It turned out that way and contributed to losing the election.

How much difference I don’t know because there were plenty of other reasons like racism, bigotry, misogyny, ignorance, and much more.

if Garland hadn’t wasted two years before finally appointing someone who would do the investigation Garland was afraid to. We have Garland to thank for Trump’s second term.

could convict trump or at least beat him based upon the indictments, trials, hopeful convictions, etc. I was a sucker too.

It was NEVER used to prevent someone from running for federal.
As a matter of fact it was loosely applied. Sometimes congress liked the guy, sometimes they didn't. One guy was kicked out of He was then let back in.


New Mexico kicked someone out, but did not allow him to refile. He was not allowed to refile due to New Mexico's law, not federal law.

It would have been difficult to make a convincing run from prison.

because he wouldn't have been able to execute the duties of the office from prison.

I'm fairly sure he would have pardoned himself.
I'm also sure the Supremes would have upheld that pardon.

The better path was always conviction before the election, which one would hope, jail or not, would dissuade at least some people from voting for him.

He couldn't pardon himself. Of course it would have been conviction before the election. That is the entire point. Garland delayed prosecution and with it the possibility of conviction and jail time.

As President he can pardon himself, even in jail.

Jail wasn't as important as the conviction at stopping him

On corruption charges. (Carlos Uresti, Henry Cuellar, Sen Menendez) So, assume Jan 22 and then expect another year waiting for the trail starting in Jan 2023.

Henry Cuellar had a search warrant against him in Feb 22. He was indicated two years later in May 2024. His trial is set for May or June 2025.

that put Trump in office. Is the point merely to justify Garland? That boat has sailed.

and his legal analysis has now been made public. That is apparently why the Garland supporters are so agitated. They've been proved wrong.

Only a jury can do that. Unless Trump opted for a bench trial.

Unless they charged him with insurrection or aiding and abetting insurrection which they didn't.

Since I've already addressed why I think a conviction and jail time would have made it difficult for Trump to win.

Was that he couldn't run, which was not true.

No one is going to disagree that a conviction with or without jail would have made it harder for him to win.

This is all obvious now. Why on earth would you still be defending him? Even Biden says hiring him was a mistake.

Jack Smith showed that a successful investigation and conviction was possible. Garland took two years to appoint him. When he did, Garland said he didn’t want to pursue the investigation himself for POLITICAL reasons. I know some didn’t care if Trump was ever prosecuted for Jan 6. One of Garland’s defenders said precisely that to me. Well, they got what they wanted, so why complain now—on the very day that Smith’s report proved conviction was possible had they acted earlier? The Smith report shows Garland’s defenders were wrong, though many lack the integrity to admit it.

Less trepidation that you will look like a disgruntled rejected SCOTUS nominee if you bring the righteous hammer down belonging to the government which Trump and his henchmen attempted to overthrow?

So far, the law doesn't figure into the responses at all.

With how quickly the prosecution occurred.

No one is saying the relevant law was complicated or difficult or required years of investigation.

The relevant offenses weren't complex, unique, or required multiple causal chains.

Now, a conviction wasn't assured even with the best effort. All it would have taken is one Trumper on the jury to scuttle everything. But we never even got to a trial so we don't know.

Taking four years and not even getting to a trial has nothing to do with the law.

The law had everything to do with how quickly it occurred.

It is called due process of law. And it not only involves prosecutors, it involves the defense, the judges, the court administrators, the admissible evidence, the legal and ethical standards in following due process, all required to be followed to a T lest the case be challenged and dismissed, the strict standards to be followed in in requesting and selecting juries and scores of other factors that are required by law in order to gain a snowflake's chance of proving cases beyond reasonable doubt, none of which Garland's detractors show any awareness of.

And of course the relevant offenses were made unique by the mere fact that they involved the sitting and later the former and at various times the President Elect of the United States.

