Any Garland Defenders Watching Rachel

[gab13by13]

Witnesses watching Gaetz having sex with the 17 year old, plus the 17 year old testified under oath that Gaetz had sex with her when she was 17.

We are supposed to believe that the witnesses weren’t reliable. Give me a fucking break, Garland is complicit.

CREW is suing to get Garland to turn over the investigation file of Gaetz.

[qazplm135]

1. No

He's just ridiculously conservative and tentative in everything he does.

He's a fine choice pre 16 but a horrible one in the Age of Trump

[brush]

29. IMO he's a republican mole, Joe Biden's worst pick. The reason why trump was never...

jailed. He's gotten away with his many crimes, 34 felonies he was convicted of, the MAL stolen docs case, the Georgia case, J6 case, all will be erased by his AG come Jan. 20, 2025.

Great job, Garland

[H2O Man]

38. His NYS case

cannot be overturned by the president or his AG.

[brush]

42. True, but for some reason the judge keeps postponing the sentencing.

The pressure on that judge to not move must be tremendous...possible thteats of bodily harm too.

[H2O Man]

43. Definitely.

And remember the maga cult members point fingers of rage at the judge's daughter.

What I suspect is that the sociopath's legal team will get the state convictions before the USSC. And the court has been corrupted.

[LudwigPastorius]

44. At this point, even if the judge gives Trump jail time (which is doubtful), the Supreme Court...

would probably let Trump defer serving his sentence until out of office.

[UniqueUserName]

51. brush, I agree with you, but I want to play devil's advocate here

I live in a very red part of the country. In my county Trump got 79% of the vote. In the general election, I only voted in two races, the presidential race and the House race (for the Democrat, of course). I voted in the Republican primary because that is where all local representation will be decided. I've been seeing someone for about a year---a dedicated Democrat. I tried to convince him to vote in the Republican primary to keep out the super crazy MAGAts. Fortunately, the lesser cray 'publicons won. Understand that ALL of the local races were Republican candidates running unopposed.

I only mention voting in the Republican primary for reference on how red the area is. (Please don't say I should've run to oppose a republican as a Democrat. This area will not knowingly vote for a gay candidate).

At this point, I can't even argue with the local opposition because I would have to acknowledge reality. Biden, Harris, well, all of the Democratic leadership, has signaled that we are to accept the election, oppose the R ideology, and do better in the upcoming elections (2024, 2028, etc.)

Although the MSM sane-washed Trump and gave him much more airtime, Democrats successfully messaged to me that this was an existential election. We were voting to continue democracy itself. With this less than enthusiastic pushback, I don't have an effective comeback to, "The prosecutions against Trump were largely political. If the various alphabet agencies of the government (FBI, CIA, DOJ, etc.) thought that the documents held at Maralago were damaging to national security, why didn't they act with more urgency? Why did the Democrats rollover and surrender?" You can imagine that one or two bad actors might exist, but NOONE in the entire government with knowledge thought the country worth saving?
=======
Devil's advocate cap off: I am truly puzzled. I feel like I'm quantum-entangled into several timelines here --- That fairly soon actual observations will be made and it will be clearer to me which timeline I am in.
1) It was just politics. If that's the case, I'm probably finished with participation other than voting.
2) It really is dire. Biden, et. al, are doing what they think will cause the least destruction. The country is lost and they don't see a point in having a violent civil war.
3) It really is dire. Biden, et. al., are keeping the powder dry. There will be major surprise actions that will be unprecedented that will happen around some of key dates (certification of electoral college, swearing in of new congress, registering the electoral college results on Jan 6, swearing in the president, also how Congress signals it's going to handle the debt ceiling coming in effect Jan. 2)
4) It really is dire. But no one opposed to dictatorship knows what to do.

I think Trump successfully acted as if his legitimate concern was for the country. Citizens believed his worried delivery. His only good acting skill was convincing them he was concerned for THEIR outcomes when he was really concerned about his. His desperation was real. He channeled it to fool his voters that his concern for them. ---Plus a lot of misogyny and racism.

