Wed Mar 1, 2023, 07:58 PM

This was just reported on MSNBC.

Ari was interviewing a top DOJ official who worked directly with Garland. He said this.

Because of grand jury rules Garland, the DOJ cannot always respond to things that are said on the news about the investigations. Things that may or may not be true. He also said this, "There is a GAP between what the DOJ has been doing and what the public knows."

That says it all. I have been trying to make this point for months at DU. We are getting only one side of the story. People, prosecutors come on the news and give their opinion about the investigations. Garland, DOJ cannot respond because of grand jury rules.

A reporter, a news organization, reports a story about the investigations. It gets people angry, they draw conclusions that may or may not be true. Garland, DOJ cannot respond because of grand jury rules.

I have been saying from the beginning we have to wait to see what happens in the investigations. Nobody knows fully what is going on accept for Garland, DOJ. To draw conclusions about something without both sides of the story will lead to mistakes, false accusations.
We have all seen this happening for months.

169 replies, 14677 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

169 replies	Author	Time	Post
This was just reported on MSNBC. (Original post)	fightforfreedom	Mar 1	OP
Recommend!	sheshe2	Mar 1	#1
One more.	we can do it	Mar 1	#4
K&R	betsuni	Mar 1	#2
Thanks for this.	ificandream	Mar 1	#3
You left out the du know-it-alls.	we can do it	Mar 1	#5
+1	BaronChocula	Mar 1	#77
But I have a RIGHT to know everything DOJ knows. Immediately!	brooklynite	Mar 1	#6
Why wait for the facts and full story, when one can just make assumptions?	Fiendish Thingy	Mar 1	#46
By whom?	Orrex	Mar 1	#87
I read that with the sound of tongue in cheek.	WheelWalker	Mar 1	#96
Perhaps, but that poster lands hard on people who engage in wry hyperbole	Orrex	Mar 2	#147
Speculation stokes the egos of those who blab. Those who know don't talk. . . . nt	Bernardo de La Paz	Mar 2	#107
+10000	bdamomma	Mar 1	#7
K&R......	Lovie777	Mar 1	#8
I think the investigation could go on forever unless it is adjudicated in the courts.	kentuck	Mar 1	#9
All the investigations are moving in that direction, towards indictments and the courts.	fightforfreedom	Mar 1	#12
Well, a grand jury is the first stop in the court process	Fiendish Thingy	Mar 1	#48
Yes, grand jury is a "first stop"; it is not a place to homestead and plant crops.	Magoo48	Mar 2	#122
That is the only way we get any real information is in the filings in the court system	Bev54	Mar 1	#74
This message was self-deleted by its author	Chin music	Mar 2	#154
I've never argued that there aren't details unknown to the public	Silent3	Mar 1	#10
Likewise, if DOJ deserves no benefit of the doubt,	Beastly Boy	Mar 1	#39
It's not like I'm going to flip Garland the bird in I run into him on the street	Silent3	Mar 1	#45
The pessimism you are describing is a sure sign of contempt of doubt.	Beastly Boy	Mar 1	#62
What does it matter?	Silent3	Mar 1	#65
Then you are proposing that DOJ deserves contempt based entirely on your feelings.	Beastly Boy	Mar 1	#79
I'm proposing that my feelings are irrelevant to any important issue being discussed here. n/t	Silent3	Mar 1	#81
Nobody is hurt if you are silent. But when people continually erode faith in the US government	Bernardo de La Paz	Mar 2	#111
Far more prominent and important people than myself have expressed their doubts...	Silent3	Mar 2	#133
This exactly	edhopper	Mar 1	#41
Exactly	orthoclad	Mar 1	#92
time is running out-	Meowmee	Mar 2	#113
"There is a GAP between what the DOJ has been doing and what the public knows."	Goodheart	Mar 1	#11
You just proved my point. Thank you.	fightforfreedom	Mar 1	#14
Because we don't know exactly what the DOJ is doing	News Junkie	Mar 2	#149
Apparently there is no time limit on waiting.	gab13by13	Mar 1	#18
there is a gap	azureblue	Mar 1	#36
There is a gap because Trump used	gab13by13	Mar 1	#50
Trump got caught	orthoclad	Mar 1	#93
you are correct	republianmushroom	Mar 1	#60
Thank you.	PoindexterOglethorpe	Mar 1	#71
"zero chance of Trump being indicted": because you are an insider and know	Bernardo de La Paz	Mar 2	#112
And all those who confidently assert he'll be indicted any day now	PoindexterOglethorpe	Mar 2	#138
