Merrick Garland's Dilemma

[kentuck]

The Attorney-General is an institutionalist. He said he believes in the rule of law. Most folks consider him an honest and decent man.

With the latest revelations of the former president's use of the Justice Department to spy on reporters, and on Democratic Congressmen that were over-seeing his role in the Mueller investigation, Merrick Garland must make a decision.

Does he let the different State authorities continue to investigate and prosecute, and disregard the Federal crimes that may have been committed by Mr Trump? Or does he follow the rule of law?

He truly believes that no man is above the law. Most especially, the President of the United States. He should set the example for the rest of America.

Bribery, extortion, perjury, obstruction of justice, and sedition are still crimes, even if committed from the White House. They have all been investigated thoroughly. He was impeached for two of the offenses already.

If Mr Garland truly believes in the rule of law, he must protect it from those that would abuse it from the highest levels of our government.

Mr. Garlands dilemma is whether or not to prosecute for crimes committed while in the White House. Should those be exempt? Or should they take priority over any crimes that may have happened before and after Mr Trump left the White House. The crimes committed during the four years in the White House cannot and should not be swept under the rug.

They are more important than anything that might have happened in New York before he became the President. The Presidency and the rule of law are at stake.

[Scrivener7]

1. This is not a dilemma. There is no question about this. If this is not

fully investigated and prosecuted, our Democracy is lost. If it is not prosecuted, this will be how republiQans ALWAYS conduct themselves in the future.

The Department of Justice is not "in the White House." Whether Donny bodybags can be prosecuted is a matter of debate, though only because republiQans have decreed tht it is a matter of debate.

But those who facilitated this were never "in the White House." They must all be prosecuted and if Garland does not do it, he will be complicit in the downfall of our Democracy.

[Bev54]

2. Definitely he needs to investigate and prosecute

I got thinking last night that perhaps he did also do this to republicans and knowing how bloody crooked they are, he has obtained kompromat on them, which is one of the reasons they are still kissing his ass. In a way I hope that did happen and there could be a real distinction between republican and democrats in congress. He got nothing on the dems.

[padah513]

3. He's giving a news conference at 2

I think he had it scheduled before this latest bit of news. Was supposed to talk about voting rights but now who knows. Will definitely get some questions about the spying though.

[kentuck]

5. I am curious to see his responses.

He should not wait on New York, in my opinion.

[MerryBlooms]

8. I am curious to hear how Garland will justify the DOJ trying to seize

some of these records up to just two weeks ago. Outrageous.

[kentuck]

9. Which records were they trying to seize?

I had not heard of that?

[MerryBlooms]

11. Michael Schmidt's records, one of the NY Times reporters who broke the story...

stated on Rachael last night, and then on Morning Joe this morning.

[kentuck]

13. Thx!

I missed Joe this Morning.

[Peregrine Took]

22. I can see him duckin' and dodgin' in his legalese glory.

Just think he was the wrong man for this job at this moment in history.

[comradebillyboy]

4. Biden needs to light a fire under Garland's ass.

DOJ needs a thorough house cleaning and Garland doesn't look like he's up to the task.

[jalan48]

10. +1

We have power now and could lose it again in a couple of years. If we can’t act now we’ll have no one to blame but ourselves.

[Firestorm49]

15. It's still early, but so far I tend to agree.

[Ferrets are Cool]

23. K and R

[RKP5637]

25. K&R!!! n/t

[NewHendoLib]

6. don't I recall when he was a Supreme nominee that he was considered center/right?

I've been under no illusion at all that he can be part of the solution. Sad, I know.

[lagomorph777]

7. This should not be a dilemma at all.

Either Mr. Garland wants to live in a constitutional democracy, where no one is above the law, or he needs to be replaced. Pronto.

[brooklynite]

12. Point to any evidence that he's "disregarding the Federal crimes"

You imply that Garland sees this is an either/or choice. Please explain the basis for this conclusion.

[kentuck]

14. This evidence has been there since his first day in office.

It is still there. What is he waiting for? It's difficult for common folks to see it any other way.

I know. Patience.

[brooklynite]

16. When you were a prosecutor, how long did it take you to issue indictments?

And how many were based on the fact that the blogosphere "knew he was guilty".

Not the way criminal justice works.

[kentuck]

18. You're the expert.

But what happened to that "ham sandwich"?

[brooklynite]

19. You realize that that metaphor suggests the inability to obtain a conviction, right?

[kentuck]

24. Also, how easy it is to indict...

Normally, I would agree with you about taking your time and getting a conviction, but there is a sense of urgency, because the asshole is an ever-present threat that gets worse with each passing day. Even if not convicted, he is distracted from his normal destructive behavior.

[Firestorm49]

17. Somewhere down the line I'd like to clarify and firmly establish

that no President is above the law. If a President is involved in criminal activity while in office, the hammer should drop.

Enough of the shielding to protect the guilty.

[brooklynite]

20. So, you're accusing the Attorney General of "protecting the guilty"?

Do I have that right?

[Nay]

28. I can't talk for the poster, but I personally didn't read it that way. I took it to mean that

going forward, laws must be passed that specifically address the legitimate questions around whether a President can be indicted/arrested/jailed for crimes committed in office or out of it. There seems to be a lot of hand-wringing over the idea -- I understand that, since we are faced with a Repub Party that would surely start a thousand lawsuits the minute any Democrat took the oath of office.

[luv2fly]

21. You're being too nice

MG should just throw the orange fuck away and we can all hope he rots in some miserable hell hole.

[Goodheart]

26. I don't see a dilemma.

[kentuck]

27. I think it is a dilemma for Merrick Garland.

In my opinion, it is out of his comfort zone. Just my opinion.

[scipan]

29. Then there's that self pardon Trump

probably has in his pocket. Which would create a mess.