Tulsi Gabbard has been confirmed as President Donald Trump’s director of national intelligence, and while she did not receive support from Democrats, the party failed to exercise every option ...
They immediately begin what is literally the largest criminal investigation and prosecution in the DOJ’s history, going after Jan 6th insurrectionists.
They continue getting confessions, plea deals, and building a bottom-up investigation that builds corroborating evidence
These under the constraints of:
Federal judges including SCOTUS stacked with Trump-appointed corrupt judges.
Garland going up against an organized crime syndicate with an entire party and propaganda apparatus and effectively unlimited money to put up in defense.
A jury pool almost impossible to be untainted while Defense need only convince 1 idiot on the jury.
By 2022, the Congressional Jan 6th hearings went all the way through summer and into October. If you’re Garland, you observe and gather more evidence because why not? Just keep strengthening the case. You’ll need it.
Garland hands off to Jack Smith literally the day after Trump formally files to run for President again (again, to avoid technicalities on conflict of interest).
As late as 2023, Smith gets massive testimonies from the likes of Trump’s Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows. Valuable enough to grant immunity.
It seems very obvious to me that this was a classic bottom-up case you see similar to RICO cases in white collar or organized crime syndicates. Garland had to ensure his case was extremely tight given the nature of going after a former President and the courts.
Let’s instead blame:
The courts who were ones proven to actually obstruct.
The voters who many saw what happened and still chose to sit out or still vote for the felon.
I’d rather he have done it right and not get a verdict than rush it and Trump gets vindicated by a technicality or a Not Guilty.
I know a lot of people are frustrated, but using Garland or Smith as the scapegoat makes zero sense. Just because it didn’t go as quickly as we as the general public and legal laypersons wished doesn’t mean he delayed. There is no actual evidence he delayed anything. In fact I’ll go so far as to say Garland did everything perfectly and it was pretty much an impossible feat given the cards stacked against him.
Didn’t he wait until 2023 or at least until mid 2022 before he started anything?
These under the constraints of:
It seems very obvious to me that this was a classic bottom-up case you see similar to RICO cases in white collar or organized crime syndicates. Garland had to ensure his case was extremely tight given the nature of going after a former President and the courts.
Let’s instead blame:
I’d rather he have done it right and not get a verdict than rush it and Trump gets vindicated by a technicality or a Not Guilty.
I know a lot of people are frustrated, but using Garland or Smith as the scapegoat makes zero sense. Just because it didn’t go as quickly as we as the general public and legal laypersons wished doesn’t mean he delayed. There is no actual evidence he delayed anything. In fact I’ll go so far as to say Garland did everything perfectly and it was pretty much an impossible feat given the cards stacked against him.