Star Member brooklynite (73,369 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215985791
For everyone complaining about AG Garland's performance, please impress us.
Lay out the specific charges, and the compelling case and evidence you could present TODAY to secure an Indictment of Trump et al from a Grand Jury and a conviction at Trial.
Star Member leftieNanner (11,003 posts)
1. Thank You
Whatever the DOJ is doing regarding Trump's actions is certainly being kept under deep wraps.
We will hear about it all when they spring the indictment on him.
It is difficult to wait for something to happen though.
On Edit: Well, lookee there! 11,000 posts!
Pepsidog (4,984 posts)
22. Been there done that with Mueller. Garland is a very nice gentleman, the kind of "we must look
forward” type. I don’t want a nice guy, I want a viper. No more Mueller’s it's Garland’s. I want Schiff, Yates, Letitia James, Jamie Raskin type. Smart, take no prisoners, natural-born vipers. I think the angst is that we are getting the impression by comments from Schiff that Garland may not be looking into TFG. You already have him named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case and the Mueller Report is supposed to be a road map for the prosecution of TFG when he leaves office. The work is sitting right there not including the charges from 1/6.
Star Member Stuart G (31,750 posts)
3. My guess & opinion is: Garland is working on your last 17 words right NOW.....That is my guess...
...That ain't easy.....especially last 4 words....."a conviction at Trial".............................
(if it were easy, that would have been done already...(at least securing an indictment of Trump et al)
Star Member LastLiberal in PalmSprings (11,826 posts)
7. I'm not so much concerned with T**** as I am with Bannon.
Every day he is allowed to thumb his nose at the select committee's subpoena is loss of a tool Congress can use against other recalcitrant witnesses. The case against Bannon is simple: (1) was he subpoenaed? (2) did he show up? If he ignored the subpoena, ipso facto he is in contempt; punish his fat ass immediately.
dem4decades (7,911 posts)
8. The specific charges? From the investigation he hasn't started? That's a tough one.
Star Member gab13by13 (5,093 posts)
17. I have one,
Trump is "individual 1". He violated campaign finance laws. Slam dunk case, Michael Cohen was sent to jail for the exact same charge.
grantcart (51,538 posts)
21. Very difficult to prove intent which is a key element to the crime
John Edwards was not found guilty on a similar case
Michael Cohen wasn't tried on this charge he pled guilty on a plea deal that allowed him to walk away from a large pile of other charges mainly tied to illegal exploitation of taxi licenses.
Bobstandard (513 posts)
72. Its not bad strategy to fire up your base
Tfg’d people are committed and unreachable. Aggressively pursuing and charging tfg snd his minions send a message to our side that we’re fighting. Bad strategy is giving our side no reason to hope.
so... file false charges to make your people feel better?
grantcart (51,538 posts)
83. Try and keep up. This sub thread has Nothing to do with OOJ charges in the Mueller report
It is about prosecuting on finance charges which you would have to prove that the reason he paid hush money was because he only cared about the election and not about concealing it from Melania, something that is impossible to prove and unlikely to be true.
Bobstandard (513 posts)
89. Wrong. This is about whether Garland...
Wrong. This thread is about whether Garland and his DOJ are doing a CIS level job. A Federal Court judge agrees with those of us who say he’s not
During a sentencing hearing for a man who breached the Capitol on Jan. 6, Judge Beryl Howell took the federal government attorneys to task over their prosecution of Capitol rioters, saying they were failing the American people by allowing defendants to take plea deals for minor offenses. Howell said, “No wonder parts of the public in the U.S. are confused about whether what happened on January 6 at the Capitol was simply a petty offense of trespassing with some disorderliness, or shocking criminal conduct that represented a grave threat to our democratic norms. Let me make my view clear: The rioters were not mere protesters.”