Due process doesn't require four years.
Everything you typed tells me you aren't an attorney or if you are you have never prosecuted a case.

I am not an attorney, and neither are you. And you have never prosecuted a case. How does this affect due process?

LOL indeed.

We have guidelines for how long a prosecution should take, and yes I've prosecuted, defended and trained other attorneys in criminal law cases.

Rape, murder, child porn, drugs, assault, minor crimes, and everything in between.

Due process is solved with a grand jury indictment, appropriate representation, and an appeals process and fair trial.

It does not require making extra extra extra sure no one can every question anything you are doing because that's an unachievable standard.

But yeah, this is how I know the non attorneys are talking because everyone thinks they know the law and everyone thinks they know how the criminal justice system works.

Which federal law(s), or code(s) of federal regulation, or DOJ guideline(s) describe how long a prosecution should take, literally or otherwise?

Please cite your source(s).

Rules.

And they have processes for bringing charges, whether an information or an indictment.

You follow those two, and guess what, you've satisfied due process.

DOJ goes a little farther. https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-27000-principles-federal-prosecution#:~:text=9%2D27.200%20%2D%20Initiating%20and%20Declining,prosecution%20without%20taking%20other%20action.

But ultimately nothing in the DOJ requires that due process means anything other than reasonable cause to believe a crime has been committed and a reasonable belief that a conviction is possible.

It doesn't require super duper surety. It doesn't require that everyone is cool with the prosecution. It doesn't require anything extra than any other case.

And by no means does it require 4 years+ for trial to start.

Speedy trial wasn't implicated. So the only thing that matters for due process I linked for you. Nothing in those principles (which isn't even law, isn't all required by law or due process and is more conservative than most other forums of prosecution) required four plus years

could overlook this little detail.

The speedy trial rules you are referring to, therefore, are imposed on the prosecution, and not to make trials speedy. It is to protect a defendant's right to it. Just as it is on the prosecution to not interfere with a defendant's right to use all legal means at his disposal, whether or not it delays a trial, and regardless of the time it takes. And there are certainly instances where extending these rights to defendants required four years and more.

And speaking of due process, it consists of far more than reasonable cause and a good chance for a conviction. These are just the two elements whose absence would preclude a case from moving forward with formal charges. And it is the Grand Jury, not the prosecutors, who issue indictments. Or not.

The link you provided is full of meticulously catalogued principles that affect due process of law. And this is just a list of principles. The list of procedures to be followed to uphold those principles is far more extensive. Chapter 28 of the US Code of Regulations that governs DOJ has over 1000 rules listed in it, and all of them affect due process of law. You have to admit, insinuating that the Code of Regulations amounts to nothing is a bit of a stretch. If a thousand rules to be followed in administering justice doesn't call for super duper surety, I don't know what will. And they are certainly required. If the prosecutors at DOJ take undue liberties to speed up a trial for any reason, including disregard for the defendant's rights under the law, the Judiciary, who are actually in charge of overseeing adherence to the due process of law, would be quick to remind the prosecutors of it, up to and including dismissal of their cases.

All this before a trial can actually take place.

You've had your opportunity, and you have yet to identify a single legal source that states how long a prosecution should take. For a self-described prosecutor, not impressive at all.

It's absolutely an imposition on the prosecution. I take you've never seen a prosecution killed because the prosecutor violated the speedy trial clock.

You've typed a lot of words that you think makes you sound smart but you simply don't know what you are talking about.

I'm not worried about impressing you because you don't have the first clue of what's required to try a case. You're too busy trying to defend what happened so you'll toss out a bunch of words.

Let's address some more of what you tried to say.

Grand juries can issue indictments in some jurisdictions which is literally what I said. In others prosecutors issue informations. Or in the military a charge sheet. There's different ways of doing it but all are basically a formulaic way of addressing having sufficient evidence to go to trial (which by law doesn't even require a preponderance std but as I said earlier, DOJ uses more of a quasi preponderance std in deciding to go forward to trial).

