100% conviction rate? Thank you AG Garland!

[mcar]

Link to tweet

?s=20

US Justice Dept has won full or partial convictions in 100% of its Jan 6 jury trials

Every. Single. One.

[RKP5637]

1. K&R !!! n/t

[Cha]

2. AG is Focused & Thorough!

TY, mcar!

[brer cat]

3. K&R

[Just A Box Of Rain]

4. This is why one can hope to have a DOJ and an AG who build cases methodically.

Garland's record is exemplary.

[sheshe2]

6. +1 👆🏼👆🏼👆🏼

[mcar]

8. Yep

[malaise]

15. THIS!

Go AG Garland!

[Tarheel_Dem]

61. Thanks for saying this out loud!

[sheshe2]

5. Excellent.

Thank you AG Garland. These last four Proud Boys are facing many many years in prison.

[claudette]

7. Too bad

the orange criminal isn’t one of them

[Cyrano]

9. He's doing great at curing the symptoms. Not so much the cause.

[Beastly Boy]

11. The cause gets cured at the ballot box, not in court.

[Marius25]

12. That's not sufficient since Republicans are suppressing votes

[inthewind21]

19. Oh but it is

It's the ONLY remedy.

[Cyrano]

20. If it's the ONLY remedy, America is screwed.

[Beastly Boy]

23. If it isn't, America is not a democracy.

[SunSeeker]

27. Equal enforcement of law is a prerequisite for a democracy. nt

[Beastly Boy]

35. Democracy is a prerequisite for equal enforcement of law.

Is there a system of government other than democracy that is based on equality under the law?

And if there is no equality under the law, how can equal enforcement of law be achieved?

Democracy makes people equal, enforcement of law is its tool. The same tool in different hands does not enforce equality.

[Silent3]

46. A properly designed constitutional democracy is a prerequisite for equal enforcement of law

Pure majoritarianism certainly doesn't lead to equal enforcement of law, nor to laws that are good at protecting individual human rights.

A democracy that makes some effort to hold certain human rights above the will of the majority, like ours does, is a good start on working toward both better laws and equal enforcement of those laws.

The problem is our constitutional system hasn't gone far enough in that direction, is occupied by too many people who don't give a damn about what the constitution is supposed to protect, and it has built-in inequalities of representation as well, inequalities which are currently givin "red states" minority power to abuse our system and dismantle our democracy.

That's why voting isn't enough. If, as you seem to believe from previous posts, it simply isn't the DoJ's job to protect our democracy, then our democracy could well be doomed to the same kind of downfall of democracy which has happened in other ostensibly democratic countries, like Hungary.

[Beastly Boy]

57. While I agree with you that our system of government has certain fundamental flaws,

I still maintain that those flaws are not the consequence of lapses in law enforcement, they are the consequence of poor legislation. While DOJ is charged with enforcing the law, it cannot, by purpose and design, alter it. By extension, it cannot, and is forbidden by law, from altering any flaws in our system of government. It is not simply a mater of such interference not being their job, it is a matter of such interference being a strict taboo.

It is tempting, in times of trouble, to endow law enforcement, by decree or by consent, with extraordinary powers to meddle in the functions of the branches of government it otherwise has no business in. The problem is, there is no mechanism to take those powers back from them. This course of action runs a high risk of creating a police state that is not respectful of any principles of equality or separation of powers. And once it happens, history shows, it is next to impossible to turn back.

So I don't think we have any alternative to voting. Given the available choices, it will have to do. Even in the worst case scenario, Hungary is preferable to Myanmar.

[Silent3]

58. I hardly think making a special effort to speed up top-level J6 prosecutions...

...jettisoning the unfair advantages to which the rich and powerful feel entitled, and shaking off the fear of challenging such people and losing, would turn the US into Myanmar.

