Schiff 'vehemently' disagrees with Attorney General Garland's reluctance to pursue Trump

[AZProgressive]

In unusually pointed comments about a member of President Biden’s Cabinet, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff says he “vehemently” disagrees with Attorney General Merrick Garland’s failure so far to aggressively investigate former President Donald Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and other matters.

Appearing Tuesday on the Yahoo News “Skullduggery” podcast, the California Democrat was asked about the Garland Justice Department’s reluctance to launch investigations of the former president based on the 2018 report by former special counsel Robert Mueller that spelled out Trump’s efforts to obstruct the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. In a new book, “Midnight in Washington: How We Almost Lost Our Democracy and Still Could,” Schiff writes that he viewed Mueller’s report as providing “a factual basis to charge the president with multiple crimes of obstruction.”

“I think there's a real desire on the part of the attorney general, for the most part, not to look backward,” Schiff said in response. “Do I disagree with that? I do disagree with that, and I disagree with it most vehemently when it comes to what I consider even more serious offenses. For example, a taped conversation of Donald J. Trump on the phone with Brad Raffensperger, the secretary of state from Georgia, trying to coerce him into fraudulently finding 11,780 votes.

“Because I think if you or I did that, we'd be under indictment by now,” Schiff added. “In my view, you don't ignore the crimes that have been committed by a president of the United States. They need to be investigated. You may reach the judgment once you've investigated something that the public interest in not prosecuting a former president outweighs the interests of justice. But I don't think you could ignore the crimes.”

https://news.yahoo.com/schiff-vehemently-disagrees-with-attorney-general-garlands-reluctance-to-pursue-trump-214740391.html

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Thank god Adam is speaking out because we are for sure done for good if trump isnt pursued

[CrackityJones75]

3. Why?

Why are we for sure done?

[Maraya1969]

6. Because it gives a green light to the next criminal in the White House.

[CrackityJones75]

7. Have been plenty of criminals in the WH

We are all still here.

[Scrivener7]

12. What threats to our Democracy through the history of the country do you think equal or

exceed the threat level we are facing today?

[CrackityJones75]

18. USSC deciding 2000 election.

[Scrivener7]

23. So you must understand how that weakened our Democracy.

And now we have a guy who turned the White House into a criminal enterprise. And there is a question about whether that will go unpunished. You must understand that too will weaken our Democracy.

So how many assaults do you think our Democracy can take before it ceases to exist?

[CrackityJones75]

99. My comment

My comment is on the “we are done”.

What does that mean? I refuse to say that if something happens we have to accept a fate of being “done”. We are not done. Whatever happens we must fight. I am tired of reading here on this forum that we are on the precipice of life as we know it being over. It is completely defeatist and not helpful.

[sprinkleeninow]

36. That was kinda the blatant opener...

[CrackityJones75]

111. Oh I think Reagan and Nixon had some decent opening acts.

[sprinkleeninow]

118. Yes, and I almost referenced that far back. But many people were not strongly attuned mb

and the antagonists worked more stealthily.
Just my take.

Both parents Dems thru and thru and so their legacy to me. But mb some voters got hoodwinked along their path and fell victims to both sides appear the same.

[Maraya1969]

15. Why do you say, "We"? And besides, it has to start somewhere and if we not start

making people pay for their crimes we would cause others to not be so gung ho when they are thinking about committing them

[CrackityJones75]

19. Didn't say people shouldn't pay

Didn’t say people shouldn’t pay for their crimes. Just confused about the certainty in the post I replied to.

What shall I expect to come to pass?

[CrackityJones75]

110. Never said we shouldn't make them pay.

I absolutely agree with that.

[soldierant]

109. When was the last time that the inhabitant of the White House

has an army of crazy people who worshipped him and did whatever he commanded?

Yes, I realize they are a minority. That won't matter if a fascist regime rigs elections. Hell, they might even leave the Constitution in place and just ignore it.

Taking an opponent seriously is not defeatist.

[smirkymonkey]

22. Exactly.

His crimes are inexcusable and in the future, if committed by someone more competent, will be the end of our democracy. If this bullshit isn't already.

[triron]

49. I don't think we have to wait for another more competent.

IF Trump is not prosecuted it will speed the rise of authoritarianism and lawlessness.

