We are here because of Garland's foot dragging. Now the Supremes can delay until a trial is not possible

[Stinky The Clown]

Thanks Merrick Garland. I blame you.

Motherfucker doesn't need to delay. You did plenty.

Don't talk to me about bashing a Democratic figure. This criticism is well deserved.

[Pachamama]

1. [phone]

[The Unmitigated Gall]

35. I'll see that 1x109

and add ANOTHER 1x10^9

[BigmanPigman]

2. Can we say that on DU now?

I feel like asking, "Is it safe?" like the Marathon Man film. Will we get kicked off if we still say that?

[dchill]

19. Technicality: Garland is not a Democrat.

[markodochartaigh]

22. Now he couldn't even

play one on TV.

[Trueblue1968]

36. That is why applaud the OP with this thread. I wish he would resign.

[cactusfractal]

40. That didn't matter

When I had a comment deleted about him having no spine.

"Democratic" figure, my ass.

When they find that Presidential actions are immune from prosecution absent Senate conviction, I hope Biden throws him in Gitmo along with the Orange Menace, then resigns scot free.

[ArkansasDemocrat1]

48. Me too and the fucking message said don't spread right wing talking points. LIKE I'D DO THAT SHIT???

Someone didn't like me bashing Quisling Garland.

[FoxNewsSucks]

57. You have a lot of company

I've had posts hidden for being critical of Garland, Maserati-Manchin and Curtsy Sinema. So have a lot of others here.

And we were right about all three.

[BaronChocula]

25. It's so safe

It's unbelievably safe. You wouldn't believe how safe it is. AHHHHHHHHHH!

I still can't watch that scene to this day.

[BigmanPigman]

41. It was on TV again last night

What a good film!

[bamagal62]

28. Well, I got a post removed because I said

Something bad about Garland. So….

[ShazzieB]

42. A lot depends on who happens to get picked for the jury.

It's completely random and anonymous, and different people can have very different opinions on the same thing, as we all know just from reading the posts here.

I have seen posts get removed that I thought were harmless and other posts that I did not like at all stick around through multiple alerts.

There are a few things that will pretty reliably get a post removed, like using racial slurs or calling another member nasty names, but an awful lot of things can go either way, depending on who's voting on it.

[Diraven]

66. They must be getting more lenient

Offending posts just get removed now? I remember during the 2020 primaries accounts were getting permanently banned every day just for the sin of supporting the wrong candidates.

[jcgoldie]

72. thats not how it ever worked

.

[Scrivener7]

83. .

[womanofthehills]

87. My long time other half - a Bernie

Supporter was banned for life back then.

[emulatorloo]

135. During the primaries? No that never happened.

Unless you were supporting Trump.

[Comfortably_Numb]

77. I think I'd rather have my tooth drilled than live through another trump term.

[Wuddles440]

103. Considering what he and his MAGAT thugs...

have planned for us "vermin", getting your tooth drilled may actually be the least painful of their menu choices.

[orthoclad]

133. Without novocaine

[Comfortably_Numb]

143. That scene haunts me to this day...Dustin Hoffman nailed it.

[orthoclad]

147. Not that bad.

When I was really poor, I got teeth drilled without novocaine. Saved $15.

[Richard58]

104. Exactly!

I know how it is on this forum. Criticizing a Democrat is a no-no. Even if said Democrat is F'ing up royally like Garland is! Why can't we call it like it is?

[msfiddlestix]

109. Garland was never a Democrat. I have never considered him a Democratic "Figure" by virtue of his appointment.

Garland is a Federalist through and through. and that qualifies as the party of the Repuke imo.

[brush]

128. They'll have to kick us all off then. It's more than 3 years since J6 and trump has not been held to account yet.

Thanks, Garland.

And one more thing. Him not editing out that hit job crap from the Hur report as the height of passive aggressiveness. Garland just released that "well intentioned, elderly man with a poor memory who is not fit to serve" crap, which we'll all be hearing over and over and over again in negative repug ads angainst Biden during the campaign.

