Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Funny how so many see Smith's report, and it's mention of "timeliness", as an indictment of Garland [View all]Fiendish Thingy
(19,023 posts)6. Nevertheless, the courts held more power than Garland
Even if he obtained indictments at lightning speed, the courts still would have prevented a trial before election day.
There was nothing within Garland or Smiths authority that could have forced the courts to hold a trial before the election.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
39 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Funny how so many see Smith's report, and it's mention of "timeliness", as an indictment of Garland [View all]
Fiendish Thingy
Jan 14
OP
Exactly- regardless of Garland's speed, the outcome would have been the same
Fiendish Thingy
Jan 14
#4
People had higher expectations of Garland than of Roberts and the other conservative SCJs
muriel_volestrangler
Jan 14
#2
All the existing evidence shows the courts would have continued to delay a trail
Fiendish Thingy
Jan 14
#12
Exactly. The courts were working through was was admissible, not saying "this will never happen"
muriel_volestrangler
Jan 14
#22
Again, you're just guessing what they'd try to do. It's a counsel of despair.
muriel_volestrangler
Jan 14
#31
Your entire argument is "it was impossible to get a trial in four years"
muriel_volestrangler
Jan 14
#33
I thought Garland was a terrible choice for the supreme court, as well as the AG
NewHendoLib
Jan 14
#5
You completely misunderstand the definition of, and justification for appointing a special counsel. Nt
Fiendish Thingy
Jan 14
#18
The courts may not of been as protective of trump, if, he was indicted "sooner",
republianmushroom
Jan 14
#34
Regrettably, certain individuals seek a convenient scapegoat when faced with events that exceed their control *
Oopsie Daisy
Jan 14
#26
It can be both an indictment of Garland and delays/obstruction by the Roberts' Court
Stargleamer
Jan 14
#30
So walk me through how another AG would have obtained a conviction before the election
Fiendish Thingy
Jan 14
#37