05-20-2022, 05:33 PM
(05-19-2022, 08:14 PM)Dill Wrote: So what are you doing here?
Are you faulting Garland for NOT indicting when you think he should?
Or are you, as I wondered, arguing that if Trump has not been indicted then there must not be a case there, and that's why Garland has no "confidence"? Not because (as J and W suggest in one of their hypotheses) the DOJ is swamped with other Trump damage--1/6 and the Green Bay Sweep?
The Statute of Limitations has already expired on several of the charges in the Mueller Report with several more expiring by the end of summer.
Why if there was anything that Garland thought significant enough and was a strong enough case to win against Trump, would he not indict, especially given that their SOLs are expiring?
Lol, that makes zero sense. It's now or never with several of the charges in the MR. Given the SOLs, don't you think that those crimes should take precedence over 1/6 and the GB Sweep? You and J and W are suggesting that they're going to just give up on the chance to ever prosecute the crimes in the Mueller Report because of 1/6 whose SOLs won't be expiring for another 4 plus years.
Quote:That's why I am asking you if you agree or disagree that Trump did what Mueller said he did,
and if you agree, whether you think Trump's actions were against the law.
If you don't think they were against the law, would you also argue that they shouldn't be--that a president who obstructs an investigation
into his actions is well within his rights, and shouldn't be subject to accountability?
If we agree with Mueller that Trump did what he did, and if we agree with the law that it was wrong,
then I don't see how one could argue back from non prosecution to say "no case there."
Sure, to read the MR I would probably say 'yeah it sounds like Trump did those things. And yes if he did, they're against the law.' But at this point and until they're proven in a court of law, they're really just accusations. It's one side. So to say that he definitively did them....? IDK. Give me a trial, then I will KNOW for sure. But Garland isn't doing that and his opportunity to do so is rapidly evaporating. So really, we can talk until we're blue in the face, but we will never really know for sure.
Show. Me. The indictment.
