Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "AG Garland: Trump’s Potential 2024 Candidacy Will Not Impact Jan. 6 Investigation" video.

"Justice and the Rule of Law are to be ABOVE politics." -- John Adams. AG Garland adheres to that fundamental.
24
The Committee can provide evidence to the DOJ without making a formal "referral".
3
@vicrattlehead8417 The DOJ has evidence that the Committee does not; and the Committee has evidence that the DOJ may not have. The Committee staff can provide the evidence the DOJ requests, and also walk the DOJ through its evidence and point to issues it views as significant. The Committee staff is former prosecutors.
2
Wrong. He is stating exactly how the rule of law works. Legal process is different than the procedures of a Congressional committee.
1
Trump DID NOT offer National Guard. That is a LIE. Note that he blames House Speaker Pelosi for refusing to deploy the National Guard. IN FACT, as D.C. doesn't have a governor, the D.C. National Guard is under the Dept. of Defense, and its Commander-in-Chief is the President. It was Pence who was responsible for the deployment of the National Guard, because Trump was doing nothing except watching HIS insurrection on TV, and calling Senators to persuade them to help overturning the election. You should be watching the Committee hearings so you get the facts instead of spewing Trump's lies. It is your responsibility to know the facts instead of being a continuing dupe of New York con-man and career criminal Trump.
1
@jb5music And we have the telephone call recording in which McCarthy considered the 25th Amendment -- which was being raised -- and impeachment too slow, so he was for urging Trump to resign.
1
@ericschryver73 The testimony to the Committee, and other evidence it has gathered, substantiate that Trump was commander-in-chief of the insurrection. He did NOTHING to stop the violence BECAUSE THAT WAS WHAT HE WANTED. So that question has already been answered. Trump still tries to blame Democrat Pelosi for not deploying the National Guard, but IN FACT, as D.C. doesn't have a governor, unlike the 50 states, the D.C. National Guard is under the Dept. of Defense, and the Commander-in-Chief of it is the PRESIDENT. Congress LEGISLATES -- MAKES LAWS; the EXECUTIVE branch ENFORCES the laws. It is part of the PRESIDENTT'S DUTIES: to see that the Laws are faithfully executed. The idea that CONGRESS would have control over the National Guard -- the military is under the EXECUTIVE branch -- MAKES NO SENSE. But Trumpeters are wholly ignorant about the structure and functions of gov't so they believe everything that their fellow ignoramus says.
1
@ericschryver73 You leave out the detail that a state must agree to the invocation of the Insurrection Act. And a president CANNOT authorize the use of "any" military force; domestically the law enforcement of that degree falls to the well-regulated Militia/National Guad, per the US Constitution: "Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia[/National Guard] to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions." AND: "Art. I., s. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia[/National Guard] . . . reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia[/National Guard] according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS." In other words -- "Posse Comitatus Act" -- the regular military cannot be used domestically. And it's long past due that you amoral anti-Americans stopped the lying about "ANTIFA" -- which is short for ANTI-FASCIST and BLM "riots" that didn't happen. But we know why you hate "ANTIFA": you are PRO-FASCIST. Reminder, history-illiterate: Hitler and Mussolini were FASCISTS. Do yourself a favor: WATCH the January 6 Committee hearings and cry your eyes out when you discover that ALL but two of the witnesses have been TRUMP REPUBLICANS, most of whom WORKED IN THE TRUMP WHITE HOUSE. The FBI investigates -- it does not render judgment on the merits of the evidence it gathers: it turns that over to DOJ prosecutors. And your assertions about the Committee hearings are blown out of the water: the HARD EVIDENCE gathered and presented, and in Federal court rules there are many exceptions to the oversimplified -- dumbed-down -- slinging of the word "hearsay". The testimony of those who stated the substance of their conversations with others is not hearsay; and the only "hearsay" in Hutchinson's testimony was about the altercation in the SUV limousine. But that is corroborated by a police officer who was on that detail, and it was being talked about within the Secret Service for more than a year. But the fundamental mistake you make, in addition to being law-illiterate, is viewing the January 6 Committee hearings as a "trial" -- which is another right-wing Fascist lie: their investigation serves two purposes: one, toward legislating; and two, to inform the American people of the facts discovered by its investigation. You are individually responsible for your decisions: you can choose to stop lying, or you can continue to be an America-hating pro-Fascist insult to reason, facts, and the rule of law.
