I am so tired of people telling Garland how he should have done his job who have never actually done any trial prep. You just don't rush a case against a guy with TFG's resources, especially when you know that he'll appeal every single thing he possibly can and there will be some judges looking to help him. To me, all this article shows is a guy doing the job correctly because he wants things bulletproof, knowing that everything will be under a microscope. It was the right call, despite the naysayers who think that getting Trump into a trial sooner rather than later would have changed anything. It doesn't.
Neil Buchanan has made a solid case for why the lingering trial is actually what Democrats should want in articles both at Verdict and at Dorf on Law. His argument boils down to the idea that a cult like Trump's would not accept a jury verdict as a final result. They will not abandon their man over something as minor as a conviction. For chrissake, there are still people out there arguing that election fraud would have been proven if only one of the 60+ court cases had addressed the merits of the case instead of kicking the cases on procedural grounds. They ignored the courts that actually did address the merits of the cases entirely because it didn't fit their programmed narrative. It would be the same with these election interference cases. Oh, a jury convicted TFG? Isn't that nice? But he's appealing and the Appeals Court will right that wrong. (Another argument commonly made in the days leading up to J6). It is an endless string of excuses and justifications when you're dealing with an entire group of people who think there's truth when viewing the world through the lens of TFG's delusions.
A pre-election conviction wouldn't have changed much of anything, despite the few wishy-washy people in the polls who suggest that maybe they'd reconsider if. . . The justice system isn't going to save us here. Teri Kanefield has written persuasively about how breaking the laws is a feature, not a bug, of the authoritarian mindset. Laws are for everyone else, not their chosen leader. They respect his lawlessness. A conviction would just make him all that much more righteous in the minds of many. This only ends when reasonable people wake up, pay attention, and reject the bullshit.
And never forget to make strong majorities in the Senate and the House a reality. The Speaker shouldn't have to be a Nancy Pelosi to get things done (Jeffries has proven that) , and maybe, just maybe, Schumer can be replaced with a live wire.
To the surprise of no one who has been paying attention, Garland isn't a right-wing stooge so much as he is overwhelmed by the requirements of his new job.
"It’s not that Merrick Garland “botched” anything so much as that his cautious, deliberative methods"
`
Horse puckey.
Two years after a mob attacked the Capitol intent on overthrowing the election and killing the vice president and others, Garland has yet seen fit to even charge top R officials, including T****, with planning, aiding and abetting the insurrection. Yet in a week he decided to appoint a special counsel to investigate President Biden.
I thought Garland was soooo busy and careful, and he had to double check everything when coming after a president, that’s why he moves so slow. Turns out, sitting presidents are fair game and he can move so fast it will blow your wig back. Who knew?
Garland’s job is not to protect the DOJ from cynical republican charges of favoritism, it is to enforce the goddamned law of the country and defend the Constitution without worrying about what the GOP might say about it. Catering to those trying to work the refs is exactly how the rule of law has been eroded in this country, to the point where it “looks too political” to enforce the law against high crimes against the Constitution when one party pulls a coup in broad daylight.
I was scolded here by leagle eagles years ago about my concerns that a clock was ticking. “There is no clock, takes time, patience, justice, The System, it’s complicated…”
Fuck that. Its only complicated when it serves a purpose. Law is revealed to mean nothing but casting spells and seeing what spell works.
Yes, that was/is the reason all along: To keep Drumpf out of the white house. I fail to see the problem with making a judicial effort to disqualify a criminal from becoming president. When one considers that the 'wingers are doing everything they can to swing the election, and that Drumpf will be able to pardon himself and others who tried to coup, any (legal) effort is justifiable. Merrick started late, and slow-walked the investigation. I see no reason to defend his methods, considering what is at stake.
I'mma say this though, looking at the endless appeals President Klan Robe seems to get, maybe Garland is smarter than you think taking it slow and careful.
Especially looking at how the same people shitting on Fani Willis for having sex and absolutely losing the fucking plot are upset that it's going to wreck the case!
Either you want President Klan Robe brought to justice or you want a speedy, sloppy trial which he'll overcome. I am sure some folks want their bad-faith efforts to fail so they can go moan, "oh we're so oppressed, drat, he got away again! Listen to my podcast where we can talk about this!"