[Rebl2]

53. Absolutely!

[mjvpi]

9. I agree. He's been hitting on the head, as of late. He's lost some sugar coating.

[Zeitghost]

2. Someone

Last edited Tue Oct 19, 2021, 10:21 PM - Edit history (1)

Here needs to explain to the good Congressman that he doesn't know what AG Garland is up to and he should stay quiet and not question their methods.

[Eyeball_Kid]

4. If Garland is actively investigating Trump's crimes, we'll know by what Schiff now does.

Because Schiff has now placed himself in a position to receive a phone call from someone at DOJ telling him what the DOJ is actually doing. We no longer hear from Schiff that he's concerned about the conjectured reluctance to pursue Trump if Schiff is told that things are moving along. Schiff will then quiet down because he's not prone to putting on theatrics if he knows something.

[msfiddlestix]

124. Exactly. Schiff is signalling from a place of informed knowledge

And his sounding the alarm frankly confirms speculations by those of us with no connections to the DOJ and FBI investigations/investigators. We have to speculate from the outside as we attempt to discern by way of press reporting/releases (or lack of) court proceedings/dockets etc. When the bad guys are being charged/prosecuted, is reported out.

When "secret" investigations are happening we are eventually informed if arrests/prosecution occurs.

The fact that the primary criminals are still holding office, campaigning for office, or otherwise free to carry on with their criminal activity, well that's a big clue as well.

TFG has now accomplished creating his own privately owned social media platform and campaigning for 2024. The DOJ and FBI hands off policy to refrain from openly running investigations of a Presidential Candidate protects a seriously deranged criminal in real time.

Is it really necessary to explain why this is unacceptable?

[agingdem]

24. agree...

Garland is methodical and judicious..when he's ready he'll act...I like Schiff but he's in danger of becoming overexposed (MSNBC/CNN/Stephen Colbert)..I want Trump held accountable as much as Schiff does but badmouthing Garland is not the way to go...

[Scrivener7]

100. WTF??? Schiff is in danger of being "overexposed"???? He is one of the few who is out there

speaking the truth. Jesus. Let's not look that gift horse in the mouth, shall we?

[agingdem]

103. overexposed?...yes

he's everywhere...and at some point his salient issues will turn into blah blah blah...don't get me wrong, I think Adam Schiff would make a great President...he's brilliant, fair, personable, and has tremendous presence..and I agree Trump has to pay not only for personally fulminating an insurrection and attempting a coup to stay in power, but also for the years of lies, personal vendettas, legitimizing racial/ethnic/gay hatred, encouraging violence, separating families, caging babies, his callous disregard for human life, staffing his cabinet with like-minded conmen and criminals, poisoning and diminishing every branch of government, his dangerous isolationism, turning the White House into his private ATM, promoting his entitled vapid know-nothing children into positions of power, and last but certainly not least, wiping his fat orange ass with the Constitution..what I'm saying is Adam Schiff has made his point..now it's time for Schiff to get in Garland's face...

[Scrivener7]

104. SMDH. The only Democrat doing effective messaging and people are complaining.

[agingdem]

105. that not true...

Jamie Raskin, Joe Neguse, Pramila Jayapal, Ted Lieu, Katie Porter, Eric Swalwell, Bennie Thompson...they are our media voices...Schiff does not have to carry this alone..

[msfiddlestix]

125. What makes you assume Garland is being methodical and judicious?

I haven't seen evidence of that, but I'm not in his office observing him either. so maybe you can enlightened me on how I should have faith he is methodical and judicious.


P.S. Schiff speaks from a position of connection and well informed.

[agingdem]

126. denying Trump and his henchmen executive privilege...

where do you think that came from?...I'd love Garland to drop the hammer on Trump like yesterday, but he's kind of occupied with cleaning up Barr's mess, voter suppression/voting rights/abortion/racial, ethnic, LGBTQ equality and on and on...and, if I had to guess, Garland is letting the of multitude and state and federal investigations pertaining to Trump, his family, and his businesses play out...and because Schiff "speaks from a position of connection" he has the gravitas to confront Garland personally and push for answers...