[Beastly Boy]

60. A special effort, indeed an unprecedented, extraordinary effort has been made by DOJ to go after

the top level J-6 suspects, and "shaking in fear" is a grossly overused trope. This is not to say that premature prosecutions do not risk extremely dire consequences to the principles you propose to protect by circumventing them. Separation of powers is a fundamental principle which indeed prevents us from turning to Myanmar, and I am not sure how you propose any special effort on the part of DOJ can possibly turn our flawed constitutional system into a properly designed constitutional democracy.

It appears to me that you are juggling apples and oranges. We can either talk about an extra effort on the part of DOJ to go after certain offenders within the flawed system without disturbing it, or we can talk about DOJ disrupting the balance of powers in order to achieve desired outcomes. They cannot do both at the same time. I don't see how the first scenario can achieve the effects you desire, and I don't see how the second scenario retains the basic elements of a constitutional democracy that would prevent the US from sliding into a Myanmar.

[ShazzieB]

63. Well stated!

[SunSeeker]

52. What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Obviously the two are inexorably intertwined. People can't have democracy, i.e. vote, without the law first setting the right to vote.

[Beastly Boy]

59. Not sure which is the chicken and which is the egg, but I am pretty confident that

the declaration of equality as a self-evident principle in government by consent of the governed (technically a democratic republic rather than direct democracy), came years before any US law was ever passed, and that includes the US Constitution, which, in its preamble calls for establishment of justice. It is these early documents (Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution) that set the right to vote. Law enforcement is there to protect this right, but only when this right to vote is established in law.

The same goes for other laws: they must be established before they can be protected. Sure, the two are intertwined and mutually dependent, but I have no doubt about which came first.

[uponit7771]

79. No its not, too much voter suppression and digitized gerrymandering. Dems brute force election ...

... turnouts will be wall in the next generation at this rate

[Beastly Boy]

84. Are you saying that voting is not sufficient to conduct fair elections?

If that's the case, what other remedies can you propose to make elections fair? how many of these remedies are currently legal and/or constitutional?

[uponit7771]

86. in 20 years? no, not without a federal election standard like HR1 ... or ... dems taking over state

... level congressional and county bodies to stem the tide.

There's room but time is running out

[Beastly Boy]

88. I am not sure how any of this relates to the post you are rplying to.

The above references are all connected to the lawmakers who were voted in in the 2020 elections. Are you recommending remedies other than voting, long or short term, that will be sufficient to make elections fair? If not, then you agree that voting is the only path to fair elections, and then the whole question of whether it's sufficient or not becomes moot. Do I understand you correctly?

[Mr. Ected]

26. Crimes aren't adjudicated at the ballot box

The potential charges would be for violations of federal statutes, not for being Republicans.

The ballot box is for those who didn't commit crimes or didn't get caught.

[Beastly Boy]

44. Laws originate at the ballot box.

Last edited Fri May 5, 2023, 01:01 AM - Edit history (1)

Adjudication merely determines whether existing laws had been broken and dispense with appropriate remedies. The laws themselves get passed by the lawmakers. Lawmakers are chosen at the ballot box.

To continue with Cyrano's analogy in Post #9, Garland's job is to diagnose and treat symptoms, not come up with the cure. In this analogy, lawmakers are the authors of a medical instruction manual, and Garland is the physician who makes the diagnosis and prescribes remedies based on this manual. Different missions and different skill sets.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

18. The "cause" is a flaw in the human species that causes many people to embrace ugly

and dangerous ideologies, such as "populism," where a central tenet is that that "only some people are really people."

The embrace of such political "values" never turns out well.

Not a problem Garland (or any other) AG is going to solve. But they can lock up the miscreants.

Establishing the legal basis that the Jan 6 insurrection was a seditious conspiracy is a huge step towards the eventual prosecution and conviction of Donald J Trump.

[Beastly Boy]

10. And he's done it by sheer incompetence and sitting on his hands!

Imagine if he wasn't...

300% conviction rate?

[wnylib]

14. Absolutely amazing, isn't it?

[mcar]

16. Right?

[BradBo]

13. I've made some unflattering comments about how Garland needs to get going on Trump.

I vacillate so much about him. Trump out of prison is a huge weapon against the Republican Party. I think I’m going to just quit criticizing Garland.

