This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.
Important notes on articles:
- Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
- Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
- If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.
Post being replied to
The phrase comparable complexity probably also applies to by wpkirish
the time to indict.
Obviously difficult to remember now what we knew and when we knew it so I dont remember waht eveidence became public when that triggered the appointment. Cerainly many on the left have criticized Garland over this matter and others. Smith actually moved pretty quickly once appointed. He was named in November 22 and I think the indciitments in the Mar A Lago case came in June. The 1/6 indictments I think came on August 1. For a wide ranging conspriacy where people are not volunteering evidence that time frame isnt bad.
What I had not considered before now is whether the 1/6 case ever gets brought if Trump does not screw around with the documents.