to an art form with no shame. They will take nothing and turn it into a crime in 2 seconds. Rs like mtg saying they will impeach Biden based on his first days in office. Not only do their followers eat it up but turned into a good short sound bite repeated over and over again you have the bulk of republicans believing the lie over time. That’s how they ‘convict.’ Joseph Goebbels playbook borrowed by republicans.

Maybe the Seth Rich debacle and the dominion lawsuit will change that (my hope is that Dominion doesn’t settle but everything I see is that is the likely outcome). That’s why my pipe dream hope of legislation to change that behavior with more defined consequences was stated. I know it’s not likely and because Rs worked long and hard for SCJ dominance, even the best law passed could be struck down. Those people are devious.

Now on to the homework you gave me Bum! You’re killing me!

[BumRushDaShow]

82. "They lie with their questions and statements."

I grew up in a household with a mother who was a history/political science major and CSPAN junky (when she finally got cable).

So I also grew up with her (starting very early on in my life) freely and often using the term "propaganda" to describe the organized promotion of political lies for the benefit of the purveyor of such, and that is ALL that crap is.

And she also gratuitously used the term "yellow journalism" for any media outlet that engaged in either promoting or manufacturing such. We are watching Russia doing it right now by declaring victory and claiming they have retaken 4 regions of Ukraine.

My mother would have been 92 in a couple weeks and I know she is facepalming from the grave (or probably not because she grew up with similar in her lifetime - it's just that there was no "TV" back then until she was a teen, nor any internet or social media to make it worse).

There are certain people who are going to always be hootin' and hollering and ranting and raving as they go out with a bang... Like that poor player "that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more. "

(and note that slowly some of these people - like Madison Cawthorn - are slowly being picked off and might never to be heard from again)

[Tadpole Raisin]

84. Hah! Now it's my turn. Remember this?

Edward Bernays (Freud’s nephew) coined the phrase Public Relations because propaganda was becoming a verboten word. Helped get women to smoke - what a guy!!

The documentary could have been cut by about 45-60 minutes due to repetition but it still is one of the most fascinating discussions of propaganda in the (semi) modern era.

I’m sure your mom would have had something to say about that! Sorry for your loss. She sounds like a woman well ahead of her time.

[BumRushDaShow]

93. LOL

Thanks for that (I have the thread bookmarked to check that out).

It's been 7 years now since she passed but perhaps as an analogy about what we are dealing with as presented to her "Gray flannel suit" generation, might be her reference to the play "Death of a Salesman" (from 1949), and we are experiencing the horror of it with 45 (probably could have been autobiographical in a way).

I vaguely remember when CBS did a remake for broadcast in 1985 and it is on youtube, so I am considering watching it for shits and giggles. There was also a 1951 film as well (as well as multiple versions on stage).

[MarineCombatEngineer]

9. I'm just going to trash this thread.

Last edited Sun Oct 2, 2022, 07:45 PM - Edit history (1)

Have fun with your AG Garland/DoJ bashing.

[we can do it]

12. Overly simplistic blah blah blah....

[betsuni]

13. I was just going to say blah blah blah.

[we can do it]

14. It does get tiring.

[Scrivener7]

19. "Patience, grasshopper." "It's not a Law and Order episode!"

"You don't know what is going on behind the scenes! Trust the plan!" (that one is so reminiscent of Q that I find it particularly disturbing). "He's just waiting for the election. After that, everyone is going to get arrested!" (Also weird shades of Q.)

And my personal favorites: "What are YOU doing to help Merrick Garland??1?" and "Here's the number for the DOJ. Why don't you call them and tell them how you think it should be done?"

Aaaaaand we're coming up on 2 years of "investigating." Aaaaand tfg still has classified documents.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

83. So you have nothing except complaints

No knowledge of what’s going on, nothing to add to the investigations and unwillingness to step up and say something to people who actually are working on it.
Got it.

[Scrivener7]

85. .

[msfiddlestix]

99. Care to shed a little light on what you're doing to help the DOJ? Maybe we can help?

Let us know how to help..

[NoMoreRepugs]

21. Literally (IMO) the most significant legal case in US history needs to be

speeded up to satisfy some. I am positive of one thing, the AG is not influenced by endless social media diatribes. The agency is literally investigating a coordinated government officials conspiracy to overthrow the U.S. government. It’s not Joey Bag of Donuts running a racketeering scheme out of Jersey.