I do not confidently assert he'll be indicted any day now	Bernardo de La Paz	Mar 2	#145
Have you been following the Georgia investigation?	fightforfreedom	Mar 2	#120
That time thing. I've been schooled here a lot about that 25+ months thing.	jaxexpat	Mar 1	#43
"the coup won already": your only conclusion with that premise is that Biden staged a coup and won	Bernardo de La Paz	Mar 2	#110
Not to mention:	DFW	Mar 2	#114
Back up, Bernardo. You twist meaning and provide illogical critique. Typical strawman "stuff"ing	jaxexpat	Mar 2	#116
Mean what you write, jax, write what you mean. We can't read minds. Write clearly. . . nt	Bernardo de La Paz	Mar 2	#117
All careful, legal, righteous, successful DoJs will be slow by being careful, legal, and successful	Bernardo de La Paz	Mar 2	#118
Looks like you are blaming the wrong person	wnylib	Mar 2	#104
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻	onecaliberal	Mar 1	#26
Forever	orangecrush	Mar 1	#29
The answer is, as long as you don't know what DOJ is doing.	Beastly Boy	Mar 1	#34
I'm not sick over it	orangecrush	Mar 1	#47
Then why did you write you are?	Beastly Boy	Mar 1	#64
If you read closely	orangecrush	Mar 2	#131
been sick of it for some time. Remember Mueller's investigation.	republianmushroom	Mar 1	#58
You need to expand your sources beyond TV lawyers	Fiendish Thingy	Mar 1	#55
agreed	Skittles	Mar 1	#98
What a bunch of BS: "Garland waited almost 2 years to conduct a serious investigation"	Bernardo de La Paz	Mar 2	#109
Just when, exactly, was Jack Smith appointed as Special Counsel?	Goodheart	Mar 2	#124
Nonsense. You are ignorant of the fact Smith inherited a sprawling ongoing investigation	Bernardo de La Paz	Mar 2	#125
That's funny...	Goodheart	Mar 2	#126
That 6 month old article does not support your assertion	Bernardo de La Paz	Mar 2	#132
If the risk wasn't an existential one, I think more people wouldn't be in full panic mode	Mr. Ected	Mar 1	#13
I agree, I get it.	fightforfreedom	Mar 1	#17
The government watch dog, the GAO	gab13by13	Mar 1	#21
An existential risk is not an excuse for DOJ to circumvent the rule of law.	Beastly Boy	Mar 1	#31
Didn't say it was	Mr. Ected	Mar 1	#40
Likewise, the anxiety of citizens is misdirected when addressed to DOJ.	Beastly Boy	Mar 1	#59
Saw him	malaise	Mar 1	#15
How long should it take to indict for a crime committed in public?	Ptah	Mar 1	#16
Try to indict without evidence of intent to commit a crime	Beastly Boy	Mar 1	#30
He admitted to obstruction of justice on the TV machine.	Ptah	Mar 1	#37
No intent to obstruct justice, though.	Beastly Boy	Mar 1	#53
Firing the FBI guy to stop an investigation is a crime.	Ptah	Mar 1	#57
Mueller concluded that it was up to Congress to determine whether	Beastly Boy	Mar 1	#75
He said that based on a... MEMO written by a Nixon appointee... not a Law...	Justice matters.	Mar 2	#140
That's funny	Beastly Boy	Mar 2	#144
None of these specify a sitting President cannot be prosecuted for criminal activities	Justice matters.	Mar 2	#151
Apparently, Mueller disagreed with you.	Beastly Boy	Mar 2	#155
LOL, no. :)	Justice matters.	Mar 2	#156
LOL no, Mueller doesn't disagree with you?	Beastly Boy	Mar 2	#157
Mueller was a Banana Republican FBI Director.	Justice matters.	Mar 2	#158
How does this change the US Constitution?	Beastly Boy	Mar 2	#159
The banana republican memo should be nullified by Congress for the reasons	Justice matters.	Mar 2	#160
I must say, I envy your ambition in choosing your adversaries.	Beastly Boy	Mar 3	#161
This message was self-deleted by its author	Justice matters.	Mar 3	#162
Don't forger to put the US Constitution on your ignore list too.	Beastly Boy	Mar 3	#163
Why so nasty on a message board???	Justice matters.	Mar 3	#164
Why self-delete instead of putting me on ignore, as promised?	Beastly Boy	Mar 3	#165
How about "I am free to do what I want when I want to" boy?	Justice matters.	Mar 3	#166
A perfect answer.	Beastly Boy	Mar 4	#167
And I am free to put you on my ignore list (for a while)	Justice matters.	Mar 4	#168
Once again, I am thrilled with the prospect of getting on your ignore list.	Beastly Boy	Mar 4	#169
You can subscribe to the DOJ news feed.	AndyS	Mar 1	#19
+1	chowder66	Mar 1	#24
The other sode of the story is tick, tick, tick	lame54	Mar 1	#20
That IS a big factor.	BigmanPigman	Mar 1	#95
The big "GAP" today,	Ponietz	Mar 1	#22