[mcar]

17. Thank you

[housecat]

53. Yeah me too. I ranted some on DU, and now I think I was wrong.

[AlexSFCA]

21. he is very patient has some great control of DOJ info leaks

exemplary professional, and politically very smart. I hope he stays on the the job throughout Biden’s 2nd term and beyond.

[Artcatt]

22. That's pretty good especially considering the messed up political climate

[bringthePaine]

24. damn fine start😬👍

[fescuerescue]

25. The Feds RARELY lose trials

They pretty much only charge guilty people with a crime.

99.6% conviction rate across the US.

The only time someone is found not guilty, isn't because the guy is innocent, it's because the feds messed up the prosecution.

[SunSeeker]

28. Tell that to Durham.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/john-durham-probe-failure-belongs-barr-trump-rcna52863

[mcar]

38. ...

[ancianita]

29. Not just a conviction rate. But an historical SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY CONVICTION RATE.

At least TEN TO FOURTEEN seditious conspiracy convictions. Historical.

This hasn't been a series of "the Feds" usual "ho-hum, sittin' on our automatic pilot asses" convictions.

Moreover -- the conviction precedent for "not being at the capitol" is set, too.

Let Garland "FUDers" get it straight that the Garland-Smith DOJ gets historical results.

GET ALL THAT STRAIGHT. FINALLY.

[mcar]

31. Really good point

Thanks.

[ShazzieB]

65. I've seen a lot of commentary about how hard it's been to get convictions on seditious conspiracy.

Given that history, a 100% conviction rate on that is quite remarkable. I'm not sure how many people fully appreciate that!

[ancianita]

76. Exactly. Downplayers don't fairly judge or appreciate this DOJ.

[ShazzieB]

97. True!

I think keeping an open mind is really important. To use one of my favorite expressions, "It's not over till it's over." This thing is far from over, and NONE of us knows exactly what's going to happen, so why assume the worst? There have already been twists abd turns that I would never have anticipated, and there will no doubt be many more.

Ive been have accused of being a "pollyanna" just because I haven't already given up. I don't thjnk that's accurate. I've never assumed that a perfect happy ending lies in store for any of this. I'm pretty sure that when it's all said and done, each of us will be pleased in some ways and disappointed in others. I don't think that's pollyanna thinking. I'm not a pollyanna just because I haven't already made up my mind that it's all going to be terrible.

[ancianita]

100. ...

I see you that way, too! I can tell that by who you respond to, and while you're no cheerleader for negative nellies, you're not ever a frustrated critic about this DOJ. Which also says you read the Biden administration accurately. Which is that getting what we want isn't "all or nothing." 50%-90% of what we want is still a win that moves us all ahead.

[trof]

30. OK, great, but...whither Trump?

[trof]

36. Do you just enjoy insulting commenters on forums like this?

I'm 81 years old and pretty close to as 'grown up' as I'll ever be.
It really pisses me off to see comments on forums like 'calm down', or 'grow up'.

It's insulting, and it's juvenile.
Please refrain in the future.
Thank you.
Peace

[trof]

40. sigh

nevermind

[Hekate]

32. As expected

[Dem_in_Nebr.]

34. At some point you have to go after the head of the snake,

These convictions are all very well and good. Sometime soon, however, the justice dept. is going to have to go after the "head of the snake and cut it off. Other wise we're left with only a "feel good" about these people being sent off and it's not getting the head of it all

[trof]

37. And we're waiting....

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

77. Oh for crying out loud

You poor baby, having to wait less than 2.5 years for movement on your pet cause investigation and potential trial.

The Pittsburgh temple shooter committed murder 4.5 years ago. He is only now coming to trial.

Mexican families had lands stolen from them by thieving American white trash after the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo--1848, for those of you who don't know your history. They are *still* fighting to have either their lands returned, or to be compensated for the theft of them...175 years later. The lawsuits have never stopped.

Go talk to those Jewish and Hispanic families about how terribly lloooooooonnnnnnng this one is taking.

