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

muriel_volestrangler

(105,496 posts)

28. "In court" - meaning charges were listed, not that Trump was in court, with evidence being laid before a jury

Reply to bigtree (Reply #23)

Wed Aug 20, 2025, 11:13 AM

Aug 2025

and reported to the public. In September 2024! Way too late.

"acknowledging the case would not go to trial before then"

Imagine if they'd had 20 months before the election, not 2?

Slow. Slow. Slow.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

32 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

'The Situation: In Defense of Merrick Garland' [View all] Joinfortmill Aug 2025 OP

Ben Wittes at Lawfare bigtree Aug 2025 #1

I have stated my opinion numerous times gab13by13 Aug 2025 #2

Right? Cosmocat Aug 2025 #15

A simple question: Chasstev365 Aug 2025 #3

you didn't figure in any republican judge or justice bigtree Aug 2025 #6

The long stretch of inactivity, and the long stretch that followed of minimal activity, Scrivener7 Aug 2025 #4

The case is: he failed, and he projected a meek quality that made him a natural scapegoat, who deserved it. Blues Heron Aug 2025 #5

we failed to back him up with our votes bigtree Aug 2025 #8

The last sentence makes sense to me. yardwork Aug 2025 #7

I guess no one is defending edhopper Aug 2025 #9

This boils down to "Garland was slow, but the Supreme Court might have blocked him anyway, and Republican voters muriel_volestrangler Aug 2025 #10

where, specifically are you claiming Garland was 'slow'? bigtree Aug 2025 #11

From the article: muriel_volestrangler Aug 2025 #12

'optimal speed' bigtree Aug 2025 #14

Fall 2021 - there's a delay of over 6 months. And a "slow-moving" strategy was the wrong one muriel_volestrangler Aug 2025 #17

jesus, do you know anything about prosecutions? bigtree Aug 2025 #18

Trump should have been the priority, not the rioters muriel_volestrangler Aug 2025 #19

Garland treated BOTH as a priority bigtree Aug 2025 #20

Apart from the failure to bring Trump to court before the 2024 election muriel_volestrangler Aug 2025 #21

Trump's indictment was actually IN COURT when we voted bigtree Aug 2025 #23

"In court" - meaning charges were listed, not that Trump was in court, with evidence being laid before a jury muriel_volestrangler Aug 2025 #28

there was a judge assigned, holding hearings in a courtroom who was approving all of the evidence bigtree Aug 2025 #29

A nice crock of baloney. lees1975 Aug 2025 #13

they moved as fast as the courts allowed bigtree Aug 2025 #16

Congress laid out the evidence in an investigation that was as complete as anything the DOJ had done lees1975 Aug 2025 #27

read the Smith report bigtree Aug 2025 #30

Imagine having "Defending Merrick Garland" be your political priority in 2025 thebigidea Aug 2025 #22

I'm more comfortable defending people who prosecuted Trump than attacking them bigtree Aug 2025 #24

He should have appointed Jack Smith immediately, rather than 2 years later. Bluepinky Aug 2025 #25

show us specifically where that would have made a difference bigtree Aug 2025 #32

He gave them a hat (to buy) MaineBlueBear Aug 2025 #26

I have zero problem with people defending Marrick Garland. gab13by13 Aug 2025 #31