[Irish_Dem]

52. Very few still believe the "conservative and tentative" Garland excuse any more.

Especially since more evidence about various crimes and criminals keep coming to light.

Garland is in all of this up to his neck.

And he doesn't even appear to have one ounce of shame.

[paleotn]

67. Horrible choice in any time period.

Don't give me that bullshit.

[milestogo]

2. Is it a rerun?

[gab13by13]

3. Yes, IOKIYAR rerun

[Clouds Passing]

5. Agree Gab13by13. MG is complicit.

[dchill]

6. Justice delayed. See how that works?

[Baron2024]

7. Garland Failed

And now we all have to suffer. Trump should have already been prosecuted and convicted over the January 6th Insurrection. It is squarely Garland's fault. He is a joke, and a bad joke at that.

[hadEnuf]

10. He can be non-partisan when Trump prosecutes him and throws him in jail.

Garland has been a beached whale since taking office. Oh wait, he threw a bunch of sewer trash in jail while the ring leaders regrouped.

Garland is so wrapped up in trying to look non-partisan that he fails to see that the partisan GOP hates his guts too.

[BigMin28]

12. Most of those

prosecuted were charged with BS charges. Had any other group attacked the Capitol, the charges would have been the most severe. After the bloodbath, of course. You've got to cut the head off the snake to kill it. Garland should have started at the top.

[dsc]

8. I don't have any inside info but I have to say that

there would be two big problems with the case, that may, or may not, have been insurmountable. One is that the victim was 17 which means that in many states his conduct would be legal (though not in FL). The second problem is that all the witnesses were people who had done illegal acts. I still think a case should have been brought but it was hardly a slam dunk, especially if the jury pool would have been largely his constituents.

[BigMin28]

13. Better to try

Than to just give up. And here we are.

[Bluethroughu]

22. Under age is under age.

17 years old is close to 16, close 15, close to...

They were under age of consent. If a Congressman was giving my 17 year old drugs, liquor, money, and sex....I would have done the citizens arrest myself.

[speak easy]

25. Felony sex with a minor is not a federal case.

[Bluethroughu]

28. Even if it's with a US Congressman?

[gab13by13]

30. Then apparently CREW made a mistake when it sued DOJ

to get it to release the investigation file on Gaetz.

Sex trafficking of a minor is a felony case.

[speak easy]

35. Sex trafficking of a minor IS a [Federal] felony case.

Yes it is.

But to establish it you need the testimony of Joel Greenberg, a not so reliable witness.

Joel Greenberg, former tax collector for Seminole County, was accused of stalking a political opponent, public corruption, making fake licenses and scheming to submit false claims for a federal loan.

He pleaded guilty to six federal crimes, including identity theft, stalking, wire fraud and conspiracy to bribe a public official. Prosecutors said he paid at least one girl to have sex with him and other men.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joel-greenberg-sentenced-sex-crimes-freind-matt-gaetz/

[atreides1]

53. Okay

Why is Greenberg a not so reliable witness, say compared to organized crime killers who testified against their bosses, or jail house rats who provide information to investigators?

[uponit7771]

63. +1, any other person the DOJ would've thrown the library at them

[brush]

31. So? It's still a felony and a crime.

[Mr.Bill]

58. It is if she crossed state lines to do it.

I'm not sure what happened in this case.

[speak easy]

68. It is a Federal Felony offense if [a minor] is trafficked.

Act 18 U.S.C. § 1591, or the Commercial Sex Act, the US makes it illegal to recruit, entice, obtain, provide, move or harbor a person or to benefit from such activities knowing that the person will be caused to engage in commercial sex acts where the person is under 18 or where force, fraud or coercion exists

The person who could establish that Gaetz knew she was trafficked was Joel Greenberg a criminal who ran a prostitution service. The DOJ apparently considered him to be an unreliable witness. The case is not clear cut.

Joel Greenberg, former tax collector for Seminole County, was accused of stalking a political opponent, public corruption, making fake licenses and scheming to submit false claims for a federal loan.

