...and diverted from that with a contradictory garble of blame.
You said your concern was the election, but you posit that Garland or DOJ is supposed to sort that out, instead of voters.
This thread you're arguing all of this in, and the internet post you responded with, are all derision and zero relevant facts. They dance around the fact that Trump is already a convicted criminal, both on tax fraud and election fraud, as well as a adjudication for what the judge described as him 'raping' a woman years back, and that it was always a longshot that he'd stand trial before we voted.
Garland and Smith ran out of time because a majority of voters let that happen. Simple and clear. You don't need to be a Garland-lover, or a Garland-hater to see that.
You called Garland a 'symptom' of something you apparently see as wrong with the system, but you're not taking any responsibility for that derision of yours. Or that you posted an anti-Biden, anti-Democratic party screed that contains everything I'm arguing against in my posts.
You actually pointed to Kenzior's ranting a second time, so you got my response as if the offensive, nonsense screed you linked to represented your own view. What response did you imagine you'd get?
YOU posted it, and then taunted me to 'read it'.
You then claimed above that 'established means have handed us great defeat,' as if they were responsible for voters putting Trump back into a position where he can end his prosecutions.
I saw where you said he followed the law 'admirably,' but it's not a fair representation of what just happened. DOJ did their job to their utmost, and there's no evidence that they faltered or dithered, despite the bull spread by Carol Leonning and repreated by teevee lawyers like Weissmann and Tribe ad naseum like they had some knowledge of the investigation outside of their own echo chamber.
That meme is dirt dumbness and deserves rebuke, if, as you say, you really want to get to the bottom of what happened.
DOJ acted and charged trump and the courts delayed the trials, eliminating the most evidenced of the indictments. Then a majority of voters participating elected to make all of that effort moot.
You don't need to do the silly and infactual deriding of the AG to figure that out. But, I guess some folks just want what they want.
What do we call them? I don't know, and don't care, because the facts speak for themselves, especially the ones routinely ignored by Garland critics, including you above with all of the derision couched in contradictions and faint praise.
This isn't hard. Voters stopped the prosecutions, which weren't likely to be over by the time we voted, even if the internet fantasy prosecution was real and true, and Garland followed them into court with the scant evidence he had, most of it tied up in appeals courts, often for a year or more befire he could use it in a courtroom or even before a grand jury, which most critics don't realize make charging decisions for DOJ, before Garland, or before even the SC makes the determination to accept and put that before the AG to approve.
This innuendo attack that this thread represents, is an invitation to these summary judgments of what went wrong. And it comes wrapped on this nonsense about winning the election, which is a perversion of justice, especially considering that we want to convict Trump of election interference, not imitate him and have the DOJ trying to win the election for us.
The ONLY question I have is why voters didn't care enough to show and vote against an already convicted felon, rapist, and tax fraud? Some 18m less than last election.
That's not the 'establishment' to blame. Not by a longshot. That wasn't Garland's job, it was voters'.
= new reply since forum marked as read
