General Discussion

quakerboy

(14,179 posts)

55. Literally? Which court. What case?

Wed Dec 11, 2024, 10:23 PM

Wednesday

I cant seem to find any evidence of garland being in any court on Nov 5 or 6th of this year.

That said.. 2024 was too late. If he'd literally been in court in late 2021, delays and appeals would be relatively dealt with by now. Instead the most relevant didnt even start till 2023, when it became clear he was running again. The timing, ironically, appears entirely political, and it seems pretty clear Garland would not have filed charges on him if Trump had done the traditional thing and quietly walked away from politics.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Scrivener7

69 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Garland failed us again..... [View all] getagrip_already Tuesday OP

But he would have made a great supreme Court Justice JanMichael Tuesday #1

What is wrong with these people? Bluethroughu Tuesday #3

I am beginning to suspect this was common practice in the old days. Baitball Blogger Tuesday #5

I can only speak to the 1990's - my time in Washington TBF Wednesday #43

They are human. And they are easily lured by money/power and/or threatened with blackmail/extortion. erronis Wednesday #24

Not just the lure of bribes and pay offs Farmer-Rick Wednesday #34

They have no fight in them ThePartyThatListens 8 hrs ago #68

I'm not so sure. He seems to prefer sitting on the fence and never rocking a boat. Lonestarblue Wednesday #38

Institutions always cover their own asses rather than expose themselves, RockRaven Tuesday #2

But needed edhopper Tuesday #4

he was literally in court when voters effectively cut his prosecutions short bigtree Tuesday #6

Really? getagrip_already Tuesday #11

The DOJ has been slow walking the Paxton Sewa Tuesday #18

Source? tia uponit7771 Wednesday #40

Literally? Which court. What case? quakerboy Wednesday #55

Garland's prosecutor, Tom Windom, was presenting the government's responses to immunity claims before Judge Chutkan bigtree Yesterday #56

so, too little too late, and not literally at all. quakerboy 21 hrs ago #57

weird that you say nothing about the judges and judges who actually delayed the cases bigtree 17 hrs ago #58

Absolutely. Thank you. ancianita 15 hrs ago #60

He's a professorial weenie guy. Pipe and elbow patches Klarkashton Tuesday #7

Hes a republican. Whalt would you expect... n/t slightlv Tuesday #9

I've seen that mentioned a few times, but I can't find any confirmation in various bios and articles LauraInLA Wednesday #32

No, I've just seen it when articles have been written about him. slightlv Wednesday #39

Thanks; I'll keep looking and report ugh it's kind of moot. I found articles about Obama picking him as LauraInLA Wednesday #45

He's actually a registered independent, with a bunch of milquetoast do-nothing centrist views that only serve to aid the Karasu Wednesday #49

Times like this when I wish Tish James or Alvin Bragg were AG Jit423 Tuesday #8

Maybe Garland was concerned he'd have to do some similar wiretapping. Silent Type Tuesday #10

If it was simililarly illegal.... getagrip_already Tuesday #12

To catch crooks like trump, Gaetz, and a host of government crimes. But you have a point. Silent Type Tuesday #15

GARLAND is such a weak broke d*ck, it is just so dis appointed NotHardly Tuesday #13

You don't know how the DOJ historically works. ancianita Tuesday #14

Protecting, because the one sitting does not want to be investigated when he leaves. status que republianmushroom Wednesday #28

"They can but they don't" Farmer-Rick Wednesday #36

It's about ancianita Wednesday #46

If the system doesn't work, it most definitely Farmer-Rick 17 hrs ago #59

Thanks for your post. I'll think on it. ancianita 15 hrs ago #64

link to story? LymphocyteLover Tuesday #16

Would Biden have picked Garland if he weren't Obama's SC pick? LisaM Tuesday #17

Obama had to pick someone he thought Republicans would confirm MadameButterfly Wednesday #21

No, he didn't. I think maybe be thought we owed Garland something. LisaM Wednesday #22

Doug Jones was an obvious excellent choice but MadameButterfly Wednesday #41

Garland is a Republican, if he was working for Trump how would his behavior be different? Ranting Randy Wednesday #19

Post removed Post removed Wednesday #23

Nothing different. He went after Dems and let the coup keep going. onecaliberal Wednesday #52

why was this removed? Grasswire2 Wednesday #54

This message was self-deleted by its author LudwigPastorius Wednesday #20

Nothing, but protecting an ex-president and DOJ. the legacy of Merrick the Meek. republianmushroom Wednesday #25

Absolutely Rebl2 15 hrs ago #61

Where's the full Jack Smith report ... Escape Wednesday #26

Were is Mueller's report un-redacted ? republianmushroom Wednesday #29

Guess we just have to be patient... Escape Wednesday #35

Oh Rebl2 15 hrs ago #62

No. He didn't AKwannabe Wednesday #27

He's the worst Beckett Wednesday #30

His spine is a mushy wet noodle Cthulu on call Wednesday #31

Yep Rebl2 15 hrs ago #63

Can he be held liable for... 2naSalit Wednesday #33

so you want to bring a suit against him for not prosecuting Trump bigtree 14 hrs ago #65

Um... 2naSalit 9 hrs ago #66

it's untrue that he 'pissed away three years' bigtree 8 hrs ago #67

"Garland knew, and did nothing to prosecute or even investigate it" uncledad Wednesday #37

Biden appointed him and could have fired him any time MichMan Wednesday #42

A Picture of A Duck??? BurnDoubt Wednesday #44

Garland nowforever Wednesday #47

Caspar Milquetoast on tranquilizers. nt Xipe Totec Wednesday #48

Stupid "gotcha" appointment HereForTheParty Wednesday #50

at some point it just isn't failure Skittles Wednesday #51

☝🏾☝🏾☝🏾THIS !!!☝🏾☝🏾☝🏾 uponit7771 7 hrs ago #69

Garland did exactly what he was tasked to do Picaro Wednesday #53