tiedrich in the morning (on merrick garland)

[orleans]

Link to tweet

raise your hand if you'd like to see Merrick Garland testify under oath in front of Congress on live television for 11 straight hours to explain why the fuck he hasn't indicted Trump or any of his guilty-as-fuck criminal henchmen yet

[Bernardo de La Paz]

1. No. Since you are a legal scholar, experienced agent, or skilled prosecutor, you've offered your

Since you are a legal scholar, experienced agent, or skilled prosecutor, you've offered your services to make it happen, right?

[Orrex]

62. Feel better now?

To hell with obvious reality! B de La P tells us that we aren't smart enough to handle the truth, so we must have faith that--in spite of all indications--The Qualified People are doing what's right!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

66. I said no such things and you can't twist it into that. It is a big set of cases

I feel the same as before. See my post #5.

We know tRump committed crimes, but proving it in court is NOT SIMPLE and takes time.
We know tRump had collaborators, but finding them and convicting them is not simple and TAKES TIME.
We know financial crimes are intertwined, but tracing transactions through global numbered companies takes time.

There are millions of pages of documents: emails, orders, memos, letters, financial statements, transaction reports, computer files, international communications, codes, encryption, videos, audio recordings, tweets, hotel records, databases, manifests, server logs, transcripts, interviews, receipts, physical evidence even. But hey, you probably read faster than all of us.

That's before we get into refining the exact charges, researching precedents and court cases, building the arguments, working out expected defenses and counters to them, plotting legal strategy, and writing the documents and briefs. But hey, didn't you write a 50 page report in college and it only took you four months?

Charging and convicting a former president has to be done right, because if it fails it makes the whole situation much much WORSE and harder to get out of and much more likely to REPEAT with a smarter fascist.

You don't want Pompeo and Hawley and Haley to take notes and do it again smarter and more dangerously because tRump got off the hook due to rushed incomplete prosecution that sets truly awful precedents, do you?



The OP is entitled to a rant even if their opinion is all they offer. In essence, paraphrased, we have:

OP: I"m mad as hell but I have no facts other than broad outlines that are circulating around and generally known.

Response: It takes time to do a proper job on this and a shoddy job is worse than nothing.

Reply: I and the OP are smarter because we are more impatient than the people actually slogging through it and you are a pompous elitist for daring to say that the qualified people are smart to take it slow! Our impatience trumps all your points!

[wnylib]

74. +1,000,000

Arrest is simple compared to conviction. If DOJ arrests but fails to convict TFG and his accomplices, he will get stronger and bolder than ever. Developing a solid airtight case against him is not simple. TFG has no depth of intelligence, but he is very clever and smooth which is how he has survived for so long without consequences. He knows how to cover his tracks and destroy evidence, including the destruction of people who can provide evidence.

I don't believe for one second that DOJ is not going all out to develop a case against him. If DOJ was slacking on this, we would see Pelosi publicly shredding them like a piece of paper at a state of the union address.

[Orrex]

87. You mocked the OP in order to show how clever you think you are

Last edited Sat Sep 18, 2021, 03:01 PM - Edit history (1)

No shit there are millions of pages of documents and all the rest. Thank you for telling us all what has been painfully fucking obvious for many long months.

Some of us don’t have your divine patience and transcendent faith that wheels are turning despite a lack of any evidence that they’re doing so.

Some of us recall the failure of Fitzmas to do anything and the failure of the Mueller Report to do anything, and we reasonably anticipate that the 1/6 investigation won’t do anything.

But for god’s sake, the important thing is that you proudly step forth to rein in anyone who engages in hyperbole because THAT, after all, is the real crime.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

88. You are assuming my target was the OP. It was Tiedrich. Sorry to have confused you. . . . nt

[treestar]

69. So unqualified people should run the legal system

based on "obvious reality." No thanks, that could lead to revenge prosecutions against anyone. I'll prefer ours, which requires evidence.

[Orrex]

86. When a subject line starts with "So," what follows can be ignored

Instead of commenting on my post, you make up something else and then mock that.

It’s a terrific example of a straw man! Well done!

[treestar]

89. I can't keep track of the sarcasm today!

There's so much to be had over this!

