Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

Fiendish Thingy

(19,023 posts)
Tue Jan 14, 2025, 10:51 AM Jan 14

Funny how so many see Smith's report, and it's mention of "timeliness", as an indictment of Garland [View all]

Rather than of the delay and obstruction by the Roberts court.

Haters gonna hate, and hate and scapegoating are so much easier, and emotionally satisfying, than wrestling with facts and using critical thinking…

In other news, the report also lays out Smith’s reasoning in declining to prosecute Trump for the crime of Insurrection. This means, even if Trump had gone to trial before the election, and been convicted of all charges, he could still have been elected and served as president.

To reiterate: convictions on these charges would not have disqualified Trump from running for or holding the office of president under the 14th amendment .

There is no credible evidence that convictions prior to the election would have prevented Trump from being elected- it’s all speculation and conjecture (and frankly, fantasy).

On the contrary, As we saw on election day, 70+ million Americans didn’t give a flying fuck if Trump was a convicted felon, adjudicated sexual offender, or tried to overturn an election. He wasn’t an old man with a stutter, and he sure as hell wasn’t an intelligent Black/Asian woman, and for many, that’s all that mattered.

In addition, millions of Americans who voted for Biden in 2020 stayed home, either in misguided protest or saying in effect “we’re tired of all of this shit”.

And, of course, none of the above is Merrick Garland’s fault

I predict Smith’s report will sink like a stone and disappear from the media’s radar and the general public’s consciousness within 48 hours, possibly even just 24 hours. With Hegseth’s and others’ confirmation hearings, inauguration hoopla (did you hear Carrie Underwood will sing? ), and, what about Greenland? there are just too many other shiny objects to distract folks from spending their very valuable attention on this report.

That is the sad state of America these days.

And that’s not Merrick Garland’s fault either.

39 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Would the outcome have been different if Garland had moved faster? Ocelot II Jan 14 #1
Exactly- regardless of Garland's speed, the outcome would have been the same Fiendish Thingy Jan 14 #4
And even if he had been tried and convicted before the election, Ocelot II Jan 14 #11
Yup- that is the sad reality Fiendish Thingy Jan 14 #13
People had higher expectations of Garland than of Roberts and the other conservative SCJs muriel_volestrangler Jan 14 #2
Nevertheless, the courts held more power than Garland Fiendish Thingy Jan 14 #6
You're just supposing the SC would have done something else muriel_volestrangler Jan 14 #10
All the existing evidence shows the courts would have continued to delay a trail Fiendish Thingy Jan 14 #12
Exactly. The courts were working through was was admissible, not saying "this will never happen" muriel_volestrangler Jan 14 #22
Indeed, that would be true Fiendish Thingy Jan 14 #24
Again, you're just guessing what they'd try to do. It's a counsel of despair. muriel_volestrangler Jan 14 #31
I've never suggested or advocated giving up Fiendish Thingy Jan 14 #32
Your entire argument is "it was impossible to get a trial in four years" muriel_volestrangler Jan 14 #33
That's a whole lot of assumptions and misinterpretations Fiendish Thingy Jan 14 #35
Obviously, you have an idiosyncratic view of what happened muriel_volestrangler Jan 14 #38
garland didn't even start investigations for 2 years... Think. Again. Jan 14 #3
I thought Garland was a terrible choice for the supreme court, as well as the AG NewHendoLib Jan 14 #5
And yet, the result would have been the same with any other AG Fiendish Thingy Jan 14 #7
Disagree. NewHendoLib Jan 14 #8
Facts to support your opinion? Fiendish Thingy Jan 14 #9
Assuming what the court might have done is not reality. Think. Again. Jan 14 #29
This is such lazy thinking BeyondGeography Jan 14 #14
Yates could not have forced a trial before the election Fiendish Thingy Jan 14 #15
Not handing down indictments before he declared his candidacy BeyondGeography Jan 14 #16
Smith wasn't appointed until almost two years Voltaire2 Jan 14 #17
You completely misunderstand the definition of, and justification for appointing a special counsel. Nt Fiendish Thingy Jan 14 #18
Nice try. Scrivener7 Jan 14 #19
See all the Garland failure excuses here Bobstandard Jan 14 #20
It wasn't the courts that delayed the FBI from investigating trump republianmushroom Jan 14 #21
So walk me through your alternative scenario Fiendish Thingy Jan 14 #23
The courts may not of been as protective of trump, if, he was indicted "sooner", republianmushroom Jan 14 #34
It's a failure of the entire system malaise Jan 14 #25
Regrettably, certain individuals seek a convenient scapegoat when faced with events that exceed their control * Oopsie Daisy Jan 14 #26
Spot on, I saw the light gab13by13 Jan 14 #27
Hallelujah! Nt Fiendish Thingy Jan 14 #28
It can be both an indictment of Garland and delays/obstruction by the Roberts' Court Stargleamer Jan 14 #30
I don't give a f-ck if it disqualified trump or not. Apply the law QUICKLY ecstatic Jan 14 #36
So walk me through how another AG would have obtained a conviction before the election Fiendish Thingy Jan 14 #37
Two separate issues. My preferred AG would have moved quickly, which is a separate issue ecstatic Jan 16 #39
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Funny how so many see Smi...