Is Merrick Garland finally ready to indict Donald Trump Over the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol?

The Hill ^ | 03/15/2022 | James D. Zirin

[SeekAndFind]

The media have been quick to rubbish Attorney General Merrick Garland for his failure so far to indict former President Trump over the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. They have tarred him with epithets worthy of Trump himself, such as "Merrick the Mild" and "Merrick the Meek." And a host of former prosecutors and law professors have criticized his inaction, saying that Garland needs to indict Trump to vindicate the rule of law.

We don't know for certain, but it appears that Garland's Justice Department has yet to convene a grand jury to investigate the affair. Were they subpoenaing witnesses before the grand jury, we would have heard something about it from reporters hanging around the court house or from the witnesses' lawyers.

Justice appears to be riding the coattails of the House Select Committee, which has served a flurry of subpoenas, and has already referred two recalcitrant witnesses, Steve Bannon and Mark Meadows, to Justice for criminal prosecution only to see Bannon indicted for a misdemeanor and Meadows so far uncharged some fourscore and seven days after the criminal reference.

The case against Meadows is a simple one, and the long delay is vexing. It is possible that Justice is using the time to investigate, but this seems unlikely in light of the Doric simplicity of the facts. Meadows refused to testify. Full stop. It is also possible that Justice had decided not to indict Meadows for contempt of Congress; but then, why the silence? If they had let Meadows know he was off the hook, he would have loudly told the press about how he was exonerated. Finally, it is possible that the government and Meadows are crafting a deal, some testimony in exchange for no indictment. Time will certainly tell us the answer.

[Alas Babylon!]

James D. Zirin.

Not a reporter.

Full stop.

[Phlap]

Merrick Garland is a Harvard grad and no doubt a smart man. Given that statement is true there is no chance he indicts Trump.

[cuz1961]

Garlic Wreath ?

The guy going after memaws for shining light on the perverse and racist commie propaganda pushed as curriculum

that his son in law stands to make millions from selling

from the funding in that trillion plus grifter bill

the district of cartels voted on at 2:30 a.m. ‘ o dark thirty ?

That garlic wreath ?

Figures.

[Sans-Culotte]

It ain’t over till the fat lady sings is a Dan Cook creation. Not Yogi.

I always heard it as "the opera isn't over until the fat lady sings". Tom Snyder used to end his "Tomorrow" show with it. I always read Yogi's quote as "it ain't over til it's over".

[logi_cal869]

You’re partly right, IMHO: A post such as this merits a snarky comment as a reason for posting it.

But the rest of the story, since you ask, even though it’s Capt. Obvious territory:

The idiom used to be “don’t read the news, be uninformed...read the news, be misinformed” but the pursuit of truth also means “know your enemy” and reading their diatribes.

It’s the reason for a recent post of my own on Fox (including my own snarky comment) and recent comments I’ve made on moves by the DHS to vet all patriotic Conservatives from the agency.

It is one thing to have a government with leadership aligned against us; it is entirely another to have the government staffed by like-minded anti-Americans to do their traitorous leaders’ bidding, supported by what most of us agree is a compliant media promoting gaslighting & utter propaganda.

We all know what Garland is about; it’s clear the prior year that many even here are unclear about some sources, including The Hill.

I just wish there was a separate category for such posts other than ‘news/activism’ (should’ve happened long ago). My own files contain the header ‘media bias’ which archives pertinent stories, but I have no interest in archiving this one.

Add keywords.

[moovova]

"The media have been quick to rubbish Attorney General Merrick Garland for his failure so far to indict former President Trump over the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S."

Rubbish rubbishing rubbish.

[lurk]

Wouldn’t make it to even the first pre-trial hearing. There’s nothing there.

[Preachin']

If any sham indictment is issued, it’ll happen just before the 2024 elections. My guess is that it’d happen after Trump wins the nomination.

[xzins]

Just laughable.

President Trump was at a rally.

The 2020 vote was stolen, but not by PresidentTrump.

[sport]

No. Not close enough to the 2024 elections. They will wait until probably a month or less before the election. But you can rest assured that they, the Republican Party and the Democrat Party does not plan to allow him near the White House again. Not even as a visitor. No matter what they have to do to keep him out. Including calling Hillary Clinton for her boys help.

[Be Free]

Lots of reasons for no charges to have been filed as of this date. Most likely reasons include:

• Nothing illegal was done
• They don't want to expose themselves to the discovery process
• They want to save it for future use as an "October surprise"
• They know there is no way to secure a conviction
• It would reveal that all of this is a partisan, "get Trump" witch-hunt

[BiteYourSelf]

They’ve already cheated him out of his second term.🙄

[enumerated]

The decision not to post an article on FR isn’t censorship.

Deciding not to read a particular book isn’t book burning.

Avoiding CNN is not closed-mindedness.

[enumerated]

“Then they can say he is “charged” with sedition, which makes him ineligible to be on the ballot.”

Where does it say that in the Constitution?

[nathanbedford]

The decision not to post an article on FR isn’t censorship.

Deciding not to read a particular book isn’t book burning.

Avoiding CNN is not closed-mindedness.

(Emphasis supplied)

These are private decisions of the person who chooses whether or not to expose himself to the information. This is not state action nor is it concerted action to impose a majority or even a majority censorship but a private matter foreclosing those who seek information and therefore no business of the state.

But when a majority resorts to intimidation, shaming, zotting or banishment the moral or ethical distinction is without a meaningful difference from "censorship", " book burning" or "closed-mindedness".

I presume that you do not think that you personally need to be protected from the opinions or articles of leftists. I have no doubt that you believe that you are intelligent enough, moral enough and conservative enough to maintain your worldview and your faith free from leftist perversion.

The problem is those who would deny others the same presumption. I know you think you can stand to be exposed to leftism but you would deny me the same opportunity to be informed. You would deny me the same opportunity to express an opinion-however wrongheaded it might be. You will not accord me the basic bit of respect for my intelligence, for my conservative bona fides.

While I conspicuously lack faith in my fellow man, I have more faith in my fellow conservatives. When we cross a line, difficult to define but dangerous when crossed, we become like the very people who would shackle us to a soul killing tyranny.

[Seaplaner]

You choose to post such hideous nonsense.

Please consider another forum.

[jy8z]

You are 100% correct.

[enumerated]

“The problem is those who would deny others the same presumption. I know you think you can stand to be exposed to leftism but you would deny me the same opportunity to be informed. You would deny me the same opportunity to express an opinion-however wrongheaded it might be. You will not accord me the basic bit of respect for my intelligence, for my conservative bona fides.“

I don’t know where you got that. I am not denying you anything at all - I’m just expressing my preferences and acting on them for myself - and I am questioning other people’s choices. Is that OK? I’m questioning - I’m not banning anything, or even suggesting that anything be banned.

Keep in mind that what led to all of this was a comment by someone else: “Why do you post this crap?” I thought it was a good question.

Your reaction to that question was to call it censorship and banning. I think that’s an overreaction, which is why I said what I said.

To be clear, I don’t want anything or any person banned, zotted or censored.

I just think there are certain FReepers who seem to have the philosophy that repeating and obsessing over every Leftist lie is the path to freedom. This notion needs to be challenged:

I say it’s the truth that sets us free - not lies.