General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJust wondering, are we still supporting Merrick Garland on this Forum?
live love laugh
(13,189 posts)Tacan
(97 posts)Fiendish Thingy
(15,696 posts)Its just not the specific action you desire at this moment.
Bucky
(54,088 posts)The last thing we want is another Oliver North type flawed indictment. Remember how North got off cause Congress gave away too much immunity to him on ancillary questions so that he couldn't get indicted on the main charges.
Rock solid convictions are rarely tried first in the public eye. Public pressure on Garland is a good thing. Him giving into it and tipping his legal strategy would not be.
Joinfortmill
(14,495 posts)but then again this is Bash Garland Monday...
Lunabell
(6,133 posts)If he is bringing tfg to justice and upholds the rule of law, I support that work. Him? Why should I? He may be a republican, for all Iknow.
GP6971
(31,249 posts)Why do you ask?
LakeArenal
(28,863 posts)But there arent any. People can assume anything.
Do people think. Garland is really going to work every day doing nothing?
FSogol
(45,580 posts)That was a pretty good zinger.
iemanja
(53,112 posts)On the other hand, Brazil has already made over 1500 arrests.
Genki Hikari
(1,766 posts)Nixon was pardoned before he was ever indicted--2 years and nearly 3 months after Watergate. And we have no idea if he ever would have been indicted, never mind put on trial.
And people are complaining about 2 years? After DOJ got slammed with hundreds of unexpected cases in the wake of J6, never mind how the federal system was already backlogged even more than usual from the pandemic?
I'm with the idea that people are expecting TV show results with a process that has always crawled along at a snails pace. I was looking at a minimum of two years for my 1980s case with the DOJ, despite how the local yokel cops had jacked up the perps less than an hour after I banged on that farmhouse door for help.
newdayneeded
(1,959 posts)to 2 years? If you or I would have gone on a Whitehouse tour and took 2 even lightly classified documents off a desk and brought them home we'd already be 6 months past the trial and serving time.
Bucky
(54,088 posts)It's wrong
Ocelot II
(115,950 posts)So the answer is yes, and I am bookmarking the Garland-bashing threads for when the indictments are issued.
Deuxcents
(16,399 posts)True Dough
(17,363 posts)might hold the answer to whether or not Garland gets a passing grade...
Giuliani subpoenaed amid special counsel investigation into Trumps fundraising
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/09/politics/rudy-giuliani-subpoena-special-counsel-fundraising-trump/index.html
iemanja
(53,112 posts)Garland has already proved that he won't prosecute Trump on his own. There is no collective "we." DUers have different views on the subject, and that's okay.
newdayneeded
(1,959 posts)carry on the investigation, but Garland ultimately decides whether to indict or not.
iemanja
(53,112 posts)Last edited Tue Jan 10, 2023, 01:24 AM - Edit history (1)
He is a Biden appointee and I trust the President's choice.
Watergate took 2 years and was far less complicated than this. There are far more players here and we have to get this right.
Edit 2 years not 5.
gab13by13
(21,480 posts)Just because President Biden nominated Garland does not give him a pass. Garland has a record to judge him by now.
Example; Bill Barr chose to defend Trump (the office) in the E. Jean Carroll defamation law suit. Merrick Garland took over for Barr, he did noy have to defend Trump but he did. Carroll's attorney filed an appeal and a District judge ruled that defaming someone is not an official duty of the president, Garland thinks it is. Trump's lawyers appealed and the case now sits with the Appeals court.
Am I wrong in saying that Garland is wrong in believing that defaming someone is an official duty of the president? Do I have to blindly agree with everything that Garland does?
former9thward
(32,123 posts)People used to post Watergate took two years -- which was not true. Now its five years. Next it will be 10 years. The burglars were arrested quickly and tried quickly. The higher level cover ups did not even start until about 6 months after the burglary. Within a year all were indicted. And that was with a DOJ in the hands of the same party that was being investigated. Not the case here.
newdayneeded
(1,959 posts)to be elected president. Then he can just say, oh well, I tried, but the new president stopped all investigations.
Genki Hikari
(1,766 posts)All were indicted?
No, they weren't.
Nixon was NEVER indicted. He was pardoned before it ever happened.
I don't think any of the trials took five years.
Haldeman, Ehrlichman and Mitchell went on trial in September 1974, two years and three months after the Watergate break-in. They were finally convicted almost four months later on 1 Jan 1975; however, they didn't exhaust their appeals until 1977, and only then did they go to jail. The appeals process is probably what the above post is referring to.
sheshe2
(84,005 posts)I meant to write 2.
Do you have any idea how tricky it is to navigate through this investigation. There are somewhere between 17-25 lawyers caught up in his crimes and all of them claim one or more types of privilege, all taking it to court. This not only has slowed the investigation but the DOJ cannot overreach because of this or they could screw up the whole case.
gab13by13
(21,480 posts)She beat Giuliani, Meadows, Lyndsey Graham, Michael Flynn and more who were claiming privilege.
It took Mueller 4 months to indict and convict Manafort, Gates, Papadopoulos. Not sure how long to convict Stone and Flynn?
