The Jan 6 committee didn’t need 2 years.
Because Garland is very reluctant to prosecute. No conspiracy needed.
If we’re talking about months, would you consider indictment alone sufficient legal deterrent?
Of course it’s a purely hypothetical question. We would need access to parallel universes, constructed specifically to isolate the relevant factors, in order to know the answer with even the slightest degree of confidence.
But on the whole: yes. I think that if Trump had been indicted for his 2020-election-related conduct back in (say) January of 2022, then a lot of what we saw GOP figures saying and doing in the lead-up to the November 2022 election would have been different. And that effect would have been even more pronounced had people like Mark Meadows, Mo Brooks, and Ron Johnson been indicted, too.
Of course it’s all guesswork.
The pessimism may be spreading.
It’s The Nation. So what? It spread to one opinion writer?
Devin Stone aka the LegalEagle just dropped a new video which explains what the appointment of Jack Smith as Special Counsel means, and why it likely indicates charges are coming at some point.
Does he have an estimate of when “at some point” might be? I didn’t watch the video. I’m phoning this in.
No, and Devin certainly had some mild criticism about the pace of the investigation. It’s clear that he doesn’t think that all of this is absolutely necessary; as he says, Trump is just a regular citizen right now and there is literally nothing legally stopping the DOJ from treating him the same as they would anyone else who took the same actions. But he also understands the political reasons why it was done this way (though he points out that there are Republicans still whining anyway). He states that the regulations around the appointing of a Special Counsel do fit this situation, so it seems appropriate to do so.
As for his prediction, he says:
While trying to figure out what’s going to happen next is reading tea leaves, it probably doesn’t mean that nothing is going to happen. In other words, Garland probably would not have appointed a special counsel if he had determined that no prosecution was warranted. And I think that Smith’s experience shows that he prosecutes hard cases. Often the DOJ will only take a case if they think that they are sure to win, but it looks like Smith’s record doesn’t follow that adage.
I found the bit of the video explaining Smith’s background and experience to be interesting. He certainly seems fearless about who he goes after. If you want to skip to that part, this is where he begins that discussion and it only takes a couple of minutes. (Stone talks pretty quickly, though also clearly, that’s one reason why I love his videos.)
He also points out that this case is a lot simpler and more straightforward than the cases that Smith usually takes on, which involve things like corruption and bribery, and are as much political as they are legal. The law is a lot clearer in this case.
Can we get some new Garland apologist pricks in here to type condescending bullshit?
These ones are bleeding.
@Aspenglow imitation is the highest form of flattery. Who is infamous for promising stuff “in two weeks”.
Are you sure you want him locked up?
As long as we’re being insulting here, why don’t you fuck off with your conspiracy theory bullshit and blatant, mindless hatred for Garland. Use something spiky and awkward-shaped. Of course you’ll probably need to pull your head out first to make some room.
Keep bleating on about how “nothing will be done” amidst the flurry of shit being done.
This thread is aging as badly as the “it wasn’t a coup” thread.
At last, some Christmas cheer.
Don’t pick on Aspenglow too much, she’s just a genuflecting devotee of her supsriors. Without people like that, society itself might change. Might change for the better.
I’m waiting for someone to suggest a Trump Pardon to end our long National Nightmare.
Season’s Greetings.
WHOA!
What the fuck? <Scratches head…>
And while we’re on the subject, what are “supsriors”? Do I have them? Do you?
I assume it is a portmanteau for super scissors. They are all the rage with kids today.
We’re two years in now.
The only thing those guys are doing is hoping he kicks the bucket already.
US law enforcement is happy to arrest the rabble, they lack the will to go after their (former) masters. They simply feel it is not their job. (might even agree with them, let the voters and other politicians sort out the people they put in charge)
You can call simple observation
and some speculation about the motivations of career officials
Fact is that there is absolutely no conspiracy anywhere in any of my posts.
So go ahead, explain why
Nothing of any consequence is being done.
This thread is 5 months old. You can’t even get that right you fucking moron.
At least you’re entertaining! 
Yes, the age of the thread is obviously what I’m referencing there.
True. The vitriol-overkill of many Garland apologists in this thread is a strong indicator that they cannot rely on factual arguments; they must resort to making stuff up.
It’s possible that Garland’s DOJ will ultimately indict Republican office-holders or appointees, past or present, on charges relating to Trump’s attempted coup. It’s even possible that Garland’s DOJ will ultimately indict Trump himself.
But, as you point out: it’s been two years. More than that since some of Trump’s ‘stay in office’ plots were put into action.
And the DOJ cannot be said to have done nothing. On the other hand, DOJ cannot be said to have held one single GOP Trump enabler accountable in a court of law. Okay, they made Jeffrey Clark stand outside in his underwear for a while. But, again: he hasn’t had to face a judge or jury.
None of them have.
Pointing out this undeniable fact may engender rage in some. And that’s a shame, for the rage-engulfed. That’s a rough way to live.
But facts are facts.
The people making stuff up are the ones who say that literally nothing has happened, which is an outrageous, ignorant lie worthy of election deniers.
Can you criticize Garland for not indicting anyone yet? Sure!
Can you gripe about how long it has taken? Absolutely! I’ve griped in this thread about it.
Can you pretend that they haven’t done anything? Sure, and Covid was bio-engineered in a Ukrainian lab by Fauci on purpose to enrich the blood of children being harvested in the basement of a pizza parlor.
Trump has faced significant legal problems, has gone to court, has had warrants served on him, has a special prosecutor going after him. Garland called him out directly. If that’s not enough for you, that’s understandable. But to say that Garland is scared to do anything is willful ignorance. And too many in this thread have insisted on that.
The hyperbole that nothing is being done and nothing ever will be done is revisionist bullshit. And anyone who dares to push back on that is an “apologist”. Anyone who doesn’t agree with it is “enraged”. This pathetic propaganda is frankly sad.
I know this is the Pit but for fucks’ sake, at least agree on fucking facts you dipshits. The facts don’t care about your feelings or opinions.
It’s telling that you’re only going to find this revisionism in the Pit, because in the non-Pit threads as you see in P&E, where news is being discussed, it doesn’t really work. It’s much easier to play make-believe here.
Straw man arguments truly are the easiest to knock down.
Not a particularly respectable enterprise, though, is it?
(My bolding in the quotations.)
Read the OP, ignoramus. Read the shifting goal posts throughout this entire thread.
I mean, you griped in July about how there is no special counsel.
You got your wish there. But still, no acknowledgement? No adjustment of any of your arguments? Same old song regardless of what happens.
These aren’t straw men. You just have a short memory.
The OP said that the DOJ will never go after anyone. And just today…
It’s not a straw man. It’s the current argument of people right now arguing that the DOJ isn’t doing anything. You’re carrying water for an hyperbolic idiot like Librarian by saying…
And pretending that’s what Librarian is saying. But you’re saying completely different things here.