Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 102,916
- 84,638
- 3,645
Garland is up against the force of executive privilege, and the drawn out stalemates it produces. If he tried to hold Meadows in contempt, Meadows' lawyers would turn that into a war of exhaustion, stretching it out for literally years.Been starting to consider whether Garland might just be a sackless wonder of political life. It's about time he got on with the shit or got off the pot for somebody else to do business. Maybe he's run out of paper, knows he's got a stinking mess but really doesn't know what to do.
And they presented arguments in negotiations taken in good faith about executive privilege. Navarro did not and his lawyers did not get far with anything, which I would think means Navarro was crimin' a little harder than Meadows or Scavino.
That's the best explanation that I have read. And it seems to be right in line with all of the reporting and public comments/knowledge.
I am still with you: Take a stance. State as the AG that you think the evidence merits prosecution, or that you do not. Grow a pair. Immediately. Stop letting the country bleed out, while you scratch yourself.