General Discussion

Stargleamer

(2,324 posts)

30. It can be both an indictment of Garland and delays/obstruction by the Roberts' Court

Reply to Fiendish Thingy (Original post)

Tue Jan 14, 2025, 02:01 PM

Jan 14

it's not an either/or situation.

Many of us here knew pretty much from the start of Garland's appointment that Trump's lawyers were going to do all they could to run out the clock, and that time was of the essence and that Garland needed to proceed as quickly as possible to have a chance. This was not the time to be slow and deliberate, it was the time to bring up indictments as quickly as possible.

Also, as another DU'er pointed out some Trump voters weren't away of the scale of his malfeasance and this DU'er pointed out that they did a study indicating that if they had been aware they likely wouldn't have supported Trump. How can you say that it wouldn't have made a difference given that Trump didn't win by all that much in swing states, and getting a conviction, especially for theft of archive confidential material, wouldn't have changed voters minds? I myself even think that a lot of people who voted for Trump didn't even know that he was convicted in a NY court of SA, and 28+ women have accused him of rape/sexual harassment/SA--Fox News doesn't really tell them that, (nor of Trump's frauds (Trump University, etc.) ). I think though Harris and Walz should have brought it up in their respective debates.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

39 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Funny how so many see Smith's report, and it's mention of "timeliness", as an indictment of Garland [View all] Fiendish Thingy Jan 14 OP

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