I think his meticulousness is warranted.Yeah, Garland is laboring, like an old mule dragging a rusty plow. He needs to get serious and start producing results.
As much as humanely possible on multiple fronts. FTA:What more evidence does he need?
You want a good case, or a fast indictment? Seems like to me that the DoJ is bringing in people for interview. Some of this appears to be before a grand jury. Documents are being reviewed and catalogued. Then you go back to people and cross check their sworn testimony to see if anyone’s memory has been refreshed.Yeah, Garland is laboring, like an old mule dragging a rusty plow. He needs to get serious and start producing results.
It's closing in on 2 years. We are past the fast indictment era.You want a good case, or a fast indictment? Seems like to me that the DoJ is bringing in people for interview. Some of this appears to be before a grand jury. Documents are being reviewed and catalogued. Then you go back to people and cross check their sworn testimony to see if anyone’s memory has been refreshed.
All of this with at least one hostile, dullard of a judge in the way.
You keep glossing over this massively important piece:It's closing in on 2 years. We are past the fast indictment era.
Bro, everyone glossed over most of your Herman Wouk level post.You keep glossing over this massively important piece:
No matter how much one fears Trump, the prosecution of a former president can’t be undertaken lightly. The expectation that political enemies will be treated fairly is the basis for the legitimacy of the entire legal system. That’s why Garland’s hand-wringing and fussiness matter. Any indictment he brings against Trump will have survived his scrutiny, which means that it will have cleared a high bar.
Another ‘arrests of the traitors is coming’ thread? Snooze.How about inevitable?
THE INEVITABLE INDICTMENT OF DONALD TRUMPMerrick Garland hasn't tipped his hand, but it's clear to me that he will bring charges against the former president.
By Franklin Foer
OCTOBER 11, 2022
As an appellate judge, Merrick Garland was known for constructing narrow decisions that achieved consensus without creating extraneous controversy. As a government attorney, he was known for his zealous adherence to the letter of the law. As a person, he is a smaller-than-life figure, a dry conversationalist, studious listener, something close to the opposite of a raconteur. As a driver, his friends say, he is maddeningly slow and almost comically fastidious.
And as the nation’s chief law-enforcement officer, he is a hyper-prudential institutionalist who would like nothing more than to restore—quietly and deliberately—the Justice Department’s reputation for probity, process, and apolitical dispassion. Which is why it is so difficult for me to imagine him delighting in the choice he now faces: whether to become the first attorney general in American history to indict a former president.
But this is what I believe he is preparing himself to do.
I have been observing Garland closely for months. I’ve talked with his closest friends and most loyal former clerks and deputies. I’ve carefully studied his record. I’ve interviewed Garland himself. And I’ve reached the conclusion that his devotion to procedure, his belief in the rule of law, and in particular his reverence for the duties, responsibilities, and traditions of the U.S. Department of Justice will cause him to make the most monumental decision an attorney general can make.
Let me be absolutely clear: Garland did not tell me he was going to indict Donald Trump. In fact, he did not tip his hand to me in any way—he is far too cautious to signal his intentions to even his closest friends, much less a reporter. Nor did his top aides suggest the announcement of an indictment. When his department says that it doesn’t discuss ongoing cases, it means it—at least in this case.
Before I lay out the reasons I believe I am correct in this assessment, I want to discuss why it is entirely possible I am not. The main reason to disbelieve the argument that Garland is preparing to indict is simple: To bring criminal charges against a former president from an opposing political party would be the ultimate test of a system that aspires to impartiality, and Garland, by disposition, is repelled by drama, and doesn’t believe the department should be subjected to unnecessary stress tests. This unprecedented act would inevitably be used to justify a cycle of reprisals, and risks turning the Justice Department into an instrument of never-ending political warfare.
And an indictment, of course, would merely be the first step—a prelude to a trial unlike any this country has ever seen. The defendant wouldn’t just be an ex-president; in all likelihood, he’d be a candidate actively campaigning to return to the White House. Fairness dictates that the system regard Trump as it does every other defendant. But doing so would lead to the impression that he’s being deliberately hamstrung—and humiliated—by his political rivals.
Garland is surely aware that this essential problem would be evident at the first hearing. If the Justice Department is intent on proving that nobody is above the law, it could impose the same constraints on Trump that it would on any criminal defendant accused of serious crimes, including limiting his travel. Such a restriction would deprive Trump of one of his most important political advantages: his ability to whip up his followers at far-flung rallies.
In any event, once the trial began, Trump would be stuck in court, likely in Florida (if he’s charged in connection with the Mar-a-Lago documents matter) or in Washington, D.C. (if he’s charged for his involvement in the events of January 6). The site of a Washington trial would be the Prettyman Courthouse, on Constitution Avenue, just a short walk from the Capitol. This fact terrified the former prosecutors and other experts I talked with about how the trial might play out. Right-wing politicians, including Trump himself, have intimated violence if he is indicted.
Trump would of course attempt to make the proceedings a carnival of grievance, a venue for broadcasting conspiracy theories about his enemies. The trial could thus supply a climactic flash point for an era of political violence. Like the Capitol on January 6, the courthouse could become a magnet for paramilitaries. With protesters and counterprotesters descending on the same locale, the occasion would tempt street warfare.
The prospect of such a spectacle fills Merrick Garland with dread, his friends say. Indeed, for much of his tenure he’s been attacked by critics who claim he lacks the fortitude to meet the moment, or to take on an adversary like Trump. Members of the House committee charged with examining the events of January 6 have publicly taunted Garland for moving tentatively when compared with their own aggressive and impeccably stage-managed hearings. Representative Adam Schiff has complained, “I think there’s a real desire on the part of the attorney general, for the most part, not to look backward.” Privately, even President Joe Biden has grumbled about the plodding pace of Garland’s investigations
I'd gladly take Douche sanitary over Trump. He doesn't have the cult of personality like orangutan and has actual real degrees. Sure, he's a whackadoodle but as a president, he'd be a cuck federally speaking. The country ain't Florida and he knows it.Another ‘arrests of the traitors is coming’ thread? Snooze.
I don’t care if Trump is indicted. It would make the way for DeSantis. Fine with me. But isn’t he being investigated now too?
Sad. It is an excellent read and lays out what is happening currently with an evidence-based prediction on what may come next.Bro, everyone glossed over most of your Herman Wouk level post.
Wow lots of name calling. Someone’s mad.I'd gladly take Douche sanitary over Trump. He doesn't have the cult of personality like orangutan and has actual real degrees. Sure, he's a whackadoodle but as a president, he'd be a cuck federally speaking. The country ain't Florida and he knows it.
Because it isn’t facts. It’s someone’s opinion. That’s of interest only if you share it.Sad. It is an excellent read and lays out what is happening currently with an evidence-based prediction on what may come next.
Given how much people purport to care about politics on this forum, it perplexes me why people would choose not to be as informed as possible.