[KS Toronado]

2. 2 hands down

Unfortunately it takes a lot of time to craft an iron shut case of the magnitude TFG is looking at.
Merrick Garland won't let us down, he wants to see him behind bars.

[Bettie]

7. I hope you are right

because I have serious doubts.

I don't believe he'll ever receive any consequences for anything. Rich white republicans seldom see consequences. For anything.

[Paladin]

24. I'm with you, Bettie.

Just how the hell much time does it take to build a strong legal case against such profound, open-and-obvious, evil behavior? Every day that passes by makes me more inclined to think trump, his family, and his assorted goons aren't going to pay any price for what they've done to this country.

[Bettie]

26. W and Cheney didn't

Reagan and his people didn't.

I try to have hope, I really do, but I have some major dread over how far the next grifter will go.

[Scrivener7]

43. Nixon didn't. TFG didn't on the Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Your dread is only logical, and you are absolutely right about "the next grifter."

[StarfishSaver]

42. Why not ask a prosecutor?

Perhaps you can contact your local district attorney's office and talk to someone about what's involved in investigating and preparing a case ...

[wnylib]

75. Excellent advice, but I doubt that

anyone will follow it. It's much easier and more personally satisfying for armchair "lawyers" to complain.

I have no doubt whatever that Garland is directing a team of investigators and prosecutors, along with help from Congressional investigations to build a solid case against Trump and his gang of traitors.

This is real life. It is not Perry Mason, Matlock, or CSI.

[KS Toronado]

79. My thoughts exactly!

[Caliman73]

45. It can take quite a long time.

I investigate abuse against elders and vulnerable adults. I investigated a case in 2016 that still sticks with me to today. What I saw, smelled, etc... was horrible. We had law enforcement with us, the DA was ready to go. Still, it took over 3 years to prosecute the case. The perpetrator was finally convicted but it took that long to prosecute something open and shut in my mind. That was one tiny County court case, we are trying to prosecute the former president of the United States. Merrick Garland has been in his position for less than 9 months and is facing constant opposition.

I do agree that the precedent is that the most powerful people in society never seem to face any real legal consequences, however, as I said, we see what we see and believe what we want based on the available information. We do not have all of the information and knowledge of all of the legal implications. We need to push, but be patient.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

67. +1. Facts and experience. Fancy that! . . . nt

[wnylib]

76. I had a similar experience regarding a child

who was being abused. I was in a position of mandated reporting regarding the child, a 7 year old. There were many signs of abuse, including sexual abuse. But no solid evidence sufficient to remove the child and prosecute the family. Her teachers reported many suspicions as did the volunteer agency that I was associated with. CPS did multiple investigations and maintained a thick file. They were able to order some changes in the household, e.g. the removal of the family dog that terrorized the children into silence and obedience. But they could not get substantial evidence that would hold up in court.

So I worked on developing the child's trust in the right kind of adults that would protect her from retaliation if she spoke up when questioned. Then, one day, it worked. Her class had a "good touch, bad touch" session. Afterward, she told her teacher what was happening in her home. Immediately she and her siblings were removed from the school and placed in foster care during the investigation.

But prosecutors and investigators still did not have corroborating, independent proof beyond the child's word. The detective in the children's bureau who investigated the case was a student at the college where I worked. I talked with him about my experience with the family. I had been helping the child with schoolwork and she had left some of her papers with me. He asked to see them. One of them that I had not yet read contained references to her abuser. It was enough to convict him.

Everyone associated with the children "knew" that something was going on. But it took a lot of information gathering and cooperation between many people over a couple of years before we reached the point of concrete evidence AND the courage of the child to come forward.

[RicROC]

78. totally agree with you.

How much time do we leave a suspected murderer out on the loose out of jail, while prosecutors build a case against him/her?

[monkeyman1]

29. there is millions of in this shit ! I'd like to see if one person could read all of it ?

[blueinredohio]

3. Me!

Me! Me! Me!

[agingdem]

4. I'm pretty sure

Garland is kind of busy dealing with voting rights/voter suppression and the gutting of Roe v. Wade..you know unimportant stuff like that.. now I know ragging on Garland is a thing here because he doesn’t have Trump sitting in a cell in some prison for the criminally insane like yesterday but we have to trust he knows what he’s doing and I do

[monkeyman1]

30. agreed !

