General Discussion

...in regard to the prosecution of Trump.

You're likely relying on that one clickbait article which couldn't find one person to go on the record to say anything of the sort, much less criticize the Trump investigation or the prosecution.

It just didn't happen. President Biden has not leveled blame at Merrick Garland for either the pace or length of his investigation, much lass criticize the prosecution. That part of your criticism is someone elses invention. If they had an actual Biden quote about the Trump investigation they'd publish it, like you would.

If you bother to actually read the report, you will see all of the challenges and obstacles to what some people are still projecting from their imaginations was a slam dunk.

You can see in the report that many of the considerations of the Jan. 6 committee were not considered chargeable offenses at the end of their investigations and hundreds interviewed.

As the report stats in a footnote, only a small fraction of the committee's evidence was used in the indictment, and that was information used to describe Trump's conduct that day, and also the activities of his supporters who rioted at the Capitol to demonstrate Trump's fraudulent intent.

You can see in the report how Smith took actual convictions which Garland's prosecutors achieved, including 55 violent offenders and leveraged those prosecutions into his argument that Trump intended to overturn the results of the election and stop the certification of votes cast.

The amateurish way his critics derided those arrests is just one instance where they demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of not only this case, but what an actual prosecution involves.

It's not anywhere near sufficient for the prosecution in any case to just gather up all of the evidence they believe is incriminating and make conclusions based on their own presentation of evidence, like the Jan.6 committee was privileged to conduct in their own effort.

Prosecutors are also obligated, under rules of Discovery, to provide ALL of the evidence the prosecution is looking at to the defense team, which included ALL of the testimony and other evidence Congress had obtained (however insignificant to an actual prosecution in a court) and had refused to turn over to the DOJ until months after their hearings, despite a year of requests from DOJ, actually delaying two riot leader prosecutions into the next year.

All of that material would need to be reconciled into the prosecution's case, so it was more than disingenuous for people like Adam Schiff to continually chide DOJ for delays at the same time his committee was holding them up.

Prosecutors have real challenges, as we all can see for ourselves if we look at the dozens of perps who resisted testifying over claims of privilege, or attorneys claiming client protections, and ALL of the evidence challenged by the perps in successive hearings that sometimes reached to the Supreme Court before republican and Trump nominated judges and justices.

You appear to have no idea at all about what was involved, so I suggest you start with the report and look up everything that puzzles you as you read along.

Other than that, you can continue to hold onto these distortions and outright untruths. I had explained to my wife that this is like the internet watching GOT at the same time. There's ONE actual narrative, one script. Someone just coming on and making it all up isn't going to fly with people who've watched the series or read the book, 'Fire and Ice'.

You likely can't see any of that because you likely didn't bother to actually read the report. You have to actually engage with the facts to have a cogent discussion, at least with me.

Tell me exactly what evidence that's key in the actual indictment which was available to present to the grand jury before at least 2022. This report says that those key findings were not available until they got the perps to testify, and they did that through the courts which set hearings months, sometimes over a year in the future.

And these appeal hearings which often had dates set well into the future by Trump compliant judges and justices didn't all run at the same time. They were stretched out all throughout, running well into Smith's term, some never getting out of the courts until the indictment had already dropped.

KEY witnesses like Cipplione, had their testimony on hold while they appealed. Those were the most significant delays. Others, like phones and other communications key to demonstrating the fraud committed to the grand juries who the federal government relies on to make charging decisions, took years, like Guiliani's, Clark's, Eastman's, and Toening's.

ALL of that needed to be reconciled before the appeals courts and approved for use before the grand juries.

I'm wondering if you believe the AG can just make charging decisions on his own will and whim, especially this one who's boss was going to run against the defendant in the upcoming election?

It would be extraordinary and against almost every federal prosecution on the books to neglect to use a grand jury to bring these charges. That is a legal process with rules of evidence that can make or break cases, not something anyone at DOJ can force through without sufficient proof and witness testimony. It's incredible anyone would suggest otherwise, but here we are.

You should read the report, and not expect me to spend my time responding to things that aren't at all evident in there.