General Discussion

bigtree

(90,519 posts)

35. why continue to criticize the AG with things clearly refuted by the report?.

Thu Jan 16, 2025, 06:49 PM

Jan 16

...it's like you're asking why someone is correcting your falsehoods.

Should be obvious why. But let me spell it out further.

Your falsehoods about Garland delaying the prosecutions diverts from and serves to obsecure the fault of the people you have neglected to talk about; the republican and trump nominated judges and justices who delayed an indictement from moving to trial for over a year.

Do you believe delaying an indictment from trial which came down in Aug. 2023, more than enough time to try in court until it was made moot in Nov. 2024, is some normal and proper action by the judges and justices? In what universe?

Did you miss the Supreme Court delaying their hearing for months, and delaying their decision for even more months until right before the election?

Are we supposed to ignore that treasonous interference in the election and the judges and justice's anti-constitutional immunity rulings and pretend it's actually the people prosecuting him are the ones at fault?

It's mindblowingly Orwellian.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

44 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Charges Merrick Garland delayed or dragged his feet on the investigation are proven false in the Smith report [View all] bigtree Jan 16 OP

So... who's sitting on Vol. 2 now? C_U_L8R Jan 16 #1

Cannon, not Garland. You don't get to push Garland to violate the law because you won't suffer consequences Bernardo de La Paz Jan 16 #4

garland admitted cannon does not have that authority. Think. Again. Jan 16 #5

Yes, but until the courts rule against her, her ruling has temporary authority. Breaking it is breaking the law Bernardo de La Paz Jan 16 #9

She does not have temporary authority... Think. Again. Jan 16 #11

They are not in her court, but she has ruled. Until a judge is over-ruled, their rulings hold sway Bernardo de La Paz Jan 16 #15

judges can't just go ruling on cases that are not in their courts. Think. Again. Jan 16 #17

Correct. They can't. But they do. And until they are corrected, their rulings stay current and enforceable Bernardo de La Paz Jan 16 #21

Yes, they can't. Think. Again. Jan 16 #24

. Scrivener7 Jan 16 #2

that's a problem bigtree Jan 16 #8

. Scrivener7 Jan 16 #10

again with the cartoon ass bigtree Jan 16 #13

. Scrivener7 Jan 16 #14

You have no argument or facts, so you show your ass to a fellow DU member. You can do better. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jan 16 #16

You're wasting your electrons. It has been conclusively established Ocelot II Jan 16 #3

Still with this Garland defense? He failed spectacularly to. prosecute and jail trump. Now the traitor... brush Jan 16 #6

it's more valid than the lies spread that Garland was inactive or delayed something. bigtree Jan 16 #12

It's not complicated. Not immediately investigating, indicting, prosecuting and convicting trump first thing... brush Jan 16 #20

it actually is complicated bigtree Jan 16 #30

Nah, Garland failed horribly. Nothing complicated about that fact., on that trump takes over again in a few days... brush Jan 17 #39

that's not true at all bigtree Jan 17 #40

I say Garland failed horribly, you disagree. Let's leave it at that. brush Jan 17 #41

It's not a defence, it is a more balanced perspective. Even Biden was disappointed in Garland Bernardo de La Paz Jan 16 #18

You realize Smith just skipped over the first 2 years in his report, right? Think. Again. Jan 16 #7

You don't cite the Smith report at all iemanja Jan 16 #19

please post the quote from President Biden saying the appointment was a mistake bigtree Jan 16 #29

Why cling to caring his water? iemanja Jan 16 #32

why continue to criticize the AG with things clearly refuted by the report?. bigtree Jan 16 #35

Naturally. As a rational adult, that's what I expected. No surprises there. Oopsie Daisy Jan 16 #22

Well is this true or not: Stargleamer Jan 16 #23

So there was "solid evidence" linking the rioters to Trump, but... Cowpunk Jan 16 #25

reports dispute that. That financial investigation took place shortly after the arrests of rioters bigtree Jan 16 #31

The problem with that is he didn't appoint the special counsel until a year later than he should have. JohnSJ Jan 16 #26

Musk bought Twitter qazplm135 Jan 16 #27

Respect Jack Smith to say he's wrong, but, republianmushroom Jan 16 #28

you posted the Carol Leonning article which just lied about what the DOJ was doing bigtree Jan 16 #33

imagine if Garland put this much effort into correcting misinformation! That might have helped. thebigidea Jan 16 #34

no prosecutor discusses ongoing prosecutions in public bigtree Jan 16 #36

Nor do they discuss cases that they don't want to prosecute for political reasons. republianmushroom Jan 16 #37

we know that the AG doesn't just bring forward charges on his own will and whim bigtree Jan 16 #38

We all so know trump committed more crimes than what he was indicted for. republianmushroom Jan 17 #42

that's not the way law works bigtree Jan 17 #43

I don't take legal advice or analysis I'm not paying for since it's generally worthless thebigidea Jan 17 #44