[Geechie]

58. THIS!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

5. Which is more likely?

Which is more likely?

A) It takes time to get it all right because you get only one chance with the main case against an ex-President.

B) The case is huge because more stuff is being discovered.

C) A and B.

D) Garland is corrupt.

E) Garland is incompetent despite being nominated to the Supreme Court and to Attorney-General.

F) Obama and Biden are incompetent or worse because Garland is incompetent or worse and they nominated him to the Supreme Court and to Attorney-General.

[Evolve Dammit]

6. I'll go with "F" for 300 Alex. 45 exposed the underpinnings and lack of real guardrails.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

8. Your choice F equals Obama and Biden are incompetent or worse. You stand by that?

[Evolve Dammit]

28. The '08 meltdown- no meaningful accountability. Iraq invasion- no accountability. Gitmo still open

for business. I'm losing faith. I will try to reserve judgment.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

33. You double down. Are Biden, Garland & Obama incompetent or are they worse? Which is it?

8 combinations

B G O

I I I
I I W
I W I
I W W
W I I
W I W
W W I
W W W

Which is it? Who is incompetent and who is worse?

[Evolve Dammit]

38. Time will tell and historians will write about it. Obviously we are better with Dems in charge.

That's been my experience anyhow. All done Bernardo.

[StarfishSaver]

10. Excellent answer

[soldierant]

35. I agree.

I realize it's hard to hang onto C when TOT's venality is so DARNED obvious. But I've been thinking and saying C all along ... and reading D, E, and F provide some stark clarity.

I also understand it's nerve-wracking for the nation itself to be walking a tightrope, and no certainty there's a net. But it's BECAUSE rich white Republicans are so teflon that so much care is necessary.

[ShazzieB]

57. I am and have always been a C.

This stuff DOES takes time, you get only one chance, it's huge, and more stuff is being discovered which just adds to the time the whole thing takes.

I am pretty sick and tired of people beating up on Garland over this. None of us knows jack shit about what he's got on his plate, what he's up against, or what it might take to actually convict TFG of anything.

Even the people here who are lawyers and have an understanding of the process of investigating a case, bringing it to trial, and getting a conviction, don't know all the details and specifics of this particular case. And I've noticed that the lawyers among us are mostly telling us to be patient and give Garland a chance.

It's way too easy for people sit here and enumerate all the things they think he's doing wrong and the things they think he should be doing that he's not doing (as far as we know, which is NOT very damned far), when they don't actually know the first thing about it.

[sarchasm]

16. I'm gonna go with "C" there Professor.

I don't think there's ever been a more far reaching case than this, since it involves more than a considerable amount of collusion from the other side.

[StarfishSaver]

9. I love Jeff Tiedrich

But everybody has their own lane and deciding when and how the Attorney General should do his job is not his.

Apparently, I'm not alone in thinking this - given how badly Tiedrich is getting ratioed

[Caliman73]

48. Agreed. I think that people have their moments and limits.

It is frustrating to us as outsiders to see what we think is very obvious corruption, and no apparent action on it.

It may be a result of the culture of "crime drama" shows on television where very complex cases get solved over the course of an hour. Even when it is in the course of several days within the context of the show, it is still very unrealistic. My job puts me into semi-frequent contact with court and I have seen cases be continued, and continued, and continued...and continued, for months if not years.

I would live to see Trump perp walked and convicted, but Due Process can be long and messy.

[StarfishSaver]

50. Agree

Social media and 24/7 are also major parts of the problem. The constant barrage of information, often without any filter or fact checking, leads people to believe they are much more knowledgeable than they actually are and that their opinions on every matter are just as valid as everyone else's opinions, including those of experts, when it just isn't the case.

[Caliman73]

55. Oh man, don't get me started on 24/7 media and social media...

I am all for the democratization of information. I just think that people are not prepared for it and because it is simply seen as a commodity, something that is sold for profit, there are so many incentives to put out the worst crap possible.

