General Discussion

republianmushroom

(18,460 posts)

34. The courts may not of been as protective of trump, if, he was indicted "sooner",

Tue Jan 14, 2025, 04:05 PM

Tuesday

we will never know because there was a year delay. It is My Opinion, if, there hadn't been the J6 committee, this would of been white washed and forgotten by the DOJ. The DOJ's collective heart was not into investigating trump for his crimes, more than 50 of them.
We do know there was a delay of more than a year. During this year long delay, is this when trump was able to persuade the supreme court to protect him ? And we do know after that years delay the court did start protecting trump.

And from trump's legal play book, delay, delay and delay some more and the problem may go away. And these did.

I could be wrong, but I could be right, we will never know.

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:

Funny how so many see Smith's report, and it's mention of "timeliness", as an indictment of Garland [View all] Fiendish Thingy Tuesday OP

Would the outcome have been different if Garland had moved faster? Ocelot II Tuesday #1

Exactly- regardless of Garland's speed, the outcome would have been the same Fiendish Thingy Tuesday #4

And even if he had been tried and convicted before the election, Ocelot II Tuesday #11

Yup- that is the sad reality Fiendish Thingy Tuesday #13

People had higher expectations of Garland than of Roberts and the other conservative SCJs muriel_volestrangler Tuesday #2

Nevertheless, the courts held more power than Garland Fiendish Thingy Tuesday #6

You're just supposing the SC would have done something else muriel_volestrangler Tuesday #10

All the existing evidence shows the courts would have continued to delay a trail Fiendish Thingy Tuesday #12

Exactly. The courts were working through was was admissible, not saying "this will never happen" muriel_volestrangler Tuesday #22

Indeed, that would be true Fiendish Thingy Tuesday #24

Again, you're just guessing what they'd try to do. It's a counsel of despair. muriel_volestrangler Tuesday #31

I've never suggested or advocated giving up Fiendish Thingy Tuesday #32

Your entire argument is "it was impossible to get a trial in four years" muriel_volestrangler Tuesday #33

That's a whole lot of assumptions and misinterpretations Fiendish Thingy Tuesday #35

Obviously, you have an idiosyncratic view of what happened muriel_volestrangler Tuesday #38

garland didn't even start investigations for 2 years... Think. Again. Tuesday #3

I thought Garland was a terrible choice for the supreme court, as well as the AG NewHendoLib Tuesday #5

And yet, the result would have been the same with any other AG Fiendish Thingy Tuesday #7

Disagree. NewHendoLib Tuesday #8

Facts to support your opinion? Fiendish Thingy Tuesday #9

Assuming what the court might have done is not reality. Think. Again. Tuesday #29

This is such lazy thinking BeyondGeography Tuesday #14

Yates could not have forced a trial before the election Fiendish Thingy Tuesday #15

Not handing down indictments before he declared his candidacy BeyondGeography Tuesday #16

Smith wasn't appointed until almost two years Voltaire2 Tuesday #17

You completely misunderstand the definition of, and justification for appointing a special counsel. Nt Fiendish Thingy Tuesday #18

Nice try. Scrivener7 Tuesday #19

See all the Garland failure excuses here Bobstandard Tuesday #20

It wasn't the courts that delayed the FBI from investigating trump republianmushroom Tuesday #21

So walk me through your alternative scenario Fiendish Thingy Tuesday #23

The courts may not of been as protective of trump, if, he was indicted "sooner", republianmushroom Tuesday #34

It's a failure of the entire system malaise Tuesday #25

Regrettably, certain individuals seek a convenient scapegoat when faced with events that exceed their control * Oopsie Daisy Tuesday #26

Spot on, I saw the light gab13by13 Tuesday #27

Hallelujah! Nt Fiendish Thingy Tuesday #28

It can be both an indictment of Garland and delays/obstruction by the Roberts' Court Stargleamer Tuesday #30

I don't give a f-ck if it disqualified trump or not. Apply the law QUICKLY ecstatic Tuesday #36

So walk me through how another AG would have obtained a conviction before the election Fiendish Thingy Tuesday #37

Two separate issues. My preferred AG would have moved quickly, which is a separate issue ecstatic Thursday #39