"So here we are, with the Supreme Court plodding along and helping delay Trump’s prosecution yet again, and it’ll be up to us to keep That Man from ever setting foot again in the Oval Office"
You see, this is the problem. You're complaining that Merrick Garland has failed to disqualify Trump from office in time for the election. You're complaining that now we're going to have to defeat fascism with votes, rather than defeat fascism by putting Trump in jail. Was that the real purpose of theses proceedings? Is what MAGAts have said all along correct, that this process is an attempt to eliminate Trump judicially because we can't eliminate him politically?
You can't beat fascism with court cases. Almost half the country are now pro-fascists and even if Trump dies in jail that won't change without a political, grassroot struggle. The hope that Garland, Jack Smith or Mueller will save us is an admission that liberalism can't beat fascism in a political fight. It's also an admission that we want our own Bill Barr, someone who will attempt to defeat political opponents using judicial means, that the fascists are *right* that there's only power and who-will-win, not right and wrong and due process and proof beyond reasonable doubt, that we don't actually *believe* in liberalism, only in an authoritarian state that will do Good Things and jail the enemies of Good Things.
Garland's job is to get an airtight prosecution case, not to defeat Trump. That's our job, and to try to put that job onto him is an admission of impotence and failure, that liberalism can't win POLITICALLY.
Think you're angry now? Wait until lifelong institutionalist Garland, in an effort to appear nonpartisan and to yet again hold out that olive branch of comity and good faith, takes Comer's and Gym Jordan's ridiculous criminal referrals for president Biden at face value and instead of laughing those two clowns out of the building, appoints Hur or Weissman to investigate Biden- just to make sure everybody knows that "DoJ is independent" and he is not playing favorites for the president. Don't think it could happen? How many times has he already bent over backwards and gone too far in the wrong direction to prove his "neutrality"?
I am so tired of people telling Garland how he should have done his job who have never actually done any trial prep. You just don't rush a case against a guy with TFG's resources, especially when you know that he'll appeal every single thing he possibly can and there will be some judges looking to help him. To me, all this article shows is a guy doing the job correctly because he wants things bulletproof, knowing that everything will be under a microscope. It was the right call, despite the naysayers who think that getting Trump into a trial sooner rather than later would have changed anything. It doesn't.
Neil Buchanan has made a solid case for why the lingering trial is actually what Democrats should want in articles both at Verdict and at Dorf on Law. His argument boils down to the idea that a cult like Trump's would not accept a jury verdict as a final result. They will not abandon their man over something as minor as a conviction. For chrissake, there are still people out there arguing that election fraud would have been proven if only one of the 60+ court cases had addressed the merits of the case instead of kicking the cases on procedural grounds. They ignored the courts that actually did address the merits of the cases entirely because it didn't fit their programmed narrative. It would be the same with these election interference cases. Oh, a jury convicted TFG? Isn't that nice? But he's appealing and the Appeals Court will right that wrong. (Another argument commonly made in the days leading up to J6). It is an endless string of excuses and justifications when you're dealing with an entire group of people who think there's truth when viewing the world through the lens of TFG's delusions.
A pre-election conviction wouldn't have changed much of anything, despite the few wishy-washy people in the polls who suggest that maybe they'd reconsider if. . . The justice system isn't going to save us here. Teri Kanefield has written persuasively about how breaking the laws is a feature, not a bug, of the authoritarian mindset. Laws are for everyone else, not their chosen leader. They respect his lawlessness. A conviction would just make him all that much more righteous in the minds of many. This only ends when reasonable people wake up, pay attention, and reject the bullshit.
There is a lot to be said for Letitia James as the next AG
And never forget to make strong majorities in the Senate and the House a reality. The Speaker shouldn't have to be a Nancy Pelosi to get things done (Jeffries has proven that) , and maybe, just maybe, Schumer can be replaced with a live wire.
Merrick Garland bamboozled both Obama and Biden.
The one observation that haunts me is this one, from J. K. Galbraith:
"All successful revolutions are the kicking in of a rotten door."
As Jefferson observed as early as 1808, the constitution was obsolete even then.
Ta, Dok. I have nothing to add.
To the surprise of no one who has been paying attention, Garland isn't a right-wing stooge so much as he is overwhelmed by the requirements of his new job.
