Merrick Garland, weakest AG ever?

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Do you want it done fast or do you want it done right?

I want SOMETHING done fast so that we have a foothold, and I want the rest done at his leisure.
I realize you're making an excellent point, I am not entirely sure he's doing anything but I do get your point.
In my former career as an editor & DP, I used to frequently point to a sign that said "FAST - GOOD - CHEAP .... PICK ANY TWO"

 

[Cordelier]

I want SOMETHING done fast so that we have a foothold, and I want the rest done at his leisure.
I realize you're making an excellent point, I am not entirely sure he's doing anything but I do get your point.
In my former career as an editor & DP, I used to frequently point to a sign that said "FAST - GOOD - CHEAP .... PICK ANY TWO"

So who do you propose we sacrifice on the altar of judicial expediency?

*LOL* Feel like I just invoked Sam Waterston there for a moment.

 

[jcgriff2]

I think that Merrick Garland has to be the weakest AG that ever sat in that office. I wonder where his spine it situated, somewhere in Alaska by the way he has commanded the DOJ. I think beyond that fact that he is asking for such low sentences for the January 6th riot that even the judges are questioning his people about them, he has done nothing with those who financed or planned the riot on that day. To go with an old saying, he should either shit or get off the pot.

Not only the weakest AG ever but one of the weakest human beings on Earth.

It still blows my mind that this is the guy that Obama nominated for SCOTUS and the GOP stopped it cold. Thank God.

The 6 jan skirmish is wy overplayed and all s/b pardoned.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

So who do you propose we sacrifice on the altar of judicial expediency?

*LOL* Feel like I just invoked Sam Waterston there for a moment.

View attachment 67378271

OMG good one. Let's spitballl on this one. See you in the morning.

 

[btthegreat]

We all saw him as a man of integrety, intelligence, and diligence when he was a nominee for SCOTUS. The only reason some of us are changing our minds is because he's not filing charges that we want filed, when we want them filed, against politicians we want charged. This is not about us seeing crimes or even Garland seeing crimes. Its about Garland and his lawyers being able to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt to a 12-0 vote with some of the very best and most expensive legal talent in the country working 24/7 to get just one juror out of 12 doubting. There can be no ambiguity in the statute, no holes in the evidence, no weaknesses in the cases, and no element of these crimes left to chance.

I have said all along that I would support the decisions of Garland and his AG's office to indict or not to indict. He's got the tough calls, and he's got the most experienced of lawyers and they have the depositions, the witness testimony, the timelines and the documents that I don't have access to. They know the weaknesses in these cases, and they know which witnesses are likely to fold like a lawn chair on cross. I am not second guessing based on media stories.

 

[Callen]

We are running out of time, literally.
I realize he served with distinction but he is aware of the time factor, and he can give Congress SOMETHING. Doesn't have to be the whole magilla.

Why do you say he is running out of time?

 

[The AntiDonald]

Not only the weakest AG ever but one of the weakest human beings on Earth.

It still blows my mind that this is the guy that Obama nominated for SCOTUS and the GOP stopped it cold. Thank God.

The 6 jan skirmish is wy overplayed and all s/b pardoned.

The only way all these traitors get pardoned is if Trump somehow wins the presidency again. No republican president with moral authority and integrity will ever pardon them. I could see some possible sentence commutations if said president thought their sentences were too severe, but no outright pardons.

 

[Mithrae]

president with moral authority and integrity

When was the last one of those? Carter?

 

[Athanasius68]

We are running out of time, literally.
I realize he served with distinction but he is aware of the time factor, and he can give Congress SOMETHING. Doesn't have to be the whole magilla.

Garland does law.
Congress does politics.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

A person, including an election official, who in any election for Federal office—

(2) knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds, or attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process, by—

Yes..."knowingly and willfully". Which is why an insanity defense is Trump's best way out of this. Garland should be more than willing to prosecute this case. The worst case scenario is Trump is found not guilty.

Nothing there about finding and excluding technically-ineligible ballots in a biased manner.

OK, fine...that's your interpretation of the law.

Just provide a source of an attorney who agrees with you. You still haven't done it.

You're missing the bigger point -- Trump tried to pressure Raffensperger. That is illegal, not to mention totally inappropriate.