[msfiddlestix]

127. Watching the committee hearing right now

there were some interesting questions, but not enough clarity. I tuned in well in progress, they're taking a 5 min break right now.

don't know if Schiff is on this committee, though if so, I hope I haven't missed his line of questioning.

[smirkymonkey]

29. Bullshit.

Schiff knows what is up. Garland is a right-wing leaning, status-quo preserving, federalist milquetoast. He's pathetic. I have always thought so and you can save this post and force me to eat my words when he ends up saving our democracy, but I know that he won't.

He is not working behind the scenes in secrecy to pull off a big surprise and put DJT and put all the insurrectionists behind bars like you all think he is. I don't think he is doing much of anything and he never will.

You can take this to the bank.

[gab13by13]

35. Might as well take it to Deutche bank,

it doesn't get prosecuted either.

[Earth-shine]

44. This post states exactly what I think.

Those waiting for Garland to do something regarding Trump and company will be disappointed.

Garland would have been a disappointment as a SCOTUS justice as well.

Preserving the institutions by not shaking anything up is more important to him than actual justice.

Let us remember that it was Oram Hatch who recommended Garland to Obama for the supreme court.

[FoxNewsSucks]

46. I really wish I could dispute what you said,

but since you're exactly right, I can't.

It seems more likely that Garland is just stalling until republicons take over and sweep all their crimes under the rug. I wish that weren't the case.

[Zeitghost]

57. My appologies

I added the much needed sarcasm smilie.

[smirkymonkey]

63. Whoops!

Sorry about that. Hope you didn't take it too personally.

[Zeitghost]

72. Not at all

Not at all, my sarcasm doesn't always come across online, it's always best to use the smilie.

[Tacan]

65. I agree with you. Garland was a terrible choice for AG.

[triron]

66. Fear you are right but hope you are wrong.

Maybe Biden should fire Garland.

[Justice matters.]

71. Replace Garland with "Acting" AG Glenn Kirschner

A experienced prosecutor for over 30 years will get the necessary job done to save Democracy and the Rule of Law.

Also, if the DOJ doesn't prosecute the orange terrorist on Obtruction of Justice and Witness Tampering The DOJ will be OK about the Obstruction of Justice allegations detailed in the Mueller Report, crimes Mueller himself confirmed he could be prosecuted for after he's no longer in the WH.

[wnylib]

69. So why would a liberal like Biden

appoint a right wing federalist as AG?

[smirkymonkey]

82. Honestly, I don't know.

Last edited Wed Oct 20, 2021, 02:08 AM - Edit history (1)

Because he thought he would be an acceptible bi-partisan choice?

Someday, we will look back upon this and it will make sense, but right now it doesn't. That's all I have to say for now.

[ancianita]

88. Just speculation, but two parts of it might be

1. an Obama bipartisan trust in his skills, as with Mueller, and
2. the belief that as a Republican he's more likely to get corruption and crime cleanup cooperation from Republicans than is a liberal. Less likely to be a political lightning rod than a liberal.

Overall, I think Republican lawyers and jurists should be cleaning up this huge Republican-made mess of things, anyway.

If it's true, and I'd like to think it is, Biden's a wicked perceptive president.

[wnylib]

107. The OP quote from the article

left out the part in the article where Schiff said, "Maybe I'm wrong" and Justice is secretly collecting evidence from a grand jury into Trump's efforts to pressure state officials in Georgia to overturn the election results in that state.

Schiff said he fears that Garland is relying on the Fulton County DA's investigation to handle it.

So Schiff does NOT know for certain what Garland is doing about investigations. If Garland is relying on some regional investigations, like Fulton County in GA and the Southern District of NY, there might be a very good reason.

Investigating and charging a former president is a very delicate thing to do in a democracy. Presidents are definitely not above the law and should be held accountable for criminal actions. But when the administration that comes after a criminal president is from the opposing party, the investigation can easily be dismissed by the general public or even a jury as "just politics." That kind of reaction can undercut the evidence that prosecutors use. Instead of setting an example for future presidents that they will be held accountable, it can set the opposite 'example' - that all prosecutions of presidents are political and not to be taken seriously. It can also inspire the opposition to abuse the Justice Department for investigations as retaliation when they are in power.

