That's rich, coming from the crowd that makes up whatever law or process they like to get the orange scumbag into jail. I want him there myself, but I recognize the realities of how our injustice system works.
So many of the "do it now!" types think that Garland can just go down to Mar-a-Lago, arrest Hair Furor, indict him, put him on trial, and then convict, sentence and imprison him. He can't. He doesn't have the authority to do it, or even the authority to dictate 99% of it. A whole bunch of other people have to get involved to get any of that done.
Like a grand jury. Only they can indict someone in the federal system. If they won't do that, then there's no trial, and Garland can do exactly zero about that.
Our system is awful--I grant you that, it's too slow, the process is a mindnumbing, emotion-crushing gauntlet, but one of the GOOD things about it is that we have no sole authority for who to put on trial--or in prison. As much of that process as possible is given to the people to have a say. Like with grand juries. Or with juries for trials. It may not always work perfectly, but it's a lot better than one person making all of those decisions.
Do you really want to live under a system where an AG Garland (or Barr) has the power to arrest, charge and indict people--solely on the authority of the office?
It seems that too many people not only think that's how the system operates, but also WANT it to work that way. Little do they know that if it did, our system would be even more corrupt than it is now. It's already corrupt enough without judicial authority concentrated in the hands of fewer people, never mind one, thanks very much.
So while I understand the frustration with what's taking so long, and the pessimism that nothing will be done (the rich have always gotten more than a fair shake in our corrupt system), I realize how futile it is to get worked up about the process. It is what it is. I learned that first hand when I had the feds representing my interests in a criminal trial. You think two years is bad? I was looking at three or more to get justice, and I was a victim of a violent crime.
Know where whining about that delay got me?
Nowhere, that's where. The system did what it wanted, and didn't give one rat's patootie what I thought (or tried to do) about it.
But I eventually got justice, even if I had to compromise to get it (accept a plea deal). I didn't want to compromise, but, sometimes, there are things more important than getting what you think you want. In my case, I needed the closure, however imperfect, so I could move on with my life, rather than being chained to that kind of trauma for years on end. That would have hurt me more in the long run than maybe getting the justice I wanted...or, worse, getting something worse than none at all.
Are YOU willing to accept that you might have to compromise to get the justice you think you deserve here? Or will you insist on going for broke? What happens if you get the worst result imaginable: Finally getting that trial you want, only to have a jury NOT convict? You do realize the odds are uncomfortably high that a jury won't convict TFG, or will end in a hung jury...right?
Think you're mad about "not getting justice" now? Imagine how you'd feel after a hung jury or a not guilty verdict. Plenty of guilty people have gotten one of those results, thanks to money enabling them to buy the kind of lawyers who can throw just enough dirt in the gears to break a jury.
The problem isn't Garland or the DOJ. It's the system itself. From the beginning, it's operated to cause the least pain to the rich and powerful. Because they were the ones who created the system and have propped it up to keep doing exactly that, since the beginning of the republic.
If you want that to change, get involved with an ACLU or Brennan or any of the other groups fighting for a better justice system. Because what's going on now will keep happening until something is done to change the foundations of the system itself.
= new reply since forum marked as read
