If you're backbiting at Biden, Garland, Kamala, or any other lame duck you're defending the past, not the future

[bigtree]

55. I made a broader point about lame duck pols and others who are being discussed as if they're consequential to the future

...which they are not.

You're debating the Garland issue as if that's your only interest. I have broad knowledge on this issue, and despite your derisions of that interest of mine, and my willingness to share what I know, I won't be dissuaded by false, nonfactual, and misleading responses.

Just writing 'Garland' isn't an invitation to all of that dragging of the man who prosecuted over 1200 white supremacist trump supporting republican rioters, and hired on his own volition the SC who brought forward TWO multi-felony indictments, one of which was actually in court before voters effectively pulled the plug.

Garland isn't consequential to anything going forward, except this backbiting hobby some folks have made their thing ever since the days they were claiming no charges would be brought at all.

It won't do a thing to confront the republicans that will begin rolling over America in a few weeks. In fact, the backbiting against the people prosecuting Trump did nothing whatsoever to confront the Trump cabal. I mean, absolutely nothing.

It didn't bother to even mention the evidence put forward that so many claimed was so important to them. Not a post or a word about it. Just these derisions and misrepresentations of the investigations and prosecutions to serve this 'Garland bad' Garland late' canard.

It does nothing but provide cover for the actual judges and justices who were the actual people holding up the trials. That's all it accomplished.

You attacked the people working to hold Trump accountable in court as if those derisions did something more than obscure those appeals judges and Supreme Court justices who delayed the hearings and trial dates.

All of this 'Garland sat on his thumbs' as if that provably false derision represents some kind of opposition to Trump.

I'd guess he'd laugh at the way people were attacking his prosecutors. I mean, just who else do you suppose is downplaying the arrests and convictions of over 1200 Trump supporting republican Capitol rioters?

Who else ignored and downplayed the turning of dozens of the riot leaders, advantaged by Garland's SC in the very indictment that was in court when voters pulled the plug; cooperation cited in the very last filing which pointed to the responsibility Trump bore for the rioting; citing his PHONE RECORDS which Garland's prosecutors were STILL fighting before Judge Chutkan to make them admissible in the trial?

Who does that, claiming concern over the prosecution of Trump.

Who skips over details like the fact it was Garland who not only collected the most evidence used in the DUAL indictments, but was the one whose prosecutors defended all of it through successive appeals through several courts with dozens of often trump and republican appointed judges?

Who does that?

(obviously, I don't care that you won't read this, any more than you cared to read anything about the actual facts of the investigations and prosecutions. Who does that, claiming concern about the investigations and prosecutions? Who does that?)