507
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
507 points (93.3% liked)
politics
19097 readers
1727 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
(... Later)
We fucked up, but not because of this.
Garland didn't even start the process for two and a half years. He thought it would all just blow over and he wouldn't have to prosecute Trump.
Never forget that Garland is a conservative. Always has been. Nominating him for SCOTUS was an olive branch that got smacked down by the GOP. Appointing him as AG was another olive branch that was lit on fire by the GOP. Democrats just can't help themselves with all these fucking olive branches.
The right is coming to opress and exterminate the normal people. The Democrats are not fighters and cannot defend against it. We need people willing to meet force with force. Throughout history, there has never been a peaceful solution to an infestation of conservatives. Never.
First off, Garland was a Supreme Court Justice nominee By Obama and who the Republicans would block, right? I'm not remotely buying this olive-branch attempt to downplay this. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't survive scrutiny from the left if he was a partisan hack for both being a SCOTUS nominee, as well as an AG under Biden. If Garland was that much of a conservative partisan hack, McConnell wouldn't have blocked the appointment. So far I think he's doing a fucking fantastic job and the only people I see complaining are people who are clearly not legal experts and think everything is so cut-and-dry and easy with a "if I was in there, it would've been done overnight!" mentality.
Second, I know exactly which WaPo article you're discussing and it did not take 2.5 years for him to begin investigating. Nor does that article cover the OTHER investigations apart from January 6th, such as the classified documents case.
Forget the obvious fucking fact that goes completely unmentioned: Garland was busy building the case from the ground-up while handling — gee I don't know — the largest criminal investigation in the history of the FBI.. So naturally, it would make sense if you wanted to make sure you eliminated ANY hole for accusation of bias to first build your case from the ground-up, charge the actual insurrectionists first, then let smaller fish turn on bigger fish which can then be used as evidence for the mega case that is taking down a former President.
Edit: the silence of the anonymous down-votes without substantive rebuttal couldn't be more deafening.
Man, if only there was a team at DOJ that had already been looking at Trump for years and had already come up with otherwise chargeable offenses
Well according to my fox obsessed father all of that was "proven" to be false by 50someodd number of politicians/political appointees that has recently been brought to light...
I'm too depressed and angry to look into it because every time I do he's wrong by some technicality thats too nuanced to explain to someone with their fingers in their ears "nahnahnahnah not listening, Hannity said fake news!"
Golly, if only Barr wasn't overseeing that aforementioned Department during that period of time.
For two and a half years, Garland was overseeing that department and also did nothing.