Go ahead. Move the goalposts. Try to make it about something between tfg and the former ffl. The more you dig in the more reddiculous your arguments become. I thought we were almost in agreement early in this sub thread but now, sorry. We can start over if you like
Evolve Dammit (7,354 posts)
23. Have his taxes been examined? Are their sealed cases from Mueller's investigation? We may never know, and through inaction we are all left to wonder. Pressuring elections officials? Campaign finance siphoning? Money laundering through Deutsche Bank? Others? I guess it must all be kosher?
Star Member Mr.Bill (14,066 posts)
24. Give any one of us Garland's budget, staff
and subpoena and enforcement power, and we'll get back to you in a week.
Star Member LymphocyteLover (2,554 posts)
46. Come on-- the guy is a massive crook, there was clearly obstruction of justice
The real hindrance for these cases was always political and people worried about bringing an ex-president to trial. I don't know why you are trivializing his crimes.
Really? Name dates, Statutes, and show evidence...
onecaliberal (21,285 posts)
52. Trump doesn't have any claim to executive privileges. Trump is a traitor.
Jon King (1,551 posts)
26. Garland could have added additional charges those arrested for 1-6.
No one thinks he should indict Trump tonight. We get that is a long process that would take years to build a case.
But every single legal expert on TV said when he took over that he could add charges to the relatively light charges against the 1-6 arrestees.
You have on the ground prosecutors and even judges yelling about how these charges seem very, very light. Yet Garland's DOJ has not added any additional charges? Why not? Send a strong message. Make these people spend more and more for lawyers. Destroy them with charge after charge, any possible thing a good prosecutor can think of. Some cases will be lost, some won, that is not the point.
The point is Garland appears very reluctant to go strongly after those involved in 1-6.
Star Member ecstatic (29,191 posts)
34. Didn't Mueller already lay the groundwork?
There are multiple crimes he can be tried for right now, even stuff that preceded the coup attempt. Garland can start with obstruction of justice, which is a crime.
Or how about the extortion attempt with Ukraine's president?
Or his illegal phone call with the SOS in Georgia in which he basically threatened him to find 11,000 votes?
Are you seriously saying that none of these crimes should be addressed? And if so, how is that not complicity?
Dates, Statutes, Evidence.
lagomorph777 (27,018 posts)
50. It's odd, but there are folks here who offer lots of reasons not to charge Trump & the Terrorists
Not very compelling reasons, mind you. But reasons. Apparently some here think that Rudy and Kraken need help defending these felons.
Star Member uponit7771 (79,196 posts)
41. BULL ****IN SHIT !!! If the J6 assholes would have been black or Muslim or dark skinned Hispanic and Trump would've been black and said the shit he did to get the J6 assholes to the capital building
1. 50% of the non whites on the capital grounds would've had napalm thrown on them and burned alive
2. 30% that were left alive chard bodies would've been thrown in jail that day
3. Deondre Trump would've had the shit beat out of him, shot in the back a couple of times and put in Gitmo by now.
4. The non white congress people who EVER thought about thinking about talking to the J6 assholes would've been called traitors
5. the non white congress people who DID ever talk to the J6 assholes would've PUBLICALLY forced to police stations and questioned for a couple of years or some bullshit ..
no ... the countries record on prosecuting crimes quickly if depending on the people involved is ... WELL ... documented and established.
There are less than 1000 of these assholes who've been charged by now !!!
WTF !?
At ***MINIMUM*** the optics here don't look right and I'm mostly just talking about going after the low hanging fruit of gathering up people who took videos and pictures of themselves attacking America's capital building !!!
lagomorph777 (27,018 posts)
51. 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
Here's the damning proof:
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial
Now impress us. Defend Trump. Persuade us that he's innocent. Tell us why you like him so much.
Democrats have pointed to one phrase in particular as they argue that Trump incited those present to march down Pennsylvania Avenue toward the Capitol.
"We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore," he said.
His defense lawyers, however, point to a different passage, in which Trump said, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." They argue that his words were not a call for actual violence and lawlessness.