[mcar]

22. No, it's not

[SledDriver]

24. Just a never ending series of delays and legal maneuvers

[Laura PourMeADrink]

25. And I can't get a pedicure without signing a log nt

[SayItLoud]

26. If the DOJ believes in the rule of law they are not showing America that belief.

Waiting shows us all that there are those ABOVE THE LAW.

No matter how solid a case they build the Cult will never accept it as fact so do what the law demands, indict, arrest, book and charge. And then let a jury of our peers decide the case.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

64. And when they just charge him without making it ironclad

You’ll be okay with Trump walking when the jury doesn’t convict him? Or will you complain that Garland didn’t build a stronger case?
Don’t bother answering, I saw what happened with Rittenhouse.

[brooklynite]

27. Have you informed President Biden that you want Garland replaced?

[gab13by13]

31. Maybe Adam Schiff did?

[brooklynite]

40. Not that I'm aware of; he didn't mention it when I met him two weeks ago.

[Scrivener7]

87. And surely he would have told YOU.

[brooklynite]

88. He certainly didn't go with the "we're doomed" philosophy I sometimes see here.

[Scrivener7]

110. You keep replying to yourself.

[Ferrets are Cool]

28. ANYONE else would be in jail.

It's so fucking frustrating that this POS is still out free to scam and grift AND sell our national secrets.

[Fiendish Thingy]

105. Look up the case of Joshua Schulte

He fits the description of “anyone else”, and it took over two years to indict him for espionage crimes committed between 2013-16, and he was just convicted this past summer.

So, I guess your claim of “anyone else would be in jail” is false.

[blueinredohio]

29. I don't know about the DOJ one way or the other but

IMO if something isn't done about all this shit people will get disgusted and not vote at all.

[gab13by13]

30. Fucking amazing,

I am not the only one criticizing our DOJ, just last week Adam Schiff bashed DOJ.

I guarantee that Trump stole classified documents that would have incriminated him in crimes.

The Trump strategy is not to win in a court of law, his strategy is to delay everything, and that strategy is working. Indicting Trump has nothing to do with evidence, it has everything to do with the will to indict a former president.

Let me remind everyone that Garland has a record that can be criticized. He is defending Trump (the office) in the E.Jeanne Carroll defamation law suit where Garland decided that defaming a woman he is accused of raping is in Garland's mind an official duty of the president. I have read where because of this that Trump lawyers are going to use this defense for other Trump crimes he committed while president.

How does anyone defend Garland not prosecuting the Cyber Ninjas?

I don't know why Garland did not prosecute Trump as "individual one," in the Stormy Daniels payoff where Michael Cohen went to prison for delivering the check that was signed by Trump?

I mean I do believe that DOJ will have to indict Trump for his stealing of classified documents, but waiting so long is what Trump wants. When would a Trump trial happen? 2023? 2024? 2025?

[bigtree]

34. Schiff is as uninformed about the details of DOJ's investigation as the rest of the American public

...DOJ doesn't share details of its investigation with Schiff or any other congressman.

Moreover, it's self-serving bull for Schiff to complain about the pace of DOJ's investigation, bragging that his committee making conclusions from whatever evidence they want to produce, without rebuttal, is more productive than an actual investigative process which has REAL accountability and has the burden of overcoming Defense challenges and objections to evidence, evidence Schiff's committee is STILL dribbling out to DOJ like it has some special value sitting in a file somewhere in the Capitol.

Complaining about the pace of DOJ's investigation while withholding evidence from them is self-serving (presidential aspirant) bullshit.

[fightforfreedom]

35. Many of the questions you have about Garland have been answered, you don't listen.

AG Barr sabotaged the investigations into Trump.

[gab13by13]

44. How so?

Robert Mueller had all of the ducks laid out in a row for indicting "individual one." The 10 obstruction of justice crimes would have been harder to prove.

Garland has a record after Barr and only writing a stern letter to the Cyber Ninjas was a huge mistake.

[fightforfreedom]

48. You are still not listening.

Barr buried the Mueller report, game over. He sabotaged the SDNY investigation into individual 1. Barr went after any prosecutor who was investigating Trump. All of this has been reported on for months. Barr and Trump corrupted the DOJ. Garland has nothing to do with that. He was stuck trying to clean up their mess.

