Merrick Garland Weighed Search of Trump's Mar-a-Lago for Weeks

[brooklynite]

Source: Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON—Attorney General Merrick Garland deliberated for weeks over whether to approve the application for a warrant to search former President Donald Trump’s Florida home, people familiar with the matter said, a sign of his cautious approach that will be tested over coming months.

The decision had been the subject of weeks of meetings between senior Justice Department and FBI officials, the people said. The warrant allowed agents last Monday to seize classified information and other presidential material from Mar-a-Lago.

Mr. Garland now faces a more momentous decision that will further sharpen an already unprecedented and politically fraught situation: whether to pursue charges against Mr. Trump or any of his allies over their handling of the records at issue and their interactions with Justice Department officials seeking to retrieve them.

A decision to bring charges in the matter against Mr. Trump or any of his allies would thrust the Justice Department deeper into a political environment in which the former president’s supporters and Republican lawmakers are already accusing Mr. Garland and the department of overreach.

Read more: https://www.wsj.com/articles/merrick-garland-weighed-search-of-trumps-mar-a-lago-for-weeks-11660601292

[Walleye]

1. He's got to be locked up. Before long he will actually shoot somebody on fifth Avenue

Just to prove he can get away with it. Vengeance and vindication are his reasons for living

[pandr32]

4. Many people have already died

... because of him. He is soaked with the blood and misery of so many.

[Ligyron]

2. If he broke the law charge him.

Political consideration should have nothing to do with this.

[gab13by13]

5. I have been on DOJ for a long time,

not because of Garland, per se, but because of time constraints.

You do realize that it will take a lot of time just to indict Trump? A Trump trial and conviction most likely won't happen for 3 years.

[gab13by13]

3. I must say that Merrick Garland is the most cautious man in the world.

Being cautious may work out in the long run.

I did notice that he approved the search warrant on day 91 before the election, coincidence?

Is it Kornacki time where DOJ goes silent? Fucking James Comey announced the investigation into Hillary 11 days before the election.

It sure seems like the 90 day rule only applies to Magats.

[Mr.Bill]

18. Trump is not running currently

for any elective office. His political status is exactly the same as mine.

Every day in this country regular citizens commit crimes and are arrested before sundown on the day of the crime and are held in jails for months if not years without bail before they are put on trial. And for crimes that are absolutely trivial compared to what trump has done on live television.

I am just sick of this multi-tiered justice system. The most dangerous criminal in the country is free to come and go when some guy who robbed a gas station has been sitting in a cell for 18 months awaiting trial.

[gab13by13]

25. Hey, I agree with you,

but what did Garland say at his confirmation hearing? He will not be partisan. Merrick Garland is extremely cautious which may serve us well in the long run if we have time to convict Lard Ass. The statute of limitations has run out for "individual one," and for the obstruction of justice charges.

Garland is not being partisan when he has DOJ defend Trump (the office) against E. Jeanne Carroll in a couple of months.

I understand why Mueller didn't indict Trump, he was afraid of the DOJ memo that claims one can't indict a sitting president. I am sure that he looked at the composition of the SC and didn't want to chance that this court would agree with the DOJ memo. After Trump left office Garland had free rein to indict Trump for those crimes.

[msfiddlestix]

38. But he is campaigning, IIRA, he did say he filed for 2024.

But maybe he was lying?

He continues to rally as if he had filed. I'd say even if he didn't officially file, he and all of his cult officials will make that claim.

And that will be the "reality" if charged within that policy "window."

[Mike Nelson]

6. Hmm...

... if the material was important, the search should have been conducted very quickly. This leads me to believe the material wasn't as serious as it's being reported... or, maybe they figured it had already been "out there" for over a year.

[gab13by13]

8. Just my take,

I believe that Garland is true to his word, he will not be partisan. I believe he took weeks to decide because this is the first time a former president's club has been hit with a search warrant.

The 90 day rule is now here, it's Kornacki time. God help us if the Magats gain control of the House.

[Mike Nelson]

10. I think...

... they (House Republicans) will investigate Garland, and others. I agree he strives to be non-partisan.

[FoxNewsSucks]

13. I've never understood that bullshit,

other than as a tool to use against Democrats.

If a candidate, any candidate, is discovered to be a fucking criminal 10 days prior to an election, that is NOT something that should be sat on until after the election.

[Mr.Bill]

19. Unless they take the Senate

they won't be able to do anything but put on a clown show. And that's exactly what they will do.

[gab13by13]

27. OMG they can cause complete havoc,

they will have control of the purse strings. Just imagine what agencies they will try to defund, and that's just one thing they can do.

[Jakes Progress]

20. Garland was partisan.

Because he was appointed by a Democrat, he didn't investigate obvious crimes because it would look bad for his party. That is partisanship. He is not supposed to make things look good for either side. He is supposed to enforce the law. He has been reticent to do that because of politics.