Your entire first paragraph is speedy trial isn't imposed on the prosecution followed by the words speedy trials are "imposed on the prosecution." Lol seriously? You can't keep it straight because you are too busy trying to tell a trial attorney how trials work when you aren't even an attorney.

I said there are two basic rights of an accused when it comes to due process that are required of the prosecution: that the trial is speedy and that there is sufficient evidence to go forward to trial.

That's pretty much it. There's a right to an attorney and other rights but those generally fall on the court not the prosecution to enforce and insure. And yes there are other basic things a prosecution has to do with discovery and other trial rights but we aren't talking about those, just the things needed to get to the trial phase.

So, if you have enough evidence to go to trial, check that block. If you have done the proper form to get to trial (indictment, information, or charge sheet) check that block. And if you do it in such a way that you are ready to go trial fast enough to satisfy speedy trial rights then check that block.

And that's pretty much it. It doesn't take four years to figure out if you have sufficient evidence in this case. It certainly doesn't take four years to get an indictment. But if you don't even start the process for two years. If you wait to assign a prosecutor for two years. If you won't even make a decision to begin the prosecution process for two years. Then yeah, it's probably going to take you four years.

You know how I know this? Because it took Jack Smith seven months from appointment in Nov 22 to indictments in June 23. That's it. Seven months. From not being on the case at all to indictment. Seven months. Only two more months for a second indictment.

So, in 9 months Smith went from doing something else to completion of all indictments in two separate cases against Trump. It was just. That. Easy.

And pretty darn standard in a federal case, if not somewhat quick to go from investigation to indictment in 9 months on two separate crimes. What does that tell you? You're not an attorney so let me tell you, these weren't particularly complicated cases. I've done mishandled classified doc cases before. It's pretty darn cut and dry. I haven't done insurrection cases but I have done obstruction of justice cases. Actually a wee bit harder but not rocket science.

Now, imagine Smith started his investigation in Feb 21. Imagine he finished it 9 months later in late 21. Imagine a trial starting worst case late 22. Before any primaries. That's what should have happened. But it didn't. And it had nothing to do with due process concerns or issues.

I didn't even know he was Jewish but it matters not on whether as someone with decades of criminal law experience I think he moved with appropriate speed. He didn't. Point blank. He focused on the wrong things to be concerned about.

instead of waiting until November of 2022.

Garland could have also allowed the Counsel to commence with a trial of the president-elect, since there was no official DOJ policy about what to do in that specific scenario.

1. Immediately begin the investigation right at the beginning. Everyone knows the one superpower Trump has is delay. Plus, it wasn't surprising that the longer you got away from the incident the less folks would be angry about it.

2. Treat it like any other case. By treating it as a special case, he created a bar so high that it took years before he felt like he had done enough to justify prosecution. By then it was simply too late.

He was simply too much of a believer in institutionalism and thought that if he just was thorough and methodical that those traits would be recognized and everyone would find things legitimate. All it did was the opposite. It signalled that this simply wasn't that large of a priority to a lot of people. I'm not going to pretend the election was lost because of him, but it neutered the whole protect democracy argument.

It's hard to make that argument stick when you take three years to prosecute someone for it and you don't even get to a prosecution before the next election.

Should have been max a year to charging. They should have been extra open at every step. I personally think they could have gotten a grand jury to indict within six months. Then if you need to take a little extra time to build a case that's ok, because Trump is going to give you that time with all of his delay tactics.

There's playing by the rules and then there's slavishly playing by the rules. One is the right thing to do, the other is unnecessary. We chose the second path.

It wasn't even a particularly complicated case, and yes I did decades of criminal law on both sides. I've done more complicated cases and it took less than a year from crime to sentencing and I didn't have near the resources he did.

