Ministry of Truth?

[Dill]

(05-26-2022, 07:40 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: No, you literally said there was a SOL on 1/6 and GBS that was shorter than what was in the MR. If I missed the point, it's the way in which you conveyed your point. 

What I "literally" said was this: 

(05-24-2022, 02:36 PM)Dill Wrote: There is a statute of limitations on the 1/6 and Green Bay Sweep investigations as well—much shorter than any MR charges against Trump. If the Republicans win Congress in 2022, the Republican Party leadership will end investigations into the Republican Party leadership. 

The second statement defines what I meant by the first. It explains why the Dems have a short time in which to finish these investigations. That's how I "conveyed my point." It's like you read the two sentences, set together in a paragraph, as if they had no relation to one another--as if the first were a claim about the law and second about an altogether different topic.

(05-26-2022, 07:40 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Even so, it still makes no sense. If you're up against the clock because of the mid terms, why would you not indict on something, anything that you can rather than try to rush to build an investigation before a November deadline? Especially if a key goal is to prevent Trump from running in 2024. From the way I understand it, that was the driving reason behind the 2nd impeachment, so why wouldn't you move to indict since a conviction would accomplish the same thing? 

The goal of ANY impeachment is to prevent the impeached from holding government office ever again. The "key goal" of an obstruction prosecution would be to determine whether laws have been broken and if so, whether the law breakers can and should be prosecuted. However much House Dems might want to find the prosecution track which will convict Trump of at least something, that is not how the DOJ works under non-Trump administrations.

(05-26-2022, 07:40 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Also, you're assuming that it's either/or, that the government can't walk and chew gum at the same time. The government is fully capable of doing both, indicting Trump on what's in the MR while continuing to investigate the GBS and 1/6. 

Actually, I am not sure what the gov. is "capable" of in this case, in terms of resources. I'm not assuming that both cases cannot be prosecuted at the same time, but I don't have a clear idea of how the prosecution of the insurrection and GBS are soaking up time and resources. 

(05-26-2022, 07:40 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: No indictment = not a strong enough case to win in court. Not a strong enough case to win in court = we really don't know for sure and we can only speculate. 

Added thought....
See what you are doing here? You know damn well that if there was enough evidence, or strong enough evidence in the MR, that Garland would've indicted Trump by now, especially in light of the expiring SOLs. You don't just throw away the time, money, effort, and the stress that the country endured because something something bigger came along in 16 and GBS, or whatever other excuse has been offered up. 

Surely you don't believe that but here you are convincing yourself that is the case so that you don't face the facts about the MR. And this is what Im talking about when I say come to the Indy side. You wouldn't have to twist yourself in knots trying to defend the MR.

So you still have not taken the trouble to actually read the charges/relevant law in the MR, while telling me that I "don't face the facts about the MR."  

Instead of reasoning forward from the facts of the case and law you yourself have assessed, you continue reasoning backwards that no prosecution yet means, in principle, that no crime was ever committed--as if AG's ALWAYS prosecute EVERY possible charge against a criminal, rather assessing which are most worthy of court time and resources. As if everything you "know" about the MR isn't just what someone else told you--and in the case of one of your most highly rated Youtube sources, someone who like you, has clearly not read the document while appealing to "the facts." 

And you are simply dismissing the rather comprehensive and plausible legal explanations given in your own link to J and W., including 1) a possible challenge to DOJ resources, which makes time better spent in pursuit of the more serious stuff, and 2) that indictments are being prepared, we just don't know about them. That's just looking for any old reason to believe what you want to believe about the report, without actually reading it yourself. 

Why would an "independent" spend so much time dismissing the validity of charges against Trump while remaining an arms length away from the evidence?