How long will you give Garland the benefit of the doubt?

[iemanja]

There's a clear difference between some posters already frustrated with the fact there hasn't been an indictment of Trump, while some say it's important we give him the benefit of the doubt--that an indictment will happen in time. My question is how long will you maintain that position?

Pick the longest length of time you are willing to continue to support Garland if an indictment has not yet been issued.

51 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	I'm already frustrated with the lack of an indictment
	35 (69%)
	In 3 months, I'll still be giving Garland the benefit of the doubt
	0 (0%)
	In 6 months, I'll still be giving Garland the benefit of the doubt
	0 (0%)
	In 12 months, I'll still be be giving Garland the benefit of the doubt
	0 (0%)
	In 18 months, I'll still be giving Garland the benefit of the doubt
	0 (0%)
	In 2 years, I'll still trust that Garland will indict Trump
	0 (0%)
	However long it takes
	15 (29%)
	I'll support Garland even if he never indicts Trump
	1 (2%)
	Other, explain below
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[republianmushroom]

1. 24 months and counting

[SoCalDavidS]

2. 25 In 2 More Days, But Who's Counting? :-)

[iemanja]

4. Interesting how few responses there are

To most of the options. Do you suppose the question is too hard?

[republianmushroom]

5. could be

[meadowlander]

8. The options aren't mutually exclusive.

Someone still giving him the benefit of the doubt in 2 years will also still be giving him the benefit of the doubt in 3 months. Isn't the point when will you stop giving him the benefit of the doubt?

My answer would be in 3 months I will stop giving him the benefit of the doubt but that isn't up there.

[iemanja]

10. Yes, but I tried to cover that in the instructions

To vote for the greatest length of time.

If you'll stop after 3 months, then the 3-month option is the one to pick. I'll try to clarify the instructions.

[BlackSkimmer]

32. Looks like you've had a good response rate now!

Pretty interesting to see how DU stacks up on this question.

Good poll.

[BannonsLiver]

3. I had zero expectations

And thus far he has met those.

[republianmushroom]

6. believe you could be correct, we shall see.

[secondwind]

18. You folks act like he's sitting on his thumbs.

He has already taken down 940 insurrectionists, let’s give him a break.

He wants to make sure that Trump does Dow hard, and that means taking care of all the details and making sure everything is correct.

[BannonsLiver]

19. Never said he was sitting on his thumbs.

I said I had zero expectations for him and he has lived up to that. Not everyone here is going to be a fanboy so calm down.

[BlackSkimmer]

34. This. nt

[meadowlander]

7. If the indictment doesn't come by mid-this year he might as well not bother.

The closer we get to November 2024 the easier it will be for Republicans to paint it as a partisan witch hunt of a Presidential candidate and the less likely it is that DoJ will want to be seen as making a politically motivated prosecution. Primaries start in less than a year.

Whatever Trump is indicted for will be tied up in the courts for a year anyway and any judgment is unlikely to be handed down in the months before the election.

So I suspect if we don't see an indictment in the next few months, one isn't coming and that would be an unforgivable dereliction of duty on the part of the whole DoJ.

[iemanja]

11. That's the problem

The closer it gets to the 2024 election, the more peril a prosecution is in. If a Republican wins, it's all off the table.

[ZonkerHarris]

9. Justice delayed is justice denied.

[CivicGrief]

12. I've yet to see those so quick to defend the DOJ state whether they think trump will be indicted.

They go on about these things taking time, this is unprecedented, grand juries, convictions of those on the ground, blah, blah, blah. I think the DOJ is afraid indicting trump will be detrimental to the office of the POTUS, have been too cautious, and, ultimately, will decide not to indict trump. This situation is urgent as those who plotted the plan to subvert democracy have not been held to account and are only getting bolder. The J6 committee was out ahead of the DOJ, and that is unacceptable in this dire situation. Apparently, suggesting trump won't be indicted is akin to believing in conspiracy theories.

Sorry, meant to reply to OP.

