I'm asking this not in defense of Garland, but because I am wondering whether the eventual result - the Supreme Court's immunity decision - wouldn't have just come sooner as well, and would still have prevented a trial before the election? Say the Trump indictments had come out a year earlier, starting in August of 2022 instead of August of 2023. Presumably Trump would have moved to dismiss the indictment in December of 2022, and the case would have made its way to SCOTUS on about the same timeline, but a year sooner, at the end of the 2023 term. At this point the case would have gone back to the district court for Judge Chutkan to decide which counts of the indictment should be dismissed according to SCOTUS' decision. Smith (if he had been handling the case, or another team if no special prosecutor had been appointed) would likely have filed a superseding indictment, just as he did in 2024. And that new indictment would have been challenged as well, and appealed for as long as possible - maybe all the way back to SCOTUS, and maybe long enough to prevent a trial from occurring before November of 2024. Smith didn't get much farther than the superseding indictment, dated July 27, 2024, which gave him only about 4 months to get the case prepared and tried - an impossible task. If he could have started over a year sooner, would there have been a trial, or would he still be stuck in the appellate process by November of 2024?

Maybe if Garland had started the process a year earlier (I'm not sure the investigation could have been completed much before then), Trump could have been tried and possibly, though not certainly, convicted before the election, although appeals would continue and it's doubtful he'd have ever gone to prison, regardless. We might never know why Garland didn't move more expeditiously. But given the glacial pace of the appellate process I'm not sure the eventual outcome would have been different. So I would agree that at least some of the blame can be laid at Roberts' feet. SCOTUS' decision might prove to be their most democracy-destroying act since Citizens United.

No trial before election day.

If all the delays, appeals, and rulings that we saw over the past four years had been completed say, two years earlier, I don’t think Trump’s lawyers would have thrown up their hands and said “we shot our wad, there’s absolutely nothing else we can do to delay this going to trial”.

Of course not- they would have continued to file motions, and appeal and do everything they had done before, plus they would use the immunity ruling to further slow the process by challenging every piece of evidence and testimony as inadmissible due to immunity.

And that’s before we even get to jury selection.

It’s important to note there is nothing Garland or Smith, or any other AG, could have done to force the courts to proceed to trial before the election.

As always, thank you for your reasoned and reality-based reply.

he'd have been elected anyhow. 34 felony convictions in the NY case, not to mention the E. Jean Carroll verdict and the NY civil fraud case, didn't make a damn bit of difference to MAGA. His election by millions of tragically stupid people saved him from most of the consequences of his various felonies, sins and wickednesses.

And none of it has anything to do with Garland.

There was this idea that Garland ought to be fighting every way he could for justice - that's the department, after all - and should have allowed for the predictable delay tactics by the conservatives. There was hope that he'd be better than a neutral jobsworth in no hurry.

Even if he obtained indictments at lightning speed, the courts still would have prevented a trial before election day.

There was nothing within Garland or Smith’s authority that could have forced the courts to hold a trial before the election.

The SC had not forbidden a trial. You're guessing they would have.

Not even SCOTUS, but Chutkan’s court was in the process of wrestling with the inadmissability of evidence due to the immunity ruling. Even with Smith’s superseding indictment throwing out some charges and evidence, do you think Trump’s lawyers would have said “we’re OK with that” and willingly proceeded to trial?

If there was more time, it might have come to trial - Smith thinks the admissible evidence was there. What Trump's lawyers would have said is irrelevant (or damn well should be, from Garland's point of view - his job was to get justice, not to listen to them).

If Chutkan had the last word.

But alas, there were six MAGA justices who begged to differ…and would have, time and time again, if Chutkan started ruling on the evidence.

"The SC are bastards, so we may as well give up now, and not even force them to make a decision by doing this quickly".

But the evidence indicates the court’s clear intention to delay the trial until after the election.

That outcome would have been the same regardless of who was AG.

not because you know it, but because you feel that the Supreme Court would have done whatever it took. You take their "intention" and turn it into inevitability. If that's not a signal that Garland should have given up on day one, then what is it?

I said there could be no trial before the election, regardless of who was AG, because of the SCOTUS obstruction and delays. It wasn’t just their intention, it was their objective, and they achieved it.

No one has put forth a convincing scenario of how a faster, sooner indictment would have circumvented the court’s obstruction and forced a trial to happen before election day. There seems to be an assumption the delays we saw would have taken the same amount of time, and no other obstacles would have added further delay, so earlier indictment = trial before election, but there is no evidence to indicate Trump’s lawyers would have rolled over, given up, and agreed to proceed to trial.

Of course, Garland, DOJ and Smith should have prosecuted Trump’s crimes because, if Trump had not won the election, the odds of him going to trial increase significantly, even if it took another year or two.

The “signal” you seem to have missed was from the Roberts court, and it stated clearly:

Trump will not go to trial before the election.

and need to stick to it to defend Garland. Your guesses as to what would have happened if the DoJ had worked faster (ie the Supreme Court would have magicked up something else that they did not bother with this time) do not mean that you are right. But it is a depressing "no one can overcome this Supreme Court" message.

...which has nothing to do with the supreme court.

And even then he only asked the J6 Committee for the work they did, probably to be sure he only "discovered" the evidence they gave him and nothing more.

