Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

gab13by13

(21,347 posts)
Thu Mar 28, 2024, 08:06 AM Mar 28

Why Can't DOJ Indict John Eastman and Jeffrey Clark [View all]

It just makes me sick that the insurrection is ongoing. Jack Smith named Eastman and Clark unindicted co-conspirators and the only reason he did not include them in his Trump indictment was because he understood the importance of time, including them would have delayed his trials even more so than they are.

Clark and Eastman are both on the verge of being disbarred, whoopi-fucking-ding. It isn't stopping Clark from continuing with the insurrection. Clark is the lead person in drawing up the details of how to weaponize the justice department once Trump becomes president. Clark has actually drawn up the blueprint.

Why can't Merrick Garland devote some DOJ resources to following up on these 2 unindicted co-conspirators, Garland spent plenty of money going after Hunter and Joe Biden. The only reason I can think of is that Garland promised Republicans that he would not be partisan. It has zero to do with discovery because Fani Willis has indicted both Clark and Eastman in her RICO prosecution. Fani Willis has guts that's why the Magats went on a crusade to discredit her.

By the bye, when will Scott Perry be indicted? Oh yeah, I forgot, the promise Garland made.

The insurrection continues.


44 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Because grand juries indict. marble falls Mar 28 #1
You get my point. gab13by13 Mar 28 #2
Eastman's been indicted already, not by the Feds, but he has been recommended for prosecution to DoJ ... marble falls Mar 28 #3
That is one hell of a cop out then by DOJ gab13by13 Mar 28 #6
And...he's going to be recommended by the law bar to be disbarred. PortTack Mar 28 #12
Needs to be locked up behind bars for at least 10 years MichMan Mar 28 #14
Clark won't need his law degree working for Trump, gab13by13 Mar 28 #19
They are literally planning the next one. onecaliberal Mar 28 #26
Garland refusing to prosecute Republicans that are sabotaging our democracy is most definitely partisan. nt Trueblue Texan Mar 28 #4
No action yet / no comment is NOT the same as "refusing" Bernardo de La Paz Mar 28 #11
Except for the fact that there is no action Bobstandard Mar 28 #23
I'm calling you on that. Post links to "lies and damned lies" on the part of the DoJ Bernardo de La Paz Mar 28 #24
semantics Nutty Putty Mar 28 #25
Welcome to DU. I'm not defending DoJ as strongly as you might think, but regardless, I'm not embarrassed. . . .nt Bernardo de La Paz Mar 28 #27
Telling n/t Nutty Putty Mar 28 #30
"Telling"? You've got nothing or you would have posted it. . . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Mar 28 #33
Yes. Apologists Nutty Putty Mar 28 #35
He's federalist society. He's protecting them. onecaliberal Mar 28 #29
He's too afraid of being called partisan by the right. Trueblue Texan Mar 28 #42
I'm of another opinion. onecaliberal Mar 28 #44
Might look partisan Bettie Mar 28 #5
Why has TSF not been indicted edhopper Mar 28 #7
Pomerantz and Dunne worked 2 years building a case for financial fraud gab13by13 Mar 28 #8
Once again, you don't know what you don't know Fiendish Thingy Mar 28 #9
It could easily be that DoJ doesn't want to upset the tRump case in DC. Plus they Bernardo de La Paz Mar 28 #10
Garland is too busy to pursue these criminals. jaxexpat Mar 28 #13
And Smith wanted to move faster.. surfered Mar 28 #15
I already said that, did you read my thread? gab13by13 Mar 28 #17
I never said that I know what I don't know. gab13by13 Mar 28 #16
Co-conspirators have not been indicted due to DOJ (Jack Smith) strategy Jersey Devil Mar 28 #18
I already said that, I agree with you, gab13by13 Mar 28 #21
I presume there are hundreds of Rod Rosensteins still within DOJ Ponietz Mar 28 #40
Now that we know things are not speedy, they should be indicted. onecaliberal Mar 28 #31
Ignore the nut in the brown shirt. usonian Mar 28 #20
Can't or WON'T? Wild blueberry Mar 28 #22
So far I have gotten one possible reason: discovery. gab13by13 Mar 28 #28
Recommend, onecaliberal Mar 28 #32
You must have forgotten the lesson of that old... dchill Mar 28 #34
Nope, believe it or not, gab13by13 Mar 28 #36
Hands must appear to be clean... dchill Mar 28 #38
This is another way of asking my question, gab13by13 Mar 28 #37
Not enough manpower, gotta investigate Hunter Biden's peepee first 617Blue Mar 28 #39
To political. republianmushroom Mar 28 #41
Answer: Defendants aren't convicted based on "we know he's guilty".... brooklynite Mar 28 #43
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why Can't DOJ Indict John...