It's not just a matter of drawing conclusions.	Beastly Boy	Mar 1	#23
"AlL iS wELL!11"	BannonsLiver	Mar 1	#25
This message was self-deleted by its author	CrispyQ	Mar 1	#27
Meanwhile, Grassley wants Garland to explain why Hunter Biden hasn't been arrested.	Frasier Balzov	Mar 1	#28
The DOJ should have started their investigation into 1/6 ...	aggiesal	Mar 1	#32
They started before Garland was sworn in.	Beastly Boy	Mar 1	#49
So we knew on Jan. 15, 2021 that DOJ was arresting and charging unwashed Magats,	gab13by13	Mar 1	#52
I don't see how this relates to my reply.	Beastly Boy	Mar 1	#68
That article only mentioned this about the DOJ ...	aggiesal	Mar 1	#54
I quoted the pertinent part of the artocle, and gave a link to it	Beastly Boy	Mar 1	#67
They went after the Worker Bees, not Trump or his Minions ...	aggiesal	Mar 1	#90
So they DID start their investigations on 1/7, 2021, didn't they?	Beastly Boy	Mar 1	#94
Don't parse words. ...	aggiesal	Mar 2	#102
Please pay attention to the thread	Beastly Boy	Mar 2	#123
I think you have to stay on subject ...	aggiesal	Mar 2	#134
Never asserted any such thing.	Beastly Boy	Mar 2	#135
Absolutely	relayerbob	Mar 1	#33
Unless your name is Hillary. nt	wiggs	Mar 1	#35
for sure	azureblue	Mar 1	#38
Wait, so Garland isn't destroying our institutions?	Fiendish Thingy	Mar 1	#42
Why did Garland refuse to investigate	gab13by13	Mar 1	#63
Please post a link to Garland's statement declining to investigate J6 intelligence failures.	Fiendish Thingy	Mar 1	#72
I already did this morning	gab13by13	Mar 1	#78
Must have been deleted.	Fiendish Thingy	Mar 1	#83
Really self-centered of you to think everyone is in YOUR time zone	Bernardo de La Paz	Mar 2	#136
There is only one post in this thread with an :01 time stamp this morning	Bernardo de La Paz	Mar 2	#137
"intelligence failures" don't constitute crimes.	brooklynite	Mar 1	#76
I'm with you.	triron	Mar 1	#84
LOL	treestar	Mar 2	#143
If any institution in America reflected its demographics	cachukis	Mar 1	#44
Repeat until it sinks in. Thank you.	Joinfortmill	Mar 1	#51
Recommended.	H2O Man	Mar 1	#56
Part of the impatience comes from Fitzmas and Muller time. Or Eric Holder -lets move forward.	3Hotdogs	Mar 1	#61
We know our justice system is far from perfect and we know it's not geared to investigate	yaesu	Mar 1	#66
What would you expect a top DoJ official to say.	republianmushroom	Mar 1	#69
But there are SOME things we do know.	pnwmom	Mar 1	#70
We get it. We just don't want a repeat in Jan 2025. mccarthy has given out the blueprint.	ecstatic	Mar 1	#73
TY!	Cha	Mar 1	#80
Over two years and no one above CHUD level has been indicted.	dchill	Mar 1	#82
I remember the Bush Administration. Is he still in office?	brooklynite	Mar 1	#89
No. Both he and Dick are living out their lives...	dchill	Mar 2	#103
My point is that President Biden has hired a competent person to run DOJ.	brooklynite	Mar 2	#121
My definition of competent is results-oriented.	dchill	Mar 2	#139
And you know that enough time has passed for "results"?	brooklynite	Mar 2	#141
K&R	ismnotwasm	Mar 1	#85
Ho-hum	Orrex	Mar 1	#86
It seems to me	markodochartaigh	Mar 1	#88
TWO YEARS...	orthoclad	Mar 1	#91
+1	Laura PourMeADrink	Mar 2	#101
+1	Emile	Mar 2	#108
+1000.	Nay	Mar 2	#142
Here's the video for those who missed it:	Rhiannon12866	Mar 1	#97
KnR	Hekate	Mar 2	#99
Post removed	Post removed	Mar 2	#100
What? You are attacking OP's motivations, calling them a paid shill? Is it wrong to support Dems?	Bernardo de La Paz	Mar 2	#106
A site that supports a Democrat "no matter what" loses credibility quite fast.	Goodheart	Mar 2	#127
That does not apply in this thread. Why is the poster calling the OP a paid shill?	Bernardo de La Paz	Mar 2	#129
lol	Meowmee	Mar 2	#115
I don't work for anybody, I'm retired.	fightforfreedom	Mar 2	#119
25 months?	BWdem4life	Mar 2	#105
Where's the rush? Mueller, Durham, Smith: paid by the hour.	Goodheart	Mar 2	#128
You make stuff up again. Stop with the falsities. SCs are salaried positions. . . . nt	Bernardo de La Paz	Mar 2	#130
Two years ago..... just wait!!!	LiberalLovinLug	Mar 2	#146
People can bring up the time factor all they want.	fightforfreedom	Mar 2	#150
"It's over"	LiberalLovinLug	Mar 2	#152
Doom and Gloom. How do you get through the day?	fightforfreedom	Mar 2	#153
Imagine if James Comey had followed DOJ rules.	StevieM	Mar 2	#148