Wouldn't happen? It already has - Bill Clinton over consensual sex, Hillary Clinton over Whitwater, Benghazi, and e-mails. The Bush administration frequently used the tactic of announcing investigations of various candidates and then, after succeeding at trashing the candidates' images so that they lost their elections, the investigations were dropped. There were other political reasons for the chronic investigations of the Clintons, but I suspect that part of them was retaliation for Nixon and Watergate. Hillary was involved in the investigation of Nixon.

In a deeply divided nation, the belief that the Justice Department is abusing its power, whether true or not, can undermine a democracy. Avoiding the appearance of doing that, while still having investigations by regional (instead of federal) investigations and prosecutions is one way of holding TFG accountable without undermining the credibility of the DOJ.

[mrsadm]

108. I so agree that Garland will do nothing

Wish we had someone with fight in them in that office.

[Orange Buffoon]

122. Someone like Sally Yates.

[Ponietz]

42. And we didn't know what Mueller was up to

and were told to stay quiet and not question his methods.

[FoxNewsSucks]

48. He might still save us

if we're "patient"

[BradAllison]

73. Merry Fitzmas?

[wnylib]

80. So, does the sarcasm emoji mean that

AG Garland DOES consult regularly with Schiff regarding tve status and decisions about DOJ investigations, and that Schiff is fully aware of all that Garland is or is not doing?

I would think that Garland's experience with domestic terrorism investigations should give him some expertise on pursuing such investigations.

[LizBeth]

5. I knew Garland was this from the start but people told me to believe. I am with Schiff.

[mjvpi]

13. He is a well meaning, moderate Republican.

We need a Bobby Kennedy going after organized crime.

[mzmolly]

39. Yes

indeed.

[Justice matters.]

74. An Acting AG with 30 years experience prosecuting and getting results.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15965248

[mjvpi]

98. Thanks for the link. Yes, what he said!

[whathehell]

116. Why in Hell did Obama want a Republican on the Supreme Court?

Last edited Thu Oct 21, 2021, 08:30 AM - Edit history (2)

and why would Biden appoint one as AG?..WTF is wrong with this picture?

[smirkymonkey]

119. +1000

[calimary]

64. I wish Schiff was Attorney General.

[Justice matters.]

75. Here's available and willing "Acting" AG with 30 years of experience prosecuting and getting results

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15965248

[lagomorph777]

92. Glenn Kirschner or Sally Yates would both be on my short list.

[Scrivener7]

8. Seems like Schiff thinks there is not a lot going on behind the scenes.

[BlueIdaho]

14. If you know otherwise, please inform the us.

Thank You.

[Scrivener7]

16. Why would I know otherwise? My observation is that there is no evidence much is going on,

though I have been chastised here for expressing that observation.

[BlueIdaho]

20. Sorry Mate

I guess I misunderstood your post.

[Scrivener7]

21. I figured. No problem.

[Grasswire2]

10. there it is again, DAMMIT

That damned "Look forward, not back" strategy that is why we are where we are.

Every time Republicans have attacked the Constitution and the American stability with their crimes, they have gotten away with it because of this "strategy."

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

[lagomorph777]

93. We can look forward to catastrophe if we continue the laissez-faire approach.

[Duppers]

17. Indeed!

[ancianita]

25. I fully support Merrick Garland. I believe that Merrick Garland fully supports the Jan 6 Committee.

[gab13by13]

28. You have it backwards,

it's the DOJ who is going to have to hold people accountable, not the select committee. We are doomed if DOJ has to wait for referrals from the select committee before it acts.

[wnylib]

79. It is the purpose of the Select Committee to

Last edited Wed Oct 20, 2021, 01:05 PM - Edit history (1)

carry out investigations of J6 in Congress' role of oversight of government. Regarding people who defy subpoenas from the committee, the established procedure is that the committee has to vote on referral to the AG and then the entire House votes on it.

[lagomorph777]

95. Yes, but the Select Committee cannot do a CRIMINAL investigation.

Only DOJ can do a CRIMINAL investigation; only DOJ can prosecute and incarcerate criminals. If DOJ passively sits by and even if it occasionally supports a contempt charge, it is not doing its job.

[George II]

38. I agree. Garland didn't just fall off the turnip truck, he's an experienced legal mind.

[Grasswire2]

60. So is John Yoo.

Who reared his head again today.