[KPN]

129. Marathon Man! What an epic movie! Haven't thought of it in ages ... thanks for the memory.

I read the book well before the movie. The movie was really well done and absolutely not disappointing in the least.

[Think. Again.]

3. Kick, Rec.

[stage left]

4. Never put your trust

In a Republican.

[Oneironaut]

105. *Anyone

Irl too.

Putting unearned trust in anyone will just lead to disappointment, imo. You should never trust someone you don’t know personally / who hasn’t earned your trust.

[chicoescuela]

5. 100% Garland's fault.

F him too

[MOMFUDSKI]

29. Garland has a boss.

Flame away.

[chicoescuela]

31. You're right and it isn't Joe

[TomSlick]

39. I'll bite. Who is Garland's boss if not the President?

[chicoescuela]

43. In theory Joe is, but it does appear that MG may not think so. Horribly disappointing

[BlueNIndiana]

45. Be careful I wrote a discussion about this "touchy" subject and it got deleted and a ban threat.

[ArkansasDemocrat1]

49. Okay, so we can't criticise Garland here and we can't say MAGAt over there. Got it

[scipan]

6. Why not put the blame where it obviously belongs

SCOTUS.

[Scrivener7]

8. Why not admit that Garland has a lot to answer for?

[scipan]

26. He does but he didn't have a crystal ball.

I'm disappointed in him too but I think he did it by the book, i.e., roll up the lower ones first and hope they implicate the higher ups. Maybe he was uncertain of himself.

He was wrong.

Edit: that mistake is nothing compared to the corruption of the SC. That's why I prefer to shine a light on them vs Garland.

[Scrivener7]

32. If he didn't realize that Cletus and his MAGA lodge brothers who carpooled to the Capitol to raise hell

were not going to deliver him the planners of the coup, he should not have been in the job.

There is no book that has that ridiculous notion in it.

He ignored the planners.

We wouldn't' be here if he had not done that.

[scipan]

37. "'his maga lodge brothers"?

I never read that he was a member of the federalist society.

Besides, I remind you, if you read the same stuff i did, Biden didn't want his presidency to be all about prosecuting Trump. Understandable if imo wrong.

[ShazzieB]

44. I think you're right about Biden.

I also agree with your previous post, about where the blame lies.

I wish Garland had moved a LOT faster than he did, but SCOTUS has a hell of a lot to answer for right now.

I was watching Nicolle Wallace when the news broke and have been tuned into MSNBC ever since, and I have never seen so many really smart people with their hair on fire as I have seen these past few hours. Garland has gotten some negative comments, but it's SCOTUS that everyone has seemed to have the harshest words for, and I agree. Those 6 conservatives are being WAY too helpful to Trump, and it stinks.

As for Garland, I don't agree with a lot of his choices, but I'm in no position to judge his motives or what those decisions have been based on. I hope he writes a memoir someday, because I'd love to hear what he has to say about all of it, but I'm not holding my breath.

[scipan]

53. I think we're in agreement. This to me proves

There are several corrupt SCOTUS justices. Or maybe their financial interests align with their judicial interests.

Either way it literally makes me feel sick.

What kind of country do we have if they aren't even pretending???

[MOMFUDSKI]

95. Big

Mistake

[fightvision81]

80. Garland.....

sat on his hands for 2 1/2 yrs out of fear! And now Orange Goblin is going to get away with it all.

[hadEnuf]

127. Trump and the MAGA Republicans burned "the book" on Jan. 6th, 2021.

Not too hard to figure what was going to follow, IMO.

Or what is to come....

[chowder66]

14. And their donors.

[Scrivener7]

7. And the incessant and snorky condescension of the Garland cheerleaders better stop now.

[calimary]

11. Agreed! I don't want to hear anything that implies WE're part of the problem

Last edited Thu Feb 29, 2024, 05:16 AM - Edit history (1)

and shouldn’t be yowling about this.

HE’S a BIG part of the problem, and everybody should be making an uproar about it!!!

