Worse case scenario we can use the same strategy we used in 2020 - GOTV and vote them out of office.

Worst case scenario - history will judge Trump and his Magat cult poorly, that is dependent upon who writes the history books though.

And you're right, I keep saying "we just need everyone who showed up in 2020 to do it again, and hopefully bring a friend this time."

It is utterly mystifying

I wonder at what point Trump's presidential campaign becomes the reason we don't go after him? A year before the election? January 1, 2024? 90 days? 60 days? 11 days?

But you already knew that.

The moratorium affects only investigations, not prosecutions or trials.

If Trump is indicted before Labor Day 2024, nothing will prevent him being tried for his crimes.

The 60-day rule is an interpretation of the Justice Department’s internal guidance to protect the federal agency’s reputation for political neutrality.

Every election season, the attorney general reissues the department’s Election Year Sensitivities memo to staff. Garland issued his memo on May 25, 2022.

“Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of public statements (attributed or not), investigative steps, criminal charges, or any other action in any matter or case for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party,” Garland’s 2022 memo explains.

Garland’s memo essentially reiterates the language from the department’s substantial internal policy manual on election season investigations.

But Garland’s memo does not suggest that a clear 60-day rule exists.

It merely suggests that actions taken closer to an election ought to be especially scrutinized to ensure that the Justice Department does not appear to purposely advantage a candidate or party.
https://theconversation.com/the-justice-departments-dilemma-over-prosecuting-politicians-before-an-election-190608

What the Garland memo really means for investigating Trump

The Justice Department is already investigating Jan. 6 and has taking some very overt steps involving Trump aides and advisers — including since the memo was issued. That’s not equivalent to a formal investigation into Trump. But about the only way this memo would matter is if investigators wanted to investigate Trump, asked Garland, and he said no.

Some Trump critics will fear that an allegedly reluctant Garland might use this policy as an excuse to stifle such an investigation. But Garland will have to contend with extensive public evidence from the congressional Jan. 6 investigation and the Justice Department’s own investigations of related matters that would certainly make that difficult to justify.

Garland’s top deputy, Lisa Monaco, was asked Tuesday whether Trump getting into the race would have any impact on the investigation, and she suggested it wouldn’t.

“We’re going to continue to do our job, to follow the facts wherever they go, no matter where they lead, no matter to what level,” she said at a cybersecurity conference at Fordham University in New York. “We’re going to continue to investigate what was fundamentally an attack on our democracy.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/19/garland-memo-presidential-candidates-investigations/

And previous historical practice. (Comey’s actions in 2016 were contrary to established policy and practice)

For instance, DOJ indicted a sitting congressman running for re-election in late August 2018, shortly before the midterms that year.

Or, you can believe your imagination.

...it's every bit as good as actual testimony.

Hello, Garland?

Of course, we all know DOJ wasn't constantly bogged down with court challenges and appeals from high profile witnesses based on claims of privilege, but was needlessly presenting evidence and testimony from individual witnesses to their dual grand juries when all they needed to do was read a Salon article to jurors.

Here's hoping they just leave all of that pesky evidence on the floor and just rush right into court. Surely there's no chance those millions who voted for the defendant for president won't sit on the jury in judgment, and won't need more than a wink and a nod from Jack Smith to run their guy into the ground.

Let's just get into the trials. EVERYBODY knows he's guilty. FARK ALL THAT GATHERING EVIDENCE STUFF and DO YOUR JOB!

Probably.

those are your words. Were there some DUers crying to lock him up? Of course there were, it was in response to Trump's cries to lock up Hillary, that is all.

We know that Fani Willis and Alvin Bragg and Letitia James are not afraid to indict Donald Trump. Fani Willis opened up her investigation into Trump in March 2021 and it has taken her this long to get to a situation of indictment, I have absolutely no problem with that time frame. Fani Willis has much less resources than DOJ has, kudos to her for leading the way.

In Merrick Garland's own words, he is an institutionalist. Garland will not indict someone if he feels it will do damage to the institution.

Cassidy Hutchinsons's testimony before the J6 committee shocked Merrick Garland into action. Listen to what former top notch prosecutors said about how DOJ always wants to be first, to lead the way in big time criminal investigations.

Why did the J6 committee interview Cassidy Hutchinson ahead of DOJ?

Remember back to 2021 when people were urging Garland to appoint a special counsel and the #1 criticism to not do that was? Do you remember? The #1 criticism was because a special counsel would take too long to hold Trump accountable. You can't make this stuff up.

..the first criticisms ever of Garland's decision to appoint Smith were complaints he would 'slow down' the investigation.

Now there's this revisionism.

It's fiction that Hutchinson's testimony sparked the appointment. As Garland reasoned at the time, it was the near certainty that Biden would be a candidate in the next election, and that is what prompted the appointment.

from DOJ:

“Based on recent developments, including the former President’s announcement that he is a candidate for President in the next election, and the sitting President’s stated intention to be a candidate as well, I have concluded that it is in the public interest to appoint a special counsel,” said Attorney General Garland. “Such an appointment underscores the Department’s commitment to both independence and accountability in particularly sensitive matters. It also allows prosecutors and agents to continue their work expeditiously, and to make decisions indisputably guided only by the facts and the law.”