Bev54
(10,088 posts)gab13by13
(21,480 posts)plus DOJ has much more clout and manpower. DOJ can do search warrants.
Bev54
(10,088 posts)we have seen others fight in open court. Some of them actually have some privilege and it must be parsed question by question in some cases. The DOJ cannot afford a mistake which could blow some part of the case. Much different baby.
Genki Hikari
(1,766 posts)Williams' investigation was far smaller in scope, both in range of crimes and number of witnesses and potential suspects than what the feds are investigating.
The two investigations are in no way comparable.
It's shocking that anyone would even consider comparing the two.
Response to gab13by13 (Reply #23)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
SoCalDavidS
(9,998 posts)Why should I really be disappointed that he probably isn't going to do something I wasn't thinking would happen?
Hekate
(90,978 posts)And Watergate took 5 years.
sigh
former9thward
(32,123 posts)Posters used to say it took two years. Now its up to five. sigh
Genki Hikari
(1,766 posts)By the time the entire saga had played out with the appeals process, it was five years.
Bucky
(54,088 posts)For the record, those were the White House Chief of Staff and the US Attorney General. They each only did a year and a half.
Hekate
(90,978 posts)Also, somewhere along the way I got less welcoming to newbies who jump in with criticism, and I really am sorry about that.
nini
(16,672 posts)And thats all Ill say about that
gab13by13
(21,480 posts)I don't think Trump should even be charged with that.
Give me the name of one former prosecutor who does not believe there is enough evidence to indict Trump right now for his theft of government documents, and obstruction. Just one name.
brush
(53,968 posts)Can't get more open and shut now that that corrupt judge Cannon is out of the way.
Garland should've moved to indict on that and deal with the insurrection and fake docs case when he got to it. That would shut critics up and there's a very could chance of getting a conviction. But you have to show some cajones.
Response to brush (Reply #34)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
mvd
(65,180 posts)I think he is working carefully because investigating a former President, even TFG, is tricky. But I dont know why he was so quick with the Biden papers today. That is a nothing story.
SoCalDavidS
(9,998 posts)gab13by13
(21,480 posts)a lot sooner than he took over the case on Trump. Can't look partisan.
Bettie
(16,144 posts)a Trump appointee to work on that case.
I expect we'll see a lightning speed smear campaign, from him (the trump appointee) on that one.
liberalmediaaddict
(778 posts)We're stuck with him for the next 2 to 6 years. Biden is never going to fire Garland especially not with him investigating his handling of classified documents and his son Hunter. Unless Garland resigns he's all we got.
Honestly Garland was really meant to be a Supreme Court justice. On the bench he would have all the time in the world to craft perfect legal theories and endlessly ruminate about cases.
Biden should have picked someone like Glenn Kirshner or Sally Yates to be AG.
SoCalDavidS
(9,998 posts)I have little doubt that he would have already indicted Teflon Man by now. At least for his January 6th involvement.
I think that's one of the reasons Merrick was picked over someone like Glenn. So Teflon Man could stay Teflon Man.
gab13by13
(21,480 posts)that's a high number.
Merrick Garland would have made a fantastic SC justice, then again Mike Lee of Utah recommended Garland to President Obama.
Genki Hikari
(1,766 posts)And what are you implying against Garland with that remark about the bipartisan vote for him?
Garland was well-known in DC circles because he not only had a sterling judicial record behind him, but also had served on the local federal appellate court for so long. Of course he would be well-known enough to have people on both sides of the aisle who knew him to be a good judicial appointment--to anything.
It's completely uncalled for to imply that he must be dirty, somehow, because he was respected on both sides of the aisle.
Response to liberalmediaaddict (Reply #26)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
Cha
(297,935 posts)talks about inaction has No idea what's going on at the DOJ & the Special Counsel.
And, comparing this to Brazil? As someone posted.. Paraphrasing.. it's really helpful when those in charge Support Democracy.
RussBLib
(9,055 posts)I support him and wouldn't care what everybody "here" thought about it.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,398 posts)You nailed it.
Bucky
(54,088 posts)We're all free to form our own separate and even contrary opinions.
Mandating officially (or even informally) sanctioned opinions is a pretty illiberal way of running a political movement
Frasier Balzov
(2,676 posts)I'm not that courageous either.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)ismnotwasm
(42,022 posts)ColinC
(8,347 posts)herding cats
(19,569 posts)I'm curious?
Also, to what end?
Your post is extremely vague in any details and lacking in anything other than angst. What do you propose to alleviate what you're displeased about?
Follow up: explain what your displeased about. Beyond the rote, "it's been 2 years" without commentary. Explain in some semblance of detail what has actually transpired in that time vs. your expectations. Be sure to include what has transpired and not knee jerk back to the rote, it's been 2 years diatribe. Which is meaningless without follow up, thought and reflection.
I want more too, but I'm exhausted with people not bothering to follow up and just doing the lame social media argument of "it's been 2 years" repetitively. That crap is literally everywhere without thought or retrospect.
Use your words.
The ball is in your court.
For clarity Inspired by their post above: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=17546141
Hekate
(90,978 posts)Thanks