Yes. There should have been. FOUR FUCKING YEARS AGO!
he could shoot someone on the street, and the trial would still take long enough for him to get reelected and pardon himself…
Don’t normalize the idea that self-pardoning is even a thing. It’s not.
There’s a difference between power and authority.
Authority is what the law allows you to do.
Power is what the electorate allows you to do.
A President may not have the authority to pardon himself, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have the power to do so. Laws are only as good as what the citizens will tolerate.
Omg yes, this. Garland did Jack Shit for 2 years until Jack Smith got called in to start actually doing something, due to mounting public pressure. Merrick is a picture perfect representation of weak sauce Dems - pathetic. And now he says “hurry up”. Ducking infuriating dude.
Right, we’re getting to the point where the Biden admin is playing right into his hands. If this goes through at those point, they are already primed to cry foul.
He was going to cry foul no matter what. He will always cry foul. He’s a whiner and a loser and he’s going to complain no matter the situation if it doesn’t go his way.
Biden probably thinks Trump is easier to beat than Haley.
We can’t go back and correct the mistakes already made. However, we can correct the problems going forward. Starting with not treating Trump with as much deference as he has received.
Donald Trump is a prime example of what happens when nobody stands up to a bully.
deleted by creator
Isn’t Merrick Garland the one to make that call? Times a tickin.
No, not really. It’s entirely in the hands of the court and to a lesser extent Special Council Jack Smith and the chess moves he makes against said Judges (which some may be fair; others not so much aka SCOTUS)
In the phoneix Wright universe, trials can take up to 3 days and no longer. I use to think that was a dumb rule. Now I wish that something like that was real.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Attorney General Merrick Garland said in an interview with CNN that he believes there should be a “speedy trial” in the election subversion case against Donald Trump, while also pushing back on allegations that his department is targeting the former president for political reasons.
Garland said he agrees with special counsel Jack Smith’s assertion that the “public interest requires a speedy trial” in the 2020 election currently set for trial in March in Washington, DC.
Garland also defended the department against allegations of election interference when asked whether he thought the federal cases against Trump should have been brought sooner – in order to avoid the prosecution of a leading candidate unfolding months before a presidential election.
When asked about the perception that the Justice Department is prosecuting Trump for political reasons, Garland said: “Of course it concerns me.”
The federal criminal case over Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results has been put on pause while a dispute over Trump’s claim of presidential immunity winds through the appeals process.
“With respect to the public, I hope they will see, not only from what we’ve done but the outcomes of the cases and the way in which special counsel have proceeded that we have kept politics out of this,” Garland said.
The original article contains 351 words, the summary contains 204 words. Saved 42%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
It’s not like they had 4 fucking years to get a trial done. They dropped the fucking ball and now they’re panicking because it’s already too late to push it through. He should have been convicted and incarcerated before the Iowa caucus this year.
it takes time to put things together.
Particularly when you don’t want to.
Source?
Edit: Yeah, that’s what I thought.
I mean, there ARE sources… They’re just the Washington Post (paywalled) and the Nation (free to read):
At least according to that article, they conflate stalling with treading carefully.
Naturally, the pursuit of charges against a former President of the other side does necessitate an abundance of caution to assure a legitimate witch hunt doesn’t occur. If Garland is introspective enough to recognize human fallibility, he’d likely ensure that he himself wasn’t fitting the data to see what he wanted to see.
Naturally these are unprecedented times and I think he made good moves so far, especially appointing Jack Smith.
You expect him to actually come out and admit that the investigation was slow walked because he didn’t want to do it?
You’re just defending him because you like the lack of results.
I’m just asking for source as opposed to one’s complete and utterly blind speculation and conspiracy theories.
Your accusation as to my motives is equally blind as it utterly misses the mark as well.
You want a source that involves reading minds. Your assumption that he’s not dragging his feet is as baseless as my assertion that he is.
You’re just happy with his lack of action and want everyone else to be.
It’s not a conspiracy theory to withhold the benefit of the doubt.
The difference between you and me is that in the complete and utter absence of any evidence whatsoever, your mind jumps to a conclusion that necessitates a greater leap in logic. I’m not making a suggestion either way, but rather recognizing that you and I are clearly not attorneys and have absolutely zero idea as to how long it takes to fact find, gather evidence, wait for lower court rulings and smaller fish to flip, get an independent council, and indict a former President with enough evidence so as to not make a mockery of justice.
There you go again, with wild speculation as to the motives of others. Shall I start doing the same? You just want this fairy-tale conspiracy theory that you understand and nobody else does and think you know better than the lifelong experts in this field. In that respect, you exemplify the Dunning-Kruger Effect and have just that much more in common with the maga movement than you may realize.
It’s a conspiracy theory to speculate that there is obstruction when you literally have zero fucking evidence whatsoever. So please proceed to pull out of your ass this string of incoherency.
Sorry man, that’s not how this stuff works.
- You can have a quick case.
- You can have a strong case.
Choose one.
Now consider you’re:
-
Evidence-gathering and waiting for smaller fish to flip and issue depositions.
-
All the while evidence gathering has happened since Garland got in office.
… While you’re up against a former President in an unprecedented prosecution where loads of outside money will be funding the defense.
So your arguments better be TIGHT. I’d rather they take their time and do it right.
Imagine if this fedsoc jackwagon was a supreme court justice right now, instead of personally being responsible for the end of civilization
So he admits openly that this isn’t about justice, but about politics. As long as you have people in key areas of the government politically persecuting someone as high a former and likely future president, people will yearn for a populist president like Trump.
Garland’s not leading any of the prosecutions, nor did he originate any of the indictments. Heck, many of them aren’t even federal indictments.
And if people don’t want their favorite candidate indicted, they should start by picking one who’s not a crook.