[gab13by13]

56. Mueller laid out the crimes, not SDNY.

After Barr left, DOJ could have prosecuted "individual one." Ask Michael Cohen.

[fightforfreedom]

59. That is not correct. I give up.

[we can do it]

106. They don't want to listen or learn. They just want to whine for attention.

[yaesu]

32. This tread is a reminder that we have 2, possibly 3 different justice systems in the US

If any of us pulled 1/10th of what tRump did we would be a few years into a life sentence in the worst Federal prison imaginable. The rich well connected have their own justice system which automatically give them & their kids a get out of jail free card. This has been going on for as long as unfettered capitalism has existed. Capitalism owns our politicians, our courts, our judges & makes our laws. Sure, once in a while they will sacrifice one of their own just to keep up the smoke & mirrors. Don't expect one Democratic administration to change
that. There is no way a democracy can survive with capitalism unless said capitalism is & stays highly regulated.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

91. This ☝️

[AZSkiffyGeek]

33. Every Sunday the same old thing

People with no knowledge of the law, or the news spout off with proclamations of things not being done.

[gab13by13]

38. I'm willing to listen.

[bigtree]

41. .

[AZSkiffyGeek]

42. Apparently not

The process has been explained to you in every thread you’ve posted trashing the Democratic AG.
Yet every week it’s the same “Hurr Durr nOtHiNg iS dOnE!!!!!!!”
You even threw in a nice homophobic slur at the AG this morning.

[gab13by13]

47. I did nothing of the kind,

You only bash me without giving specifics. Garland did nothing to indict "individual one" or indict for the 10 obstruction of justice crimes that Mueller laid out. You apparently consider that bashing, I consider it facts.

Mueller only wrote a stern letter to the Cyber Ninjas, he allowed them to violate federal election law, Title 52 which states that ballots, voter information, election material and equipment must remain in the possession of election officials for 22 months, that isn't bashing, that is a fact.

Debate me why Garland chose not to prosecute those 3 cases. I am prepared to have a civil debate.

The homophobic slur I have no idea what you are talking about, it is insulting to me, you should be glad I choose to never pull the alert button on anyone.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

51. What ballots did cyber ninjas take?

Maybe quit repeating the same bullshit story you’ve been repeating since last year about that. It would be a good start to read what actually happened. In which case you might know that they never took any ballots and did not break that law. But that would require doing research rather than blaming an Atrorney General who you don’t think is man enough for the job.

[we can do it]

107. Mueller had nothing to do with cyber ninjas. Get your facts straight.

[uponit7771]

65. Americans want ***EQUAL*** justice not continually being gas lit

[AZSkiffyGeek]

66. What does that even mean?

How are we being gaslit?

[uponit7771]

124. The fact you have to ask this question at this point is part of the frustration

[gab13by13]

37. After the FBI search of Mar-el-Loco

Josh Hawley immediately called for Merrick Garland to resign. What is noteworthy is that none of the 20 Republican Senators who voted to confirm Garland have called upon him to resign.

Merrick Garland is an honorable, patriotic, government employee who would have made a fantastic SC justice.

[Fiendish Thingy]

45. I believe Oversight asked NARA to confirm if all the records had been returned.

With your intense outrage at the perceived inaction of DOJ, I would think you’d have contacted your representatives demanding that Garland be impeached, or fired by Biden, by now, and would have posted threads recommending others do so as well.

Those actions would be consistent with the daily outrage you express.

I don’t agree with that course of action, but I’m mystified that you don’t.

[gab13by13]

50. My opinion means nothing,

but members of the J6 committee have publicly spoken out against DOJ's slow action. Have you written letters to members of the J6 committee condemning its members' complaints against DOJ?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

53. So rather than do something constructive

You come here and write inaccurate screeds.

[Fiendish Thingy]

68. I don't have a problem with committee members complaints

I don’t agree with them, but the only harm I see coming from their complaints is to fuel the outrage from uninformed average Americans who point to committee members’ complaints and exclaim “See?!?, SEE?!?”…

[iemanja]

55. They are in court against Trump

That's where they are.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

57. They're the justice department!

They should be able to ignore the constitution and just lock people up!
/sarcasm

[Silent3]

75. There is nothing in the Constitution nor in general principles of justice and fair law enforcement...

…that dictates the plodding pace of the DoJ nor their obvious reluctance to go after the big fish, especially Trump, until circumstances practically force their hand, until criminal referrals from outside the DoJ are pressed upon them.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

77. How many people indicted again?

Around 800? Sure are plodding… where was that warrant executed again? Oh yeah at TFG’s place. Nope not doing anything just plodding along.