I'm sure they'll give you all the sympathy you deserve.

[malaise]

42. Video

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017825785

[BumRushDaShow]

43. K&R

He now has a template to use with the top of the pyramid criminals having obtained the conviction of Tarrio, because Tarrio wasn't physically at the Capitol nor even in D.C. on January 6, because he was barred by a judge after he was arrested for destroying a BLM banner.

Proud Boys leader barred from District by judge following his arrest

By Peter Hermann and Keith L. Alexander
January 5, 2021 at 9:05 p.m. EST


Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, accused of burning a Black Lives Matter banner taken from a Black church, was barred from the District by a judge on Tuesday, forcing him out of the nation’s capital ahead of potentially volatile demonstrations led by his followers.

D.C. Superior Court Magistrate Judge Renee Raymond pointed to Tarrio’s social media postings in which he appears to threaten more destructive acts. The 36-year-old, who lives in Miami, faces arrest if seen in the District. He is allowed to return only for a court hearing June 8.

(snip)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/proud-boys-arrest-church-black-lives-matter/2021/01/05/18c58640-4f6a-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html

However they were able to show he was spearheading and coordinating his org's movements and what their intent was, and that was enough for the jury to convict.

[mcar]

45. Pundits have made this point

about how important that particular part of the convinction is.

[BumRushDaShow]

50. When I was typing the post

it was also being discussed on Chris Hayes' show.

Crossing fingers!!

[Goodheart]

47. So, THAT'S the metric? That he won't indict unless he gets a 100% conviction rate?

Sorry, but I'm not impressed. Garland passed on his most obvious and the case most important to this country: trump.

[mcar]

49. Huh?

[Beastly Boy]

62. Seriously, is that the spin now?

No indictment before the conviction is in place?

And this makes sense...how?

[ShazzieB]

68. Is that what you got from that tweet?

All righty then.

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

81. And you know this...how?

What is your in with the DOJ? With Garland?

None?

Then who the bloody hell are *you* to state that you know what Garland has or hasn't done...about anything?

Tell you what: Become a lawyer, work your way up the prosecutor ladder to become an AG, then show us how it's done. I'll wait for your glorious results of getting cases investigated, past a grand jury, tried and convicted--in the time frame you want them done, never mind the rest of the system.

We'll see how your record compares to that of a Merrick Garland.

Come on. You clearly know what it takes to get all that done--hop to it, mate!

I don't pretend to know what is in the man's mind, or what goes on behind closed doors at DOJ--because institutions like the DOJ (or CPS in UK) don't make it a a habit to talk about what they're doing before they're ready to go to trial. They only talk about what John Public needs to know for the public record--arrests made, indictments issued, trial dates set, and so on.

But everything else? They don't discuss the rest, and that's the way it should be. Talking about every stupid detail of their actions before a trial can jeopardize cases. You do your talking at the trial. That's what any good attorney does. You'd know that if you'd ever been one, or dealt with one regarding a criminal matter.

So they owe you f f'n all about what they're doing to build a case--against anyone.

And it's dishonest to say he's passed on anything, when he has a special prosecutor on the case. You don't do that if you're "passing" on an "obvious" and "most important" case.

[ancianita]

95. +1000

[onecaliberal]

48. Not even one of the planners, or funders. They're too busy continuing the coup via congress.

[Beastly Boy]

64. I will take Sore Losers for $ 100, Alex

What were Hitler's last words in the bunker?

[CaptainTruth]

54. Wait.... I thought Garland wasn't doing anything?

[mcar]

55. Funny, isn't it?

[BOSSHOG]

56. You Go Merrick

This old guy is reminded of a story about an old bull and a young bull at the top of a hill.

[ShazzieB]

67. I know the story you mean!

🐂🐃🐄🐄🐄🐄🐄🐄

[MarineCombatEngineer]

80. This one?

[BOSSHOG]

108. That's it.

Ole Merrick is walking. Driving us nuts his with pace but making progress everyday.