He pleaded guilty to six federal crimes, including identity theft, stalking, wire fraud and conspiracy to bribe a public official. Prosecutors said he paid at least one girl to have sex with him and other men.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joel-greenberg-sentenced-sex-crimes-freind-matt-gaetz/

Even if Gaetz could be pinned down on paying the Girl for sex (not a Federal offence, his defense would be that he had no reason to believe the girl was a minor

[JMCKUSICK]

66. no, but I believe transporting across state lines for sexual purposes is.

[speak easy]

69. "where the person is under 18 or where force, fraud or coercion exists"

Act 18 U.S.C. § 1591, or the Commercial Sex Act, the US makes it illegal to recruit, entice, obtain, provide, move or harbor a person or to benefit from such activities knowing that the person will be caused to engage in commercial sex acts where the person is under 18 or where force, fraud or coercion exists

The person who could establish that Gaetz knew she was trafficked was Joel Greenberg a criminal who ran a prostitution service. The DOJ apparently considered him to be an unreliable witness. The case is not clear cut.

Joel Greenberg, former tax collector for Seminole County, was accused of stalking a political opponent, public corruption, making fake licenses and scheming to submit false claims for a federal loan.

He pleaded guilty to six federal crimes, including identity theft, stalking, wire fraud and conspiracy to bribe a public official. Prosecutors said he paid at least one girl to have sex with him and other men.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joel-greenberg-sentenced-sex-crimes-freind-matt-gaetz/

Even if Gaetz could be pinned down on paying the Girl for sex (not a Federal offence, his defense would be that he had no reason to believe the girl was a minor or coerced.

[Irish_Dem]

54. Criminals are surrounded by other criminals. Witnesses are usually criminals themselves.

This is how the system works.

People without a criminal background don't hang around with criminals.
So they are not the ones testifying.

So the second excuse you make for Garland is not legitimate.

Everyone in DC knows of Gaetz's sordid and illegal behavior.
There are many witnesses.
And they know that he is quite dangerous.

Garland couldn't be bothered to protect the public.

[gordianot]

9. If I live long enoughI would expect to see Garland blamed for the coming disaster

When all is said and done Comey should take the heat for Debacle 1and clearly Garland for debacle number 2.

[Dave says]

16. Exactly my thoughts

[gab13by13]

32. Exactly my thoughts too

of course I blame Garland, he is at the top of my list for TSF being able to run for office.

Also, who else in Trump's inner circle did Garland indict? Some states are trying to prosecute a few, but when the J6 select committee sent criminal referrals to Garland for Mark Meadows and Ken Chesbro, he shit canned them.

[usonian]

11. Saving this thread before it's deleted. Sigh

I think a similar one was whacked, perhaps for promoting this:

https://sarahkendzior.substack.com/p/servants-of-the-mafia-state?r=d569l&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true

Disclaimer: I neither endorse nor deride the article.

[gab13by13]

34. How in heaven's name is that thread similar to mine?

You certainly did deride my thread so now I ask you politely to tell me what I posted that is not factual?

The ball is in your court, explain to me why my thread should be deleted?

Garland allowed Hunter Biden to be investigated on a bogus Russian hoax perpetrated by Rudy Giuliani. Hunter Biden was prosecuted under Barr and garland for 5 years but druggie, sex trafficker Matt Gaetz was more believable than numerous witnesses, including the victim.

[usonian]

41. Apologies if I goofed.

Uncle Leo defense.

I was referencing a deleted thread, so I was working from memory, which has its flaws.

I *believe* that it included the link to "servants of the mafia" substack. I have no way of vetting that substack post, so I posted the disclaimer on it.

I open links in a new tab, and there was the substack post, with the now-deleted OP in the adjoining tab.

And I concluded that the criticism in the substack OP was beyond DU rules. I COULD BE WRONG.

If the similarity is in calling out Garland, that's what I concluded. I never call posters out. My rules. I might send a DM instead, so no criticism of your OP was intended.

As with all my posts, corrections are welcome. And if I post something that confuses people, I delete it.

I really just wanted to post a link to the substack post in case it was obliterated. And the disclaimer says to "judge it yourself"

I thought that your OP might be deleted for the same reasons, and saved it. Quite the opposite of asking it to be deleted.