The Attorney General also stated, “Although the Special Counsel will not be subject to the day-to-day supervision of any official of the Department, he must comply with the regulations, procedures, and policies of the Department. I will ensure that the Special Counsel receives the resources to conduct this work quickly and completely. Given the work done to date and Mr. Smith’s prosecutorial experience, I am confident that this appointment will not slow the completion of these investigations. The men and women who are pursuing these investigations are conducting themselves in accordance with the highest standards of professionalism. I could not be prouder of them. I strongly believe that the normal processes of this Department can handle all investigations with integrity. And I also believe that appointing a Special Counsel at this time is the right thing to do. The extraordinary circumstances presented here demand it. Mr. Smith is the right choice to complete these matters in an even-handed and urgent manner.”

"It's a waste of time and money, insults the prosecutors at DOJ and gains nothing," tweeted former Watergate prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks. "No Trump supporter will see anyone as independent or fair to Trump."

National security attorney Bradley Moss also criticized the move, warning it "will now definitely delay any decisions until January at the earliest."

Slate legal analyst Jeremy Stahl said Garland's announcement gave Trump "exactly what he hoped for by announcing so early."

"It's cowardly, and it could backfire spectacularly," he wrote.
https://www.salon.com/2022/11/18/cowardly-legal-experts-slam-garland-for-punting-to-special-counsel-after-announcement/

Garland saying that he won't be partisan is in fact partisan since it is only one political party that is complicit in an ongoing insurrection.

I have one question for you; by appointing a special counsel who is it who Garland is showing that he is impartial? Republicans? They are complicit in an ongoing insurrection.

Garland didn't need to appoint a SC to show his impartiality. No one, including Congressional Republicans believe that Garland is biased, 20 Republican Senators voted for his confirmation. Garland did nor appoint a SC to show his impartiality, he was already well respected, he just said that was his reason, the real reason came right from Garland's lips, he is an institutionalist.

...now you're dissembling.

You've been proven wrong on why he appointed him, and you're sea-lioning on the actual reason given by the AG, substituting your own nonfactual cynicism for the factual reasons outlined in his statement.

Calling Garland an 'institutionalist' doesn't make your case. You're 'standing by' stuff you just made up without any citation at all, including that he's an institutionalist; something he never said ever.

...mixed in with a healthy dose of sarcasm. Understandable.

On the topic of "he knew he lost" we have now heard of a second group of lawyers/investigators hired by Trump to find fraud in the 2020 election. They came up empty-handed, just like the first group he hired to find any fraud. So, to my mind, and most likely to Garland and Smith's minds, there is no doubt whatsoever Trump knew he lost, but he persisted in lying, because that's about all he knows how to do, and defeat is a "sign of weakness" according to his dictator's handbook. Accepting a defeat graciously is just not in Trump's repertoire.

on a serial killer, but waiting for him to kill again before the big arrest.....just to be sure!

There MUST be MORE questions we can ask.

Justice delayed is justice denied.
He had ketchup for lunch that day, didn't he?

It took this long for DOJ to fight all the privilege claims and work their way up the food chain to get the testimony of those who were in the room when the coup was planned.

Now that they have that testimony (I would think Pence would be the top of the food chain as far as witnesses go- are there any others still fighting subpoenas?), why do you think it would take another two and a half years?

Should DOJ have sought indictments from the grand jury without Pence’s testimony?

Willis just announced she would be making charging decisions and seeking indictments sometime between July and September.

Not sure why you’re ranting when, based on available public information, it seems that the investigations are close to being concluded and indictments obtained.

Reminder: every time someone says “Slam Dunk”, an angel gets its wings…ripped out by the roots.

Is it is also fair to speculate on the possibility that the fix is in, it has been in from the beginning? We witnessed Trump calling his insurrectionists to "fight like hell" to save their country, live and in color, and then watched his redneck army carry out his orders. There should be a slam dunk on that. There is no reason to charge Trump with all of the crimes he has committed at once; pick a felony, any felony and take the bastard to a jury, while continuing "investigations." That would restore my faith in the "system."

This could well end up like the Kennedy assassination investigation, keep investigating until all of the parties either have sudden-onset death, or die from old age.

Optimism is well and good, but it is not justice.

"Garland" is one of her trigger words.

for a president or ex-president to falsely claim election fraud, or incite a violent attack on Congress. Maybe presidents and ex-presidents should be held to a higher standard when it comes free speech. trumps biggest crimes are the crimes only a president or ex-president can commit, and they are doing grave damage to the country and it's people. There should be a law against it. Instead, we argue about whether he knew he was breaking the records act, or did he actually say to Pence that he didn't care about the constitution and peaceful transfer of power. Or whether he violated the law by obstructing justice, or committing perjury, failed to report gifts, or tax fraud or whatever non-criminal rape is. Can we call him a rapist yet? The saying goes...no one is above the law, but when we give elected folks power to govern, they need to be held to a higher standard of the law. The only way to make them act responsible is to vote them out. Apparently the only solution we have is political. Now we are debating a "ticking clock"...too close to the next election, while the declared candidate is still falsely claiming election fraud caused his defeat in the last election, using DOJ rules to avoid responsibility. cAn't make this shit up.