I understand all of that, except Garland not launching his own investigation until shamed into it by the J6 Committee. He has the resources and hid behind the skirts of Congress, afraid to even investigate J6, willing to let the clock run out for statue of limitations, and yet he still has not filed charges against the traitors in Congre…
I understand all of that, except Garland not launching his own investigation until shamed into it by the J6 Committee. He has the resources and hid behind the skirts of Congress, afraid to even investigate J6, willing to let the clock run out for statue of limitations, and yet he still has not filed charges against the traitors in Congress, like Beobert, Jordn, MTG, Comer, Biggs, Hawley, and even Matt Gaetz, who violated the Mann ACt, amongst others.
One reason is Garlands DOJ is staffed by Trump humpers, the other is Garland is himself a right wing Republican. I've read your apologia for Garland's employment by the Federalist Society, you introduced a lot of non sequiturs, however you glossed over the fact that the notorious right winger Orrin Hatch R-UT vetted Garland to Obama, because Obama didn't care about anything but claiming a win, by appointing a justice to the Supreme Court.
I doubt whether you (or any non-experts in the media) know when the investigations were launched, and to think that no investigations were launched at all until after Jan 6 committee report is simply unrealistic given the number of witnesses and the amount of evidence involved.
It's a nice media narrative ("garland dithered") but like many media narratives it's based on a lack of knowledge about the subject matter.
The thing that really matters - the standard your sources won't inform you of - is whether doj followed its standard policies in terms of opening, investigating and charging these cases. If you or your media sources have no idea that doj even has an enforcement manual and certain policies, it's gonna be kinda hard to know whether their policies were followed.
Instead we get this nonsense media narrative that Merrick Garland is in charge of everything and he can just bring whatever cases he wants - there's no rules really. This is false!
Let alone that to bring conspiracy cases against a large group it's never the case tgat you can just proceed directly against the head of the group. The whole point of RICO law is to deal with situations like this where there's a criminal enterprise and a bunch of different defendants and witnesses involved. That takes a lot of time. This is not just a single event or a single crime - far from it - it's a wide-ranging conspiracy that took place over months and several states.
It took even more time for Fani Willis to finalize her indictments but somehow it was only Garland that "dithered."
Moreover I have repeatedly corrected your statements about doj and the Jan 6 prosecutions - your media-based narratives somehow omit the over-1000 cases brought by doj and the fact that doj has been arguing for tougher / longer sentences for Rhodes and some of the worst perpetrators.
In any event in the end I recognize the futility of trying to discuss this with people who won't even read the operative documents but still think they can base strong opinions on various other aspects of reality, like whether garland ever attended federalist society events, a complete joke - anyone who follows Supreme Court could probably tell you tgat willuam Brennan is listed as a federalist society contributor. What does this tell you about Brennan? NOTHING!
You haven't corrected a thing. Part of my complaint has been that Garland and his Trump Humping DOJ,only prosecuted low level fools, that smashed down doors and broke windows, and even then only recommended what is essentially a slap on the wrist, misdeamenors, yes a handful of the worst actors got charged with felonies and series jail time.
That doesn't count because he hasn't even investigated much less indicted the leaders of the inssurection in Congress.
And as regards his investigation, he did wait until J6 did it's job, and had, while J6 committee was doing it's job, asked the committee to hand over it's records, (I suspect) to hide them.
You are hell bent on defending Garland, why is that, he hasn't even begun to investigate Jared and Ivanka, while appointing a special counsel to prosecute Hunter.
The Kushners are more guilty than Hunter, much more, receiving a 2 billion dollar gift from MBS, and using Trumps name to get copyrights and patents in China.
I took your advice and read the Jack Smith indictment of Trump, all 54 pages, I see nothing in it, that exculpates your constant harrasment.
So I ask you again, and will keep asking until you answer, what is in the indictment that is so important that you insist on trying to shame me and others,
If you're not interested in the conspiracy to steal the election, and associated false statements, perjury and criminal conduct by the highest-level members of the White House, then I agree - there is no need to read the indictment.
You also wouldn't be interested in news from legitimate sources about how the doj opened hundreds of cases while the doj supposedly dithered.
I have read, am interested by that is beside the point, I won't let you turn the question, by turning it back on me.
You said in a previous post, that all people want to do is to get their info from the TV, and haven't read the indictment. I have read the indictment, so what is so significant. TV news readers and host, simply do a Readers Digest of the Indicment.
Yep there are some conservatives who have better things to do than fellate Trump, the Federalist Society is anti Democratic, as well as carrying the raciest, homophobic, misogynistic and participial.