[Lonestarblue]

30. Exactly. Sitting on a search warrant for weeks when video showed those boxes being moved

in and out of storage should have resulted in quick action. I’m glad he seems willing to allow the investigation now, but he slow walked everything for a year and a half, not just on Trump but on state Republicans who broke elections laws by tampering with voting machines and by submitting fraudulent slates of electors. Some of those very criminals are now running for state offices so they can control who wins the next elections in their states. That is not following the law. It is allowing politicians to break the law with impunity.

A former president is owed deference. He is not owed a get out of jail free card.

[Farmer-Rick]

32. Yup, Garland will always appear partisan

No matter how often he lets GOPers get away with crimes. He was appointed by a partisan system. There's no way to avoid it. Dems are a party fighting against GOPers. It's partisan by nature.

His dragging his feet about this now just looks like he is fearful of the GOPers political clout.

Would a poor man have been treated so delicately? We are either a country of laws or a country ruled by the whims of the filthy rich.

[brooklynite]

35. The 90 day rule is NOT here...

Nobody running for office in November is currently subject to indictment.

[onetexan]

26. What's more serious than nuclear secrets?

[Mike Nelson]

31. Good question...

... I would suspect info could be sold to the highest bidder - the Saudis would probably agree to several billion, but how about getting everyone in the game! I would have acted very quickly - so, maybe Garland knows they are safe for a few weeks?

[gab13by13]

9. Explain "individual one"

and the numerous obstruction of justice charges that Mueller laid out? Indicting a former president appears to be a high hill to climb.

[SoCalDavidS]

16. Now You Understand How The System Works nt

[867-5309.]

11. So a decision to charge will take months, I suppose

The urgency of this is lost on him.

[FoxNewsSucks]

12. This bullshit is why people are critical of Garland

and worried that he'll let the MFer off the hook.

Planning the execution might have taken considerable time. The decision of whether or not is a simple one, not anything that needed to be agonized over.

"The decision is clearly 'yes', now let's plan how to do it right" is the proper thing.

[onetexan]

22. agree. Rachel Maddow just said on her show last night the MAL search was part of an ongoing criminal

investigation. That last bit was mentioned repeatedly by the DOJ filing. Someone mentioned here Merrick Garland has 100% win on all his previous cases. I'm confident he will do as he needs.

[hamsterjill]

14. Garland does not have forever.

I’m not sure he understands that. Sometimes a duck really is just a duck. If there’s evidence that Trump has committed a crime - which there obviously is - then let’s get on with it before we loose the chance. I understand careful consideration. But I also understand that there is a time to move, and that would be now!

[SoCalDavidS]

15. Yet People Still Believe He's Going To Charge TFG

I don't. Not for this, nor any of the other crimes which he could charge TFG with.

[Earth-shine]

17. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Garland seems to be in no rush.

[Kablooie]

21. I don't think he indict Trump unless ...

There is evidence of documents in the hands of other countries.
From everything we’ve heard there is no sign of this though it could just being kept secret.

If there is no proof that he did anything with the docs, now that they are safe, I would bet that Garland wont pursue it further and the country will suffer as a result.

[gab13by13]

29. I disagree,

the latest Trump lawyer who was just subpoenaed by DOJ, the guy who told Eastman to get a good fucking lawyer, can prove that Trump had no broad power to declassify documents. The Trump lawyer who signed an affidavit that there were no more classified documents at Mar-el-Loco was a criminal act, and her affidavit represents Trump. If there were SIGINT documents at Mar-el-Loco Trump is liable because those kinds of documents cannot be declassified by Trump unilaterally.

There are several crimes that Trump can be charged with without any proof that he sold out his country.

[ZonkerHarris]

23. i can just picture those meetings....

FBI: He's defied the subpoenas, they've lied on their affidavits, and a source inside MAL says they are hiding and moving the boxes.

Garland: I just don't know....

[GreenWave]

24. Come on Merrick!

You can do it!

Beginners you are out of here. Intermediate and Advanced, show 'em how it's done.


[link:|

[Layzeebeaver]

28. "thrust the Justice Department deeper"

Can they come up with more flowery language that says the FBI is about to F**K tRUMP over a few times?

Oh and by the way, the fact that someone broke the law and is being prosecuted IS NOT political. The right wingers will try and make it so, but its not.

[imavoter]

33. my understanding is that at this level the AG

already had to have proof of wrongdoing
to even get the judge to sign both warrants.
I heard a story on NPR.
Any lawyers or judges here?

[LakeArenal]

34. I can't believe people keep speculating about Garland.

As if they have a direct line to his thought process.

So many have speculated incorrectly but doesn’t seem to stop anyone from speculating further.

He’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.

[Baggies]

36. I appreciate the article being posted

Problem is whether or not to believe any of it. There’s so much conflicting information, even among those sources this site deems as “acceptable”. No reasonable person would read and consider only those, but the others sources are all over the map, too.

[Paladin]

37. Hey, I'm just thankful Garland's approval didn't take DECADES.

I exaggerate, but you know where I'm coming from on this.