Total milque toast at best, stealth right wing obstructionist at worse.

Utter disappointment in every way possible.

There would have been no trial before the election.

curious as to why you defend Garland so aggressively. What has he done that you admire?

I don’t defend Garland, I defend reality.

You have a political imagination, please use it.

Taking Trump off the field should have been issue #1 for Biden. Assume that he made it so and picked Sally Yates or someone similar for AG with the understanding that overturning Trump’s J6 impeachment acquittal with criminal indictments and a conviction was top priority. After all, Biden saw himself as restoring the soul of America, right? What could be more important than holding Trump to account for the most criminal act any President ever undertook: staging a riot to overturn a free a fair presidential election.

Now imagine that instead of ignoring Trump and calling him The Former Guy for much of 2021 he called him Public Enemy #1, which would have been appropriate since Trump persisted all along in calling Biden an illegitimate President. Imagine a President who used his power and an AG who backed him up. Is that so hard? Then take the next step and imagine if the last four years would have been any different as a result.

She would have encountered the same obstacles and delays that Garland and Smith did, and would have been powerless to circumvent them.

But I really like your suggestion that Biden should have called Trump “Public Enemy Number 1”.

For four years.

was another political blunder.

When I look at Garland and the J6 case I think the real question is could it have been handled any worse.

after the failed coup. That was as an utterly unconscionable delay.

An early and vociferous fan of Garland lays it all out. Relying a lot on what might have happened as he forgives what did.

Time did matter.

https://peoplesworld.org
› article › justice-department-delayed-probing-trump-on-coup-for-over-a-year
Justice Department delayed probing Trump on coup for ...
Jun 20, 2023 — WASHINGTON—It has been proved once again that you can't trust the FBI to guard the Constitution of the United States. A major investigation ...

Nor did the courts delay this

Merrick Garland Weighed Search of Trump's Mar-a-Lago for Weeks
Attorney general took his signature deliberative approach to the move; Justice Department asks judge not to unseal affidavit that provided basis for search

https://www.wsj.com/articles/merrick-garland-weighed-search-of-trumps-mar-a-lago-for-weeks-11660601292

Pick your preferred AG, and explain how they could have forced the courts to proceed to trial before the election.

“Faster” and “sooner” are not acceptable answers, as they ignore the power of the courts to delay going to trial for as long as necessary, which is what the Roberts court did, and would have continued to do, even if indictments had come a year or more earlier.

Chutkan was in the process of determining admissibility of evidence that complied with the immunity ruling- that could have easily taken 6 months to a year, with appeals for every ruling.

Even once all obstacles had been exhausted (if ever), then it’s on to jury selection…

So, I’m eager to hear your detailed, evidence based explanation of how another, less-milquetoast AG would have taken on the corrupt Robert’s court and prevailed.

we will never know because there was a year delay. It is My Opinion, if, there hadn't been the J6 committee, this would of been white washed and forgotten by the DOJ. The DOJ's collective heart was not into investigating trump for his crimes, more than 50 of them.
We do know there was a delay of more than a year. During this year long delay, is this when trump was able to persuade the supreme court to protect him ? And we do know after that years delay the court did start protecting trump.

And from trump's legal play book, delay, delay and delay some more and the problem may go away. And these did.

I could be wrong, but I could be right, we will never know.

Just my two cents

Regrettably, certain individuals seek a convenient scapegoat when faced with events that exceed their control or comprehension. Garland has become a target for numerous conspiracy theories and allegations of complicity, incompetence, or corruption, offering a convenient outlet for misplaced blame.

it's not an either/or situation.

Many of us here knew pretty much from the start of Garland's appointment that Trump's lawyers were going to do all they could to run out the clock, and that time was of the essence and that Garland needed to proceed as quickly as possible to have a chance. This was not the time to be slow and deliberate, it was the time to bring up indictments as quickly as possible.

Also, as another DU'er pointed out some Trump voters weren't away of the scale of his malfeasance and this DU'er pointed out that they did a study indicating that if they had been aware they likely wouldn't have supported Trump. How can you say that it wouldn't have made a difference given that Trump didn't win by all that much in swing states, and getting a conviction, especially for theft of archive confidential material, wouldn't have changed voters minds? I myself even think that a lot of people who voted for Trump didn't even know that he was convicted in a NY court of SA, and 28+ women have accused him of rape/sexual harassment/SA--Fox News doesn't really tell them that, (nor of Trump's frauds (Trump University, etc.) ). I think though Harris and Walz should have brought it up in their respective debates.

when our goddamn country is attacked! It's not rocket science! All garland had to do was move as swiftly as he does when a person of color is involved. That alone would have been enough.

This is insane. Why are people still defending that clown? He betrayed our country and defiled Biden's presidency. Fuck garland!

Sorry for all the cursing but I will never get over this betrayal / dereliction of duty.

Same crimes, same evidence, but most importantly same Trump lawyers using the same delay tactics with the same corrupt MAGA Roberts court that was determined to prevent a trial before the election.

The only difference is Garland is replaced with a “faster” AG.

So how does your preferred AG force a trial to occur before the election?

from how quickly other parties would have moved and whether or not a conviction occurred. Just do your effing job, quickly and efficiently after a freaking terrorist attack. That's my only ask and I think it's a fair ask.