General Discussion

bigtree

(93,068 posts)

15. didn't realize you actually read anything of substance in relation to this case

Reply to thebigidea (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 14, 2025, 03:02 PM

Jan 2025

Last edited Tue Jan 14, 2025, 03:32 PM - Edit history (1)

...not really evident in your replies.

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

H2O Man

57 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

This message was self-deleted by its author [View all] bigtree Jan 2025 OP

The excerpt you posted does not address critics who complain the DOJ didn't move fast enough. Think. Again. Jan 2025 #1

They only had four years HereForTheParty Jan 2025 #5

+1. Democrats had four years to prevent the nightmare dalton99a Jan 2025 #8

Absolutely, spray the mother cockroach first. GreenWave Jan 2025 #28

But other legal experts did eight months ago. ancianita Jan 2025 #23

I don't understand how all those things... Think. Again. Jan 2025 #27

I don't understand how you don't know that all those things ancianita Jan 2025 #33

Thank you for asking.... Think. Again. Jan 2025 #34

Reread the timeline, Think. Again. It's not about "allowing." His FBI made arrests ON Jan 6 onward. ancianita Jan 2025 #36

Jack Smith seems to disagree. Think. Again. Jan 2025 #37

Quote him. In context. ancianita Jan 2025 #41

Read his report. Think. Again. Jan 2025 #42

Haven't read Smith's Report and probably won't, but I don't think the report has much new, if anything. Silent Type Jan 2025 #2

Yeah, why read the report choie Jan 2025 #51

I know what trump did. I don't need anyone to decipher it. Nor do I appreciate Smith Silent Type Jan 2025 #52

That is bs choie Jan 2025 #53

Garland waited two years to appoint Smith. intheflow Jan 2025 #3

Yep, Garland's first order of business upon taking office should've... brush Jan 2025 #4

You're exactly right. lees1975 Jan 2025 #6

Yep, we all saw trump's guilt on TV. He should've been prosecuted... brush Jan 2025 #7

+1 dalton99a Jan 2025 #9

You misunderstand the justification for appointing a special counsel. Nt Fiendish Thingy Jan 2025 #10

You don't seem to understand one was not needed. The AG should've lead the prosecution himself immediately... brush Jan 2025 #12

you fail to mention any consequence of the appointment that delayed anything bigtree Jan 2025 #17

Whatever all that means, we all saw trump's guilt unfold in real time on TV. brush Jan 2025 #18

that's the sum of your legal argument bigtree Jan 2025 #19

Not laughable to SC Smith as that's what his report concludes. brush Jan 2025 #20

Likely would have got a life sentence and would not be president n/t MichMan Jan 2025 #29

Six months earlier? intheflow Jan 2025 #26

Smith integrated almost seamlessly into what was described as a 'fast-moving investigation' bigtree Jan 2025 #13

By the time Garland had investigated the felons' underlings, the felon announced Nov 15 he'd run ancianita Jan 2025 #38

Critical thinking is hard Fiendish Thingy Jan 2025 #11

I look forward to not buying his book thebigidea Jan 2025 #14

didn't realize you actually read anything of substance in relation to this case bigtree Jan 2025 #15

Recommended. H2O Man Jan 2025 #16

I've only seen posts blaming Merrick Garland? happy feet Jan 2025 #30

There have been H2O Man Jan 2025 #32

I still think tsf should have been arrested in the evening of Jan 6 crud Jan 2025 #21

That would have been unlawful and illegal by any standards of justice. ancianita Jan 2025 #39

You are probably correct, I'm not a lawyer crud Jan 2025 #44

There can be no "maybe's" in justice. Anything done that you want done instantly is flat out ancianita Jan 2025 #46

Looks to me like there is no justice in justice either crud Jan 2025 #47

Only if you don't look at the "equality before the law" parts. ancianita Jan 2025 #50

Sorry. Justice is dead. intheflow Jan 2025 #56

It's still wrong angrychair Jan 2025 #22

"The DOJ is choosing to allow someone they factually know to be a criminal to become president" ancianita Jan 2025 #40

I think you misunderstood angrychair Jan 2025 #43

Not really. ancianita Jan 2025 #45

Case was already ongoing angrychair Jan 2025 #48

Luigi Mangione should immediately announce his candidacy HAB911 Jan 2025 #24

and eight months ago ancianita Jan 2025 #25

Thank you for posting. Truth matters. Joinfortmill Jan 2025 #31

this has garland's fingerprints all over ecstatic Jan 2025 #35

He sided with "the rule of law," intheflow Jan 2025 #57

Downloaded from link. Amazon has it up at Kindle, but if you can download it you don't need Kindle... Hekate Jan 2025 #49

A Garland apologist edhopper Jan 2025 #54

When the National Archives gab13by13 Jan 2025 #55