After all of the gaslighting about Merrick Garland

[bigtree]

...what a trip.

What a time to be alive.

[PortTack]

1. I hope those that did gaslight..come forward for a bite of humble pie

[mcar]

2. Kick!

[gay texan]

3. good legal work

rarely works on anyone's timeline

[gab13by13]

5. Waiting a year and a half to do the legal work never works.

[gay texan]

7. when you go after someone like trump

It has to be done correctly and that's it.

[hippywife]

9. They weren't waiting...

they were working.

[bigtree]

18. no one there was 'waiting'

...what you wrote is a provable lie.

Enough of the fact-free gaslighting.

You don't have a shred of evidence for that ridiculous claim, and you don't even bother to provide it.

Besides, I'm old enough to remember when critics who have been claiming things like this were, conversely, claiming Smith's appointment would SLOW DOWN the probe.

Ha, ha. What foolishness. You don't have a shred of credibility for that bull tonight.

Garland deserves praise for his efforts, and also his appointment, and he's going to get it. That's going to be tough on folks who've been trying to discredit him throughout, as if that represented some kind of support for the work he and his prosecutors have been doing.

[hippywife]

22. +1000

Garland has a track record that spoke for him ahead of all of this. He's very deliberate and thorough. I was confident that if anyone could pull this off, he could.

[gab13by13]

4. Humble pie for reporting the truth?

Merrick Garland did not investigate Trump or his inner circle until after the Cassidy Hutchinson testimony before the J6 committee.

No gaslighting will rewrite that history.

The best move that Garland made was appointing Jack Smith, someone who understands that time matters. Smith is going to try to get a trial date scheduled before the election, this is another reason the trial will be held in Florida.

If a trial cannot happen before the election we need to defeat Trump or it's game over.

[likesmountains 52]

6. What would be enough for you? Garland beheading Trump or ???

[hippywife]

11. So glad...

you were in the room when all the decisions were being made.

[lees1975]

12. Well said.

[bigtree]

13. that's as false as it's been all along

...repeatedly demonstrated to YOU here with links and other evidene.

I listened to Carol Leoning from the Washington Post yesterday on your fav's show, Nicole Wallace's, and she said the documents case was mostly ready to go when Jack Smith came on the scene.

She said Smith 'put a bow' on the case which she sad been ready to go before he even came onboard. What Smith did with his time was broaden it to other perps than just Trump.

Listen:

Link to tweet

[AZSkiffyGeek]

14. But neocon pundits said it was so!

They’re the only reliable source!

[Cha]

8. Yeah, that was

*********.

AG Garland, Jack Smith, & All those who worked Tirelessly and Diligently to make this Happen.

[lees1975]

10. I'll take back what I said about Garland when Trump is indicted for his January 6th crimes

and we have trial dates before the nomination conventions. They have the power to get that done.

[gab13by13]

15. So you get it, time matters,

the American people need to see a Trump trial before the election, thank you.

Would Merrick Garland have done what Jack Smith did in piercing the attorney-client privilege without waiting for appeals to go all the way to the SC? Smith understood that time mattered so he brought evidence to a judge that showed the crime/fraud exception and saved all of the appeals that were being followed by Garland.

The best move that Garland made was hiring Jack Smith.

[bigtree]

17. Garland handed Smith two fast moving investigations that laid the groundwork

...for what he ultimately completed here.

When Smith moves to an indictment for Jan. 6, it will be because of the work Garland did before he got there.

The most valid claim here is that Garland hired Smith. Period.

[bigtree]

16. lol

...this isn't a political process where DOJ is in some contest to nail Trump.

It's a deliberate gathering of all facts and other evidence that DOJ feels is necessary to not only indict, but convict in the end. That involves more than internet babble and breathless news articles.

When that effort is complete, the grand jury that's already convened will make their recommendation. There's not substituting this prosecution effort for the political process which is largely OUR responsibility, not DOJ's.

[lees1975]

19. So you're saying the DOJ doesn't need to pay attention to what's at stake here

and the appearance of some kind of legal decorum is more important than protecting the American people from a criminal?

Not buying that, especially given the time that has passed, 883 days, and the number of convictions of regular people that have already happened.

I'm thrilled to see these indictments. I'll be more thrilled when I see a conviction with sentences stopping this unchecked mockery of American democracy that is masquerading as a presidential campaign for Trump.

[bigtree]

20. pay attention?

...they're paying attention to the cases they're bringing.

You can't have a prosecution obsessed or even focused on political implications like they have that responsibility to determine the next president.

The entire notion is belied by the fact that Trump can still run for office if indicted, and be elected if voters make that happen again. This isn't some zero-sum, political enterprise. It's a federal prosecution, and the vast majority of the attention should be to get the case right, not speed it into court to satisfy someone's view of the consequences of an election.

Old enough to remember though, when this question was mostly predicated on whether Garland would allow an indictment in an 'election season.' That question is moot tonight. I'd think this indictment would generate a bit more deference to DOJ's judgment, but here we ARE.

[likesmountains 52]

21. I think of it this way..when your baby learns to walk, it takes a few steps.

It doesn't run a marathon. Things take time, embrace the fact that details matter here.