The most logical conclusion is that in this case, morally contemptible isn't the same as strictly illegal.

No, here is the law you cited:

(2) knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds, or attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process, by—

You're basically saying that there are no laws to prevent someone from trying to change the vote count or from pressuring an election official to change the vote count. That is preposterous.

 

[Cordelier]

OMG good one. Let's spitballl on this one. See you in the morning.

*L* Sure thing...

More wisdom from Robert Duvall.....

 

[Cordelier]

We all saw him as a man of integrety, intelligence, and diligence when he was a nominee for SCOTUS. The only reason some of us are changing our minds is because he's not filing charges that we want filed, when we want them filed, against politicians we want charged. This is not about us seeing crimes or even Garland seeing crimes. Its about Garland and his lawyers being able to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt to a 12-0 vote with some of the very best and most expensive legal talent in the country working 24/7 to get just one juror out of 12 doubting. There can be no ambiguity in the statute, no holes in the evidence, no weaknesses in the cases, and no element of these crimes left to chance.

I have said all along that I would support the decisions of Garland and his AG's office to indict or not to indict. He's got the tough calls, and he's got the most experienced of lawyers and they have the depositions, the witness testimony, the timelines and the documents that I don't have access to. They know the weaknesses in these cases, and they know which witnesses are likely to fold like a lawn chair on cross. I am not second guessing based on media stories.

Well said.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

The only way all these traitors get pardoned is if Trump somehow wins the presidency again. No republican president with moral authority and integrity will ever pardon them. I could see some possible sentence commutations if said president thought their sentences were too severe, but no outright pardons.

No Republican president "with moral authority and integrity" will be elected any time soon. Any Republican that sits in the White House will be a total dirtbag. So what makes you think a pardon couldn't happen?

I think there are a bunch of Republicans who would be willing to pardon the Jan 6 traitors.

 

[Mithrae]

Yes..."knowingly and willfully". Which is why an insanity defense is Trump's best way out of this. Garland should be more than willing to prosecute this case. The worst case scenario is Trump is found not guilty.

His best way out of what? He hasn't been prosecuted for that call, which by this point probably means he never will be. Flinging charges at him to see what sticks would debase the office of AG.

OK, fine...that's your interpretation of the law.

Just provide a source of an attorney who agrees with you. You still haven't done it.

You're missing the bigger point -- Trump tried to pressure Raffensperger. That is illegal, not to mention totally inappropriate.


No, here is the law you cited:
(2) knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds, or attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process, by—

You're basically saying that there are no laws to prevent someone from trying to change the vote count or from pressuring an election official to change the vote count. That is preposterous.

"Deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process, by..." By doing what? Is saturating the media with propaganda illegal under that law? How about allowing or disallowing postal voting with statistically predictable results? No, there are two specific conditions listed by which interference in the election process is illegal under that law, neither of which Trump broke. Instead of complaining about Garland not prosecuting an action which appears to have been technically legal, at least under that federal law - or trying to shift the burden of proof onto some random forum member to prove Trump's innocence - you should be pressuring to fix that loophole, or finding which law/s he actually did break.

I agree that it's surprising and shocking to think that the call may not have been strictly illegal... but again, how else to explain the lack of prosecution for such a publicly-known and contemptible action?

 

[Shrink726]

I think that Merrick Garland has to be the weakest AG that ever sat in that office. I wonder where his spine it situated, somewhere in Alaska by the way he has commanded the DOJ. I think beyond that fact that he is asking for such low sentences for the January 6th riot that even the judges are questioning his people about them, he has done nothing with those who financed or planned the riot on that day. To go with an old saying, he should either shit or get off the pot.

Yup. He's a friggin' disgrace. And a cure for insomnia.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

His best way out of what? He hasn't been prosecuted for that call, which by this point probably means he never will be. Flinging charges at him to see what sticks would debase the office of AG.

I was arguing based on the assumption that Trump will be charged by Garland. But he will not be charged, you are correct. Which goes back to the original point -- Garland is a weak AG.

"Deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process, by..." By doing what? Is saturating the media with propaganda illegal under that law? How about allowing or disallowing postal voting with statistically predictable results?

I'm beginning to think you've never heard the phone call. Maybe you should listen to it again. Trump was telling Raffensperger to give him 11,500 more votes (whatever the exact number) so that he would have more votes than Biden in GA. How do you think that is possibly legal to do???