[betsuni]

66. K&R

[Kennah]

69. I knew the insurrectionists wanted to guarantee something

but I'm not sure their plan unfolded the way they wanted

[jaxexpat]

70. The accused were caught on camera committing....

their crimes in real time. How the hell could they NOT be convicted? This whole cheering squad needs to stand back a bit and process the reality of what's happening. Justice is being intentionally delayed due to political considerations.

[Scrivener7]

71. It's amazing, isn't it? Meanwhile, Trump is having a "presidential town hall" on CNN.

[jaxexpat]

72. It's all a celebration of "Derby Week"

The horse race must go on.

[Beastly Boy]

73. Tarrio wasn't.

And tell me how the cameras were able to catch seditious conspiracy. Infrared sensors?

[jaxexpat]

74. Not sure I can tell you anything, but I'll try.

Seditious conspiracy is vague enough that the appeals are certain to wind into uncharted territory.

But, Go Team, eh? Rah, rah, rah.

[Beastly Boy]

75. You are right, you are not telling me anything.

You said their crimes were caught on camera, and that was the reason you claimed that their prosecution was a piece of cake.

I am wondering about something that goes directly to your claim: how seditious conspiracy, one of the most serious crimes in Garland's 100% conviction record, can possibly be caught on camera.

Deflecting into speculations about appeals does not address your claim that the crimes were caught on camera. it merely changes the subject.

A valiant but hopeless attempt to walk your silly claim back.

[Bev54]

85. Thank you! This needed to be pointed out as well as the fact that what we see or what

is reported has to wind its way through the system to be allowed into evidence in a court of law. Not everything is black and white, that is how the justice system works. They do not seem to understand that this verdict, particularly against Tarrio is exactly what the DOJ needed to proceed with the same charge against the organizers that were not at the capital that day, including Trump.

Some people think in a very simplistic manner.

[jaxexpat]

91. The process of justice, with all its beautiful and deliberative order is failing miserably.

When Trump's still walking around holding court on CNN and whoever else will tolerate his laundry list of outrageous lies while spewing his society-crippling insanity in November of 2024, will you still be cheering the previous 48 wasted months of feckless DOJ effort as the Senate and the presidency go Republican? Do you, for even a small moment, believe that democracy will rise from the ashes of such a fire?

How dare those who celebrate an embarrassingly, morbidly and transparently lackluster performance, refer to those who don't as "simplistic" and incapable of "understanding". I think we understand very well. The logic is very clear. Having Tarrio officially tied, though not in attendance, to J6 and adjudicated to be a seditious insurrectionist opens up new paths toward indictment of others, even up to the top guys and voila! Trump is indicted! Yea! Rah, Rah! I get that it took a lot of investigation and proving and filing and hearing and motioning and refuting and all kinds of stuff to get to this point. I'm hoping the verdicts rendered thus far actually stick and make the web so sticky, the net so tight that Trump and many GOP operatives will be cornered. That would be great. But that will not happen in time to save the country unless an effort is made to speed the process. I hear many of you say, "this is how the system works, that's how it is with the courts", and somehow you find solace in that process even though it will fail us very terribly in this instance if it cannot keep to a schedule. A schedule that most everybody except the movers and shakers in the justice system realizes is super important.

I've never studied law and that's what makes me say:
>Let's say, for the point of argument, that every time a decision is made to place a deadline on or to schedule a pertinent event instead of 2 weeks or 10 days and subject to some condition or the other, we impose a demand for 1 week or 5 days and an immediate and unappealable limit to ignore any currently irrelevant conditions.
>If a piece of evidence can't be entered into the case because the guy that has to sign for it or something is out with a cold, let's have some other qualified body get the evidence entered immediately. If that's impossible because it violates a rule, then I rest my case about the system.
>If a guy refuses to show up when subpoenaed, jail the SOB (get him/her out of bed and into the jail) until he agrees to testify.
>Further, in a situation where other current cases or schedules conflict with these cases and create a log jam, delaying forward progress, those cases must move aside for as long as it takes to get this priority done.
>Further, further, how about instead of Holidays, Saturday and Sunday courts being closed for business we try keeping them all open and all the personnel on duty until this crisis is over.