And if my post is misconstrued or confusing, I'll gladly delete it. On Hacker News, after a short time, one can't edit or delete a post.

[Takket]

14. i might be misrembering...

but i recall being outraged at the time they did not prosecute and i thought someone on DU said that Gaetz friend (forget his name) was unreliable because he had a ton of legal issues of his own, but that the real problem was the victim refused to testify, and there was no case without her. Not that she was "unreliable". Though I don't know why she would testify to congress but not the court????

[Bluethroughu]

23. He went to prison for sex trafficking among other things,

Gaetz was said to be doing with him...no gaetz though.

[Tribetime]

15. I thought Garland was spineless now I think he's complicit

.

[Evolve Dammit]

60. Think he was in his underwear like Alan Dershowitz claimed?

[NotHardly]

17. Garland was compromised the day he bent the knee. Weasel wart.

[0rganism]

18. Not "had sex with", RAPED

17-year-olds cannot legally consent

[kerry-is-my-prez]

33. Yep. A minor cannot consent to sex either. It is statutory rape even if she agrees that it was ok.

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. Lather, rinse, repeat...

Like moths to a flame…

[gab13by13]

36. There is no defense for Merrick Garland not prosecuting

Matt Gaetz. Greenberg was his partner in sex capades, but his daddy wasn't a judge and when Greenberg pleaded guilty and turned state's evidence on Gaetz he immediately became an unreliable witness, how convenient. There were more witnesses than Greenberg who watched Gaetz rape the 17 year on a gaming table.

You bet it is rinse, lather, and repeat with Garland, it's sickening.

The 17 year old's lawyer was on Rachel tonight, I should get the segment and copy it here but I'm going to bed, good night.

[Scrivener7]

45. Yes. Perform a blatant crime in full view of the entire country. Watch Garland's DOJ sit on its

hands and pretend nothing is happening.

Repeat.

And repeat.

And repeat.

Ad infinitum. Ad nauseam.

Then watch as those who are saying, "Do SOMETHING" are told nothing is wrong by people who, in their hearts, know there is something desperately wrong but who simply can't admit it.

[Fiendish Thingy]

47. Except Garland, Smith and DOJ did DO SOMETHING

Over and Over and Over again.

But they were thwarted by the kind of due process hundreds of millions in legal fees and being a former president making claims of Executive Privilege can buy, thwarted by Roberts and the MAGA court, and ultimately, by the voters.

Garland isn’t the villain of this story.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219707013

While I’m not that surprised at threads scapegoating Garland (low hanging fruit), I continue to be astonished at the almost complete absence of threads taking Roberts and the Trump SCOTUS to task. Aside from the initial reaction to the immunity ruling, there has been none.

Until/unless we approach something resembling a shared sense of reality, the simplistic circular firing squad will continue, and nothing will be learned from the 2024 election to prepare us for the challenges ahead because, hey, it’s all Milquetoast Merrick’s fault, so what can you do?

[Scrivener7]

49. Shaking my damn head.

[Fiendish Thingy]

50. Read this, and let me know what you think:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219740711

It may require you to stop shaking your head for a moment.

You may think I’m defending Garland, the man, but I’m actually defending verifiable reality.

[Scrivener7]

61. You have been wrong all this time. That's the verifiable reality.

The fact that you wrote a post about verifiable reality doesn't change the fact that you are insisting on a fantasy that is in direct opposition to verifiable reality.

But I know, I know. Emptywheel says. And shit about grasshoppers, and I should get a job at the DOJ.

It's over now. And you were wrong.

[Fiendish Thingy]

62. Myths vs. Reality:

Myth:
Trump got away with crimes because Garland dragged his feet/was too weak/was too slow/refused to investigate and prosecute Trump

Reality:
It is indeed a fact that, so far, Trump has escaped any consequences for his crimes.
However, hollding Garland to blame for this is not based in evidence or fact. The claims of “dragged his feet/too weak/too slow/refused” are subjective opinions not supported by the public record and available evidence.
The facts, including those in the famous, but incomplete report by the WaPo, show that a preliminary investigation was launched before Garland was sworn in, and a formal investigation with dedicated staff and resources was launched, despite resistance and obstruction by career staff at DOJ and FBI in June 2021.
As the investigation progressed it encountered resistance and obstruction in the form of Executive Privilege claims and attorney/client privilege claims, which Garland, and then Smith, was eventually able to overcome in court, but the timeline of the court rulings was in the hands of the judiciary, not Garland, Smith and the DOJ.

