Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

Merrick Garland's Justice Department

Let's get back to normalcy. Does normalcy fit into your schedule?
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 4916
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Re: Merrick Garland's Justice Department

#51

Post by p0rtia »

I'll watch. Been following the build-up closely.

If he doesn't at least make clear that they are investigating 1) events in the months before Jan 6 and 2) those who planned a coup, of which Jan 6 was a part, the blow-back will be a tsunami.
User avatar
filly
Posts: 1724
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:02 am

Re: Merrick Garland's Justice Department

#52

Post by filly »

Well, he did invoke Watergate and said they were committed to holding *all* people at *any level* responsible whether they were at the Capitol or not.

Then he ruined things by saying it wasn't one particular ideology engaging in death threats, violence, etc. which is total bullshit.

Jesus, CNN has Toobin on a panel and they are remote. I can't stop wondering if he's jacking off.
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 4916
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Re: Merrick Garland's Justice Department

#53

Post by p0rtia »

He spent most of his time detailing the horrors of Jan 6. Why?

I don't like any of the (very few) answers to that question.
User avatar
filly
Posts: 1724
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:02 am

Re: Merrick Garland's Justice Department

#54

Post by filly »

p0rtia wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 4:19 pm He spent most of his time detailing the horrors of Jan 6. Why?

I don't like any of the (very few) answers to that question.
Well, I think that's because (a) the anniversary of Jan. 6 is tomorrow (b) the cases prosecuted thus far are crimes that occurred on January 6 and there have been accomplishments and (c) it was a horror show.

I think he made it pretty clear where the DOJ intends to go. I am unsure what people wanted him to say. That they've hauled 43 people before a federal grand jury? That they will release the indictment of Trump by sundown? What would have made you happy?
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 4916
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Re: Merrick Garland's Justice Department

#55

Post by p0rtia »

I wanted him to--in whatever roundabout way he chose--imply that he is investigating the coup attempt.

He did not do that.

I wanted him to reference the Mueller Report roadmap, and imply that he is following up on that.

He did not do that.

Those are two of the more prominent crimes that TFG has committed. If he couldn't reference them; if he is only interested on the actual assault on the capitol, it seems to me that the message is that there are no consequences for the rich and powerful.

Where's the Meadows referral? Yeah. Nowhere.

I think we are down to the Jan 6 committee--and they are getting scant support from the other branches of government.

I hope I'm wrong.
User avatar
filly
Posts: 1724
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:02 am

Re: Merrick Garland's Justice Department

#56

Post by filly »

So it's always been that DOJ does not comment on ongoing investigations. That doesn't mean there are said investigations, but they wouldn't comment if there were. So those wishes are not realistic.

Maddow was fanning the Meadows indictment the other night. But she pointed out it was 2 1/2 weeks since the House referral and Bannon's took 3 weeks. Remember, you need a Grand Jury to get an indictment. The last 2 1/2 weeks have seen DC overrun with Covid and Christmas and New Year's Holidays also fell during that time.

I too am impatient but thinking about this makes me a little more patient.

Garland did say there are 140 AUSAs working the January 6 cases, 70 in DC and 70 from the field offices. IIRC those lawyers from the field offices came to DC to assist. I suppose they could've just been helping in extradiction of the mob members, but if there are 140 AUSAs working this, and 700 defendants so far, that's not many cases/lawyer. I guess they could be working other matters too but that doesn't seem very efficient.
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 4916
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Re: Merrick Garland's Justice Department

#57

Post by p0rtia »

User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 4916
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Re: Merrick Garland's Justice Department

#58

Post by p0rtia »

filly wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 7:41 pm So it's always been that DOJ does not comment on ongoing investigations. That doesn't mean there are said investigations, but they wouldn't comment if there were. So those wishes are not realistic.

Maddow was fanning the Meadows indictment the other night. But she pointed out it was 2 1/2 weeks since the House referral and Bannon's took 3 weeks. Remember, you need a Grand Jury to get an indictment. The last 2 1/2 weeks have seen DC overrun with Covid and Christmas and New Year's Holidays also fell during that time.

I too am impatient but thinking about this makes me a little more patient.

Garland did say there are 140 AUSAs working the January 6 cases, 70 in DC and 70 from the field offices. IIRC those lawyers from the field offices came to DC to assist. I suppose they could've just been helping in extradiction of the mob members, but if there are 140 AUSAs working this, and 700 defendants so far, that's not many cases/lawyer. I guess they could be working other matters too but that doesn't seem very efficient.
1. He just commented on an ongoing investigation. He implied that if he can nail Congressfolk or Exec branch folk for heading the attack on the Capitol, he will.

2. That's the problem; they're working on Jan 6 cases--not on the long-planned coup, not on the roadmap from the Mueller report. Also, here he is talking about an active investigation again.

Did anyone come away from that speech willing to place money on the bet that he is investigating TFG for plotting a coup? Election Interference? Ukraine?

