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

ancianita

(40,228 posts)
23. The Garland DOJ did its job, so why should it even be on the hook? There's WAY more evidence that it shouldn't be at all
Sun Dec 1, 2024, 02:12 PM
Dec 2024

The Garland DOJ never could speed up the grand jury work. Garland DOJ could never speed up the courts' schedules or delays on pre-trial rulings. And then the Jack Smith team, no matter how constantly he invoked the the "speedy trial" law, it was always ignored. Why? Because there were the endless due process motions filed beyond "sufficient" level that can delay court cases before trials.

And then major defense motions got appealed, and went up the appeal ladder all the way to the Maga SCOTUS, that delayed even hearing every single appeal for months from the DOJ. Months. Those delays added up, and are in no way the Garland DOJ's fault.

Lisa Rubin on MSNBC flatly stated that even were there trials and convictions this year, appeals would have been held up by Maga SCOTUS until after the election. So no matter how fast you think Garland could have investigated, no matter how many months sooner Smith filed his indictment, all the above would have still played out, and we'd still be without convictions this year.

The Garland DOJ -- biggest law firm in human history -- has done a massive and great job enforcing both domestic and international justice.



Recommendations

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

That's a damn shame! Dem4life1234 Nov 2024 #1
The founders never imagined this situation. COL Mustard Dec 2024 #7
I admit I'm a bit ignorant of the law Dem4life1234 Dec 2024 #9
Unfortunately Article II of the Constitution establishes who can be President. COL Mustard Dec 2024 #11
Absolutely! Dem4life1234 Dec 2024 #15
The reality melm00se Dec 2024 #35
Turns out, Nixon actually had it right !!!!!!!!!!! DENVERPOPS Dec 2024 #22
The Democratic party has always let them get away with it... RhapsodyFav Dec 2024 #37
This! Dem4life1234 Dec 2024 #39
Trump will only go to Russia when summoned. 33taw Nov 2024 #2
Trump is considered "criminally inadmissible" to Canada, but he could apply for a "parole" of that status. C0RI0LANUS Nov 2024 #3
i googled and this was the a.i. response: orleans Dec 2024 #40
Thank you for the clarification, orleans. The TRP sounds like the "parole" term I used. C0RI0LANUS Dec 2024 #42
Oh Canada! SNAP! IzzaNuDay Nov 2024 #4
It is true. I Googled it and posted a couple of times. Canada isn't the only country, either Deuxcents Nov 2024 #5
Yeah, but they let Bush and Cheney in. LisaM Nov 2024 #6
Is a DUI a felony though? Polybius Dec 2024 #24
I mostly remember that they wouldn't let you in Canada if you had one. LisaM Dec 2024 #27
As much as I can't stand drinking and driving, a forever ban seems a bit extreme Polybius Dec 2024 #29
The orange one brought the ring to Biden to kiss. That's called professional courtesy. Hotler Dec 2024 #8
... ancianita Dec 2024 #10
Thank you Unwind Your Mind Dec 2024 #12
Absolutely. The facts should be known and shared. ancianita Dec 2024 #13
I'll add my thanks to the above. The vilification of Garland has always struck me as loonacy. EarnestPutz Dec 2024 #14
Empty Wheel? msfiddlestix Dec 2024 #16
What about it? You got fact based info from them? If so, please post it. ancianita Dec 2024 #17
Not I. Just checking my gut impression. I had got a "hit" you might be connected. msfiddlestix Dec 2024 #20
I see. Well, I do have Empty Wheel bookmarked, for sure. ancianita Dec 2024 #21
Well that leaves DOJ and AG off the hook, then. So all we have to do is blame our outdated Constitution msfiddlestix Dec 2024 #19
The Garland DOJ did its job, so why should it even be on the hook? There's WAY more evidence that it shouldn't be at all ancianita Dec 2024 #23
"Nov 18 2022 Garland appoints Jack Smith" Polybius Dec 2024 #25
Thanks for that timeline BDavinciNY Dec 2024 #34
+1, Garland ***COULD HAVE*** assigned an SC first day in office knowing J6 could've been a big deal that involved MAGA uponit7771 Dec 2024 #43
Makes total sense. Emile Dec 2024 #18
It's funny, but it's just trump being himself and enjoying making people squirm and sit at his feet. C Moon Dec 2024 #26
No joke! elleng Dec 2024 #28
I just figured that those Trumpists' wives were thirsty for him, and demanded a meet. LudwigPastorius Dec 2024 #30
Well, probably since the five eyes monitor international phone calls, Trudeau did not want anyone else to know what he LiberalArkie Dec 2024 #31
Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2024 #32
"You're" wondering. Spelled correctly in the tweet. Maru Kitteh Dec 2024 #33
Ha! Beautiful! Joinfortmill Dec 2024 #36
Bullshit. Under Canadian law, if the government opts to allow him to enter the country, he can enter the country onenote Dec 2024 #38
stop it! you're spoiling the magic of the moment orleans Dec 2024 #41
I think it was intended as humor. nt Xipe Totec Dec 2024 #44
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If your wondering why Tru...»Reply #23