•

Attorney General Merrick Garland says there should be ‘speedy trial’ of Trump as 2024 election looms

Exclusive: Attorney General Merrick Garland says there should be ‘speedy trial’ of Trump as 2024 election looms | CNN Politics

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/19/politics/merrick-garland-trump-speedy-trial/index.html

Attorney General Merrick Garland said in an interview with CNN that he believes there should be a “speedy trial” in the election subversion case against Donald Trump, while also pushing back on allegations that his department is targeting the former president for political reasons.

Exclusive: Attorney General Merrick Garland says there should be ‘speedy trial’ of Trump as 2024 election looms | CNN Politics

64 comments

FlyingSquid

•

Yes. There should have been. FOUR FUCKING YEARS AGO!

xor

•

he could shoot someone on the street, and the trial would still take long enough for him to get reelected and pardon himself....

FlyingSquid

•

The only good news is that he can't pardon himself from state crimes and the Georgia criminal trial is on the state level.

osarusan

•

he can’t pardon himself

Anytime I hear someone say Trump can't do something, I want to wave my hands in the air and point to everything.

Trump will pardon himself because he has no shame, and the people in charge of pointing out that he can't pardon himself will do fuckall, just like every single person with any repsonsibility has done fuckall the stop Trump from doing anything for the past 8 years.

There have been thousands of chances to prevent Trump from doing A, B, C, D, E, F, G, etc. And every. single. person. has done nothing at all to stop him. He truly is above the law.

Fedizen

•

The Georgia criminal trial does not have a lot of hope of succeeding unfortunately.

FlyingSquid

•

Why do you say that? I have not seen that suggested by people educated on the matter.

Fedizen

•

I've heard that its likely the case will get taken from its current prosecutor and handed to a state legal board that leans conservative and that there's a number of ways to do that. At best delaying the case for years and at worst dropping it entirely.

FlyingSquid

•

Heard from whom?

Fedizen

•

I want to say it was Ken White's podcast

vinylshrapnel

•

Bad news is DA Fani Willis may have fucked up with a sex scandal.

FlyingSquid

•

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has been accused of having a romantic relationship with a top prosecutor in the case against Donald Trump. Mike Roman, who served on the embattled ex-president's 2020 reelection campaign team, made the allegations on Monday but failed to provide hard evidence to back up his claims, RadarOnline.com has learned.

https://radaronline.com/p/fani-willis-improper-relationship-trump-prosecutor-nathan-wade/

Don't fall for their bullshit.

vinylshrapnel

•

I really hope it’s bullshit, but it’s going to a hearing. Hopefully it’s just an idiotic delay tactic. https://apple.news/AwW_1rTUOQx63y_9SdhIasw

gAlienLifeform

•

I really hope it’s bullshit, but it’s going to a hearing

I think that'll be just fine

Willis and her office have yet to file a response to the motion in Fulton County, The judge's order gives the DA's office until Feb. 2 to file a response.

Willis did have a response in a separate case involving Wade on Thursday, though — Willis was subpoenaed to give a deposition in his divorce case. Responding to that subpoena on Thursday, the DA accuses Wade's estranged wife of conspiring with people involved with the election interference case to attack Willis' character and undermine the prosecution.

Willis goes on to say Wade's marriage was "irretrievably broken" and that her deposition was not needed in the unrelated matter. Willis accused Wade's wife of having an affair and noted that a request to unseal the divorce docket, her subpoena and the motion making the allegations of impropriety all happened on the same day, Jan. 8.

[bolding added]

vinylshrapnel

•

Sounds like the jealous ex wife is being used and exploited to attempt to throw a Hail Mary to get the case thrown out.

PorradaVFR

•

If she did anything inappropriate that is separate from the election interference he's being prosecuted for. Much like Stormy Daniels' lawyer that is accused of ripping her off didn't change the fact that she was paid hush money.

I don't see it as relevant to the prosecution. Separate matter they're trying to exploit to muddy the water.

lolcatnip

•

Don't normalize the idea that self-pardoning is even a thing. It's not.

billiam0202

•

There's a difference between power and authority.

Authority is what the law allows you to do.

Power is what the electorate allows you to do.

