General Discussion

Voltaire2

(15,369 posts)

17. Smith wasn't appointed until almost two years

Reply to Fiendish Thingy (Original post)

Tue Jan 14, 2025, 01:29 PM

Jan 2025

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

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

Think. Again.Stargleamer

39 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Funny how so many see Smith's report, and it's mention of "timeliness", as an indictment of Garland [View all] Fiendish Thingy Jan 2025 OP

Would the outcome have been different if Garland had moved faster? Ocelot II Jan 2025 #1

Exactly- regardless of Garland's speed, the outcome would have been the same Fiendish Thingy Jan 2025 #4

And even if he had been tried and convicted before the election, Ocelot II Jan 2025 #11

Yup- that is the sad reality Fiendish Thingy Jan 2025 #13

People had higher expectations of Garland than of Roberts and the other conservative SCJs muriel_volestrangler Jan 2025 #2

Nevertheless, the courts held more power than Garland Fiendish Thingy Jan 2025 #6

You're just supposing the SC would have done something else muriel_volestrangler Jan 2025 #10

All the existing evidence shows the courts would have continued to delay a trail Fiendish Thingy Jan 2025 #12

Exactly. The courts were working through was was admissible, not saying "this will never happen" muriel_volestrangler Jan 2025 #22

Indeed, that would be true Fiendish Thingy Jan 2025 #24

Again, you're just guessing what they'd try to do. It's a counsel of despair. muriel_volestrangler Jan 2025 #31

I've never suggested or advocated giving up Fiendish Thingy Jan 2025 #32

Your entire argument is "it was impossible to get a trial in four years" muriel_volestrangler Jan 2025 #33

That's a whole lot of assumptions and misinterpretations Fiendish Thingy Jan 2025 #35

Obviously, you have an idiosyncratic view of what happened muriel_volestrangler Jan 2025 #38

garland didn't even start investigations for 2 years... Think. Again. Jan 2025 #3

I thought Garland was a terrible choice for the supreme court, as well as the AG NewHendoLib Jan 2025 #5

And yet, the result would have been the same with any other AG Fiendish Thingy Jan 2025 #7

Disagree. NewHendoLib Jan 2025 #8

Facts to support your opinion? Fiendish Thingy Jan 2025 #9

Assuming what the court might have done is not reality. Think. Again. Jan 2025 #29

This is such lazy thinking BeyondGeography Jan 2025 #14

Yates could not have forced a trial before the election Fiendish Thingy Jan 2025 #15

Not handing down indictments before he declared his candidacy BeyondGeography Jan 2025 #16

Smith wasn't appointed until almost two years Voltaire2 Jan 2025 #17

You completely misunderstand the definition of, and justification for appointing a special counsel. Nt Fiendish Thingy Jan 2025 #18

Nice try. Scrivener7 Jan 2025 #19

See all the Garland failure excuses here Bobstandard Jan 2025 #20

It wasn't the courts that delayed the FBI from investigating trump republianmushroom Jan 2025 #21

So walk me through your alternative scenario Fiendish Thingy Jan 2025 #23

The courts may not of been as protective of trump, if, he was indicted "sooner", republianmushroom Jan 2025 #34

It's a failure of the entire system malaise Jan 2025 #25

Regrettably, certain individuals seek a convenient scapegoat when faced with events that exceed their control * Oopsie Daisy Jan 2025 #26

Spot on, I saw the light gab13by13 Jan 2025 #27

Hallelujah! Nt Fiendish Thingy Jan 2025 #28

It can be both an indictment of Garland and delays/obstruction by the Roberts' Court Stargleamer Jan 2025 #30

I don't give a f-ck if it disqualified trump or not. Apply the law QUICKLY ecstatic Jan 2025 #36

So walk me through how another AG would have obtained a conviction before the election Fiendish Thingy Jan 2025 #37

Two separate issues. My preferred AG would have moved quickly, which is a separate issue ecstatic Jan 2025 #39