...who hired the man who took his 'fast moving investigation and over 20 prosecutors and almost all of the evidence collected by Garland's team against Trump and defended it for years in successive courts packed with Trump and republican nominees?

This stupid shit does nothing but divert from the prosecution and the report.

Funny that.

Don’t follow you. Thanks

...you claimed without any evidence at all that "he sat in his hands the whole time." Not even close to the truth, just blatantly false.





https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/11/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel-high-profile-moves-trump-criminal-investigations/index.html


Smith inherited from Garland a "fast moving investigation and over 20 prosecutors"

He thought he was in the rear-view mirror. It was wishful thinking and awful politics.

Biden appointed a cautious AG and then he himself showed no urgency about going after Trump. So we shouldn’t be surprised that Garland only picked up the pace when the House started holding J6 hearings. The buck doesn’t stop with Garland on the question of who made Trump’s return possible.

Ultimate responsibility falls on the President.

Garland never showed urgency about going after Trump. He should have been fired when the J6 committee handed off the evidence that would have convicted Trump on multiple counts, including insurrection.

And frankly, I don't understand Biden's handling of it, except the standard explanation of avoiding the appearance of looking political. And I don't really understand that, either, if Trump really is the existential threat to Democracy Democrats keep insisting that he his.

Nobody is perfect, I guess, but I expected more from Biden.

...provably false, especially since it comes with no receipt for the claim at all which is par for these slams at the people prosecuting Trump.

my receipts:


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/28/us/politics/trump-investigation-thomas-windom.html


https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/11/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel-high-profile-moves-trump-criminal-investigations/index.html

This isn't some hole in the wall attorney on the back side of DC, it's the office of the Attorney General of the United States. He admitted to dragging his feet and slow walking this, because there was no urgency expressed to get it done. If he'd wanted to, he could have brought charges when Congress finished their investigation and pushed it into court, cutting filing deadlines and giving the other side a fair, but quick chance to get done. When they want to, they can.

...

That is the outcome upon which we should reflect. I think, anyway.

Obama picked Merritt Garland because he thought the Republicans wouldn't object to him. Meaning, Garland was not what we thought he was. We always assumed his fault was due because he was overly meticulous. But, maybe, he intentionally dragged his feet because he knew the case would go away if Trump won.

...not a speck.

Tons of evidence to the contrary.

That's pretty convincing. Whole block of time when he just twiddled his thumbs and waited for Smith. Didn't need to but he did. And he said so, so I guess if we're going to apologize for him, we might as well take him at his word.

...so apparently it didn't happen.

There wasn't a "whole chunk of time where he twiddled his thumbs and waited for Smith." That's pure fiction.

Smith inherited what was described as a 'fast moving investigation' with over 20 prosecutors who were defending the bulk of the evidence that became the indictment which was described as more than Mueller had at the point of his appointment.

Garland's team not only gathered the majority of the evidence in the indictment before Smith arrived, they defended it in myriad, successive courts all the way through his appointment and term.

Hell, Garland's Tom Windom was still in court right before we voted presenting the revised indictment.

You have a really distorted view of the prosecution and are connfused about who was actually prosecuting and when, who was investigating, and who the federal government relies on to make decisions about who and when to charge.

Your statements are provably false.

receipts:


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/28/us/politics/trump-investigation-thomas-windom.html


https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/11/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel-high-profile-moves-trump-criminal-investigations/index.html



From Mike Pence to ‘fake’ electors, here’s who has testified to the January 6 grand jury or met with prosecutors
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/11/politics/grand-jury-testimony-list-january-6-trump/index.html

If he replaced Garland, the Trump prosecution would have appeared to be political. Because Garland was slow would not have been valid to critics, esp. to Trump. And it would have a negative impact on the Election.

It was assumed that Trump would lose.

you know what they say about (ass)ume and its connection?

also, the saying the buck stops here.....

and it’s also possible.

After the 2022 midterm elections.

The Democrats lost the House. Biden could have done a cabinet reshuffle at that point as a response. That way it would appear much less political, Garland could be thanked for depoliticizing the Department of Justice, and a more aggressive candidate could have taken his place.

It's what happens in Westminster style politics... the governing party loses a major election (e g. Local elections), says they're listening, and cabinet gets reshuffled. It's something we can learn from..

Sure Republicans would have complained. It's their job when in opposition... to oppose. And I admit they do opposition very well.

