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
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This was just reported on MSNBC. [View all]PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,839 posts)71. Thank you.
I am so incredibly sick and tired of the "Indictments, soon!" posts here that I want to do damage to those posters.
Let's see, the Watergate break-in was on June 17, 1972. Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974. Just over two years later. We are now the same time frame, and zero chance of Trump being indicted, nor of *any* of the higher-ups being brought to justice.
As I posted in a thread yesterday, I think The Second Coming will happen sooner. And I'm not remotely a believer in The Second Coming.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
169 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Why wait for the facts and full story, when one can just make assumptions?
Fiendish Thingy
Mar 2023
#46
Speculation stokes the egos of those who blab. Those who know don't talk. . . . nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Mar 2023
#107
I think the investigation could go on forever unless it is adjudicated in the courts.
kentuck
Mar 2023
#9
All the investigations are moving in that direction, towards indictments and the courts.
fightforfreedom
Mar 2023
#12
Yes, grand jury is a "first stop"; it is not a place to homestead and plant crops.
Magoo48
Mar 2023
#122
That is the only way we get any real information is in the filings in the court system
Bev54
Mar 2023
#74
It's not like I'm going to flip Garland the bird in I run into him on the street
Silent3
Mar 2023
#45
Then you are proposing that DOJ deserves contempt based entirely on your feelings.
Beastly Boy
Mar 2023
#79
I'm proposing that my feelings are irrelevant to any important issue being discussed here. n/t
Silent3
Mar 2023
#81
Nobody is hurt if you are silent. But when people continually erode faith in the US government
Bernardo de La Paz
Mar 2023
#111
Far more prominent and important people than myself have expressed their doubts...
Silent3
Mar 2023
#133
"There is a GAP between what the DOJ has been doing and what the public knows."
Goodheart
Mar 2023
#11
"zero chance of Trump being indicted": because you are an insider and know
Bernardo de La Paz
Mar 2023
#112
And all those who confidently assert he'll be indicted any day now
PoindexterOglethorpe
Mar 2023
#138
"the coup won already": your only conclusion with that premise is that Biden staged a coup and won
Bernardo de La Paz
Mar 2023
#110
Back up, Bernardo. You twist meaning and provide illogical critique. Typical strawman "stuff"ing
jaxexpat
Mar 2023
#116
Mean what you write, jax, write what you mean. We can't read minds. Write clearly. . . nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Mar 2023
#117
All careful, legal, righteous, successful DoJs will be slow by being careful, legal, and successful
Bernardo de La Paz
Mar 2023
#118
What a bunch of BS: "Garland waited almost 2 years to conduct a serious investigation"
Bernardo de La Paz
Mar 2023
#109
Nonsense. You are ignorant of the fact Smith inherited a sprawling ongoing investigation
Bernardo de La Paz
Mar 2023
#125
If the risk wasn't an existential one, I think more people wouldn't be in full panic mode
Mr. Ected
Mar 2023
#13
An existential risk is not an excuse for DOJ to circumvent the rule of law.
Beastly Boy
Mar 2023
#31
He said that based on a... MEMO written by a Nixon appointee... not a Law...
Justice matters.
Mar 2023
#140
None of these specify a sitting President cannot be prosecuted for criminal activities
Justice matters.
Mar 2023
#151
The banana republican memo should be nullified by Congress for the reasons
Justice matters.
Mar 2023
#160
Once again, I am thrilled with the prospect of getting on your ignore list.
Beastly Boy
Mar 2023
#169
Meanwhile, Grassley wants Garland to explain why Hunter Biden hasn't been arrested.
Frasier Balzov
Mar 2023
#28
So we knew on Jan. 15, 2021 that DOJ was arresting and charging unwashed Magats,
gab13by13
Mar 2023
#52
Please post a link to Garland's statement declining to investigate J6 intelligence failures.
Fiendish Thingy
Mar 2023
#72
There is only one post in this thread with an :01 time stamp this morning
Bernardo de La Paz
Mar 2023
#137
Part of the impatience comes from Fitzmas and Muller time. Or Eric Holder -lets move forward.
3Hotdogs
Mar 2023
#61
We know our justice system is far from perfect and we know it's not geared to investigate
yaesu
Mar 2023
#66
We get it. We just don't want a repeat in Jan 2025. mccarthy has given out the blueprint.
ecstatic
Mar 2023
#73
What? You are attacking OP's motivations, calling them a paid shill? Is it wrong to support Dems?
Bernardo de La Paz
Mar 2023
#106
A site that supports a Democrat "no matter what" loses credibility quite fast.
Goodheart
Mar 2023
#127
That does not apply in this thread. Why is the poster calling the OP a paid shill?
Bernardo de La Paz
Mar 2023
#129
You make stuff up again. Stop with the falsities. SCs are salaried positions. . . . nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Mar 2023
#130