I remember back in the day when CNN and Headline News started out with their 24 hour coverage. It was "Helicopter chases" all day long. Just video of the helicopter filming the high speed chase somewhere in Paramus, New Jersey. I thought then, "Why the hell do I need to know about this police chase? I am in Southern California". Since then it has gone downhill. Because they have 24 hours of commercial time to sell, they go with a story, and EVERYBODY's opinion about it. Social media is worse. You get "Jim from down the street", a shoe salesman, pontificating on protein spikes on Coronaviruses because he read somewhere how China is manufacturing deadly viruses. You have Nicki Minaj tweeting about her cousin's friend's sister's nephew twice removed getting swollen balls, so that you have to have the Health Minister from Trinidad & Tobago come out, do an investigation, and debunk that crap.

Now, we are all experts into what the Attorney General of the United States should be doing. I mean, we can all have an opinion, but I don't think that my opinion should be taken over legal experts and scholars.

[CaptainTruth]

11. Nope. We're not Republicans & we shouldn't want to be like them.

They can chant "Lock Her Up!" with no legal findings to back it up. Not us.

They can file unsubstantiated charges out of grievance & spite, like the 63 cases to overturn the election including all the nonsense filings from people like Sidney Powell & Lin Wood. Not us. We should bring provable cases backed by solid evidence & facts.

I've also noted that 99% of people who make statements like Mr Teidrich's have apparently spent 0 time studying the law & listening to legal experts about the standards that have to be proven in court to win a case. In that regard I have a modest proposal: If something is SOOO IMPORTANT to you, spend a bit of time & LEARN ABOUT IT before you complain about it. Also, stop depending on the government to do everything for you. As private citizens we can do things like organize ongoing protests in front of Mar-a-Lago. Why aren't there protesters there every day? Apparently no one can be bothered, it's easier to sit back & complain & blame others on Twitter.

/rant off

[StarfishSaver]

12. I am so with you on everything you said.

This armchair snarking is getting ridiculous

[ShazzieB]

59. I am right there with you and Captain Truth, StarfishSaver!

100%!

[Scrivener7]

41. Gracious. What a pant load. No one is talking about unsubstantiated charges brought out of

grievance and spite. We watched him and everyone around him break the law every day for 5 years. We'd like to see something done about that.

Also, we are not allowed to ask to see some progress unless we have a law degree? Or unless we have hopped a plane to protest outside of Log o' Merde? What a foolish statement.

People want to see some evidence of progress. There is nothing wrong with that. And we should have seen some evidence of progress by now.

There are some whose raison d'etre seems to be to chastise those who want to see progress. They seem to think it is their job to demand people not express any concern about whether justice will happen. They baselessly declare themselves experts and run around trying to silence anyone who disagrees with them.

Well, too often we have seen republiQans get away scot free with unimaginable crimes. Most recently with Mueller. So I am VERY concerned. And I really don't give a rat's ass that some have a problem with the fact that I express that concern.

[Bobstandard]

13. I'm with Tiedrich on this one.

I’d like to know what’s going on behind the scenes. Simple things, like, is there an investigation? Has Garland decided that some memo or other obscure precedent precludes such an investigation? If there is an investigation, who’s leading it? How resourced is that investigation. And, really, why haven’t there been indictments?

Many here assume that no news means that the complicated wheels of justice are turning. Well, silence may mean that they’re not turning at all.

[StarfishSaver]

17. DOJ is not talking about ANY investigations they're conducting or ANY pending indictment

Do you think that this means they are conducting no investigations about anything at all and will never again charge anyone with a crime?

If not, it is illogical to assume that silence in any way is an indication of whether or not any wheels are turning.

[Bobstandard]

27. Except, except

On April 21, 2021 “ Attorney General Merrick B. Garland announced that the Department of Justice has opened a pattern or practice investigation into the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government (Louisville Metro) and the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD)”

Cursory google search reveals others. But that’s not the point. The point is I agree with Tiedrich. You don’t agree. That’s fine.

Question. Should no indictments or details of an investigation emerge, will you just shrug and assume that there was a good reason? Will that satisfy you?

[StarfishSaver]

40. Except, except

The investigation you googled isn't a criminal investigation. While it's certainly possible that prosecutable crimes could be uncovered as part of that probe, the purpose of pattern-or-practice investigations is to determine deficiencies in policing and to recommend remedies to improve the way police conduct their activities. These are not criminal investigations and, therefore, don't need to be kept confidential. In fact a critical part of such investigations is that they be done very publicly.

