Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Those who are vehemently criticising Merrick Garland [View all]LeftInTX
(34,007 posts)16. He would have been out on appeal. It usually takes a year after a search warrant to bring a federal indictment.
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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
51 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Personally, I think Garland and Biden -- who could have told MG to up his game -- knew this would be a chitshow.
Silent Type
Jan 2025
#1
Maybe. Again, Biden could have picked up phone or fired him. We spent too much time thinking we
Silent Type
Jan 2025
#5
He could have run! The law only allowed congress to prevent him from being seated.
LeftInTX
Jan 2025
#9
Indictments sure didn't matter. Disgusting as it is, running from behind plexiglass might have helped him more.
Silent Type
Jan 2025
#13
He would have been out on appeal. It usually takes a year after a search warrant to bring a federal indictment.
LeftInTX
Jan 2025
#16
Just the opposite. Jack Smith's report was as much a wimp out as Mueller's.
Silent Type
Jan 2025
#38
This is what I mean. Of course the law had much to do with how quickly the prosecution occurred!
Beastly Boy
Jan 2025
#33
At times due process requires more than four years. There is no time frame on due process.
Beastly Boy
Jan 2025
#44
Speedy trial is the right of the defendant, not an imposition on the prosecution. Curious how a seasoned prosecutor
Beastly Boy
Jan 2025
#48
Most people have no clue he's Jewish. To think that is the reason he is criticized on DU is ludicrous and unthinking
NoRethugFriends
Jan 2025
#14
Garland could have appointed a Special Counsel to investigate Trump immediately upon his confirmation...
LudwigPastorius
Jan 2025
#11
We all saw the insurrection happen in real time, and so did Garland. He should have opened the investigation
pnwmom
Jan 2025
#30
Garland should have gone after trump as soon as he started going after trumps idiots.
Autumn
Jan 2025
#35