Before all the votes had been counted in the last election, he rushed to announce his candidacy.

[kentuck]

He could not wait to interfere with the next election.

He could not wait to protect himself from prosecution for his crimes against the American people.

Now, he blames others for election interference.

He thought being an ex-president, and running for the office again, would protect him from being exposed as a criminal.

He is hiding behind the Republican Party and the likes of FOX News. So long as they bow down and kiss his ring, he feels protected.

[gab13by13]

1. Nope, Time Matters.

Trump's strategy from day 1 has been delay.

Trump knows he is guilty, that is a fact that most people do not believe. Trump cannot make legal arguments that he is innocent, he knows that. Trump is doing the best strategy he can, lie, and he is good at it.

Of course Trump can hope that he delays long enough for him to win the election and then federal prosecutions disappear. If Jack Smith can get a Trump trial scheduled before the election, Trump's lies are being done to taint the jury pool, to intimidate witnesses, to intimidate the judge to give him more time. Trump is hoping, if a trial happens, he gets a hung jury.

I look at my computer's home page and just shake my head, 99% of what I see favors Trump. Now I see that the Supreme Court will have to debate whether Trump should be prosecuted.

I think back to March of 2021 when we were debating if Merrick Garland should appoint a special counsel. The argument for not doing so was that it would drag things out too long, wow, what a terrible argument that turned out to be. Had Garland appointed Smith back in March of 2021 a Trump trial may be over by now. Jack Smith's #1 goal when he took over was speed, was get to trial before the election. Things are looking up with judge Chutkan in charge, she has another big decision to make today.

Time Matters.

[Beastly Boy]

3. What would be the justification for Garland ro appoint a special counsel in March of 2021?

There are specific justifications written into law under which an AG can even consider appointing a special counsel:

CFR § 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and—

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

What conflict of interest could Garland claim before November 15, 2022, when Trump announced his intention to run for President?

Us debating anything doesn't change federal regulations.

[gab13by13]

4. Where does it say that a special counsel

can only be appointed when there is a conflict of interest?

What conflict of interest did Garland have when he appointed Jack Smith? When Garland said he would not be partisan, who was he speaking to?

Here:
(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

[Beastly Boy]

5. I quoted 28 CFR § 600.1 - Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel, in full.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.1

It clearly states that both (a) AND (b) make up the grounds to appoint a special counsel. If either one of them is absent, an AG is prevented from appointing a special counsel.

How does a pledge of being non-partisan, which is in Garland's job description, in any way constitute conflict of interests? What he stated is self-evident. It was stated for the benefit of his detractors who were quick to accuse him of partisanship. And that includes his detractors who promoted a ridiculous notion that him claiming to be non-partisan in itself constitutes partisanship.

[gab13by13]

6. What conflict of interest did Bill Barr have

when he appointed John Durham?

Only one political party was involved in the insurrection, not being partisan would be partisan against Democrats. Regardless, his appearance of not being partisan didn't work, he was still attacked for being partisan by Magats.

Merrick Garland did not have to appoint Jack Smith.

[Beastly Boy]

7. The same as Garland had when he appointed Smith.

An AG of the current administration having a potential conflict of interest in investigating a nominee who ran against his head of administration (In Garland's case it's a potential conflict of interest in investigating a candidate to be running against his head of administration).

Like Barr, Garland didn't HAVE to appoint a special counsel, but either one DIDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT to appoint a special counsel if potential conflict of interest weren't there.

[Beastly Boy]

8. And the fact remains: Garland COULDN'T appoint a special counsel until November of 2022

[Autumn]

2. As far as that SOB is concerned it free money raining down on him. He will be running from

beyond the grave.