[ZonkerHarris]

13. I do not believe the DOJ will indict him for institutional respect bullshit. The GA DA and NY AG

are where justice will be truly pursued.

[CivicGrief]

15. I have more faith in the state investigations as well.

[Kaleva]

14. Who will give a shit if we support Garland or not ?

We will vote for Biden even if Garland never indicts Trump and Biden keeps him as AG.

[iemanja]

16. Garland's critics will vote for Biden too

But you've invested a lot in criticizing people who don't share your faith in Garland. Now you say who gives a shit? Obviously you do. You just don't want to answer the question.

[Kaleva]

20. Where have I invested a lot in criticizing people who don't have faith in Garland?

I've often said I have faith in Biden and if he's satisfied with the job Garland is doing, then I'm okay with him too.

There are people here who are dismayed with Biden for keeping Garland as AG but we can safely assume it's not important enough to not support Biden if he runs again.

[iemanja]

22. My mistake

I couldn't find a case where you adopted the view that some have.

A question, however. How do you know Biden is satisfied with the job Garland is doing? He keeps his distance from DOJ for propriety's sake. For all we know, Biden could be frustrated with Garland. And now that Garland has appointed a Special Prosecutor to look into the Biden documents issue, he couldn't fire him if he wanted to.

One sign will be if he keeps Garland should he be elected to a second term.

[betsuni]

27. +1

[LetMyPeopleVote]

21. We will see but I tend to trust people who know AG Garland

Link to tweet

[iemanja]

23. Adam Schiff has been quite critical

And he knows the evidence inside and out. Many other former DOJ officials are wondering what's going on too.
Moreover, "condemning" Garland isn't the point. It's indicting Trump.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

24. TFG is going to be indicted either by Fulton County DA, the NYC DA or by Special Counsel Jack Smith

I personally think that Fulton County will be first followed by NYC DA. Special Counsel Jack Smith may second if he goes with Mar-A-Lago documents. The Jan. 6 insurrection case will be last

[iemanja]

26. I hope you're right

I'm more optimistic about the state cases.

[hamsterjill]

25. I've totally given up.

I don't believe there will ever be an indictment, much less the orange jerk spending any time in jail or other means of punishment.

I fear he'll be back in the White House because I don't think Democrats take his ruthlessness seriously enough. Garland should have already indicted, tried and had him convicted by now.

And before someone here jumps my shit - this is an opinion poll and that is my opinion. You're welcome to your own.

[BlackSkimmer]

35. You're not alone in this opinion.

And I suspect there are many more of this opinion who've chosen not to reply to the poll for whatever reasons.

[myohmy2]

28. over...

...two years and counting...

...if it was any one of us we'd long ago been doing hard time...

...remember Mueller...?

...big fizzle...

[Emile]

29. K&R

[betsuni]

30. I agree with Joy Behar: "I don't even care if he doesn't go to jail, I don't care!"

[iemanja]

41. Well, that is the major point of disagreement

Many of us do care.

[Goodheart]

31. Garland has already failed.

trump should have been indicted IMMEDIATELY on ten counts of obstruction of justice when Garland took office. You couldn't get away with it, I couldn't get away with it, trump got away with it.

And then I'm very much in the corner that "justice delayed is justice denied". trump has already escaped two years of punishment in each the insurrection and Mar-a-Lago documents cases.

Garland is a failure. I have zero confidence that he will do the right thing going forward because I have seen looking back that he's been incapable or unwilling to do the right thing.

[RandiFan1290]

33. I didn't fall for the Eric Holder '4D chess game' excuse either. nt

[jalan48]

39. The fact that McConnell supported his confirmation was a big tell.

[Tree Lady]

37. I have a friend whose lawyer son works

for DOJ in DC working on Trumps case. Her son can't give her much info but she is convinced Trump will be indicted in a few months. I am going to try and believe her.

I have told her about DU and that most here are angry he has not been already. She said investigations take longer than people think.

[tavernier]

38. You need another choice...

However, long it takes, but I won’t be happy about it.

Not like we can fire him.

[iemanja]

40. Okay, thanks.

You might then select other.