And if you’re not part of the problem, Garland, then you damn well better be doing something to solve and eliminate the problem!

[Scrivener7]

12. But he absolutely won't.

And this decision makes me very, very frightened.

[Stinky The Clown]

15. Amen!

[Sky Jewels]

70. Yep!

I’m beyond sick of that b.s.

[AllyCat]

9. I don't see how he is democratic. He's a Federalist.

There is nothing Democratic about that.

[emulatorloo]

138. Citation? Garland's nom to the Supreme Court was blocked by Leonard Leo.

https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/speeches/the-third-federalist-society

THE THIRD FEDERALIST SOCIETY
Within the Federalist Society, is an operation funded by dark money and designed to remake our judiciary on behalf of a distinct group of very wealthy anonymous funders.

The story of the “third” Federalist Society is partly the story of a man named Leonard Leo, the Society’s executive vice president. Mr. Leo is now the most influential person shaping our federal judiciary. Don’t be surprised if you’ve listening and you’ve never heard of him. He’s never been elected. He is not accountable to any voter. Instead, he’s the front man for interests that want to use the Federalist Society — and its surrounding network of front groups, and PR shops, and think tanks?—?to acquire control over our courts.

Renown court watcher Jeffrey Toobin describes Leo as “Trump’s subcontractor” on the selection of Supreme Court justices. More accurately, Mr. Leo is the subcontractor for a network of big corporate interests and front groups. In the summer of 2016, it was Leo who delivered the list of potential nominees to fill the vacancy left by the death of Antonin Scalia and the blocking of MERRICK GARLAND (caps mine). It was Mr. Leo who was involved in the Trump transition, helping to conduct outreach to potential Supreme Court picks, including Neil Gorsuch. Mr. Leo even orchestrated a million-dollar donation to Trump’s inauguration.

[dalton99a]

10. It's plain as day.

[NoMoreRepugs]

13. I'm with Stinky.

[ananda]

18. Yeah, Stinky rocks!

I've been on the anti-Garland page for awhile now.

Nothing's changed.

[RussBLib]

16. Even if there is no J6 trial before the election...

...we all saw it. I think Trump will lose the election REGARDLESS, and once the election is over, the trials can resume at their own pace

https://russblib.blogspot.com/?m=1

[kiri]

33. Senate Dems must confirm Biden's judge nominees

The Dems in the Senate are to blame for not getting Biden's judge nominees confirmed.

There are 113 waiting to take their seats on Federal courts. They are urgently needed. Senate Dems dawdle.

[Scrivener7]

84. What does it say about our system that we are unable to prosecute someone who tried to

overthrow the government in a timely enough manner to prevent him to run for another presidency four years later?

Their own pace is not good enough.

This was an attempted coup.

[MOMFUDSKI]

97. It says our system

is no longer our system. Democracy failing

[markpkessinger]

17. Thank you!

I signed on just now to post this very sentiment.

As Jennifer Rubin noted in her column of yesterday, in which she compared New York AG Tish James to Garland:

James has a very different outlook from U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, who delayed pursuing criminal matters against Trump (after Trump declared his candidacy, Garland was compelled to name special counsel Jack Smith), apparently in a misguided attempt not to look political. (Meanwhile, voting rights and abortion rights litigation has been championed of late by private litigants, not the Justice Department.) James seems to understand that shying from litigation for fear of enraging the right is itself political. Frankly, being more concerned with the appearance of neutrality than in dogged pursuit of wrongdoers undermines the rule of law.

[dalton99a]

21. +1

https://archive.ph/DGFwc

[Sky Jewels]

20. Yep. The Garland apologists who kept scolding

those of us who pointed out Milquetoast Merrick’s failure to pursue justice in the wake of an attempted coup d’etat should apologize NOW.

[FoxNewsSucks]

23. No shit.

It's disgusting. One really can't help but wonder about his motivation.

And Biden's done a great job, which will be overshadowed by this failure to hold criminal scum to account.

[PufPuf23]

55. POTUS Biden is between a rock and a hard place on many issues.

POTUS Biden has proved competent and calm.