And don't get me started on the "both sides do it" crap. That was a slap in the face of reality.

And will someone please justify the decision from SDNY for not prosecuting TFG for the crime they sent Michael Cohen to jail for? Just adding this because it's such a depressing trend.
User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 3830
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:48 am

Re: Merrick Garland's Justice Department

#59

Post by RVInit »

I would not assume that just because he referred to the date Jan 6 that means he won't prosecute people who were involved in planning or inciting prior to that date. I am cautiously optimistic after watching Garland's press conference.
There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality.
--Colin Kaepernick
User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 3830
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:48 am

Re: Merrick Garland's Justice Department

#60

Post by RVInit »

There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality.
--Colin Kaepernick
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14351
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

Re: Merrick Garland's Justice Department

#61

Post by RTH10260 »

Turn that into a footmat and place it in front of a specific apartment at Mar-a-Lie-go...
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 4916
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Re: Merrick Garland's Justice Department

#62

Post by p0rtia »

RVInit wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:45 pm I would not assume that just because he referred to the date Jan 6 that means he won't prosecute people who were involved in planning or inciting prior to that date. I am cautiously optimistic after watching Garland's press conference.
This is the best argument that he is going after TFG, I think. I would bet against it, but am pulling for it.

Anyway, my point remains that the country needs to know that that an attempted coup (including such things as the Raffensberger phone call, to be specific, and to explain why the focus on Jan 6 was chilling to me) is illegal and will be prosecuted.

Listed to a bunch of pundits yesterday explaining why it would be "hard" to get a conviction because, among other things, a loss would fuel the right. No one talked about what the consequences of not indicting would be. #mediacomplicit
User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 3830
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:48 am

Re: Merrick Garland's Justice Department

#63

Post by RVInit »

p0rtia wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 2:13 pm
RVInit wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:45 pm I would not assume that just because he referred to the date Jan 6 that means he won't prosecute people who were involved in planning or inciting prior to that date. I am cautiously optimistic after watching Garland's press conference.
This is the best argument that he is going after TFG, I think. I would bet against it, but am pulling for it.

Anyway, my point remains that the country needs to know that that an attempted coup (including such things as the Raffensberger phone call, to be specific, and to explain why the focus on Jan 6 was chilling to me) is illegal and will be prosecuted.

Listed to a bunch of pundits yesterday explaining why it would be "hard" to get a conviction because, among other things, a loss would fuel the right. No one talked about what the consequences of not indicting would be. #mediacomplicit
Yeah, I totally get what you are saying. I agree prosecuting people high up, including Trump, would fuel the right. But not prosecuting them will fuel them even more. And allow him to succeed in his attempt to establish (edit) himself later as a dictator, IMO.

I have no idea if Garland has the cajones to do what needs to be done, but I do think it was alluded to, somewhat.
There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality.
--Colin Kaepernick
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 4916
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Re: Merrick Garland's Justice Department

#64

Post by p0rtia »

Too also, the consequence of saying "no consequences" to malign actors who attempt a coup is that people like me conclude that the rule of law is dead and every lawyer in the DOJ is corrupt. Etc . Just sayin'
User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 3830
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:48 am

Re: Merrick Garland's Justice Department

#65

Post by RVInit »

p0rtia wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 3:11 pm Too also, the consequence of saying "no consequences" to malign actors who attempt a coup is that people like me conclude that the rule of law is dead and every lawyer in the DOJ is corrupt. Etc . Just sayin'
:yeahthat: They must be prosecuted. It's that simple.

I don't think it would be a good idea for Garland to announce it prior to an arrest though.
There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality.
--Colin Kaepernick
Jim
Posts: 799
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:46 pm

Re: Merrick Garland's Justice Department

#66

Post by Jim »

RVInit wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 3:30 pm
p0rtia wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 3:11 pm Too also, the consequence of saying "no consequences" to malign actors who attempt a coup is that people like me conclude that the rule of law is dead and every lawyer in the DOJ is corrupt. Etc . Just sayin'
:yeahthat: They must be prosecuted. It's that simple.

I don't think it would be a good idea for Garland to announce it prior to an arrest though.
Usually they're given the chance to turn themselves in first, aren't they?
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: Merrick Garland's Justice Department

#67

Post by northland10 »

The right will scream no matter what. The important part I hope he is playing is that the DOJ is getting all their ducks in a row. Given the nature of this type of investigation, you have to have all your bases covered because the opposition will try and scuddle it at every turn. You do not want to give opportunities to the opposition.

In addition, stating what or who you are investigating in a case like this will just give Trump the ability to play victim continuously throughout the course of the investigation. Right now, he is whining to whoever will listen and that list continues to shrink. As a victim, he could bring back those who have wandered off. If there is no word on this until an indictment, he won't have time to get all of his base back into fighting mode.

