Why hasn't Merrick Garland charged Trump with insurrection yet?

The best explanation I have heard so far came from Chris Christie on this morning's This Week. A former federal prosecutor before becoming Governor of New Jersey, he said every prosecutor weighs the probability odds of winning in court before deciding to actually indict, and that where you draw the acceptable line on the odds to prosecute depends upon the crime and the cost of prosecuting, and it will vary from prosecutor to prosecutor and crime to crime. However, you can be sure that the acceptable probability line for indicting a former President of the U.S. is at the 99.9% level for EVERY prosecutor because they realize prosecuting and not winning against a former President will do more harm to the Republic and democracy than not prosecuting.

AG William Barr "I told trump his stolen election claim was bull shit." At least 4 trump aides testified, under oath, that they told him and his team that he had lost reelection. Trump told Pence that he could stop the electoral vote count. Trump called Pence a pussy. Trump was also told that stopping the count was illegal. "Willful Blindness" proves intent.

Why hasn't Biden been charged with treason? That's the question. Trump did one heck of a good job and I would stand by him any day over Biden or that no good, evil Obama.

Because biden, obama, hillary, and bill the rapist would be next when the majority swings the other way.
Impeaching someone for nonsense and claiming someone committed treason is a little different when you have to be able to prove it in a court of law. Most of the evidence is conjecture and hearsay, nothing tangible. And when Trump once again emerges victorious and cleared of all charges, he is going to look like the white knight, and he will have scores to settle. Libs don't want him vindicated;so they won't indict him, they just want to keep claiming he did stuff without having to show any proof. That is how libs operate. Do you think they can run on biden's record?

Legal technicality. They still have to establish whether Trump committed an intentional criminal act, or if he is a fucking idiot who believed his lawyer’s theory that Pence could reverse the election results. With Donnie, both are very possible.

What's the rush? Better to thoroughly investigate first and make sure it's not politically motivated. Cool your jets.

Because the Democrats are measured, by the book, introspective and destined to lose every day of the week throughout eternity unless they change their playbook.

It is possible to look strong while maintaining empathy. It is possible to wield a sharp blade if it's used with wisdom. It is acceptable to call others to account for their pasts rather than leave karma to the universe. It's okay to be Mad Dad once in a while.

Honestly, I wonder if the Dems don't need a solid Red Wedding event to solidify their base. Clear the boards. No more 10 years of legal maneuvering to punish what a 7-year-old could have identified in a minute. Done, gone, next. It's wise and noble to live peaceably and quietly, but when the lions come to eat, you act decisively or die.

@eli1601 That is the point of the hearing , isn’t it. What did Trump know, and what did he do about it.
Furthermore, did he willingly refuse to call off the rioters, in the belief that it would disrupt the election process?
What part of this are you disputing?

Garland is following a strict protocol. It has to be a very tight case, it cannot show any political bias at all. It’s there, and they are working on it. The DOJ doesn’t report every move to the press.

Libs have been screaming insurrection for nearly 18 months. And how many people have been charged with insurrection? ZERO. Nada. Nobody. You see...if you charge Trump with insurrection, the documentation that Trump submitted a recommendation of 20,000 additional National Guard resources, signed off by Secretary of Defense Chris Miller, DoD Chief of Staff Kash Patel and the Joint Chiefs of Staff among other military leaders - that was rejected by Nancy Pelosi and DC Mayor Muriel Bowser - gets entered into evidence. The same documentation the unselect committee refuses to address. Now why would Trump recommend the additional security if he wanted to start an insurrection? And the 14,000 hours of video surveillance that Nancy refuses to release to the unselect committee would be evidence as well. We'd probably learn who the mysterious pipebomber was, and would see a lot more of fed boi Ray Epps...who is definitely on video encouraging people to storm the capitol building, yet remains a free man.

They have no real intention of indicting Trump. The unselect committee is the shiny object designed to feed your hatred of Trump while distracting your attention away from the globalist's systematuc destruction of America.

The hearing isn’t a trial. It is simply presenting the evidence gathered.

It’s an old tradition derived from English Common Law and it may seem quaint but prosecutors generally observe the rule that the defendant must first commit an actual crime BEFORE charges are brought.

I know it seems terribly un-woke but that’s just how it is.

Do you really think Biden can “win” another election?

Russian hoax part two

Of all the possible reasons that doesn't seem very likely.

No proof

The next J6 hearing is scheduled for Tuesday 6/21/22 1:00 pm ET (unless something changes)
L A Times

Nice try by a leftist bot profile created today.

He’s not up to the job.