Myth:
If Garland had only gotten Trump convicted before the election, a second Trump term would have been prevented

Reality:
Once indicted, the timeline of Trump’s trials was in the hands of the judiciary, including all appeals, including immunity, to the Supreme Court. A non-MAGA court would almost certainly have moved more quickly, and would possibly have ruled against immunity, and yet…

Even if Trump had been indicted, tried, convicted, sentenced and incarcerated on January 21, 2021, of all the crimes he was eventually charged with, those convictions would still not have prevented Trump from running for and serving a second term, as the bipartisan SCOTUS ruling in the Colorado case affirmed that only a conviction of the federal crime of insurrection, which Trump was never indicted for, or a congressional resolution, would have disqualified Trump under the 14th amendment and prevented him from serving a second term.

Now, some might say “if Trump was convicted and incarcerated, no way could he have won a second term!”, but that is merely a speculative opinion, not an evidence based fact. In fact, the available evidence tends to refute that opinion, because Trump was elected with the public knowing he was a convicted felon with a history of sexual assault. In any case, the answer will never be known.
Scapegoating Garland is just a way to avoid the painful emotions of the stark reality we now find ourselves in, and a diversion from the challenges that lie ahead, and which will require us to unite in a shared reality in order to be most effective.

[Scrivener7]

64. You were wrong.

[Fiendish Thingy]

65. Well, I guess that settles it then.

Unless reality disagrees.

But, regardless of reality, you are free to believe what you wish, just as millions do, and did in the lead up to this election.

[Trueblue1968]

20. I say in my calm voice. .... Why would ANYONE defend Garland ??? So depressed.

Last edited Mon Nov 18, 2024, 11:27 PM - Edit history (1)

He could have nailed Trump and evil POS Repukes !!!!!! He could have saved our country.

Joe should have fired garlands slow as molasses do nothing ass.

[rubbersole]

24. But, but Orrin Hatch gave him two thumbs up...🫱🫲

[Kaleva]

39. Joe has Garland's back

It doesn't matter what we think of Garland. The only opinion that matters is Biden's.

[Jit423]

57. Happy now that they stole that SCOTUS seat from Obama. Otherwise, Garland would be with us forever!

Damn if only one the SCOTUS Trump appointments would leave for. I would love to see Kamala as a SOTUS Justice.

[TheKentuckian]

21. Some people transfer their loyalty to Obama and Biden

to him and get all emotional and protective and don't even even see him there.

It is ridiculous!

[gab13by13]

37. Me too.

[AllyCat]

27. Normalize calling Gaetz a RAPIST for sexually

Assaulting a minor!!!

[Kaleva]

40. We don't know if Biden is watching Rachel

Has anyone called the WH to find out?

[kansasobama]

46. I am amazed Garland has not done anything visibly

About the bomb threats in swing states that could have turned many voters away. Not a word.

[returnee]

48. The SCOTUS ruling against Colorado...

…is also a big factor. A favorable ruling would have led to a landslide of coattail filings by other States.

[Evolve Dammit]

56. SCOTUS is doing their very best to protect SCROTUM (oops, I meant Orange Julius).

[orangecrush]

55. When it comes to these fuckers

Justice seems to have a weird coincidental failure rate, going all the way back to Mueller.

[republianmushroom]

59. 45 months and counting

Enough said.

[Snarkoleptic]

70. The through-thread is Federalist Society membership.

They protect their own above all other duties.
Is there an oath or affirmation that Federalist Society member swear?
If so, how does that intersect with public service vs. the impending broligarchy.

[czarjak]

71. W has already broke that mold.

There's A-L-W-A-Y-S an oath of allegiance between rich white-boys and their secret societies. W said it was so secret, he couldn't even talk about it. With a straight face too.