[ancianita]

67. Really? You got me checking him out ... Unlike Garland, Yoo has been under international attack.

Yoo might be a hunted man.

In 2009, the Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzón Real launched an investigation of Yoo and five others (known as the Bush Six) for war crimes.[50]

On April 13, 2013, the Russian Federation banned Yoo and several others from entering the country because of alleged human rights violations. The list was a direct response to the so-called Magnitsky list revealed by the United States the day before.[51] Russia stated that Yoo was among those responsible for "the legalization of torture" and "unlimited detention".[52][53]

After the December 2014 release of the executive summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture, Erwin Chemerinsky, then the dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law, called for the prosecution of Yoo for his role in authoring the Torture Memos as "conspiracy to violate a federal statute".[8]

On May 12, 2012, the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission found Yoo, along with former President Bush, former Vice President Cheney, and several other senior members of the Bush administration, guilty of war crimes in absentia. The trial heard "harrowing witness accounts from victims of torture who suffered at the hands of US soldiers and contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan".[54]

Retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to General Colin Powell in the Persian Gulf War and while Powell was Secretary of State in the Bush Administration, has said of Yoo and other administration figures responsible for these decisions:

Haynes, Feith, Yoo, Bybee, Gonzales and—at the apex—Addington, should never travel outside the US, except perhaps to Saudi Arabia and Israel. They broke the law; they violated their professional ethical code. In the future, some government may build the case necessary to prosecute them in a foreign court, or in an international court.[93]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo

I'd forgotten how batshit the man was in Bush days. Ya gotta admit that when even the Russian Federation thinks you're as bad as their guys, you're pretty bad.

The two legal minds have nothing in common, imo.

[burrowowl]

85. Good post!

[DashOneBravo]

45. I agree

[gab13by13]

26. Thank you Adam Schiff

for saying what many have been saying here at DU. I guess Schiff doesn't have patience either? Or a better answer to Schiff would be, but we don't know what DOJ is or isn't doing, apparently Schiff knows.

[Lucky Luciano]

27. Schiff knows what's up.

I wonder if the usual cadre will be along soon to chastise Schiff for not knowing how things work and that these things take time and must thread the needle. That cadre usually chastised us…that’s for sure. I will be thrilled to eat crow and bow to the cadre if they end up being correct. I will also owe every one of them a coke.

[smirkymonkey]

31. +1000

See my post #29 above.

A little harsh, maybe. But that's pretty much where I'm at right now.

[gab13by13]

33. What really pisses me off,

are the people who should be before a grand jury are out there inciting the insurrection. The insurrection has grown since 1/6, why doesn't that fact piss people off? Texas just gerrymandered enough districts to win back the House.

[lagomorph777]

96. Yup.

There should be arrests by now. So much public evidence; we know there is 10x more secret evidence. Lock the fuckers up, already.

[Walleye]

30. Isn't "looking back" pretty much the main job of the DOJ?

[George II]

32. It's his right to disagree, and I think Schiff is one of the best Democrats in the House, but....

Merrick Garland is the Attorney General, and was a Federal judge for decades.

I trust his judgement. After all, he has access to all the evidence the FBI and others have been gathering.

[FoxNewsSucks]

40. I can't help but remember that Garland

was a "republicon-approved" nominee.

Generally, anyone they approve of is not someone to whom I'm likely to give my blind unwavering trust.

I do trust Schiff. He's honest, straightforward, and there's no doubt at all he's on our side.

[George II]

50. He was confirmed 70-30. 48 Democrats, 2 Independents, 20 republicans

[FoxNewsSucks]

51. I was referring to his SCOTUS nomination

Obama went to republicons and asked who they'd let him nominate. He was told they'd approve of Garland.

Moscow Mitch shot it down anyway. Not because Garland wasn't satisfactory to them, but because of not giving Obama anything, and to steal it for their "president".

[George II]

55. They probably said that just to get the nomination on the record for them to block....

I'll bet if Obama offered Bill Barr they would have said "yet" and blocked him.

[FoxNewsSucks]

58. No doubt about that,

The "don't give Obama anything" policy trumped everything. Moscow Mitch filibustered his own bill for that reason.