But who would have guessed the shitstorm of issues dealt with by his administration?

POTUS Biden is exposed to open sabotage.

Think POTUS Biden is exposed to essentially blackmail, not for what he has done, but what other parties will do to the USA.

[NBachers]

24. Well, shit

[TheKentuckian]

27. The guy Obama thought the Republicans would find acceptable?

Yeah, he's the guy that Obama thought would be okay by the Republicans.

That means he was never intended to be desirable to Democrats at all!

Just someone a Democratic President could try to squeeze over the plate in the face of an extremely obstructionist Senate in greatly compromising fashion.

The love affair never made a lick of sense.

I know a lot don't do sports but you can't make Hail Mary's the bread and butter of your offense.

Who would be the compromise nominee? Bill Barr?

[Sparkly]

58. Obama had a hostile Senate.

Mitch and the gang vowed to obstruct EVERYthing before President Obama walked in the door. I think Garland was nominated as an "ultra-moderate" that the obstructionists surely couldn't say no to, right? right? But of course they did.

It's what they do over and over...

(Surely they won't go this far, right? right? Over and over again, they do.)

Anyway, Garland might have seemed at the outset like a good pick for AG, but clearly he's not cut out for the job.

[Tansy_Gold]

30. I have held back, and I wish now I hadn't

I'm with Stinky.

I honestly thought Garland would be stronger, and I thought Biden had made a good choice in putting the "rejected" SCOTUS nominee in DOJ to rub the pukes' noses in it.

But enough is enough.

And I've served on enough DU juries to know that we're not supposed to "bash" Democrats, but if we can't call out our own when we see things are wrong, then we're no better than the GQP cult members.

So the orange pile of shit gets to skate free again. He can keep operating his mob businesses in NYC. Nothing ever happens to him. And the rest of the fucking world suffers for it. The gloves have to come off. Jack Smith is doing at least something. Fani Willis is. Tish James is. Alvin Bragg (belatedly) is. But Garland hasn't. I haven't seen one single instance where he's had the moral courage of a gnat to stand up to the worst traitor in our nation's history.

[RockRaven]

34. Also and separately Vance and Bragg.

Bragg doesn't get kudos from me for the impending trial because it should have happened years ago.

[ecstatic]

38. He might even deliver the final blow. He might tell Jack Smith to "stand down" after the conventions...

[Scrivener7]

85. Yes, he absolutely might. Because they have to be gentlemen, doncha know. Except when

Hillary is running. Then all bets are off.

[budkin]

46. AMEN

What an absolute disaster he turned out to be.

[DaBronx]

47. Love the post

Could easily stand in for JB Smoove on Curb.
You speak truth.

[Roy Rolling]

50. 3 years

Three years getting convictions of the foot soldiers but waiting too long to convict the coup leadership.

If Smelvis walks free using the same clog-the-courts methods of cretins like Bannon then the U.S. government needs work.

What a letdown. The people get no timely justice.

[Boomerproud]

68. It's worse than a letdown. The consequences will be catastrophic.

It's right there for us to see.

[hydrolastic]

139. Your correct!

What I worry about is, the system has broken down. and because the trials are being played out behind closed doors the end of democracy will come with just a wimper. The excuse will be "that there was nothing we could do" and /or that the system was not designed to handle someone playing the system the way Trump has. I have said it before and I will say it again we should have had Watergate type trials. It keeps everybody honest.

[onecaliberal]

51. I was saying this a long time ago.

So much hate from people.

[Stinky The Clown]

52. Yup

[Scrivener7]

86. Yes. Yes you were. And yes, you did take a lot of supercilious condescension from a handful of

very vocal posters who scoffed at the idea that this would ever happen.

And here we are.

[KPN]

126. I remember ... doubly sad that you have to be proven right/rightly concerned.

[onecaliberal]

130. I notice none of those folks have said we were right. They are also curiously missing from these threads.

Not there to defend their man now.