DOJ does not, as a matter of course, announce criminal investigations while the investigations are ongoing.

I acknowledge that my language should have been more specific and referred to criminal investigations, not suggested that all investigations are confidential.

[tavernier]

68. Even a parking ticket would be a small sign

that there is some justice out there. Years and years of screwing over people without consequence does cause frustration with the system. Sorry for our impatience, but it certainly isn’t out of line.

[NNadir]

14. Merrick Garland has an outstanding legal mind

This was why he was nominated to the Supreme Court only to be denied a hearing by a political hack for the purpose of installing political hacks.

He is not a member of a crowd of thugs, or a lynch mob.

In most criminal cases, prosecutors build as strong a case as is possible, a legal case that reflects the rule of law.

In this case the rule of law is triply important for reasons that should be obvious if they are not so to everyone.

[StarfishSaver]

18. In his nearly quarter century on the bench as a federal judge

Garland never once had a written opinion reversed by the US Supreme Court.

[Ford_Prefect]

15. I agree with his level of frustration that we have had no major actions against the conspirators or

their boss, or the hundreds of enablers, toadies, along with other corrupt subversive former cabinet members and staff.

I acknowledge that the cases are complex and require time to develop. If we are going to get the gang behind it all we are going to have to decide where the bucks came from and who actually called the shots. Then we will need to prove that in court. The second thing is more difficult.

It does not help that certain contingents of the law enforcement community were complicit and remain so. It is even more difficult when powerful rich people own parts of the hidden network which enabled all of this, whether they are foreign or domestic.

It is made even more difficult when the MSM is compromised to the point of complicity and deliberate misdirection. Which is to say nothing of the ongoing efforts of those media houses who exist to broadcast RW propaganda along with Russian and Chinese funded variants of the same.

I also wonder at just how much of the system continues to be corrupted by those who came in with the last guy and have remained. If I think too much about that part I get start to get the idea that anyone he appointed or recommended, or whom his accomplices did should be arrested on suspicion and held until proven innocent. That way lies the path to firing squads and dangerous social unrest no matter how accurate the presumption later turns out to be.

[StarfishSaver]

19. You have laid out several reasons why these cases must be meticulously prepared

There is no room for error

[Gaugamela]

20. How about as a gesture of good faith we at least see some indictments come from Epstein's

library of video tapes?

Seems like that shouldn’t be such a hard case to make.

[Scrivener7]

37. You'd think.

[treestar]

70. "seems like"

Seems?

Shouldn't be hard to make? Should we do away with laws of evidence and just go on media reports?

[Gaugamela]

73. What media reports? All I hear is crickets. Nt.

[StarfishSaver]

81. Some folk have told us they saw it all in real time on tv

and because what they saw in the media was more than enough to convince them that that Trump committed crimes, there's no reason that prosecutors haven't charged him yet.

[treestar]

90. What seems like a "slam dunk" case usually isn't

It's that people want it to be easy and think it should be, but it is not.

[Gaugamela]

91. I'm not a lawyer, but it's hard for me to believe that there is nothing in Jeffrey Epstein's videos,

papers, or other property that wouldn’t lead to a conviction of some of his “clients”. Maybe statutes of limitations apply, but victims could use the evidence to sue the estate for damages. Epstein was let off with a comparative slap on the wrist in Florida two decades ago, because apparently federal authorities intervened. Someone or something is being protected. The first order of business in any institution is to protect the institution.

My point here is that I suspect this protection racket will apply to Trump, just as it did to the Bush/Cheney crime spree in the Middle East, or the drug running operations in the Iran/Contra scandal and SE Asia. We’ll see if Ghislaine Maxwell makes it to court. My guess is she’ll “die of COVID” first, or some other likely story.

Unless you are a lawyer, please don’t generalize about the legal system to me. This is just folks rationalizing their feel-good belief system. I’ve seen several videos of Glenn Kirschner where he pleads with the DOJ to bring charges, and outlines plausible indictments. He has said repeatedly that the Mueller report is a roadmap for obstruction of justice charges.

[treestar]

92. I am a lawyer and had a case in Chancery Court in Delaware

We had some cancelled checks. The master wouldn't let them come into evidence without the bank employees to trace the checks from the writing throughout their return. (Back in the days when you got your paper checks back).

They may need to trace the video from the person who took it and what they did with it every minute until it came to court. It may "lack foundation."

It's easy for a case to bog down in procedural questions and evidence questions. The other side of a law case doesn't sit around and give in.

[Gaugamela]

93. Ok, thanks! Then I defer to your judgment on this. Nt.

[sop]

21. Going after Trump would make him more of a victim in the eyes of his followers right now.

Over the last few months TFG's support has been declining, and after a few more tell-all books like Woodward's, Trump's reputation will be in tatters. Kill his name first, then prosecute the man.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

22. I understand both sides of the argument raging here, but I will say ...

I come down on the side of 'nothing will happen to Trump in the end over 1/6'.

Because nothing ever does. He's an expert at barely-skirting outright criminality, and POTUS's have a WIDE degree of deference, legally.

Frankly, I doubt DoJ is even considering charging IQ45 with anything.

I think he's more likely to go to jail over his tax/loan issues than anything 'political' like 1/6, but even that I doubt.

[happy feet]

34. I'm, unfortunately,

like you-pessimistic without some sign/any sign that something is in the works. And I'm normally eternally optimistic...but have been disgusted with lack of accountability of Trump and his minions the last four years --- wondering if DOJ is even intere sted in pursuing.

[sarchasm]

23. Tiedrich is dreaming an HRC whataboutism revenge fantasy

What I'd like to see is the whole guilty-as-fuck lot convicted with an iron-clad case. But as we've all seen for 4 years and counting of fuck-wad, and 8 of the war criminal shrub, odds are it will never happen. There's too much at stake for the corrupt tightwads that hold the keys to campaign cash.

[Bobstandard]

32. Which supports Tiedeich's point

Your comment, a sentiment I’m sorry to share, speaks to rot at the core. Sigh.

[StarfishSaver]

60. Tiedrich deleted his tweet

[BlueIdaho]

25. There's a lot of frustration right now...

I don’t want to grill him - but I would like to see a more assertive DOJ putting these criminals in the pokey.

[lagomorph777]

31. Hand raised here.

Also, wanna see Trump testifying for 11 hours on a wide range of his crimes.

[Scrivener7]

36. I'd like to see any evidence that they are moving on this. I don't need the TFG indictment first.

Just something. A low level person on the outer fringes being charged. Anything. Anything at all.

The lack of ANYTHING emboldens them.

[StarfishSaver]

44. Can you point to any evidence That DOJ is moving on any other criminal investigation?

Have you seen any statements, public comment, or interviews by the AG or any DOJ staff announcing criminal investigations they're engaged prior to announcing an indictment?

If not, why do you think they should make an exception here and publicly comment on the existence and/or progress of an investigation of Trump.

[Scrivener7]

47. So it's your contention that the DOJ never charged a low level person on the outer fringes

of a case before they charged the central players?

That's very silly.

[StarfishSaver]

49. You know that's noty contention

I'm simply pointing out the fallacy of assuming that the fact that You're not aware at this moment of what DOJ is doing and connection with any investigation related to Trump means that nothing is being done


Nice try it avoiding that point, but it didn't work.

[Scrivener7]

51. No, really, it was you avoiding the point. I said I want to see some movement. Like a low level

person being charged.

In a continuing and incomprehensible campaign to stop people from asking to see some movement, you cut and pasted an old argument that has never really worked and certainly doesn't apply as a reply to my post.

And "nice try but it didn't work" makes me think that this might be a matter, for some, of earning some kind of debating points on some scale they have in their heads.

So have at it, but I'm done here.

[Tiger8]

39. I suspect Garland is the WRONG AG

I understand he doesn't want to set a precedent of prosecuting a former president, and all that other gentlemanly, tradition crap, etc.

Trump is no former president. He's a dictator, elected because of Russia.

Trump's jackals are now emboldened, Hawley, Stone, MTG, Cruz, etc....feeling unrestricted freedom to further attack democracy. This is dangerous. This is war - and Biden needs a war time AG. Plenty of others eager to bring them to justice. Garland needs to resign.