I do think the recommendation of Garland was sincere. It used to work that way with a president & senate from opposing parties and was workable when republicons weren't batshit-crazy tRumpers. Not anymore.

[spanone]

34. Good for Adam Schiff....

Schiff said in response. “Do I disagree with that? I do disagree with that, and I disagree with it most vehemently when it comes to what I consider even more serious offenses. For example, a taped conversation of Donald J. Trump on the phone with Brad Raffensperger, the secretary of state from Georgia, trying to coerce him into fraudulently finding 11,780 votes.

“Because I think if you or I did that, we'd be under indictment by now,” Schiff added. “In my view, you don't ignore the crimes that have been committed by a president of the United States. They need to be investigated. You may reach the judgment once you've investigated something that the public interest in not prosecuting a former president outweighs the interests of justice. But I don't think you could ignore the crimes.”

NO SHIT.

[gab13by13]

61. Garland allowed a Trump backed Cyber Ninja phony group,

to break federal election law in Arizona. Title 52 - Voting and Elections - Subtitle I and II, ballots, voting systems, and other election materials were no longer in the custody of election officials. Garland did write the Cyber ninjas a stern letter which they ignored.

[Justice matters.]

76. Here's a suggestion for an "Acting" AG with 30+ years experience prosecuting and getting results

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15965248

[Mr. Ected]

37. The application of ALL criminal justice is retrospective

You sell some dope, a cop sees it, they arrest you, they charge you. You go to court and you tell the judge, "what happened was in the past. We need to look forward. I'm not committing a crime now and I may never commit a crime again".

Judge laughs his ass off and sends you to prison.

That's how it works in the real world. We are punished for crimes after we commit them. Prosecutors prosecute crimes after they've been committed. Why are politicians not treated in the same way the rest of us are? Who is actually protecting them?

[FoxNewsSucks]

41. That "look forward not back" bullshit has always infuriated me

ever since a former president said and then mistakenly did exactly that.

[Dirty Socialist]

47. I agree

Prosecuting ANY AND ALL CRIMES involve looking back. Without looking back, NOBODY would ever be prosecuted. EVER.

[FoxNewsSucks]

54. It's actually a successful republicon tactic

Iran/Contra comes to mind.

They got a ruling that nothing before a certain date could be used in the I/C hearings. All the crimes happened before that date.

I've always wished I could get a ruling like that, so that when I get a speeding ticket, nothing that happened before the cop was standing by my window asking for my license could be used against me.

And Obama gave them that. I think that was probably the biggest mistake any president could make.

[ancianita]

70. In 180 days,

the Garland DOJ has looked back to exert national oversight while the Jan 6 committee exerts executive oversight.

645 arrested and charged across 42 states, and of those,
316 have been indicted by grand jury, and of those indicted and charged,
109 have been convicted, and of those,
17 have been sentenced across 10 states.

He doesn't have to get credit for prosecutions of Republicans, just enforce rule of law nationwide.

[Justice matters.]

78. Ok, but there are crimes we all saw evidence of, Mueller saw evidence of, and said when no longer

in the WH, the orange terrorist could be charged with Obstruction of Justice. On January 21 = no longer in the WH. Still? Where are the GJ Materials 10 months after? Where are the charges?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15965248

[ancianita]

83. Yes it does.

Last edited Thu Oct 21, 2021, 10:58 AM - Edit history (1)

Its timeline does not. Truth matters. Human life matters. The Constitution matters.

On January 21 there was no Attorney General in the US Dept of Justice.
Garland wasn't sworn in until March 11. That's one month and 19 days after Biden was sworn into office under highest national security in US history.

Almost two months past the seditious insurrection and four years past a slowly corrupted William Barr led DOJ, there was only so much "hit the ground running" that an accomplished jurist as the new AG could do.

There were masses of paper waiting for him about all the following:

There were deputy AG's and associate AG's to assemble, 8 Justice Division heads for him to get approved, and he only got 4 approved by the Senate MONTHS later.
Even Biden's Cabinet posts were stalled in the Senate. Remember that?