[we can do it]

109. Over 900, but that's nothing apparently.

[former9thward]

112. The vast majority have been misdemeanors.

The majority of those who have been convicted have received no prison time.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

113. So they were convicted thanks!

[former9thward]

114. Convicted and received a slap on the wrist.

Yes. Actually most have pled out. So "convicting" was not too hard.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

115. You know that's how it works dont you?

Plead guilty, get a lesser sentence.

[former9thward]

116. I think you know how it works.

People here have complained about people trying to overthrow the government not being held accountable. Are misdemeanors which affect nothing in life an example of being held accountable? As I have posted in the past I don't happen to think this was a serious attempt to overthrow anything. It was a riot led by loudmouths. So I personally have no problem with how the DOJ has handled this. But not viewing Jan 6 as an "overthrow" is a minority view which is not held by some of those defending DOJ actions. I find that odd.

[BumRushDaShow]

119. Showtime tomorrow

Oath Keepers' Rhodes, et. al, to stand trial on charges of seditious conspiracy.

Group allegedly discussed paramilitary training and ‘quick reaction force’ to get weapons to Capitol quickly on January 6

Edward Helmore
Sun 2 Oct 2022 05.00 EDT
Last modified on Sun 2 Oct 2022 05.01 EDT

The highest-profile prosecution to stem from the January 6 attack on the US Capitol gets under way on Monday in Washington DC, where the founder and four members of the far-right Oath Keepers group will stand trial in federal court on civil war-era charges of seditious conspiracy. It’s a high-stakes trial for the US government, which will attempt to prove that Stewart Rhodes and his associates spent weeks marshaling members of the group to prepare to use violence to deny the certification of the 2016 election and keep Donald Trump in the White House.

The five charged with seditious conspiracy – Rhodes, Kelly Meggs, Jessica Watkins, Kenneth Harrelson and Thomas Caldwell – face 20 years in prison if convicted. Two of the 11 people indicted in the case – Brian Ulrich and Joshua James – have pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy. The remaining four will be tried separately. Court documents show that the Oath Keepers – described by the government as “a large but loosely organized collection of individuals, some of whom are associated with militias” that “explicitly focus on recruiting current and former military, law enforcement and first-responder personnel” – were among the individuals and groups who forcibly entered the Capitol.

Before the rally, the group had allegedly discussed paramilitary training and setting up a “quick reaction force” at a Virginia hotel that could get weapons into Washington quickly if required and had equipped themselves with thousands of dollars’ worth of guns and tactical gear, including a shotgun, scope, sights and night-vision devices.

But while Rhodes, who established the Oath Keepers in 2009, is not accused of entering the Capitol, cellphone records allegedly show he was communicating with Oath Keepers who had and was seen with members of the group afterwards. The trial, which is expected to last about five weeks, comes as at least 919 people have been arrested and charged with crimes relating to what many, before and after the events of January 6, have called an attempted coup d’etat. More than 400 have pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial.

(snip)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/02/oath-keepers-stewart-rhodes-seditious-conspiracy-trial-january-6

This will be a unique test of that rare charge of "seditious conspiracy" to see if they can get a conviction and have it applicable for others.

[former9thward]

125. I am not sure what "others" you are thinking about.

The people charged with misdemeanors are not going to be charged with seditious conspiracy no matter what happens in this case.

[BumRushDaShow]

126. Instead of knee-jerk reacting in order to be contrarian and get attention

why not acknowledge that the FBI is still trying to identify a large number of individuals including whoever planted pipe bombs at the RNC and DNC buildings - https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/seeking-info/suspected-pipe-bombs-in-washington-dc



I'm sure that will be a "misdemeanor".

Here is the current FBI "Most Wanted" list related to what happened January 6, including what happened just prior and after -

https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/capitol-violence

[Kaleva]

60. So you are unhappy with how Biden is running things?

[Silent3]

76. That's a false dichotomy, fake "gotcha" question...

…worthy of a propagandist or a cult leader.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

78. It isn't Biden's Justice Department that people are bashing?

Who is in charge again?

