How about how Garland sat on all the stuff outlined in the Mueller report and just let the statute of limitations expire while doing nothing? It's pretty clear he intended to do the same with this stuff too, at least at first.
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.
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.
"He doesn't want to" isn't a huge leap when he's taking for-fucking-ever to get nothing done. Since all you're going to do is gaslight and sling abuse, we're done here.
You never gave any evidence of anything. You can't even give evidence that he, "did nothing." of course we're done here. You've got nothing but the blind opinion you want to believe in and nothing further.
Like... Did you forget the January 6th House Committee hearings? You do realize their findings were forwarded to Garland and it would be in the interest of Garland to wait those hearings out, right...?
You’ve got nothing but the blind opinion you want to believe in and nothing further.
As do you.
Again, you made the original claim without evidence. I did not. Don't try to resort to an Ad Ignorantiam fallacy, now.
Again, you made the original claim without evidence.
I may be wrong. The head of the DOJ might be diligently working to make sure a rich connected white man sees consequences for his actions. There's a first time for everything. You may be wrong, and he might be slow walking this because he doesn't want to.
My opinion is based on just as much evidence as yours. Somehow I've managed to avoid gaslighting you and slinging abuse.
I'd love to know how I've gaslit you as that term is thrown around like crazy. In this event, the default is Garland is doing his job. In this event, if your theory were correct then he never would've opened the investigation in the first place, let alone taken such caution as to get a special counsel with a proven record to ensure the case isn't tossed because of Garland being a part of Biden's cabinet. Again, literally none of these point to your theory at all. They point entirely in the opposite direction.
I completely sympathize with the frustration that we as a nation must convict Trump on order to move forward. It will never be soon enough. But true Justice does take time and 91 criminal charges across 4 independent grand jury indictments is pretty damn serious. I remember countless naysayers moving the goalpost over and over, first claiming he'd never be investigated, then never be charged, and now never be convicted. It gets tiresome.
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.
it takes time to put things together.
Particularly when you don't want to.
Source?
Edit: Yeah, that's what I thought.
How about how Garland sat on all the stuff outlined in the Mueller report and just let the statute of limitations expire while doing nothing? It's pretty clear he intended to do the same with this stuff too, at least at first.
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.
"He doesn't want to" isn't a huge leap when he's taking for-fucking-ever to get nothing done. Since all you're going to do is gaslight and sling abuse, we're done here.
You never gave any evidence of anything. You can't even give evidence that he, "did nothing." of course we're done here. You've got nothing but the blind opinion you want to believe in and nothing further.
Like... Did you forget the January 6th House Committee hearings? You do realize their findings were forwarded to Garland and it would be in the interest of Garland to wait those hearings out, right...?
As do you.
Again, you made the original claim without evidence. I did not. Don't try to resort to an Ad Ignorantiam fallacy, now.
I may be wrong. The head of the DOJ might be diligently working to make sure a rich connected white man sees consequences for his actions. There's a first time for everything. You may be wrong, and he might be slow walking this because he doesn't want to.
My opinion is based on just as much evidence as yours. Somehow I've managed to avoid gaslighting you and slinging abuse.
I'd love to know how I've gaslit you as that term is thrown around like crazy. In this event, the default is Garland is doing his job. In this event, if your theory were correct then he never would've opened the investigation in the first place, let alone taken such caution as to get a special counsel with a proven record to ensure the case isn't tossed because of Garland being a part of Biden's cabinet. Again, literally none of these point to your theory at all. They point entirely in the opposite direction.
I completely sympathize with the frustration that we as a nation must convict Trump on order to move forward. It will never be soon enough. But true Justice does take time and 91 criminal charges across 4 independent grand jury indictments is pretty damn serious. I remember countless naysayers moving the goalpost over and over, first claiming he'd never be investigated, then never be charged, and now never be convicted. It gets tiresome.
I mean, there ARE sources... They're just the Washington Post (paywalled) and the Nation (free to read):
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/its-official-the-doj-stalled-the-investigation-into-donald-trump/
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.