Garland prepares to release Jack Smith’s report on the 2020 election subversion case against Trump, a development that has generated a wide spectrum of reactions, ranging from impatient anticipation to cynical skepticism. Many express frustration over the perceived delay, questioning why the release isn’t happening sooner, with some believing the report’s impact will be diminished by the timing. The protracted timeline fuels concerns about the effectiveness of the Department of Justice and leads to accusations of foot-dragging.
Garland’s perceived slow pace in releasing the report has prompted intense criticism. Some observers satirically detail the Attorney General’s imagined slow movements, emphasizing the drawn-out process and suggesting deliberate delay tactics.… Continue reading
Trump urges Attorney General Merrick Garland to block the release of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s final report, a move that has ignited intense debate. The former president’s request is seen by many as a blatant attempt to suppress potentially damaging information, highlighting a deep-seated distrust in the justice system’s ability to hold powerful individuals accountable.
This request underscores a pattern of behavior where Trump repeatedly attempts to obstruct investigations into his actions. The sheer audacity of the request is remarkable, revealing a profound disregard for transparency and the principles of accountability that should govern public officials. It fuels existing suspicions about a potential cover-up and further erodes public trust.… Continue reading
Following the conclusion of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigations into Donald Trump, Trump’s legal team demanded the Justice Department withhold the final report, citing the Presidential Transition Act and presidential immunity. This request, sent to Attorney General Merrick Garland, intensified calls for the report’s public release. Smith’s report, covering investigations into classified documents and election subversion, was submitted to Garland, who will decide on its public disclosure. Despite Trump’s team’s efforts and a related request to Judge Cannon, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals currently holds jurisdiction over the case.
Read More
Following the announcement of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into Donald Trump’s alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election, several Democrats criticized Attorney General Merrick Garland for a perceived delay in launching the probe. These critics, including Representatives Nadler and Lofgren and Senators Schiff and Smith, argued that the January 6th Committee’s findings should have prompted immediate action, potentially altering the outcome of the 2024 election. Conversely, some Democrats attributed the perceived inaction to Trump’s success in manipulating the narrative surrounding the January 6th attack. Regardless, Special Counsel Smith’s impending report and recommendations will soon be submitted to the Department of Justice.
Read More
Following the January 6th Capitol attack, Donald Trump escaped criminal prosecution, despite calls for accountability from both Democrats and Republicans. Critics, including some within the Biden administration, fault Attorney General Merrick Garland for delaying the appointment of a special prosecutor until after Trump’s reelection, enabling Trump to avoid trial due to legal protections afforded to sitting presidents. This delay, coupled with a Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, allowed Trump to evade responsibility, ultimately winning the 2024 election. While over 1000 individuals involved in the attack faced prosecution, Trump’s actions remain largely unaddressed, other than potential civil lawsuits.
Read More
Despite substantial evidence from numerous witnesses and text messages indicating former Rep. Matt Gaetz engaged in sex trafficking, prostitution, and drug use, Attorney General Merrick Garland declined prosecution. The Justice Department subsequently hindered congressional investigators’ access to information gathered during their own investigation, citing internal policy. The House Ethics Committee found sufficient evidence that Gaetz violated federal and state laws, including statutory rape, but acknowledged potential legal defenses against sex trafficking charges. This non-prosecution, while legally defensible based on evidentiary challenges, has drawn criticism for appearing to benefit a politically connected individual.
Read More
Attorney General Merrick Garland’s tenure has been marked by highly controversial actions, drawing criticism from across the political spectrum. These include the DOJ’s attempts to prosecute Donald Trump while simultaneously shielding President Biden from similar accusations, the controversial raid on Mar-a-Lago, and the targeting of parents protesting school policies. Further fueling discontent, the DOJ has been accused of ignoring subpoenas, prosecuting political opponents more aggressively than those aligned with the administration, and interfering with investigations into the Biden family. The cumulative effect of these actions has severely damaged public trust in the DOJ and the FBI.
Read More
Attorney General Merrick Garland’s delayed appointment of a special counsel in the January 6th case remains questionable, potentially impacting the timing and outcome of investigations. Trump’s legal victories, including favorable judicial assignments and Supreme Court rulings, highlight his remarkable luck and the strategic timing of key legal decisions. These rulings significantly bolster Trump’s legal position, potentially leading to dismissals of criminal charges and favorable civil case outcomes. The Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity further empowers Trump, suggesting a significant impact on future presidential actions.
Read More
Following the dismissal of the federal case against Donald Trump regarding his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election, Attorney General Merrick Garland faced sharp criticism from left-leaning figures. The case was dropped due to the Department of Justice’s policy against prosecuting sitting presidents, a decision that special counsel Jack Smith supported. Critics argued that Garland’s perceived delays, including the timing of Smith’s appointment, contributed to Trump’s 2024 electoral victory and allowed him to avoid accountability. While the dismissal was without prejudice, allowing for future prosecution, the move sparked intense debate regarding Garland’s handling of the investigation and its broader implications.
Read More
Special Counsel Jack Smith dismissed the January 6th and classified documents cases against Donald Trump due to Justice Department policy barring the prosecution of a sitting president, though the dismissals were without prejudice. While the Georgia election interference case remains, its viability is uncertain due to ongoing appeals. Consequently, Trump avoids legal consequences for several indictments, including a conviction, setting a concerning precedent for future presidents. This impunity, combined with potential political retribution against prosecutors, suggests a future presidency operating largely beyond legal accountability.
Read More
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker