Ministry of Truth?

[Dill]

(05-18-2022, 09:17 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Quote:As for Garland and the Mueller Report, I think the Juresic/Wittes article sums it up well enough. They give 5 reasons why Garland may or may not be acting on this.  I am fine with everything they say. What could I add? 

Again, if there truly is damning evidence that can get a prosecution, then there are no excuses to not indict Trump. Especially given the gravity of the charges and who is being charged. 

Quote:I hope you are not trying to argue that if Garland is not prosecuting, then the documented obstruction really wasn't there, and really wasn't illegal.

We don't know because Trump has not been indicted, tried, or convicted. To me, the lack of indictment speaks volumes about Garlands confidence to win a case with the evidence in the Mueller report. 

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? 

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."