We've all been there.
Well, poop.
"It’s not that Merrick Garland “botched” anything so much as that his cautious, deliberative methods"
`
Horse puckey.
Two years after a mob attacked the Capitol intent on overthrowing the election and killing the vice president and others, Garland has yet seen fit to even charge top R officials, including T****, with planning, aiding and abetting the insurrection. Yet in a week he decided to appoint a special counsel to investigate President Biden.
I thought Garland was soooo busy and careful, and he had to double check everything when coming after a president, that’s why he moves so slow. Turns out, sitting presidents are fair game and he can move so fast it will blow your wig back. Who knew?
Garland’s job is not to protect the DOJ from cynical republican charges of favoritism, it is to enforce the goddamned law of the country and defend the Constitution without worrying about what the GOP might say about it. Catering to those trying to work the refs is exactly how the rule of law has been eroded in this country, to the point where it “looks too political” to enforce the law against high crimes against the Constitution when one party pulls a coup in broad daylight.
I was scolded here by leagle eagles years ago about my concerns that a clock was ticking. “There is no clock, takes time, patience, justice, The System, it’s complicated…”
Fuck that. Its only complicated when it serves a purpose. Law is revealed to mean nothing but casting spells and seeing what spell works.
Yes, that was/is the reason all along: To keep Drumpf out of the white house. I fail to see the problem with making a judicial effort to disqualify a criminal from becoming president. When one considers that the 'wingers are doing everything they can to swing the election, and that Drumpf will be able to pardon himself and others who tried to coup, any (legal) effort is justifiable. Merrick started late, and slow-walked the investigation. I see no reason to defend his methods, considering what is at stake.
Aw, Tick reference!
I'mma say this though, looking at the endless appeals President Klan Robe seems to get, maybe Garland is smarter than you think taking it slow and careful.
Especially looking at how the same people shitting on Fani Willis for having sex and absolutely losing the fucking plot are upset that it's going to wreck the case!
Either you want President Klan Robe brought to justice or you want a speedy, sloppy trial which he'll overcome. I am sure some folks want their bad-faith efforts to fail so they can go moan, "oh we're so oppressed, drat, he got away again! Listen to my podcast where we can talk about this!"
"So here we are, with the Supreme Court plodding along and helping delay Trump’s prosecution yet again, and it’ll be up to us to keep That Man from ever setting foot again in the Oval Office"
You see, this is the problem. You're complaining that Merrick Garland has failed to disqualify Trump from office in time for the election. You're complaining that now we're going to have to defeat fascism with votes, rather than defeat fascism by putting Trump in jail. Was that the real purpose of theses proceedings? Is what MAGAts have said all along correct, that this process is an attempt to eliminate Trump judicially because we can't eliminate him politically?
You can't beat fascism with court cases. Almost half the country are now pro-fascists and even if Trump dies in jail that won't change without a political, grassroot struggle. The hope that Garland, Jack Smith or Mueller will save us is an admission that liberalism can't beat fascism in a political fight. It's also an admission that we want our own Bill Barr, someone who will attempt to defeat political opponents using judicial means, that the fascists are *right* that there's only power and who-will-win, not right and wrong and due process and proof beyond reasonable doubt, that we don't actually *believe* in liberalism, only in an authoritarian state that will do Good Things and jail the enemies of Good Things.
Garland's job is to get an airtight prosecution case, not to defeat Trump. That's our job, and to try to put that job onto him is an admission of impotence and failure, that liberalism can't win POLITICALLY.
https://terikanefield.com/can-democracy-work-in-america-part-1-there-are-no-yankees-here/
Alicia Menendez reporting on "Deadline White House" that Russian news agencies are reporting that 40 people are dead in a Moscow shooting attack.
Think you're angry now? Wait until lifelong institutionalist Garland, in an effort to appear nonpartisan and to yet again hold out that olive branch of comity and good faith, takes Comer's and Gym Jordan's ridiculous criminal referrals for president Biden at face value and instead of laughing those two clowns out of the building, appoints Hur or Weissman to investigate Biden- just to make sure everybody knows that "DoJ is independent" and he is not playing favorites for the president. Don't think it could happen? How many times has he already bent over backwards and gone too far in the wrong direction to prove his "neutrality"?