At the end of the day, he was worried too much about appearing not biased or unfair without recognizing that was baked in with half the country no matter what he did. He should have been more worried about an expedited case that still followed the rules but did so with an eye to it being the most important case the federal government had.

Last edited Wed Jan 15, 2025, 12:36 PM - Edit history (1)

He could have made a very public case of a pattern of abuse of power even as he was taking his time to investigate the stolen documents. Bedminster never being searched is beyond incompetent. He was so frickin’ polite to Trump for no reason other than (maybe, if being generous) fear of civil war, but here we are on the brink of it anyway. Trumpers understand quick, decisive, and cruel action. Garland was slow, wishy-washy, and kind to the felon in chief. Of course they’re still believing he was wrongly persecuted, because if he were really guilty, he’d be in jail.

And yes, because of his incompetence and cowardice is why we are where we are today.

Everybody in the whole damn world (normal not MAGA world) knew cheeto committed crime after crime. But hey, let's wait 2 years to get the ball rolling. And do it very slowly as well please.

I can't believe Garland at one point could've been a SC justice. I can really imagine the dude siding with the conservatives 60-70 percent of the time. He's that incompetent.

within a few months of taking his position, instead of waiting for the House to complete its investigation. If he had, he could have completed it in time to prosecute Trump.

He could have started the documents investigation much sooner as well.

The federal part of our legal system always moves very slowly, but they are very thorough in their prosecutions. That is why they have a very high conviction rate. I think that the DOJ was slow to move because they wanted an iron clad case before they got involved in a political quagmire. It's not just Garland. The main problem is the slowness of the appeals process and how people with lots of money can delay, delay and delay. Where was the eleventh circuit when the judge in Florida threw the case out in Florida? Quite simply time is not relevant as long as lawyers are getting paid. Our legal system has been like that for a long time. Here in El Paso the city actually owns the Albert Fall house who was sentenced to prison in the Teapot Dome scandal. Sinclair, who gave the bribe was able to get off by having lots of good lawyers who could nit pick everything. These tools are only available to the very rich, not the rest of us.
Another huge problem is the Supremes. There is no way of fixing these nut cases. I think that if the AG had jumped right on it and got a conviction and then gone through the appeals process and won the Supremes would have found a way out for him.

Last edited Wed Jan 15, 2025, 12:29 PM - Edit history (1)

He waited 11 months after he knew about the stolen documents and waited 22 months after Biden was inaugurated to appoint Jack Smith.

Two days before Trump left office the classified documents were removed from the White House, photographs show the boxes leaving the WH office carried by his staff . May 6, 2021 was when the NA realized some documents from Trump’s presidency may be missing, the National Archives asks that he turn over any presidential records he may have kept upon leaving the White House.

As we know, he didn't. Garland knew he didn't turn them over. In July 2021 Trump was publicly showing off classified documents at his club to his friends.

Garland appointed jack Smith November 18, 2022.

Garland went after the small fry immediately after J5 .

We watched trump and some of his congressional thugs commit their crimes in real time on Jan6 2021 and watched their cover up begin from the very next day.

Garland ran out the clock to protect Trump. Fuck Merrick Garland.

asked them or told them to be there Garland should have begun the investigation into Trump AND the insurrectionists. Day one after anyone said they were there because of Trump.
That's how I would have handled it.

Because it seems he has.

That's what should be hung around the epitaph of Garland, like a shameful garland.

2 - Demand results and updates on investigation, short timeframes, followup on treasnous congress critters
3 - Tell America what you have found about the planned insurrection including the NY FBI guy who took 25 million from Russia for dirt
on Clinton
4 - Get a grand jury together within a year and submit charges including those complicit in Congress
5 - 6 months of demands for classified record were enough, file charges at 7 months not 18
6 - Fight to get Cannon removed if shes still hand picked even with the time difference
7= If (un)SCOTUS still gives him personal immunity, there's time for th e hearing and decision that this was all personal on 1/6
8 - tcf would be convicted and ineligible to win