AG Garland chose a cautious path towards holding those responsible for inciting the 1/6 coup. Yes, DOJ prosecuted zillions of cases of the Jan 6th foot soldiers, but it took the recommendations of the J6 Congressional committee to persuade Garland to move against Trump for his role in the attempted coup. And, also yes, Trump used donor f…
AG Garland chose a cautious path towards holding those responsible for inciting the 1/6 coup. Yes, DOJ prosecuted zillions of cases of the Jan 6th foot soldiers, but it took the recommendations of the J6 Congressional committee to persuade Garland to move against Trump for his role in the attempted coup. And, also yes, Trump used donor funds to elude the law and delay justice. Shouldn’t the AG have anticipated that and begun sooner, not later? And then there’s the documents case, during which an entire year passed while Florida became a clearing house for the US government’s national security secrets. Once the AG belatedly appointed the brilliant Jack Smith, the government finally got into gear, just in time to prove that justice delayed is justice denied. I still maintain that the AG indicted trees and missed the forest entirely.
The Attorney General asked the Committee for their transcripts months before their Chair agreed to provide them to the DoJ. The AG tried to begin the case before the Select Committee made that recommendation. Further, the Seditious Conspiracy trials and sentencing set the stage to get the leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers to tell who asked them to come to Washington for 6 January. They trained to attack the Capitol well over a month before then. The pardons torpedoed that effort that put these folks in prison for a decade or more.
Whatever the reason, AG Garland was ineffectual: he was slow out of the gate and clearly chose the wrong strategy (the proof is sitting in the White House)
The Attorney General has a responsibility to not let politics rule over doing justice. Suggest you read the Special Counsel's final report. I expect all that are complaining about the AG's actions have never actually tried to get a criminal case investigated and go to trial or result in a plea of guilty. I have and it is extremely difficult and if you look at the • https://www.justsecurity.org/89122/clearinghouse-january-6th-election-interference-case-district-of-columbia you will see all of the obstacles that have placed in front of the prosecution of the case that led to it never coming to trial.
Speaking of people who have “never actually tried to get a criminal case investigated” that would include Garland himself as he came to the DOJ. You’re not arguing that the AG wasn’t ineffectual, you’re arguing that it’s not his fault.
The DoJ objective was not to make him unelectable. The objective was to gather evidence and use that to hold him accountable. Have you read the Supreme Court decision? Do you recall when the Court decided to accept the case? The decision was issued on 1 July, the very last of the Court's term. It is almost as though they knew that they were preventing a trial before election.
The issue is that the AG Garland did, in fact, fail to hold Trump accountable. And, In failing to do so, Garland highlighted the ability of the wealthy and the well connected to evade justice. It’s my personal belief that Garland is a good to great judge and a poor to average prosecutor. You seem to be arguing that no one could have succeeded under these circumstances, and I believe it was the AG’s job to develop a prosecutorial strategy that would. The American system of justice has failed its citizens when we needed it the most.
AG Garland chose a cautious path towards holding those responsible for inciting the 1/6 coup. Yes, DOJ prosecuted zillions of cases of the Jan 6th foot soldiers, but it took the recommendations of the J6 Congressional committee to persuade Garland to move against Trump for his role in the attempted coup. And, also yes, Trump used donor funds to elude the law and delay justice. Shouldn’t the AG have anticipated that and begun sooner, not later? And then there’s the documents case, during which an entire year passed while Florida became a clearing house for the US government’s national security secrets. Once the AG belatedly appointed the brilliant Jack Smith, the government finally got into gear, just in time to prove that justice delayed is justice denied. I still maintain that the AG indicted trees and missed the forest entirely.
The Attorney General asked the Committee for their transcripts months before their Chair agreed to provide them to the DoJ. The AG tried to begin the case before the Select Committee made that recommendation. Further, the Seditious Conspiracy trials and sentencing set the stage to get the leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers to tell who asked them to come to Washington for 6 January. They trained to attack the Capitol well over a month before then. The pardons torpedoed that effort that put these folks in prison for a decade or more.
Whatever the reason, AG Garland was ineffectual: he was slow out of the gate and clearly chose the wrong strategy (the proof is sitting in the White House)
The Attorney General has a responsibility to not let politics rule over doing justice. Suggest you read the Special Counsel's final report. I expect all that are complaining about the AG's actions have never actually tried to get a criminal case investigated and go to trial or result in a plea of guilty. I have and it is extremely difficult and if you look at the • https://www.justsecurity.org/89122/clearinghouse-january-6th-election-interference-case-district-of-columbia you will see all of the obstacles that have placed in front of the prosecution of the case that led to it never coming to trial.
Speaking of people who have “never actually tried to get a criminal case investigated” that would include Garland himself as he came to the DOJ. You’re not arguing that the AG wasn’t ineffectual, you’re arguing that it’s not his fault.
The DoJ objective was not to make him unelectable. The objective was to gather evidence and use that to hold him accountable. Have you read the Supreme Court decision? Do you recall when the Court decided to accept the case? The decision was issued on 1 July, the very last of the Court's term. It is almost as though they knew that they were preventing a trial before election.
The issue is that the AG Garland did, in fact, fail to hold Trump accountable. And, In failing to do so, Garland highlighted the ability of the wealthy and the well connected to evade justice. It’s my personal belief that Garland is a good to great judge and a poor to average prosecutor. You seem to be arguing that no one could have succeeded under these circumstances, and I believe it was the AG’s job to develop a prosecutorial strategy that would. The American system of justice has failed its citizens when we needed it the most.