-- Once sworn in after March 11, Garland had to review these agencies that his DOJ administers:

United States Marshals Service (USMS)
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP)
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)

Office of the Inspector General (OIG)

-- And then these Offices run by the DOJ:


Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)
Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA)
Executive Office of the United States Trustee (EOUST)
Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management (OARM)
Office of the Chief Information Officer


Office of Dispute Resolution
Office of the Federal Detention Trustee (OFDT)
Office of Immigration Litigation
Office of Information Policy
Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR)

Office of Intergovernmental and Public Liaison (merged with Office of Legislative Affairs on April 12, 2012)
Office of Justice Programs (OJP)
Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)
National Institute of Justice (NIJ)

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
Office for Victims of Crime (OVC)
Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking Office (SMART)
Office of the Police Corps and Law Enforcement Education
Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)

Office of Legal Policy (OLP)
Office of Legislative Affairs
Office of the Pardon Attorney
Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties (OPCL)
Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)

Office of Public Affairs
Office on Sexual Violence and Crimes against Children
Office of Tribal Justice
Office on Violence Against Women (OVW)
Professional Responsibility Advisory Office (PRAO)

United States Attorneys Offices
United States Trustees Offices
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
Community Relations Service
Other offices and programs

Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States
INTERPOL, U.S. National Central Bureau
National Drug Intelligence Center (former)
Obscenity Prosecution Task Force (former)
United States Parole Commission


Garland had a Trump DOJ full of people to deal with. He fired every Trump appointee across states.
He had reviews and prioritizing of pending cases, with hundreds to come.

Biden is doing his job getting legislation through, and Garland is sorting out the DOJ and enforcement issues, prioritized as Biden trusts that Garland knows how to do.

"Okay but" all you want, there are still fair and unfair demands made of humans and justice. You can argue the timeline of justice and our demands, but at least be aware of the monumental work ahead.

In the third largest nation on the planet, and in the longest standing democracy in history, you/we can have our justice fast and sloppy, as with Barr, or slow and thorough.
You/we can't have it both fast and thorough.

Only more money and manpower might help. Add in the bare bones budget the DOJ already runs on, and you/we can't even get more humans to handle the monumental justice demands.

180 days in on the AG job, there is still absolutely too much to do and everyone here knows it.

Merrick Garland doesn't have trustworthiness issues; it's people here who have trust issues.
And don't even get me started on "blind faith" talk when the Biden Attorney General needs all the adult, clear-eyed faith he can get.

[True Blue American]

123. Perfect!

[smirkymonkey]

84. +1000

[smirkymonkey]

120. It is patently absurd.

Why we are not spitting this insanity back in their faces just baffles me. What is this? What is the precedent here?

[sprinkleeninow]

43. AG/republiQan, looking forward....

[gab13by13]

52. DOJ is going to have to save our democracy,

the select committee can only do so much, it doesn't have the clout of DOJ.

I agree with what happened today, the beginning of holding Bannon in contempt, but I really doubt that we will see Bannon testify, if we do it will be at least 4 months and what will Bannon say, I plead the 5th? The one good thing I heard today was when Bannon goes before a grand jury, prosecutors will be able to question Bannon's intent, why he refuses to testify. Bannon was pardoned by Trump and if prosecutors make the connection between Bannon and Trump, they can investigate Trump even though he isn't the subject of the indictment. If Bannon is convicted by a grand jury I would pay money to watch his trial.

[lagomorph777]

97. He can't plead the 5th, thanks to Trump's pardon.

However, I agree with all your other points!

[Kablooie]

56. Garland is looking more and more like a secret Trumpy.

Up to now he's been a supporter of the insurrection by not indicting those that were responsible.
If there are no serious consequences for Trump and his monkeys it will happen again in 2024 and since they know more now it could very well be successful.

[Poiuyt]

77. I don't think Garland is a Trump supporter--I just think he doesn't want to make waves

[Crunchy Frog]

81. I think he just doesn't get it. Doesn't understand what the real stakes are.

[Celerity]

59. I am still in a 'wait and see what shakes out mode'. I do not have blind faith in Garland though,

and there are some worrying signs, but he still overall has my full support. Time will tell.

I never trusted Mueller, and thought he was also no longer mentally up to the task (and was proven right on that IMHO) when he was assigned his duties, but thankfully I do not get those vibes from Garland at all.

