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

ancianita

(42,342 posts)
45. Not really.
Tue Jan 14, 2025, 08:23 PM
Jan 2025
The reason is due to an internal policy memo that states the DOJ should not pursue court cases against a sitting president. That is, very literally, the only reason they are not moving forward with the cases.


I understand that the felon is not yet a sitting president. But is just a memo the only reason? Do you understand the reason for the memo? Do you understand that it's not just some "obey in advance" kind of memo? Do you understand what happens with this case when the felon IS the sitting president? Of course you do.

You're just not thinking this through -- and yourself misunderstand why the memo exists to begin with:
First... The new AG will dismiss the case and stop representing The People of the United States.
Second... There would be no Special Counsel Report. No historical record of this First criminal president in U.S. history.


That memo is not backed by any law or anything in the Constitution.


What does the next sitting president's new AG do that is constitutional?
He dismisses the Special Counsel who must drop the case and stop representing The People of the United States. Special Counsels exist across presidencies, and why John Durham was allowed to finish his case and report. But do you think this memo overrides the next president's directing the AG to dismiss Smith? pfffffft

It's just a document someone put forth as a suggestion and the DOJ decided it sounded like a good idea.


Someone? Who? A suggestion? Like "let's have lunch and shake hands" suggestion?

What does the current sitting president's AG do that is also constitutional and not "like a good idea"?
-- He presents the Report instead of a sure-to-fail trial even before a jury pool can even be selected -- so that the The People's case still stands in the historical record of this first oath breaking president in U.S. History.
-- He presents his Special Counsel's Report to The People of the United States, of their complete case against the felon. The People's case that otherwise would have been tossed by the next AG.


Pick one.
No DOJ memo = no case and political exoneration by default.
DOJ Memo = The People's case recorded for history and posterity.

Like Obama says ... Come ON!

Recommendations

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

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
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»This message was self-del...»Reply #45