[Scrivener7]

46. Lots of posts here are exactly the same as the ones we posted about the Mueller investigation.

"He needs time to make an airtight case." "It's such a lot of material!" "He is a great legal mind. He knows what he is doing." "We just need to be patient. Justice will come."

And justice never came.

[StarfishSaver]

52. Lots of them are also just like the ones some of y'all posted

insisting that the Democrats would never impeach.

[Scrivener7]

53. Really, Starfish? OK.

[StarfishSaver]

54. Yes. Really.

[StarfishSaver]

77. There were plenty of them - actually more than plenty. That argument was all the rage around here

Last edited Sat Sep 18, 2021, 12:44 PM - Edit history (1)

I remember them well because I joined DU in April of 2019 to help provide useful information about the process of impeachment and I spent much of my early time here trying to explain the process, pushing back on demands that Democrats must impeach NOW and fighting off predictions that Pelosi and the Democrats would NEVER impeach because they hadn't yet done it. At the time, many DUers accused Pelosi of being weak, not up to the job, etc. Sound familiar?

And when I and others tried to calm their fears by explaining that Pelosi was working to build the votes, that this takes time, and the fact that she wasn't publicly telegraphing her every intention and move and that impeachment hadn't yet occurred didn't mean it wasn't in the works and wouldn't happen, we were met with the same arguments we're getting now. The only difference is that people have replaced the House Dems with DOJ as the lazy institution and Pelosi with Garland as the Democrat they accuse of being weak, ineffective, cowardly and slow.

Here are just a very few of countless examples (and, interestingly some of these comments are from posters who are now saying the same things about Garland that they said about Pelosi two years ago.

Trump isn't getting impeached

Do you really think Dem leadership will allow impeachment proceedings to begin in the middle of a presidential campaign season? If there was any intent to impeach him, there would be preliminary hearings already. Instead, we have Nadler spending time "deliberating" on whether or not to issue subpoenas. We're locked into a "score political points and run out the clock" strategy.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212087188#post19

she has no intention

Her strategy is plain. She's going to make him look just as bad as she can, and do everything in her power to defeat him in 2020. She will never support moving forward with impeachment.

Democrats have until September to impeach, after that it will be too late.

What's magical about September?

Is there a rule somewhere or did all of the other impeachments in history tell us this should be the deadline?

And, btw. It's May. September is three months away. Who knows what will happen between now and then - or even in the next two weeks? We're not exactly working against a stopwatch here.

because then the hue and cry will be against any actions in an "election year"

It won't happen.

Why don't you tell me why you think she has impeachment

on her mind. Let's see, she said no impeachment yesterday, concentrate on legislation. The Mueller report has been out for a month this Saturday. We are being stonewalled everyday for witnesses and documents. The window is closing before it's too close to the election. Okay you go.You explain how you think impeachment is still on the table unless he murders someone that is.

If you really want impeachment to start now, here's my humble advice for helping to make that happen

1. Stop yelling at Nancy Pelosi, calling House Democrats "weak" or "cowards" and accusing them of "doing nothing"

First, they're not doing "nothing" - they're doing plenty. They're neither being weak nor cowardly. They're trying to get this right - and, if they don't, the people who are fussing at them will be the first to pile on because "they did it wrong."

And beating up on Nancy Pelosi gets you nowhere. She's not the problem. If she had the numbers and support, she'd probably be all over impeachment now. But she knows the landscape she's operating on and knows that she doesn't yet have the votes needed to move this. So, she's probably taking the hits in order to give time and space some members of her caucus need to get where you want them to be. Most members who don't publicly support impeachment aren't there yet because their constituents don't support it. Going after Pelosi won't change that and doesn't help anything.
...
We can all take the constructive steps to move toward impeachment sooner than later. Ranting and venting is fine and we all need to do it at times, but unless you're going the next step and actually helping to work the problem, you're simply exacerbating it.

Please - do something positive if you want to help make this happen

https://democraticunderground.com/100212141571#post1

Some of the responses to my OP:

I want an impeachment inquiry
It would really be the same as now, except there is a greater chance judges would rule in the House's favor.

I just don't think Pelosi wants to do impeachment at all, and is stalling to try to prevent it.