I understand all of that, except Garland not launching his own investigation until shamed into it by the J6 Committee. He has the resources and hid behind the skirts of Congress, afraid to even investigate J6, willing to let the clock run out for statue of limitations, and yet he still has not filed charges against the traitors in Congress, like Beobert, Jordn, MTG, Comer, Biggs, Hawley, and even Matt Gaetz, who violated the Mann ACt, amongst others.
One reason is Garlands DOJ is staffed by Trump humpers, the other is Garland is himself a right wing Republican. I've read your apologia for Garland's employment by the Federalist Society, you introduced a lot of non sequiturs, however you glossed over the fact that the notorious right winger Orrin Hatch R-UT vetted Garland to Obama, because Obama didn't care about anything but claiming a win, by appointing a justice to the Supreme Court.
I doubt whether you (or any non-experts in the media) know when the investigations were launched, and to think that no investigations were launched at all until after Jan 6 committee report is simply unrealistic given the number of witnesses and the amount of evidence involved.
It's a nice media narrative ("garland dithered") but like many media narratives it's based on a lack of knowledge about the subject matter.
The thing that really matters - the standard your sources won't inform you of - is whether doj followed its standard policies in terms of opening, investigating and charging these cases. If you or your media sources have no idea that doj even has an enforcement manual and certain policies, it's gonna be kinda hard to know whether their policies were followed.
Instead we get this nonsense media narrative that Merrick Garland is in charge of everything and he can just bring whatever cases he wants - there's no rules really. This is false!
Let alone that to bring conspiracy cases against a large group it's never the case tgat you can just proceed directly against the head of the group. The whole point of RICO law is to deal with situations like this where there's a criminal enterprise and a bunch of different defendants and witnesses involved. That takes a lot of time. This is not just a single event or a single crime - far from it - it's a wide-ranging conspiracy that took place over months and several states.
It took even more time for Fani Willis to finalize her indictments but somehow it was only Garland that "dithered."
Moreover I have repeatedly corrected your statements about doj and the Jan 6 prosecutions - your media-based narratives somehow omit the over-1000 cases brought by doj and the fact that doj has been arguing for tougher / longer sentences for Rhodes and some of the worst perpetrators.
In any event in the end I recognize the futility of trying to discuss this with people who won't even read the operative documents but still think they can base strong opinions on various other aspects of reality, like whether garland ever attended federalist society events, a complete joke - anyone who follows Supreme Court could probably tell you tgat willuam Brennan is listed as a federalist society contributor. What does this tell you about Brennan? NOTHING!
You haven't corrected a thing. Part of my complaint has been that Garland and his Trump Humping DOJ,only prosecuted low level fools, that smashed down doors and broke windows, and even then only recommended what is essentially a slap on the wrist, misdeamenors, yes a handful of the worst actors got charged with felonies and series jail time.
That doesn't count because he hasn't even investigated much less indicted the leaders of the inssurection in Congress.
And as regards his investigation, he did wait until J6 did it's job, and had, while J6 committee was doing it's job, asked the committee to hand over it's records, (I suspect) to hide them.
You are hell bent on defending Garland, why is that, he hasn't even begun to investigate Jared and Ivanka, while appointing a special counsel to prosecute Hunter.
The Kushners are more guilty than Hunter, much more, receiving a 2 billion dollar gift from MBS, and using Trumps name to get copyrights and patents in China.
I took your advice and read the Jack Smith indictment of Trump, all 54 pages, I see nothing in it, that exculpates your constant harrasment.
So I ask you again, and will keep asking until you answer, what is in the indictment that is so important that you insist on trying to shame me and others,
If you're not interested in the conspiracy to steal the election, and associated false statements, perjury and criminal conduct by the highest-level members of the White House, then I agree - there is no need to read the indictment.
You also wouldn't be interested in news from legitimate sources about how the doj opened hundreds of cases while the doj supposedly dithered.
Pathetic, really.
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/12/956145727/doj-opens-nearly-200-cases-into-pro-trump-riot-on-capitol-hill
I have read, am interested by that is beside the point, I won't let you turn the question, by turning it back on me.
You said in a previous post, that all people want to do is to get their info from the TV, and haven't read the indictment. I have read the indictment, so what is so significant. TV news readers and host, simply do a Readers Digest of the Indicment.
A couple of top scholars, federalist society members -writing that trump can be barred from running under the 14th amendment.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-08-16/donald-trump-constitution-federalist-society-14th-amendment-insurrection
Yep there are some conservatives who have better things to do than fellate Trump, the Federalist Society is anti Democratic, as well as carrying the raciest, homophobic, misogynistic and participial.
Here's a story about the chesebro email. I do suggest reading the actual email too.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-news-giuliani-kenneth-chesebro-email-plan-january-6/
https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-27000-principles-federal-prosecution