You do understand that in a war to maintain our very way of life we'd expect our military to go to any necessary extreme and inconvenience to secure victory. Well, I see this as exactly such a war and wonder how anyone could not clearly see that? Even if it disrupts the "normal" running of the court system, it is necessarily the priority.

Garland is the Gen. McClellan at Antietam Creek and other costly and failed battles, who managed to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory, or he will be insofar as history is concerned, when/if this USA thing all goes south; or worse, Republican.

[Bev54]

92. Reasoned people understand how wide and deep this investigation is and the time

that has been spent in court trying to get privilege immunity overturned for crime/fraud exceptions for a couple of dozen lawyers and presidential privilege overturned for the same for many many aides. Then there are the many court appearances trying to get access to telephones and documents. Just because something is printed in the news does not mean it will be allowed as evidence in a court of law or there isn't some exculpatory evidence. All of this takes time to ensure it is solid to not only get a guilty verdict but cannot be overturned on appeal.

It would be so much simpler to have the entire crime recorded on tape like Nixon, but alas that is not what we have, nor do we have just one crime and coverup.

Garland has and is doing a great job and laid the foundation for Smith to complete as any reasoned person understand.

[jaxexpat]

98. Are the challenges greater than the available resources can meet.......

in the time allotted per dictation by other constitutional schedules?

They do intersect, you know, these constitutional lines of proscribed and scheduled critical functions. They are not radii, connected at a central point and tumbling into disinterested infinity, outward and ever independent. It's more like a web or the woven threads of a tapestry, the US government.

Nixon, alas, was but one Republican gone off the rails. His congregation shunned him with a bit of fear and a bit of gratitude that they escaped annihilation. He was considerate enough to accept, quietly, a pardon. Also, in the case of Nixon, one crime was prosecuted with many others waiting in the wings. Sort of a list of plans B. Trump and his cohort are very similar. The famous predators who hunt herd animals succeed by identifying a single, weakened specimen as prey. Then, as a group, they slay it and feast. Surely Trump and any number of his cohorts are provably guilty of a single, serious, jailable crime. Is Garland writing "War and Peace" when a Dr. Seuss gem would suffice?

[Bev54]

99. Nixon's crimes and coverup were all recorded, made it much easier to follow and

yes 48 people went to prison. Let's not forget it was not the crime (burglary) but the cover up. When you have it all recorded sure is easier to get guilty verdicts or guilty pleas. This is nothing like Nixon, it is so much more, which also included an insurrection, among so much more. Garland did not have all the resources at the beginning and went to congress for more, which he did receive. He has 1000 "mob insurrectionists" of which has resulted in over 600 either guilty verdicts or guilty pleas. He had to get the lower ones first, to get the next level being the organized militia terrorists all the while still investigating the top. Now he has some serious guilty verdicts that may well turn some for lower sentences. The next level will be Jones, Stone, Bannon and that level leading right to the top. Will less suffice? No and it should not, this includes foreign entities and how much has Trump sold the US out, along with his basic crimes. It is obvious that MAGA does not care what he did, so they have to take down the entire cabal or it will continue with others.

This is a cross roads for the country, do it right or lose the country as you know it.

[jaxexpat]

101. Of course what you say is food for thought.

But tell me what are your thoughts on the state of our government when some of it is in the hands of purveyors of treason? And more importantly, how will the 2024 election be impacted by the progress of the judiciary or lack thereof to publicly warn the voters of the dangers presented by a Republican gain.

[Bev54]

104. Firstly I must make clear, I am Canadian so I see your government from a

different lens, in that I live under a much different government. It boggles my mind that your government is literally stuck in this situation where it seems that there is more power to the minority than the majority at times. There seems to be little process in place to make those who commit crimes in your government or SCOTUS receive accountability that is due. I think if your DOJ does not do this right the first time, you will lose your democracy for good. Right now you have a chance by keeping people on the right side and while it may be tough to go through this next election without final verdicts, I do think if there are indictments and talking court filings, people will get the picture and vote accordingly. You may not get to where you want to be fast but if the dems can hang on and get a majority in the house and keep majority in the senate (I do think you will lose Manchin and I don't consider it a bad thing and hopefully replace him with the guy running against Cruz in Texas) the country can come out of this and make some really necessary changes.