A President may not have the authority to pardon himself, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have the power to do so. Laws are only as good as what the citizens will tolerate.

crusa187

•

Omg yes, this. Garland did Jack Shit for 2 years until Jack Smith got called in to start actually doing something, due to mounting public pressure. Merrick is a picture perfect representation of weak sauce Dems - pathetic. And now he says “hurry up”. Ducking infuriating dude.

thesprongler

•

Right, we're getting to the point where the Biden admin is playing right into his hands. If this goes through at those point, they are already primed to cry foul.

cybersandwich

•

He was going to cry foul no matter what. He will always cry foul. He's a whiner and a loser and he's going to complain no matter the situation if it doesn't go his way.

dudinax

•

Biden probably thinks Trump is easier to beat than Haley.

Chainweasel

•

It's not like they had 4 fucking years to get a trial done. They dropped the fucking ball and now they're panicking because it's already too late to push it through. He should have been convicted and incarcerated before the Iowa caucus this year.

gAlienLifeform

•

The only thing I'd disagree with here is that I don't think they're really panicking, I think Trump being the Republican nominee is exactly what our current administration wanted because he's the easiest one to beat in a general election. This is why as soon as the case got handed over to a special counsel with some degree of independence from the White House things actually started happening with it.

Ensign_Crab

•

I mean, that's what Clinton thought in 2016.

gAlienLifeform

•

Nobody thought he could win in 2016 and everybody thought that our system of government was too well designed and had too many guardrails to let Trump do that much harm

The voters learned their lesson, but the Democratic party's establishment isn't nearly as pragmatic

hark

•

Nobody thought he could win except all the people screaming about how bad it was that Clinton was running on keeping the status quo (when so many were clamoring for change) and how she was too arrogant to campaign in key states. Plenty knew that Clinton was fucking up, but Clinton and her fans were too far up their own asses to realize it and now they say things like "nobody could've known!" and "Clinton was right that Trump is a bad guy!!"

Ensign_Crab

•

Clinton's fans didn't care. They planned on blaming her critics if their second choice won.

thecrotch

•

everybody thought that our system of government was too well designed and had too many guardrails to let Trump do that much harm

It used to. Then bush and Obama spent 16 years executive ordering themselves unprecedented new powers which surprisingly enough didn't just vanish into thin air when their terms were over. And not Biden nor the legislature nor the courts have done squat to dial it back.

Chainweasel

•

I think it would have been better if he didn't get the nomination. There's a 1000% chance he would run 3rd party or independent if he didn't get the nomination and that would split the Republican vote making it easier for the Democrats to win when 2/3 of voters don't show up to the polls this year.

gAlienLifeform

•

Ok, that's a fair point, but either way it requires him to be a prominent candidate

RememberTheApollo_

•

Easiest to beat, yet there are a shit ton of people willing to vote for their dictator.

gAlienLifeform

•

No argument there, but the things that make social conservatives lose their minds for him make independents and everyone else sick to their stomach. No one can beat him in a GOP primary, but he's a terrible general election candidate.

Pyr_Pressure

•

He's the easiest one to beat yet they put Biden up again which is probably like the only guy who has any chance of potentially losing against him.

Put any 48-58 year old up and he is probably guaranteed to win. It's like the Democrats don't want to win.

31337

•

Nah, Biden is pretty likeable, neutral, uncontroversial, and a well known name. Kamala Harris would likely perform worse, for example. I'm sure there are many better people the DNC could have promoted by giving screen time and stuff like that starting years ago, but it was much too late to start that just months before primaries. And I'm guessing Biden and his administration didn't want to step away.

Unfortunately, it looks like the DNC is currently grooming Gavin Newsom to run for president in '28, and he's extremely unlikable, IMO. And I'm not even sure there will be a real election in '28.

bamboo

•

Biden is the only person who has defeated Trump in an election. Past performance doesn't guarantee the future, but it's not as easy as you're making it out to be.

lennybird

•

Sorry man, that's not how this stuff works.

You can have a quick case.
You can have a strong case.

Choose one.

Now consider you're:

Evidence-gathering and waiting for smaller fish to flip and issue depositions.
All the while evidence gathering has happened since Garland got in office.

... While you're up against a former President in an unprecedented prosecution where loads of outside money will be funding the defense.

So your arguments better be TIGHT. I'd rather they take their time and do it right.

SPRUNT

•

This is 100% the reason. Given the seriousness of the charges and the non-stick coating that Orange Hitler seems to have, this case needs to be way beyond firm. We're talking rock solid, gay porn hard.

Lemminary

•

You have a way with words.

Fedizen

•

it takes time to put things together.

Ensign_Crab

•

Particularly when you don't want to.

lennybird

•

Source?

