Roberts rejects Trump's call for impeaching judge who ruled against his deportation plans

[BumRushDaShow]

71. I have posted the multiple timelines over and over

One of them -

Inside Garland’s Effort to Prosecute Trump


By Glenn Thrush and Adam Goldman

Reporting from Washington

Published March 22, 2024 Updated March 27, 2024

After being sworn in as attorney general in March 2021, Merrick B. Garland gathered his closest aides to discuss a topic too sensitive to broach in bigger groups: the possibility that evidence from the far-ranging Jan. 6 investigation could quickly lead to former President Donald J. Trump and his inner circle. At the time, some in the Justice Department were pushing for the chance to look at ties between pro-Trump rioters who assaulted the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, his allies who had camped out at the Willard Hotel, and possibly Mr. Trump himself.

Mr. Garland said he would place no restrictions on their work, even if the “evidence leads to Trump,” according to people with knowledge of several conversations held over his first months in office. “Follow the connective tissue upward,” said Mr. Garland, adding a directive that would eventually lead to a dead end: “Follow the money.” With that, he set the course of a determined and methodical, if at times dysfunctional and maddeningly slow, investigation that would yield the indictment of Mr. Trump on four counts of election interference in August 2023.

(snip)

People around Mr. Garland, who like others interviewed for this article spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss Justice Department affairs, say there would be no case against Mr. Trump had Mr. Garland not acted decisively. And any perception that the department had made Mr. Trump a target from the outset, without exploring other avenues, would have doomed the investigation. “Don’t confuse thoughtful with unduly cautious,” said a former deputy attorney general, Jamie S. Gorelick, who sent Mr. Garland, then her top aide, to oversee the prosecution of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. “He was fearless. You could see it then, and you could see it when he authorized the search at Mar-a-Lago.”

Mr. Garland’s allies point to how, by the summer of 2021, the attorney general and his powerful deputy, Lisa O. Monaco, were so frustrated with the pace of the work that they created a team to investigate Trump allies who gathered at the Willard Hotel ahead of Jan. 6 — John Eastman, Boris Epshteyn, Rudolph W. Giuliani and Roger J. Stone Jr. — and possible connections to the Trump White House, according to former officials. That team would lay the groundwork for the investigation that Mr. Smith would take over as special counsel a year and a half later. But a host of factors, some in Mr. Garland’s control, others not, slowed things down.

(snip)

Much more... https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/22/us/politics/trump-jan-6-merrick-garland.html

No paywall (gift link)

And there continues to be complete ignorance on how DOJ operates and their direct connection as "the law firm for the regulatory agencies" (using local U.S. Attorneys). This concept seems to be alien and people refuse to accept this concept when told about it.

You also have the issue of people not understanding that per the Constitution, STATES are "in charge of elections". So when 45 violated state laws, the states sat there twiddling their thumbs waiting on the federal government to "do something" when there was no direct authority for them to do such. They eventually figured it out and finally started investigating the issue of "fake electors". THAT IS WHY CONGRESS PASSED A LAW - AFTER THE FACT - TO DEAL WITH THE ELECTORS ISSUE -

S.4573 - Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022

You also can't selectively eliminate the judiciary interventions when "the defendant" used it to delay. During the multiple grand jury periods, you had people like Mark Meadows insisting on withholding info based on "Executive Privilege" and there were whole periods of time when that argument had to go through the lower, appellate, and finally to the SCOTUS to resolve before moving on.

Judge says several Trump aides, including former chief of staff, must testify to Jan. 6 grand jury

Appeals court rejects Trump's motion to block Mark Meadows, former aides from testifying in special counsel probe

I also point out a scenario of what DUers have demanded - instant investigations - and that happened with the RICO case that Fulton County, GA D.A. Fani Willis did. HER timeline -

Timeline: Criminal probe into Trump's efforts to overturn Georgia election results

(snip)

Feb. 10, 2021

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis notifies Kemp that her office has launched an investigation into efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the 2020 election, according to a letter obtained by ABC News.

The letter asked state officials to preserve any documents potentially related to the 2020 general election, "with particular care given to set aside and preserve those that may be evidence of attempts to influence the actions of persons who were administering" it, which would include Trump's phone call with Raffensperger.

Jan. 20, 2022

Willis requests to seat a special grand jury in her probe, according to a letter obtained by ABC News. In the letter to Fulton County Chief Judge Christopher Brasher, Willis wrote that the move is needed because "a significant number of witnesses and prospective witnesses have refused to cooperate with the investigation absent a subpoena requiring their testimony."

(snip)

July 11, 2023

Based on the findings of the special grand jury, Willis empanels a new grand jury to weight possible election-related charges against Trump.

(snip)

And one month after the above, on Aug. 15, 2023, Willis announced her indictments - Trump and 18 allies charged in Georgia election meddling as former president faces 4th criminal case

QUESTION

Today is March 19, 2025. Where is her case and why isn't 45 in state prison in Georgia?

ANSWER

The JUDGE tossed out some more charges (and now the whole thing is bogged down investigating HER instead of 45) - Judge tosses more counts against Trump and others in Georgia election case, 32 counts remain

So what happened?

Point being, the JUDICIARY was holding up ALL of the criminal cases - both federal and state (whether for trial or for sentencing). The only one that finally came to some sort of "conclusion" was the NY state one where the "sentencing" was basically non-existent (although the felonies remain).

I STILL see DUers insist that somehow, "charges were never brought", completely clueless about the fact that INDICTMENTS ARE CHARGES.

And don't try to "blend" what is a SEPARATION OF POWERS - Executive Branch vs Legislative Branch. That is another failure of the arguments. The way this system of a Constitutional Republic is *supposed to work* is that there are "checks and balances" and just because one party might have "control" over the Executive and Legislative, doesn't mean that they are always going to be "lock step" (although obviously 45 has decided that not only would he force such, but then he would decide to completely negate the Legislative Branch's role and go it alone).

This is apparently what DU wants Democrats to do.