I don't know about the SC, I was hoping for a larger majority in the Senate in 2020 to make some changes there but I do think this DOJ has the balls to indict Thomas and/or his wife for crimes rather than just ethic violations, I just hope they have the goods to do so and to investigate others if they find crimes.

I know that I look at the US in comparison to us and while we are far from perfect, it is majority rule and we have a minority government that actually gets a lot done. They get help from the other more left parties to get bills through and it works. Our courts are not perfect but they are not as political as yours, judges are appointed by a nonpartisan legal committee based on judicial experience.

You only have one chance to minimize the MAGA fascists and that means take the time to bring ALL of those involved with the orchestration of the insurrection, including politicians, lawyers, fake electors and wives of SC Justices and every other MAGA jackass that took part in it. Same goes for the documents and money laundering and all other crimes. The rule of law must be brought back and respected if you are ever going to beat this. It is not a time to rush into indictments because and election is happening a year and a half down the road.

[jaxexpat]

106. All good except I kinda wonder if the next 18 months may be our last.

If the US goes super nova, the rest of the world will feel it. Right now it is easier to imagine Trump in prison than a USSC justice removed.

[Bev54]

107. I sure hope not but I really don't think it is so much the prison as it will be the indictment.

The MAGA crowd will be loud but the rest of the country will be disgusted.

[Bev54]

93. By the way the courts have been working weekends and a number of rulings

have dropped over the weekends or late at night. The court system was backed up from covid but the DOJ has maneuvered the system as well as they could. It is only recently that the courts have sped up their rulings, primarily because the same defence has been heard over and over.

[jaxexpat]

96. Okay, thanks for the info.

[newdayneeded]

82. Hey! Come on!

Billy Bob and Cletis both got whopping 3 month jail terms. Time to Cheer!!

[Grasswire2]

90. clearly and cleanly spoken, there, thank you

"Justice is being intentionally delayed due to political considerations" and for the benefit of the Federalist DoJ under an AG put into power by one Jamie Gorelick (powerful influencer, he was her chief deputy and still friend).

You might give her a google using this terminology: "Jamie Gorelick Mistress of Disaster" as she has been known for several decades now.

[lees1975]

78. Hundreds of cases on the same charges related to January 6th

but Trump still walks free. How is that again?

[newdayneeded]

83. The truth is,

the clock has just about run out. No AG is gonna issue a major indictment to a presumptive nominee to a major political party.

Proof is in the previous indictment, no rush on the court date, plus you can guarantee they'll move that trial out until after the election.

But, we should be happy we got all these little guys, that's success.....I guess.

[Beastly Boy]

87. Do you know what Trump has been charged with in the J-6 investigation? Do provide a list!

How many of them are the same as the hundreds of cases you are referring to?

I am pretty sure he is not going to be charged with taking a dump in Pelosi's office...

[lees1975]

89. Seditious conspiracy.

Successfully charged and convicted in multiple cases.

Why is there such resistance to indicting and charging him? Dithering by Garland will make it impossible.

[BumRushDaShow]

94. "Seditious conspiracy" has only been successful a couple times before Garland

managed to get 14 convictions/guilty pleas.

EXPLAINER: Rare sedition charge at center of Jan. 6 trial

By ALANNA DURKIN RICHER and LINDSAY WHITEHURST September 28, 2022

(snip)

WHO HAS FACED THE CHARGE BEFORE?

The last time the Justice Department tried a seditious conspiracy case was in 2010 in an alleged Michigan plot by members of the Hutaree militia to incite an uprising against the government. A judge ordered acquittals of the sedition conspiracy charges at a 2012 trial, saying prosecutors relied too much on hateful diatribes protected by the First Amendment and didn’t, as required, prove the accused ever had detailed plans for a rebellion.