[oldmanlynn]

54. As tough as it seems now on the INJUSTICE I believe

The people of America will see the injustice and potential damage to the country they will vote these people out

[Scrivener7]

93. But that's the last defense. I hope you're right, but it should never have come this far.

Our system was built to protect us from attempted overthrows and the cult has twisted every safeguard until it's completely impotent.

I have no doubt they will cheat their way through the election and make it a nail biter.

We are in a very precarious position right now.

[republianmushroom]

56. Yup you understand the foot dragging.

[gulliver]

59. I see criticizing Garland as criticizing Biden

President Biden did a fantastic job in picking Garland. There wasn't any foot dragging. That analogy implies intentional delay for one thing. But, I can't think of a move Garland has made that wasn't really sharp and good for the country.

[Goodheart]

61. Is that sarcasm?

[gulliver]

62. Just logic

Biden picked Garland for AG.

And Obama picked Garland for the Supreme Court, so dissing Garland is also criticizing Obama.

Garland is great. It's just a fact.

[Goodheart]

63. That's not a fact. That's just your illogically deduced opinion.

Obama is not above criticism. Biden is not above criticism. Each can make mistakes.

And Garland is piss poor. I could state that "that's a fact", but I like to constrain myself with accuracy.

[gulliver]

64. Biden and Obama didn't make a mistake

Unfortunately, the people who think they made a mistake are making a mistake.

[Sky Jewels]

71. Biden and Obama aren't infallible. Get real.

Garland was a massive mistake all around. I’m so goddamn sick of these self-inflicted wounds. There’s no reason for Democrats to keep engaging in this kind of bullshit pandering to centrism and bipartisanship. It’s always, always one-sided. And why the eff is Wray still heading the FBI?!

[jcgoldie]

73. Thats completely twisting the context

Obama picked Garland trying to get through a moderate. McConnell stonewalled it anyway. Criticizing Garland's actions or lack thereof since he has been AG is not a criticism of Obama.

[TiberiusB]

113. Garland's Constitutional Law Professor has a different opinion

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gross-abusr-ag-garland-s-dormer-constitutional-law-professor-is-now-blasting-him/ar-BB1iauMS

Dissing Garland has nothing to do with Obama OR Biden. He's not a toddler, and is responsible for his own actions, or lack thereof. Trying to turn this all into an attack on the current and former POTUS seems like a weak attempt to shield Garland, rather than present the merits of his tenure.
He was a desperate attempt to placate obstructionist Republicans during Obama's presidency, and Biden clearly thought he was somehow correcting a previous injustice by putting Garland at the head of the DOJ. A symbolic move, and never one that was intended to result in any prosecution of the insurrectionist leaders, particularly Trump.

[bluesbassman]

65. So do you think SCOTUS delaying the opinion on Trump's immunity is good for the country?

That delay will most certainly mean his trial is delayed until after the election, and gawd forbid he somehow wins, he will never be tried. How’s that “good for the country”???

[gulliver]

67. The SCOTUS wants to settle the issue once and for all

Most likely. I'll wait and see. Will they hear the oral arguments and then decide really fast? I expect that. But I could be disappointed. Time will tell. Trump may be on trial on election day.

I expect Trump to lose. But if he doesn't lose, it's good to have the Supreme Court on record saying he's going to go to jail if he commits crimes.

[bluesbassman]

69. You appear to have faith in the corrupt six. I don't.

If they act as you suggest, I’ll gladly owe you a beer. However, based on their past rulings I don’t trust them to do the right thing. Not at all.

[stollen]

75. I don't understand how parsing "nobody is above the law" is helpful in this case.

This is a delay scam. Better to look at what the fascist billionaires plan to do to overcome a blue wave. Russian satellites in space?

If dems control congress when the election is over, plus the WH, that should keep Alito and Thomas in place long enough for a congressional hearing on their malfeasance with changes made. Norms don't cut it anymore. Everything pertaining to SCOTUS must be minutely spelled out, as per SCOTUS' wish to hear this case, for the 3rd time in a court. Justices run amok is killing this country.
'

[BeyondGeography]

76. Smith urged them to do just that in December

And his brief responding to Trump’s circuit court appeal was filed on Feb. 14.