Off on a tangent... How long will DJTs picks remain in the cabinet? He appeared to have a revolving door on his picks....

n/t

Equal rights under the law is a facade. We have lost the rule of law.
President Biden had a ton of tasks. He did great on all expect killing Trumpism. Roy Cohn won. Putin won. We are at best an oligarchy.
The rich folks who own our party can go fuck off. New leadership come on down.

While revisiting this issue may seem pertinent, perhaps it would be more beneficial for us to shift our focus towards endeavors that offer greater value and productivity. Redirecting our attention to more meaningful pursuits could yield more favorable outcomes.

The new report shows how weak Garland was. He never should have been appointed in the first place. Going forward, inaction should never be an option.

There is no lesson here for us to learn.

But beyond that, you can be sure that if the general party members demand an AG like Yates over an AG like Garland, the party leaders will listen.

like how many ways can I come up with to resist?
How can I support my community in all the ways he’s opposed to?

to a fascist, criminal nutcase, whose last administration was an unmitigated disaster.

The "price of eggs" just isn't cutting it.

Perhaps if we can figure out how this happened, we may be able to learn from it. (for what that would be worth)

I appreciate your thoughtful response. It seems that many individuals have overlooked or neglected to consider the consequences of the faction advocating for punitive measures against Democrats. Their persistent chants of 'Genocide Joe' and efforts to suppress voter engagement with misleading statements like 'We're voting for Trump' or 'Enjoy Trump' have had a detrimental impact. These actions gained momentum particularly when certain congressional members encouraged their constituents to cast 'Uncommitted' votes. Subsequently, after expressing their dissent in the primaries through these 'uncommitted' protest votes, many were convinced that their stance was definitive, leading to a disillusionment that hindered further support for Democratic candidates, whether it be Biden or Harris. This situation effectively poisoned the well."

Biden wanted Senator Doug Jones to be AG. Ron Klain insisted he choose Garland.

Who voted for Ron Klain? He made the decision, and not the president? He was making perhaps the most important decision in recent memory.

Or perhaps not.

I agree 100% If we are invoking Ron Klain and the Office of the President, then it is either Biden's responsibility or he was "being handled" as the Republican party so often has accused him of; there is no good answer to the issue of Merrick Garland and the failure to prosecute January 6th

So many dems & independents were sickened by the anti-Semitic behavior by pro-Palestinian protesters on college campuses, that I think he was in a lose-lose situation.

..it will be part of Biden's legacy.

This whole argument is just silly.

Garland steps down, another AG steps in, maybe someone more aggressive and then what?

I've concluded that so many of you people have completely ignored the last few years. Having a new AG would not have prevented the Supreme Court from its rulings. It would not have prevented delay after delay in Trump's trials. Nothing would have changed.

It is absolutely fantasy to think that Trump would have been tried at all ... or a complete lack of understanding of the law.

Trump was never going to face a federal trial in the four years between his leaving and running for reelection. Therefore, I ask again: WHAT CHANGES?

America knew for TWO FUCKING YEARS what Trump was going to be charged with and still happily voted for him. And some of you have convinced yourself that somehow Garland is to blame.

its horrifying that knowing the danger trump presents, we did not release every bit of information to the public.

Trump will do that whenever he wants now.

That debate was the absolute turning point. Republicans and Dems alike jumped all over him for incapacity, when it made him look much less in command than he is/was. Dems made the mistake of replacing him which subverted the democratic process of the primaries.

he was never going to win, the enthusiasm just was NOT there

Garland and the MIC. Trump would NOT have become President again and Genocide would not have been committed in Gaza in our name. Yes, I'm a far left woke liberal and I'm proud of it. I'm squarely for DEMOCRACY in our land in all lands. I'm for LIVIING HEALTHY HUMAN BEINGS in our land and in all lands. I'm for NATO and it's growth. I'm for the complete restoration of WOMEN'S RIGHTS. I'm for the complete abolition of THE "CITIZENS UNITED" case. Citizens' United, since it gave way to legalization of money in our elections by the oligarchs. And I'm all for getting politics out of/and ethics back in the Supreme Court, once and for all.

So that Biden could get an easy win against drumpf. They needed each other. Otherwise you might have an old man running against a younger more appealing candidate from either side.

Garland did what he was kept around to do. You know, "Nothing will fundamentally change.".