Unless Trump TRULY believed he won the election (i.e. the insanity defense), this is an open-and-shut case. Garland's inaction is simply inexcuable.

No, there are two specific conditions listed by which interference in the election process is illegal under that law, neither of which Trump broke. Instead of complaining about Garland not prosecuting an action which appears to have been technically legal, at least under that federal law - or trying to shift the burden of proof onto some random forum member to prove Trump's innocence - you should be pressuring to fix that loophole, or finding which law/s he actually did break.

I agree that it's surprising and shocking to think that the call may not have been strictly illegal... but again, how else to explain the lack of prosecution for such a publicly-known and contemptible action?

There was nothing remotely legal about what Trump did. The law YOU POSTED is crystal clear and Trump violated that law.

And you still haven't provided a legal source to defend your absurd position.

 

[Razoo]

We can hope that prosecution is at the top of the list for the big players no matter who they are.

Dose anyone really expect the DOJ to put his strategy on there front page everyday?

If too much is leaked out to we arm chair prosecutorms will provide a means for Rump to get off on a mistrial aka cannot possibly receive a fair trail due to an over abundance of evidence being shared with the public.

Garland may be following direction coming through the White House????????

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

We can hope that prosecution is at the top of the list for the big players no matter who they are.

Dose anyone really expect the DOJ to put his strategy on there front page everyday?

If too much is leaked out to we arm chair prosecutorms will provide a means for Rump to get off on a mistrial aka cannot possibly receive a fair trail due to an over abundance of evidence being shared with the public.

I agree to an extent, but something should have happened by now regarding Trump's phone call to Raffensperger. That's a much more straight-forward and simple case compared to Jan 6.

Garland may be following direction coming through the White House????????

That would be a foul, totally unethical of Biden to do. One of the things that got Trump in trouble was constantly trying to interfere in DOJ proceedings.

 

[Callen]

I agree to an extent, but something should have happened by now regarding Trump's phone call to Raffensperger. That's a much more straight-forward and simple case compared to Jan 6.

I'm not so sure it is that straight forward. From what I understand intent must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Although we all know his true intent the defence will make the argument that he truly believed there was wide spread voter fraud.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

We're on the cusp of WW 3 and you're worried about how much time some trespassers are getting?

Nobody knows if World War 3 will happen this year. All we know is Ukraine needs to make itself eligible to join NATO and the UN needs to change its policy to not require a unanimous vote to condemn Russia for violating its own laws - two events that can't occur when they most badly need to happen. Now we do need to worry about the nuclear weapons threat, but not more than Merrick Garland's job when only Vlaidimir Putin is making this stupid threat because we know Putin is Russia's Liar in Chief.

 

[Razoo]

When anti american right wing nuts piss and moan it does not mean shet. Hell they would piss and moan if
no one was in office however it would provide them one more opportunity to make up shet.

yes a little more fake news from the anti american right wing bullshit society ............

 

[Cordelier]

I'm not so sure it is that straight forward. From what I understand intent must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Although we all know his true intent the defence will make the argument that he truly believed there was wide spread voter fraud.

Exactly. And every person you take to trial goes before a 12-person jury. A 12-person jury that has to render a unanimous decision in order to get a conviction.
So if 1 in 4 Americans believes every word that comes out of Donald Trump's mouth, what do you figure the odds are of not having one of them on any given jury?

 

[independentusa]

Garland does law.
Congress does politics.

Well, according to several judges, he is not doing law well at all.

 

[independentusa]

Exactly. And every person you take to trial goes before a 12-person jury. A 12-person jury that has to render a unanimous decision in order to get a conviction.
So if 1 in 4 Americans believes every word that comes out of Donald Trump's mouth, what do you figure the odds are of not having one of them on any given jury?

Have yo uever been on a jury, it might be harder than you think to just say no.

 

[Cordelier]

Have yo uever been on a jury, it might be harder than you think to just say no.

It might be... I think the criminal conviction rate is something like 70%.

I'm not trying to overestimate the difficulty.... but I don't want to underestimate it either. I'm just saying that the political dimension of these cases is a consideration that makes these kinds of cases a lot more difficult to prosecute than some liquor store smash-and-grab.