1
@kim ama If you have EVIDENCE for that allegation, provide it. If you do not, then cease your malicious smear against the rule of law.
1
@danjenkins8981 Not at all. The Committee hearing witnesses are all but perhaps two REPUBLICAN TRUMPERS. The evidence the Committee has been presented is "cross-examined" by the prosecutors on staff for veracity and corroboration. Or do you mean the DOJ investigation? First, learn how investigations are conducted, then realize that indictments are tried in court against a defense based on the same evidence. So none of it is "one-sided". During the House impeachment inquiry of "Watergate, the Republicans on the Committee defend Nixon by questioning witnesses and evidence, but in the end the evidence was overwhelming and they voted to impeach. Today's Republican Party -- such as Gym Jordan -- doesn't govern or deal in good faith: we see that when a Committee is holding a hearing on a specific topic, and the Republicans -- Gym Jordan among the worst -- engage in food-fights in effort to subvert the Committee process. In addition, Gym Jordan is a material witness: we do not have the defendant in a proceeding sit as judge on the defendant for reasons that should be obvious. But if you want to erroneously claim that the Committee (or the DOJ) process is "one-sided," then blame REPUBLICAN Kevin McCarthy. He was FOR a commission with equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats, all having equal powers. He had a Republican negotiate that deal with the Democrats -- then, when the deal was agreed McCarthy pulled the rug out from under it. Republican Senator McConnell did the same. So all that was left was to establish a Committee to investigate the insurrection. McCarthy tried to put two material witnesses on the Committee -- Gym Jordan and Banks -- to which Pelosi correctly objected. So McCarthy pulled all the Republicans from the Committee, except Liz Cheney and Kinzinger, because they were known to be OBJECTIVE. Actually, of course, neither the Committee nor the DOJ processes is one-sided: they are functioning as Congressional committees are intended to function: doing the work, instead of turning everything into a circus. And the DOJ is conducting its investigation in keeping with procedures established over hundreds of years.
1
Of course: a drunk driving charge is selectively prosecuted under the laws that apply to drunk driving. No burglary, no burglary charge.
1
@blackhd92 Trump will be indicted.
1
@no-cv4dx You don't know how legal process works. All of the examples you cite are legitimate.
1
@no-cv4dx You're "argument" is with yourself, over your own law-illiteracy. And that was not the "question," as it was made in the form of a declarative statement.
1
AG Garland is a veteran prosecutor of the DOJ, and has been a judge. His experience makes him the best person for the job. He's a good and decent man and is to be trusted.
1
Trump will be indicted. "Watergate" resulted in 40-plus indictments and convictions -- AFTER the hearings, and AFTER Nixon resigned. The number of indictments in this case is likely to exceed that number.
1
@oussamabayar7477 The first victim of your embrace of baseless hate is YOU. Educate yourself: watch the January 6 Committee hearings -- all but two of the witnesses testifying thereto being TRUMP REPUBLICANS, and most of those from the TRUMP WHITE HOUSE.
1
Stop smearing that you don't understand. AG Garland is by the book. He doesn't do politics. "Justice and the Rule of Law are to be ABOVE politics." -- John Adams.
1
@ajcbng8289 "Justice and the Rule of Law are to be ABOVE politics." -- John Adams.
1
@ajcbng8289 And I was distinguishing between "political justice" -- whatever that is -- and "Justice and the Rule of Law". Trump would not be "sent to the gallows" under "political justice," but rather under justice and the rule of law.
1