Response to fightforfreedom (Original post)

Wed Mar 1, 2023, 08:08 PM

sheshe2 (78,233 posts)

This was just reported on MSNBC.

1. Recommend!

4. One more.

2. K&R

3. Thanks for this.

5. You left out the du know-it-alls.

77. +1

6. But I have a RIGHT to know everything DOJ knows. Immediately!

46. Why wait for the facts and full story, when one can just make assumptions?

87. By whom?

96. I read that with the sound of tongue in cheek.

147. Perhaps, but that poster lands hard on people who engage in wry hyperbole

107. Speculation stokes the egos of those who blab. Those who know don't talk. . . . nt

7. +10000

8. K&R......

9. I think the investigation could go on forever unless it is adjudicated in the courts.

12. All the investigations are moving in that direction, towards indictments and the courts.

48. Well, a grand jury is the first stop in the court process

122. Yes, grand jury is a "first stop"; it is not a place to homestead and plant crops.

74. That is the only way we get any real information is in the filings in the court system

10. I've never argued that there aren't details unknown to the public

39. Likewise, if DOJ deserves no benefit of the doubt,

45. It's not like I'm going to flip Garland the bird in I run into him on the street

62. The pessimism you are describing is a sure sign of contempt of doubt.

65. What does it matter?

79. Then you are proposing that DOJ deserves contempt based entirely on your feelings.

81. I'm proposing that my feelings are irrelevant to any important issue being discussed here. n/t

111. Nobody is hurt if you are silent. But when people continually erode faith in the US government

133. Far more prominent and important people than myself have expressed their doubts...

41. This exactly

92. Exactly

113. time is running out-

11. "There is a GAP between what the DOJ has been doing and what the public knows."

14. You just proved my point. Thank you.

149. Because we don't know exactly what the DOJ is doing

18. Apparently there is no time limit on waiting.

36. there is a gap

50. There is a gap because Trump used

93. Trump got caught

60. you are correct

71. Thank you.

112. "zero chance of Trump being indicted": because you are an insider and know

138. And all those who confidently assert he'll be indicted any day now

145. I do not confidently assert he'll be indicted any day now

120. Have you been following the Georgia investigation?

43. That time thing. I've been schooled here a lot about that 25+ months thing.

110. "the coup won already": your only conclusion with that premise is that Biden staged a coup and won

114. Not to mention:

116. Back up, Bernardo. You twist meaning and provide illogical critique. Typical strawman "stuff"ing

117. Mean what you write, jax, write what you mean. We can't read minds. Write clearly. . . nt

118. All careful, legal, righteous, successful DoJs will be slow by being careful, legal, and successful

104. Looks like you are blaming the wrong person

26. 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻

29. Forever

34. The answer is, as long as you don't know what DOJ is doing.

47. I'm not sick over it

64. Then why did you write you are?

131. If you read closely

58. been sick of it for some time. Remember Mueller's investigation.

55. You need to expand your sources beyond TV lawyers

98. agreed

109. What a bunch of BS: "Garland waited almost 2 years to conduct a serious investigation"

124. Just when, exactly, was Jack Smith appointed as Special Counsel?

125. Nonsense. You are ignorant of the fact Smith inherited a sprawling ongoing investigation

126. That's funny...

132. That 6 month old article does not support your assertion

13. If the risk wasn't an existential one, I think more people wouldn't be in full panic mode

17. I agree, I get it.

21. The government watch dog, the GAO

31. An existential risk is not an excuse for DOJ to circumvent the rule of law.

40. Didn't say it was

59. Likewise, the anxiety of citizens is misdirected when addressed to DOJ.

15. Saw him

16. How long should it take to indict for a crime committed in public?

30. Try to indict without evidence of intent to commit a crime

37. He admitted to obstruction of justice on the TV machine.

53. No intent to obstruct justice, though.

57. Firing the FBI guy to stop an investigation is a crime.

75. Mueller concluded that it was up to Congress to determine whether

140. He said that based on a... MEMO written by a Nixon appointee... not a Law...