Why isn't Nancy Pelosi doing what she needs to do to get the votes?
The Democrats I know in meat space are overwhelmingly for impeachment. I know no Democrats (plus many independents) that are not for impeachment.

How do you know she's not?
Pelosi is the best at inside persuasion and whipping Congress has had in generations. But the key to her success is that she does it behind the scenes.

Don't assume that just because you don't see her doing it that she's not. People have lost their careers underestimating her skill at this.

Here is the thing,
...I'd like to hear more "this should be done" and less "why this can't be done now" from Pelosi.

From my perspective Pelosi does too much in her public statements to dampen the vote she needs to rid ourselves of Trump.

Yes but...
To my point above, the American people deserve to see real leadership on this, not just back room six dimensional chess. Right now that leadership is being muddled by convoluted and complex messaging.

[Nittersing]

83. StarfishSaver

I, for one, am glad you joined DU. When I'm trying to understand some sort of court case or legal action, I look to see if you've posted about it. I really appreciate your input and the time it takes to "translate" said info into laymen's terms.

Thank you.

[StarfishSaver]

84. Thank you

I really appreciate that.

[BigmanPigman]

61. Good point!!!

[StarfishSaver]

56. I think Tiedrich deleted the tweet

A smart move since It didn't seem to go the way he thought it would.

[Hortensis]

71. I just saw this OP. Didn't see the tweet, but the distrust

directed at our Democratic administration is more than enough.

Thanks for the the balance and good sense of many of the answers. I'm also remembering yet again that members of political forums inevitably do not reflect the Democratic electorate overall.

[kentuck]

72. What would any other AG be doing differentlY?

For example, Sally Yates?

The rule of law cannot be forced upon a country. Obviously, our country is not ready. Some are waiting on a consensus that will never come.

[StarfishSaver]

82. I think Sally Yates would be doing the same thing

Because like Garland, she is very meticulous and thorough and would make sure the investigations are done properly and completely.

And if it were Sally Yates, instead of Garland in this position, I'll bet the same people who are lambasting and second-guessing Garland would be giving her the same treatment ... and lamenting how much better it would all be if only someone tougher were in the job - like Merrick Garland

[Duncan Grant]

80. Bookmarking this thread for a 2023 revisit.

Last edited Sun Sep 19, 2021, 01:52 PM - Edit history (1)

My inclination is to believe there will be very few consequences for trump and members of his administration. All the methodical evidence gathering and strategic prosecutorial pincer movements won’t produce convictions or reform.

I’ll be elated if I’m wrong about this. I sincerely hope I’m wrong about this. Time will tell.

[Celerity]

94. Completely different OP subject, but there was an OP on the Delta variant

back in spring and the OP got savaged as being a fear monger, which was ridiculous, and now, in fact, subsequent events have shown they were actually underselling it. Also there were posters just trying to steamroller anyone who disagreed with their particular brand (never documented btw, despite repeated requests) of disinfo dross, backed up with a particularly malicious admixture of appeal to authority fallacies, and a dodgy, almost compete lack of real evidence to back up their positings.

I think that it is more than a little possible that there will be a repeat (in spirit and outcome) on some of these 'Trump will get (or won't get) his comeuppance' and the DoJ/Garland threads.

I am fairly agnostic so far, but starting to begin to lean towards pessimism a bit. I am still in wait and see mode.

[Duncan Grant]

95. So very true -- and familiar.

I’m guilty of defending my own subjective belief system(s) but on a good day, I don’t overly distort reality.

Wouldn’t it be lovely though to see trump, kushner, miller, etc. modeling orange jumpsuits after a protracted national trial? Makes me salivate…

[msfiddlestix]

85. I'm old as dirt and still waiting to see justice for countless former officials

At this point in time, if it hasn't been made crystal clear that there will be no consequences for the Trump Crime Family and their Criminal Organizations, it's perhaps time some of us learn that it is NEVER going to take place.

Not Today, Not Tomorrow, Not Next Year, Not Ever. And Trump obviously knows that he is free to continue every criminal, treasonous act he wants to. Because there will NEVER be any consequences.

Except for taxpayers, and our democracy will pay dearly.

And that is the Cold, Hard, and Bitter Truth.

We need to get over it for our own sanity, because no matter what "we" do, it's never going to happen.