Edit: Yeah, that's what I thought.

jordanlund

•

I mean, there ARE sources... They're just the Washington Post (paywalled) and the Nation (free to read):

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/its-official-the-doj-stalled-the-investigation-into-donald-trump/

lennybird

•

At least according to that article, they conflate stalling with treading carefully.

Naturally, the pursuit of charges against a former President of the other side does necessitate an abundance of caution to assure a legitimate witch hunt doesn't occur. If Garland is introspective enough to recognize human fallibility, he'd likely ensure that he himself wasn't fitting the data to see what he wanted to see.

Naturally these are unprecedented times and I think he made good moves so far, especially appointing Jack Smith.

Ensign_Crab

•

You expect him to actually come out and admit that the investigation was slow walked because he didn't want to do it?

You're just defending him because you like the lack of results.

lennybird

•

I'm just asking for source as opposed to one's complete and utterly blind speculation and conspiracy theories.

Your accusation as to my motives is equally blind as it utterly misses the mark as well.

Ensign_Crab

•

You want a source that involves reading minds. Your assumption that he's not dragging his feet is as baseless as my assertion that he is.

You're just happy with his lack of action and want everyone else to be.

It's not a conspiracy theory to withhold the benefit of the doubt.

lennybird

•

The difference between you and me is that in the complete and utter absence of any evidence whatsoever, your mind jumps to a conclusion that necessitates a greater leap in logic. I'm not making a suggestion either way, but rather recognizing that you and I are clearly not attorneys and have absolutely zero idea as to how long it takes to fact find, gather evidence, wait for lower court rulings and smaller fish to flip, get an independent council, and indict a former President with enough evidence so as to not make a mockery of justice.

There you go again, with wild speculation as to the motives of others. Shall I start doing the same? You just want this fairy-tale conspiracy theory that you understand and nobody else does and think you know better than the lifelong experts in this field. In that respect, you exemplify the Dunning-Kruger Effect and have just that much more in common with the maga movement than you may realize.

It's a conspiracy theory to speculate that there is obstruction when you literally have zero fucking evidence whatsoever. So please proceed to pull out of your ass this string of incoherency.

toddestan

•

How about how Garland sat on all the stuff outlined in the Mueller report and just let the statute of limitations expire while doing nothing? It's pretty clear he intended to do the same with this stuff too, at least at first.

Rapidcreek

•

We can't go back and correct the mistakes already made. However, we can correct the problems going forward. Starting with not treating Trump with as much deference as he has received.

Donald Trump is a prime example of what happens when nobody stands up to a bully.

cheese_greater

•

Wish he was up against more Federal judges like Judge Lewis Kaplan in the NY civil trials, that guy takes no shit.

cedarmesa

•

Canopyflyer

•

Well thanks for dropping anchor there, Admiral fucking Obvious.

dangblingus

•

Isn't Merrick Garland the one to make that call? Times a tickin.

lennybird

•

No, not really. It's entirely in the hands of the court and to a lesser extent Special Council Jack Smith and the chess moves he makes against said Judges (which some may be fair; others not so much aka SCOTUS)

randon31415

•

In the phoneix Wright universe, trials can take up to 3 days and no longer. I use to think that was a dumb rule. Now I wish that something like that was real.

autotldr

•

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Garland said he agrees with special counsel Jack Smith’s assertion that the “public interest requires a speedy trial” in the 2020 election currently set for trial in March in Washington, DC.

Garland also defended the department against allegations of election interference when asked whether he thought the federal cases against Trump should have been brought sooner – in order to avoid the prosecution of a leading candidate unfolding months before a presidential election.

When asked about the perception that the Justice Department is prosecuting Trump for political reasons, Garland said: “Of course it concerns me.”

The federal criminal case over Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results has been put on pause while a dispute over Trump’s claim of presidential immunity winds through the appeals process.

“With respect to the public, I hope they will see, not only from what we’ve done but the outcomes of the cases and the way in which special counsel have proceeded that we have kept politics out of this,” Garland said.

The original article contains 351 words, the summary contains 204 words. Saved 42%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

thesporkeffect

•

Imagine if this fedsoc jackwagon was a supreme court justice right now, instead of personally being responsible for the end of civilization

RarePepeCollector

•

So he admits openly that this isn't about justice, but about politics. As long as you have people in key areas of the government politically persecuting someone as high a former and likely future president, people will yearn for a populist president like Trump.

dudinax

•

Garland's not leading any of the prosecutions, nor did he originate any of the indictments. Heck, many of them aren't even federal indictments.

And if people don't want their favorite candidate indicted, they should start by picking one who's not a crook.