Now we have to wait until the week of April 22 for oral arguments and probably the end of June for a decision. Six months after they could have delivered one.

Don’t you see what has happened here?

[TiberiusB]

114. SCOTUS could refuse to take the case

Letting the lower court ruling(s) stand. That is as effective as them ruling themselves. The only reason for taking the case is to delay the trial until after the election. Then, if Trump wins, he can pardon himself and any others he pleases. Even if that power, the ability to pardon himself of insurrection, gets challenged, the SCOTUS can then step in an give him a pass. In other words, they can pretend to rule against absolute immunity when it is far too late, and then grant him absolute power to grant pardons to anyone while in office, effectively cementing his grip on the presidency.

[brush]

78. Hah! You're kidding, right? Garland just recently released the Hur report...

on Joe Biden's docs case without editing out the damaging, extremely negative commentary by Hur of Joe Biden being a well-intenioned, elderly man with extremely poor memory and not fit for the presidency.

That's such a fucking passive-aggressive stab in Biden's back, I don't see how you can see that as good for the country. Hur took nearly four years and nearly 400 pages, getting paid all the while, to exonerate Biden 200 pages in, but it took only one page to exonerate Pence in a similar docs case...without any negative comentaty on the former VP.

And that's just one instance of Garland's disservice to the Biden admin and the nation.

Good for the country? Not at all.

[Scrivener7]

88. Ridiculous. Honestly. Of all the arguments the Garland cheerleaders made ad nauseam, that

is the second dumbest.

The dumbest is "It isn't a Law & Order episode." The "episode" will now be at least four years long. In response to an attempt to overthrow the government.

[Silent Type]

60. Probably would have turned into a mess even if Garland started charging right away.

Details might have been a bit different, but still a chitshow.

[jcgoldie]

74. A shitshow with another year or 2 on the clock

... before Trump was up for election again. Thats the difference. Trump has never won anything on the merits. He only wins by delaying. Garland delayed for him.

[PortTack]

79. Just an FYI...you can have a post removed for talking about forum moderation....i.e. complaining about it

Just so everyone is aware!

[Scrivener7]

89. So alert.

[ArkansasDemocrat1]

110. The beatings will continue until morale improves

[Paladin]

81. Agree with you. (nt)

[no_hypocrisy]

82. This is like a Bush v Gore, only in a passive-aggressive way.

[Oopsie Daisy]

90. LOL! 🤣 Another day, another "I-Hate-Garland" post.

[Scrivener7]

91. Glad you're finding our current situation funny. At least someone can.

[hatrack]

92. Yeah, it's a real rib-tickler, ain't it?

[Oopsie Daisy]

94. Oh brother! How did you arrive at THAT conclusion?

Where exactly did I claim that "the current situation" is funny? What's funny is the predictability of yet another useless and pointless thread proclaiming "I hate Garland" and "Garland sucks."

Dear, oh dear! 😂

[Scrivener7]

96. The "crying laughing" emoji is a hint. And again, at least someone is enjoying this.

[Oopsie Daisy]

98. Intelligent and reasonable people look beyond the emoji and read the actual words. 🤣😂

Emojis aren't the entire message, they just add punctuation and emphasis. But I suspect that you knew that already. It's just easier to intentionally misinterpret my message than to refute what I actually said. (I think that's called making a "strawman" argument".)

LOL!

[Scrivener7]

99. I think all your "laughter" tells its own story, which is certainly not refuted by your words.

Have a lovely day.

[Oopsie Daisy]

100. My words and meaning are clear. The daily "I Hate Garland" threads serve no useful purpose *

* and they're laughably silly and predictable. I understand that you disagree with me, but rather than disagreeing with what I actually said (and rather than finding a way to defend the merits/benefits of the daily "Garland Sucks" threads) I do not understand why anyone would choose to incorrectly accuse me of "laughing at the situation" and using THAT absurd translation as a false pretense for scolding me.