Lawyer William Swor, who represented Hutaree militia leader David Stone, has said that prosecutors in the case failed to prove that group members were “more than just talking” and were “actively planning to oppose the government.” Stone’s “diatribes evince nothing more than his own hatred for — perhaps even desire to fight or kill — law enforcement; this is not the same as seditious conspiracy,” the judge said.

The last successful seditious conspiracy trial was in the 1995, when Egyptian cleric Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman and nine followers were convicted in plot to blow up the United Nations, an FBI building, and two tunnels and a bridge linking New York and New Jersey. Abdel-Rahman, known as the “Blind Sheikh,” argued on appeal that he was never involved in planning actual attacks and his hostile rhetoric was protected free speech. He died in federal prison in 2017.

Prosecutors also secured seditious conspiracy convictions in another, now largely forgotten storming of the Capitol building in 1954. Four pro-independence Puerto Rican activists rushed the building and opened fire on the House floor, wounding several representatives.

(snip)

https://apnews.com/article/what-does-sedition-charge-mean-3aa820dda5f501dd874c4dd6d60ca1ce

What has now been established with the success of someone like Tarrio, who was not "physically" present at the Capitol nor even in D.C. (apparently, as I heard either last night or early this morning, he was in Baltimore on Janaury 6), and he didn't actually physically assault someone there, then the same standard can now be applied to 45.

I.e., 'directing the violence" through various means (Tarrio used encrypted chats/texts/phone calls and 45 was on multiple stations stoking violence with his speech, tweeting, and possibly engaged in phone calls). And to add to the drama, multiple people were attempting to get him to get back on the air to tell his hoards to stand down and he refused, initially broadcasting a video encouraging it, and finally telling people to "go home". But at this point, they will need to find the "connective tissue" (as some pundits dubbed it) where people like Stone, Ghouliani, Eastman, Powell, etc., were working other "planning" angles and his role on giving them orders.

It's RICO but to do RICO, they need to make sure the connections are solid and backed with the type of evidence they obtained for the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers (both of those groups having most of their affected members there causing havoc). But they will have to make sure that they can bat away the same excuse that Abdel-Rahman tried during the appeal of his conviction for involvement in that bombing in the parking garage of the WTC in 1993, and planning more bombings.

Abdel-Rahman, known as the “Blind Sheikh,” argued on appeal that he was never involved in planning actual attacks and his hostile rhetoric was protected free speech.

https://apnews.com/article/what-does-sedition-charge-mean-3aa820dda5f501dd874c4dd6d60ca1ce

[Beastly Boy]

102. This is what you WANT trump to be charged with, not what he has been charged with.

OK, I admit, that was a trick question. Trump has not been charged with anything related to J-6 yet. I asked it to show that "hundreds of cases on the same charges related to January 6th" cannot possibly be the same charges Trump is currently facing, and "but Trump still walks free" is completely separate and apart from the aforementioned hundreds of cases.

So if you see any resistance to charging Trump, which, BTW, I can find no evidence of no matter how hard I look for it, it is unrelated to any other case being handled by Garland, and is very unlikely to exist outside of your individual perception.

[lees1975]

103. No resistance to charging Trump?

Then, with all of the evidence in hand, why hasn't he been charged?

[Beastly Boy]

105. You will have to be a lot more specific than this.

What evidence at Garland's hand are you aware of? What charges, based on the evidence you are aware of, are you expecting to be brought against Trump? Why does the evidence you are aware of make you confident you can convince a judge to consider your request for charging Trump? What are the chances of your request being granted and the Grand Jury looking into it? Wat makes you thinl you can convince the jury that you have met the burden of the preponderance of evidence necessary for the jurors to indict Trump? How confident are you of convincing every single one of the jurors?

And after carefully and objectively considering your responses to all of the above, do your minuscule odds of succeeding in each step described above constitute resistance to charging Trump?