[Jon King]

62. A 68 year old white guy, worth $20 million, Harvard grad, taking it easy on Repugs.

Sure starting to quack like a duck who has tons of friends among the bad guys. We shall see though.

[RANDYWILDMAN]

68. The reticence is bewildering after Nixon

TFG should be dead to right in the cross hairs and nobody has the guts to do it.

John Dean knows better...if we don't prosecute Trump, we are a banana republic!

[UCmeNdc]

86. K&R

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

87. I wish Rep. Schiff could replace Garland.

Tomorrow.

We need a serious lead prosecutor who will aggressively investigate and indict TFG and all who committed crimes for him, before time runs out.

The "move along now, nothing to see here approach" to prosecution of criminals who undermined our democracy is undermining our democracy.

[Tribetime]

89. Glen Kirschner acting AG has a nice ring to it.

[colsohlibgal]

90. He's No Trumpster

I think the best word to describe him is milk toast, he has a little Don Knotts about him.

[lagomorph777]

91. Schiff is correct. Ignore these crimes and kiss America good-bye.

This is way too dangerous to ignore.

[BeckyDem]

94. I don't understand this, it appears to be a political decision. That phone call was so

blatant, the intent so obvious.

[ProfessorGAC]

106. And, Garland Works For Which Politician?

Hard for me to believe this reticence isn't sanctioned by the boss.
Maybe that's the big stick for Biden. Tell McCarthy & McConnell, he slow roll investigations, but if they block everything for too long, he'll loose the hounds.
Maybe!
Either way, if Biden told Garland to get aggressive in investigating, he'd either do it or get fired.
So, I think Garland is following direction right now.

[Texin]

101. I think all of these people should be prosecuted, convicted and punished

and that includes tRump and every single member of his family who helped plan and carry out this attempted coup, as well as every single friend or ally of him.

tRump has never adequately been held accountable by the legal system throughout his 70+ decade crime spree. I want to see him punished. But I'm intelligent enough to understand that with the current bunch of rethugs and Q'ers in the GOP presently, they will relentlessly pursue the next Dem to ever be POTUS -- that is to say, IF there's ever another Dem elected to that office.

[Wild blueberry]

102. OK Garland, prove you are not complicit with Dumpy

Prosecute the crimes.

Our window to save what's left of our democracy is finite, pretty much 2021 (before the midterms).
So far Garland is non-acting exactly as his mouse-like appearance, timid.
He's had his chance and he fails.

[housecat]

112. Wow fool me once, fool me twice, fool me again. What's with Garland?

[Texaswitchy]

113. I think he was only picked only because of the supreme court..

He is almost my age.

To old for the job.

We needed a younger person.

I hope he is doing something.

[msfiddlestix]

114. Oh that Adam Schiff stirring it up! What does he KNOW about Criminal Investigations?

What does Former Prosecutor, California Lawmaker Adam Schiff know about how investigations of criminal intent, and evidence to charge and prosecute work?

Maybe he should google the law. or some such.

amirite all you conveyors of legal wisdom and knowledge?

[Snackshack]

115. Garland seems to be.

Following his Federalist Society dogmas….

So far concerning the previous admin AG Garland has:

1) Defended Trump in a personal lawsuit against E Jean Carroll, a woman who Trump raped
2) Defended Trump and Barr when they ordered the beating and gassing of protesters in Lafayette Square
3) Covered up Barr’s obstruction of the Mueller probe and refused to release the full OLC memo that Barr used as a pretext for his lies
4) Defended DOJ's spying on Washington Post, CNN, and other media outlets for Trump
5) Defended Don McGahn against congressional Dems' subpoenas. This is ominous as it speaks to the current subpoena crisis
6) Refuses to prosecute any of the high level 1/6 operatives
7) Appealed ruling Dems won seeking to expose corruption at Trump Hotel
8) Refused to follow up on a House investigation of Bill Barr and Wilbur Ross
9) Wants to implement a 50 year delay on when courts can consider releasing materials from federal grand juries. This would mean we won't get Trump admin court docs until 2069.

[bucolic_frolic]

117. Some of us thought Garland was working on it

but I would guess Schiff's info is more extensive and accurate.

[SunImp]

121. Schiff is a good man