>> Have a lovely day.
Thank you! I will try. It's not so easy to do when having to defend myself against false accusations and untrue characterizations of my clear intent and meaning. But hopefully things will get better going forward.

[FoxNewsSucks]

122. I'm having deja vu. Might need to keep my umbrella handy,

there may be rain in the forecast

[Scrivener7]

131. You might have something there!

[JohnSJ]

101. Actually we are here because enough self- identified progressive refused to vote for Hillary in 2016

general election.

In every critical swing state Hillary lost by less than 1%, while in those critical swing states Jill Stein received 1% of the vote in those critical swing states.

We lost the Supreme Court because of that.

Both THIS Supreme Court and Garland deserves blame for the delay in the absolute immunity case against trump.

It is highly unlikely trump will be tried on this before the election, but make no mistake about it, we are here because of what happened in the general election in 2016.

I think we will be very fortunate if democracy in our country survives.

The only thing that will save this Democracy, if it is to be saved, will be the voters.

The Supreme Court is saying we are going to get involved to see that it doesn't get resolved before the election.

[Wonder Why]

102. No. We are here because SCOTUS is infested with criminals, anti-Constiutionalism and lack of ethics.

[msfiddlestix]

106. May I just remind folks, that Garland was never a Democrat. We all know why Biden picked him for the post, was simply

as a reward for the humiliation of the Republicans blocking his appointment to the SCOTUS under Obama.
Not saying the reasoning was bad, and I understand the enormous pressure Biden was under to form a cabinet and put together a roster of appointments for various posts. This one probably seemed like an easy choice. it's possible
I only picked up the problem with him at the very first utterances during the confirmation hearing Possibly Biden realized it too, but by then, it was too late.

I do blame Garland, chiefly. Though he did have his accomplices too, didn't he?

[Chakaconcarne]

108. Look...it is what it is... It's not over. All of this hand wringing and blame is simply not good for all of us.

Divides us further and accomplishes THEIR goal.

You can choose to feed into it or not.

That is my opinion.

[TeamProg]

111. He always seemed he'd be a thoughtful SCJ, but weak as a prosecutor. I really did not

like the way he got choked up and near tears at his confirmation speech.

My gut feeling turned out to be correct.

[MontanaMama]

112. I'm with Stinky.

AG Garland came to a gun fight with a butter knife. That was bad enough and now we have a corrupt SCOTUS empowered to do the rest. And no, it isn’t over, but we’re in a hell of a spot at this moment.

[Magoo48]

115. MG is not a liberal, progressive, or a Democrat. Bash away.

[MineralMan]

116. It is disappointing, of course.

However, why would a trial not be possible? After Trump loses in November, the trial can occur with no difficulty.

Are you assuming he wins? I suggest we all work very, very hard to prevent that outcome. If we do not, the loss will be greater than Trump skating.

[Fiendish Thingy]

117. Godwin needs to update his law to include Garland.

The fact that it took this long to get to this point is indeed frustrating, but it’s not Garland’s fault.

Your criticism of Garland is not based in reality. It is only based on the passage of time and the lack of public information. However, if you truly feel Garland has intentionally delayed the prosecution of Trump, then, to remain consistent with your perception, you should contact the White House and demand that Biden fire Garland immediately.

The only way to get an unreviewable ruling that a president is not immune from prosecution is to have that ruling issue from SCOTUS.

For those that haven’t been paying attention, the lower court ruling did not cover two critical questions:

1) is a president immune from prosecution for acts such as ordering drone strikes? (This question raises not only the distinctions between official and unofficial acts, but also acts performed to benefit the nation, vs. acts performed to benefit oneself).

2) after the lower court ruled, Trump filed an immunity claim in Cannon’s court, claiming he was immune because he converted government documents into his personal property.

[Scrivener7]

119. .

[Fiendish Thingy]

141. Gave up substantive replies for lent? Nt

[Stinky The Clown]

136. Here's why you're the one who isn't comprehending the situation

The specific investigation into the defendant should have started within a month of J6..