[Kaleva]

80. Apparently some here think Biden isn't on top of things

That's their opinion. Fortunately most of us beileve Biden is a highly competent and productive president who has picked some of the very best to fill out positions in his administration.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

89. That's certainly the subtext I see

But you can't outright say that here, so instead it's all about the process and platitudes like "Justice delayed is justice denied!"

[Silent3]

108. A (good) President must take a very hands-off approach to the DoJ...

...unlike the way Trump tried to corrupt the DoJ.

Besides, I can (and do) like a great deal of how Biden is handling the Presidency without being a fan of every single aspect of it.

The cultish, propagandistic nature of your question is the "you're either for us, or against us" bullshit binary-thinking tribalism behind it. Democrats should be better than that.

[Kaleva]

118. Could you qoute the "you're either for us, or against us" part?

I don't see it even though you put it in qoutation marks.

There's a term for what you did there. Do you know what it is? I think you do

[Silent3]

120. The false choice you presented was "So you are unhappy with how Biden is running things?"

As if one is either happy with Biden, therefore happy with the DoJ, or unhappy with Biden if unhappy with the DoJ.

My use of quotes is obviously to group the words "you're either for us, or against us" together to describe an attitude. Nothing in my wording suggests false attribution of those specific literal words to any of your posts.

[Kaleva]

122. Your post was a response to post #78 and not one of mine

A simple question: Are you satisfied with how Biden's DOJ is conducting it's investigation of TFG? Or do you agree with the OP that Biden's DOJ is missing in action?

[Silent3]

123. It's not Biden's job to conduct the DoJ. Apart from appointments he makes...

...Biden is supposed to be hands-off. That's what Biden understands that either Trump didn't understand, or Trump didn't give a shit about.

Was Garland a great choice by Biden? I certainly have my doubts on that account at this point, but then again, I'm not going to greatly fault Biden for not being a psychic about how Garland would perform.

THE DoJ (which I do not think of as "Biden's DOJ" ) is, in my opinion, being way, way too cautious and reluctant to go hard against the big fish that have, and still are, threatening democracy in America itself.

[Kaleva]

127. Biden is responsible for the performance of all parts of the Executive branch.

You think the DOJ is being too cautious. That's a legit opinion.

While the DOJ has traditionally been independent, ultimately the responsibility of how that department performs rests with Biden. The AG serves at the pleasure of the president and can be removed for whatever reason. Biden won't interfere with the daily operation of DOJ but it's well within his powers to replace the AG with someone else.

It's my guess that Biden is satisfied with the work Garland is doing and Garland will remain AG for the time being.

[Kaleva]

79. Biden is in charge isn't he?

We know Freepers and Magahats like to say that Biden is senile and is being handled by others. I strongly disagree and have faith that Biden has in place highly qualified people to carry out his agenda. What's your opinion?

[lamp_shade]

62. Yawn.

[greatauntoftriplets]

71. Oy.

[Stinky The Clown]

90. As I write this, this thread has 86 replies and 44 recs

When you consider how DU threads tend to run, that's a pretty even opinion split, and maybe even slightly in favor of the OP's position.

I have stopped participating in this debate but follow the many threads on this topic pretty closely. I've noticed a pattern that puts me in mind of the infamous 2004 cycle primary wars.

Let off steam ---> swarm ---> rebut ---> increase rancor ---> accomplish nothing ---> harden positions.

Have fun, y'all . . . . .

[Ohio Joe]

129. 1 - nt

[emulatorloo]

94. Unrec. There are multiple active Grand Juries right now.

Ah I see now you are supporting your baseless OP with ‘facts’ from Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal. How embarrassing.

[tritsofme]

121. Care for some cheese with all that whine?

These threads are tiresome.

[canetoad]

128. Did you really mean to type this?

"Waiting before acting is a piss poor way to investigate crimes."

Does that mean you are in favour of knee-jerk reaction? I'm not even in the USA and I'm sick to my stomach when I see these attacks on the DOJ because they are not progressing to your liking.

[betsuni]

130. +1

[canetoad]

131. It was in the interests of transparency

That Skinner, Elad and EarlG made the decision to make available the names of those who recced a thread. We must not become like them.