• lennybird@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Again, you made the original claim without evidence. I did not. Don’t try to resort to an Ad Ignorantiam fallacy, now.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Again, you made the original claim without evidence.

      I may be wrong. The head of the DOJ might be diligently working to make sure a rich connected white man sees consequences for his actions. There’s a first time for everything. You may be wrong, and he might be slow walking this because he doesn’t want to.

      My opinion is based on just as much evidence as yours. Somehow I’ve managed to avoid gaslighting you and slinging abuse.

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        I’d love to know how I’ve gaslit you as that term is thrown around like crazy. In this event, the default is Garland is doing his job. In this event, if your theory were correct then he never would’ve opened the investigation in the first place, let alone taken such caution as to get a special counsel with a proven record to ensure the case isn’t tossed because of Garland being a part of Biden’s cabinet. Again, literally none of these point to your theory at all. They point entirely in the opposite direction.

        I completely sympathize with the frustration that we as a nation must convict Trump on order to move forward. It will never be soon enough. But true Justice does take time and 91 criminal charges across 4 independent grand jury indictments is pretty damn serious. I remember countless naysayers moving the goalpost over and over, first claiming he’d never be investigated, then never be charged, and now never be convicted. It gets tiresome.