It leaves us in the position of not knowing, but I would rather they are successful than fulfill our immediate need for results. Maybe they are not doing anything but I find it not helpful to make assumptions on what silence means. I do know some of what they need to do is tricky so needs to be handled carefully and methodically.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 3830
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:48 am

Re: Merrick Garland's Justice Department

#68

Post by RVInit »

Jim wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 3:31 pm
RVInit wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 3:30 pm
p0rtia wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 3:11 pm Too also, the consequence of saying "no consequences" to malign actors who attempt a coup is that people like me conclude that the rule of law is dead and every lawyer in the DOJ is corrupt. Etc . Just sayin'
:yeahthat: They must be prosecuted. It's that simple.

I don't think it would be a good idea for Garland to announce it prior to an arrest though.
Usually they're given the chance to turn themselves in first, aren't they?
I should have said it better. I do not believe the DOJ should announce to the general public that they are investigating these parties until and unless they have an arrest warrant or have made arrangements with those parties to turn themselves in (or made attempts to make such arrangements). We don't need months and months of Trump screaming his head off about being under investigation, like what happened in the Mueller investigation.
There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality.
--Colin Kaepernick
Jim
Posts: 799
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:46 pm

Re: Merrick Garland's Justice Department

#69

Post by Jim »

Thanks RV. :thumbsup:
User avatar
Foggy
Dick Tater
Posts: 9554
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:45 am
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater/Space Cadet
Verified: as seen on qvc zombie apocalypse

Re: Merrick Garland's Justice Department

#70

Post by Foggy »

IIRC, the reasoning behind Ford's pardon of Nixon was that it would be too traumatic for the country to put a former president in prison.

As much as Trump deserves prison, the ensuing violence would be really, really bad for the country I love. I'd infinitely prefer to see him sleeping in a refrigerator box under a freeway overpass, and roasting pigeons on a coat hanger over a can of Sterno.

Ahh, I can see it now ... :daydreaming:
Out from under. :thumbsup:
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 4916
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Re: Merrick Garland's Justice Department

#71

Post by p0rtia »

As I said, I think it's a mistake to say "look what would happen if we arrested TFG".

I think the real question is "look what has been happening and will continue to happen if we don't."

cf Germany, 1922, etc.
User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 9854
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh
Verified:

Re: Merrick Garland's Justice Department

#72

Post by AndyinPA »

Here's an old article that speaks to how Garland works.


Twenty-one years ago, the nation was rocked by the largest domestic terrorism attack it had ever experienced. A bomb at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City killed 168 people, including 19 children in a day care center on the ground floor.

Within days, Merrick Garland would arrive on the scene to supervise the investigation and prosecution. Most Americans would not hear his name again until last month, when President Obama nominated Garland, now a judge, to the U.S. Supreme Court.

For Garland, the bombing would be a defining moment, as he made clear in the Rose Garden ceremony last month.

"We promised that we would find the perpetrators, that we would bring them to justice, and that we would do it in a way that honored the Constitution," Garland said, his voice cracking.
"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears… To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies." -Octavia E. Butler
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: Merrick Garland's Justice Department

#73

Post by bob »

p0rtia wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 6:49 pm As I said, I think it's a mistake to say "look what would happen if we arrested TFG".

I think the real question is "look what has been happening and will continue to happen if we don't."

cf Germany, 1922, etc.
An unprosecuted insurrection is a dress rehearsal. And, to paraphrase the Liberal Redneck (Trae Crowder), the Rule of Blind Squirrels says they'll eventually succeed.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6691
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am

Re: Merrick Garland's Justice Department

#74

Post by pipistrelle »

Foggy wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 5:30 pm IIRC, the reasoning behind Ford's pardon of Nixon was that it would be too traumatic for the country to put a former president in prison.

As much as Trump deserves prison, the ensuing violence would be really, really bad for the country I love. I'd infinitely prefer to see him sleeping in a refrigerator box under a freeway overpass, and roasting pigeons on a coat hanger over a can of Sterno.

Ahh, I can see it now ... :daydreaming:
That's not fair to the pigeons.
User avatar
Foggy
Dick Tater
Posts: 9554
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:45 am
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater/Space Cadet
Verified: as seen on qvc zombie apocalypse

Re: Merrick Garland's Justice Department

#75

Post by Foggy »

Poor pigeons. :violin:

So ol' Wifehorn has been telling me that Melanie offered a very stylish hat she once wore for sale at the low, low price of a quarter of a million dollars ($250,000.00).

And ol' Wifehorn has many speculations and guesses about why she might be selling her clothing like a person who needs to raise money, especially the version of money known as cash.

So who knows? Maybe Trump will be lucky again, and end up in a single-wide trailer in some trashy trailer park in Bumfuck, Alabama. :clap:
Out from under. :thumbsup:
Post Reply

Return to “Biden Administration”