Does Merrick Garland need to appoint a Special prosecutor now?

[duforsure]

To investigate those in government who profited from the virus. Federal and state. Those who got stocks, promoted policies or treatments for profits, and any who made money from it from allowing its spread.

[RVN VET71]

1. Does he need to? Certainly. Will he?

[Maine Abu El Banat]

2. Merrick Garland

Is not going to ruffle any feathers. He still wants that Supreme Court appointment.

[Celerity]

5. I massively doubt he would be even be nominated for the SCOTUS for at least 2 reasons

1. He is almost 70 years of age, far too old (he would be the oldest ever Justice nominated and then seated on the SCOTUS in US history, the only one older ever confirmed, William Smith, in 1837, declined to serve) and he would only end up being on the court for 15 to 20 years or so, max. We need someone in their 40's or early 50's, tops, as we cannot rely on Justices serving well into their late 80's and 90's.

2. I cannot see him getting enough votes from the Dem Senators, let alone the Rethugs (the Rethugs will never vote for a Dem nominee for SCOTUS again in enough numbers to overcome Dem dissenters (which there would be on Garland) on a vote, even if they have to stonewall for 7 years or even more, especially if they control the Senate, in which case a Dem nominee will never even see a vote), as we lost RBG, and Garland is far more moderate/conservative. The left half or so of the party would go bonkers.

[duforsure]

7. I don't think he'll ever be a Supreme Court Justice no matter what he does,

And knows it. Just because he was President Obama's pick, and his character is such he can't be compromised. They'll never allow him to have that position.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. I don't think so

It's a category of criminal activity adequately covered by existing laws, if they are applied.

[johnthewoodworker]

4. Well, the democrats won the election about 9 months ago. I figure the 'go slow' party

might start poor trials in about 3 or 4 years, maybe.

[FBaggins]

6. No. Why would he?

What conflict do you see that would require one?

[duforsure]

8. I believe he's already overwhelmed,

And needs to delegate that area for two reasons. One they could focus 100% of their time to it, and two it would be faster and give Garland more time overlooking many other investigations. His plate is too full.

[FBaggins]

9. Special prosecutors aren't caused by busy AG's

AGs don’t do the investigation or prosecution themselves.

SPs are to handle possible conflicts of interest between the administration and those who are investigated. What conflict do you perceive in the Biden administration?

[duforsure]

12. With the likelihood the former guy and the Gop's involvement,

And a lesser chance of finding Democrats involved it would be. Perceived as less political, and more independent. It also would help keep Garland separated, especially if they took legal actions against the ones behind them being prosecuted, and shield Garland from it more.

[Bettie]

10. Should? Probably

Will he? Never in a million years. He seems to be part of the "sweep it under the rug" group.

I had hoped that he would be willing to move forward and work to see that this never happens again, but protecting the wealthy and powerful is apparently a huge motivator for people on both sides of the political spectrum and the wealthy and powerful are the people who profited from the pandemic. So, there will be no investigation of this.

[Evolve Dammit]

11. Sadly, I think you may be correct.

[area51]

13. +1 n/t

[Hotler]

14. First there has to be the will to investigate, I don't think the DOJ has it.

Note there seems to be a slow walk to investigate TFG and the 1/6 coup.