Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]
ancianita
(42,342 posts)23. But other legal experts did eight months ago.
You refuse to be reasonable and want only one scapegoat when your beef is with
a) Republicans who delayed DOJ appointments for 10 MONTHS -- the head of the Criminal Division itself confirmed last; and
b) the courts allowing delays under defense pretexts of "due process" frivolous filings, and
c) the SCOTUS intentional delay on the immunity decision.
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
3 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
57 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The excerpt you posted does not address critics who complain the DOJ didn't move fast enough.
Think. Again.
Jan 2025
#1
Reread the timeline, Think. Again. It's not about "allowing." His FBI made arrests ON Jan 6 onward.
ancianita
Jan 2025
#36
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
I know what trump did. I don't need anyone to decipher it. Nor do I appreciate Smith
Silent Type
Jan 2025
#52
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
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
didn't realize you actually read anything of substance in relation to this case
bigtree
Jan 2025
#15
There can be no "maybe's" in justice. Anything done that you want done instantly is flat out
ancianita
Jan 2025
#46
"The DOJ is choosing to allow someone they factually know to be a criminal to become president"
ancianita
Jan 2025
#40