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

bigtree

(91,778 posts)
40. that's not true at all
Fri Jan 17, 2025, 10:53 AM
Jan 2025

...he's already a convicted felon.

We can see for ourselves that convicted felons can still run for the presidency, be elected, and assume office, even from jail. So this nonsense about the DOJ being responsible for the election result is a falsehood.

EVERYONE knows Trump tried to steal the election. Enough voters just did not care this time around.

With that illogical reasoning of yours, you can blame DOJ for anything that happened at the same time. The election ended an ongoing prosecution that was dragged out by the courts until we voted.

Continuing to cover for those judges and justices who actually were the ones who delayed an indictment from going to trial for over a year assures that they will do it again. We all need to get some backbone and stand up to the actual people responsible, instead of diverting from them.

Are you okay with the Supreme Court interfering to invent immunity for just one man? Are you fine with them delaying their hearing, and then delaying their ruling until right before the election?

The indictment was brought 15 months before the election. That's more than enough time to try the case without their interference.

But I'm going to guess critics will provide more excuses for them and suppose the maga Lucy's there would allow the legal football to be kicked and Trump to be tried. But, you have to be completely ignoring what the republican judes and justices did to suppose DOJ was going to be allowed to try Trump before we voted again.

The fix happened right in front of you. Google: Supreme Court and immunity.

Recommendations

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

So... who's sitting on Vol. 2 now? C_U_L8R Jan 2025 #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 2025 #4
garland admitted cannon does not have that authority. Think. Again. Jan 2025 #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 2025 #9
She does not have temporary authority... Think. Again. Jan 2025 #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 2025 #15
judges can't just go ruling on cases that are not in their courts. Think. Again. Jan 2025 #17
Correct. They can't. But they do. And until they are corrected, their rulings stay current and enforceable Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2025 #21
Yes, they can't. Think. Again. Jan 2025 #24
. Scrivener7 Jan 2025 #2
that's a problem bigtree Jan 2025 #8
. Scrivener7 Jan 2025 #10
again with the cartoon ass bigtree Jan 2025 #13
. Scrivener7 Jan 2025 #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 2025 #16
You're wasting your electrons. It has been conclusively established Ocelot II Jan 2025 #3
Still with this Garland defense? He failed spectacularly to. prosecute and jail trump. Now the traitor... brush Jan 2025 #6
it's more valid than the lies spread that Garland was inactive or delayed something. bigtree Jan 2025 #12
It's not complicated. Not immediately investigating, indicting, prosecuting and convicting trump first thing... brush Jan 2025 #20
it actually is complicated bigtree Jan 2025 #30
Nah, Garland failed horribly. Nothing complicated about that fact., on that trump takes over again in a few days... brush Jan 2025 #39
that's not true at all bigtree Jan 2025 #40
I say Garland failed horribly, you disagree. Let's leave it at that. brush Jan 2025 #41
It's not a defence, it is a more balanced perspective. Even Biden was disappointed in Garland Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2025 #18
You realize Smith just skipped over the first 2 years in his report, right? Think. Again. Jan 2025 #7
You don't cite the Smith report at all iemanja Jan 2025 #19
please post the quote from President Biden saying the appointment was a mistake bigtree Jan 2025 #29
Why cling to caring his water? iemanja Jan 2025 #32
why continue to criticize the AG with things clearly refuted by the report?. bigtree Jan 2025 #35
Naturally. As a rational adult, that's what I expected. No surprises there. Oopsie Daisy Jan 2025 #22
Well is this true or not: Stargleamer Jan 2025 #23
So there was "solid evidence" linking the rioters to Trump, but... Cowpunk Jan 2025 #25
reports dispute that. That financial investigation took place shortly after the arrests of rioters bigtree Jan 2025 #31
The problem with that is he didn't appoint the special counsel until a year later than he should have. JohnSJ Jan 2025 #26
Musk bought Twitter qazplm135 Jan 2025 #27
Respect Jack Smith to say he's wrong, but, republianmushroom Jan 2025 #28
you posted the Carol Leonning article which just lied about what the DOJ was doing bigtree Jan 2025 #33
imagine if Garland put this much effort into correcting misinformation! That might have helped. thebigidea Jan 2025 #34
no prosecutor discusses ongoing prosecutions in public bigtree Jan 2025 #36
Nor do they discuss cases that they don't want to prosecute for political reasons. republianmushroom Jan 2025 #37
we know that the AG doesn't just bring forward charges on his own will and whim bigtree Jan 2025 #38
We all so know trump committed more crimes than what he was indicted for. republianmushroom Jan 2025 #42
that's not the way law works bigtree Jan 2025 #43
I don't take legal advice or analysis I'm not paying for since it's generally worthless thebigidea Jan 2025 #44
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Charges Merrick Garland d...»Reply #40