It did not.

All the USSC delay tactics would have had plenty of time to play out. Instead it is juuuuuuuuuuust a tiiiiiiiiiiiny bit too late. "Sorry about your Democracy, America"

[Fiendish Thingy]

140. You know Garland and Monaco weren't confirmed for a couple of months, right?

And once confirmed, Rudy’s devices were seized immediately, and within a few weeks, Owen Shroyer, who was in the “War Room” on Jan 5-6, was interviewed, and is now under a cooperation/plea agreement.

You knew that, right?

But nobody knew it at the time (well we knew about Rudy), and nobody knew about the other investigative activities either, because that’s how investigations work.

But, I get it, the Bad Orange Man still not in jail, so Garland sux.

[Scrivener7]

142. .

[Evolve Dammit]

118. and the marginally or ill-informed voters won't think any of it matters, cuz no trials were concluded

[mcar]

120. We are here because of the idiots who

voted for Jill fcking Stein in 2016.

[wryter2000]

121. If he's not elected President, there will be trials

Not in time to do much good, but unless he can cancel the cases somehow, there will be trials.

As it is now, Alvin Bragg goes ahead in March. That hasn't changed.
Even if SCOTUS gives him absolute immunity for when he was president, that doesn't get him off for the documents.

Those two things will happen regardless. If he's not elected president, the DC case and Georgia case will go ahead.

Even if he's convicted of something, it's not likely he'll be in prison before November. If he wins, the conviction means nothing because he'll be king.

Bottom line: we have to make sure Joe Biden wins.

[stage left]

132. True

I'm going to work like hell to that end. I'm 75 and can't do a lot, but I'm going to do as much as I can.

[wryter2000]

137. I'm 75, too

If you just make sure your friends and family are voting, you’ve done something. Donating helps. I make phone calls.

[stage left]

145. The way some of them vote

I'd like to discourage them from voting. My core family group vote blue. I've got two hundred postcards and I'm ready to write some postcards.

[nowforever]

123. Garland

King of the milquetoasts. So afraid of making the wrong step he chooses to stand still and hope nobody notices. His idea of bold is pursing his lips ever so slightly. Appointing Jack Smith will be his only AG career highlight.

[Under The Radar]

124. Is playing by the book really a weakness?

I have often been impatient with Merck Garland and his slow pace methodical moves against Trump and I feel that the time has passed to investigate the members of congress that assisted Trump in his attempts to reverse the election of 2020. At the very least Joe Biden could have used the threat of criminal investigations as leverage to control congress if only Democrats played rough and cheated like the Republicans do. I would even have paid a couple of the more moderate house republicans to declare themselves Democrats or independents in order to maintain control as a majority. Who cares about the ramifications of packing SCOTUS with 3 more liberal seats, at least we get what we need now, right? What’s wrong with cutting corners and playing hardball like they do?
One would have to look through a different lens to see that all attempts to impeach President Biden as a crime lord have failed, there have been zero resignations or terminations of cabinet members and presidential staff, all attempts to fabricate a scandal on this administration have failed. It doesn’t make the headlines but it is clear Republicans are in shambles fighting among themselves, they are broke and are having trouble fundraising, they have lied so often we have film contradicting all their attempts at the truth, now their least intelligent least educated and least disciplined members have taken over the leadership positions.
Don’t look now Democrats, but I think that we are looking pretty good and I have never been prouder to be a Liberal- Progressive Democrat than I am right now.

[usonian]

125. Sleepy Merrick and the 6 other dwarves.

He could sleep through a triple-play, perfect game, and Blue Angels flyover.

[orthoclad]

134. Might be another

opening for a lifetime job with great vacation bennies.

[Tribetime]

144. He's got the backbone of a jellyfish...Do the world a favor

And resign you are in way over your head.

[mvd]

146. I defended him for a long time

..but I just can’t anymore. Also he allowed Hur’s report to contain personal attacks on the President.