General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Funny how so many see Smith's report, and it's mention of "timeliness", as an indictment of Garland [View all]Fiendish Thingy
(19,023 posts)Pick your preferred AG, and explain how they could have forced the courts to proceed to trial before the election.
Faster and sooner are not acceptable answers, as they ignore the power of the courts to delay going to trial for as long as necessary, which is what the Roberts court did, and would have continued to do, even if indictments had come a year or more earlier.
Chutkan was in the process of determining admissibility of evidence that complied with the immunity ruling- that could have easily taken 6 months to a year, with appeals for every ruling.
Even once all obstacles had been exhausted (if ever), then its on to jury selection
So, Im eager to hear your detailed, evidence based explanation of how another, less-milquetoast AG would have taken on the corrupt Roberts court and prevailed.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)