To all those impatient with AG Garland: is it time to start impeachment hearings?

[Fiendish Thingy]

Since it appears that President Biden doesn’t intend on firing Garland, impeachment appears to be the only recourse.

Many here on DU are certain that the lack of information, or even confirmation of, a DOJ investigation of Trump and the January 6 coup architects, is solid proof that there is indeed no investigation.

Since Garland promised investigating January 6 would be his top priority as AG, and since there is now “proof” that he has not fulfilled that promise, impeachment should be a slam dunk, and would almost certainly have bipartisan support.

I’m sure you could get support from Josh Gottheimer or Ro Khanna or some other “centrist” Dem to pursue this after the Christmas recess.

You also probably should start thinking of who Biden could get confirmed to replace Garland…(not who you think would do a better job, who you think could get confirmed)

Note to juries:
I’m not advocating Garland be impeached, only pointing out that those who are fed up with Garland, and certain he is not fulfilling his oath, impeachment seems to be the only recourse left.

[unc70]

1. No

I expect January will be busy for everyone

[LakeVermilion]

2. We can't get 50 votes for voting rights,

how is the Senate supposed to arrive at 67 votes to impeach? Plus the impeachment drama lets TFG and his troops off the hook.

Not the best idea on these pages. (imho)

[peacefreak2.0]

3. Impeach for what?

Because his investigation and prosecution isn’t going fast enough for you? I’d rather see a thorough and comprehensive job done.

[dem4decades]

5. Really, what evidence do you have he's doing any kind of job investigating the highest levels of

Insurrection, never mind a good job?

[Eliot Rosewater]

7. I think the OP is making the opposite point.

Personally, I dont give a shit who does it, but if trump is allowed to run again, America is over.

Maybe Garland is about to indict some folks, we dont know. But if Trump runs again, America is over.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

33. I was wondering the same thing

What is the supposed offense or grounds for impeachment in the real world other than hurt feelings?

[jmbar2]

4. I suspect this was snark, but in case it wasn't.

We need to return to our better angel selves here. I would enjoy seeing the whole Dump Mob get arrested, convicted, bankrupted and imprisoned as much as anyone else. But we cannot become the mob ourselves.

It's not our prerogative to exact justice on them. Our job is to make sure that we pressure our elected officials to pass the Voting Rights Bill.

We need to not obsess on taking revenge on the traitors. It will distract us from the greatest need - to protect our Democracy.

[Fiendish Thingy]

16. Not snark, but a serious challenge to the Garland haters to take a principled stand

Even if I think it’s the wrong position, they should have the courage of their outraged convictions.

[gab13by13]

44. You start out with an assumption that you don't know.

I assume that you believe that Garland is investigating the top coup people because if he is not, you and everyone else who believes in democracy should be pushing for Garland to act.

If Garland is doing nothing with the Big Fish do you believe there won't be consequences for his inaction?

I can give examples; Michael Cohen did jail time for the Stormy Daniels case. Donald Trump was individual one, his name was signed to the checks. Garland chose not to prosecute Trump, now the statute of limitations has run out, Trump skated.

Garland failed to act when a Cyber Ninja pro-Trump group violated federal election laws when ballots, voter information, and election material and equipment was taken away from the possession of election officials. There were repercussions because of Garland's inaction. The fraudits continued to numerous other states where pro-Trump people perpetuated the Big Lie, where they fired honest election officials and replaced them with Qanon election officials, the fraudits continue.

Every person who is crying for Merrick Garland to do investigations is extremely concerned with the consequences that will occur if he is not. The coup attempt did not end on 1/6, I hope that everyone understands that, it has grown stronger.

Monday and Tuesday Liz Cheney spelled out the law that Trump broke. She was speaking to Merrick Garland. John Dean was on cable tonight, he agreed with Cheney, he listed 2 more laws that Trump broke that they used in Watergate.

Why do people here attack people who want DOJ to investigate an obvious crime? Waiting is the GQP strategy, I just don't get it?

[Fiendish Thingy]

50. And so, if Garland is truly doing nothing, what should his consequences be?

I agree with you on the stakes and risks involved in not prosecuting the architects of the insurrection.

So, if Garland is truly doing nothing (the only evidence being the lack of evidence), what should his consequences be?

[Goodheart]

6. Yes.

[dpibel]

8. I realize you're making an incisive point

But when you want to throw down the gauntlet to the doubters, best choose a procedure that exists.

I'm not aware that it's possible to impeach cabinet members. Care to educate me?

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. I wasn't sure either but apparently it has been done at least once before

According to this site:

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII_S4_1_2_1/

Nevertheless, there is debate over just who is a “civil officer”.

[Scrivener7]

20. There is a way to impeach them! It's just A SECRET! And they're working on it

RIGHT NOW!!!

You just need to be patient.

[dpibel]

37. LOL, as we said in the olden days

[Silent3]

9. I wouldn't mind seeing Garland shamed into resigning

Totally apart from the fact that I'm pretty sure you're just being snarky about impeachment it would never work anyway. If Trump can't be both impeached and convicted, practically no one can be.

[Budi]

11. Shamed into resigning? And give the criminal mob another shot at covering their asses?

SEE POST 10.

Who wants to stall & upend the DOJ & AG Garland's work?
There's a reason NO ONE knows what he's got.

[Silent3]

17. I rather doubt that Garland is an integral part of anything (if there is anything) going on...

...to prosecute the ringleaders of the insurrection. You can't drop the ball if you aren't carrying the ball.

Real action, no matter how good the DoJ is at keeping things quiet, would produce some observable effects. Active and thorough investigation can't help but stir up observable ripples, ripples that aren't being seen.

[Budi]

23. I'm sure you have your reasons, knowing all you must about Garland's business, & all.

Have at it!

Let the smear campaign continue! It's certainly to the benefit of someone out there!

[Fiendish Thingy]

22. I don't support impeachment, but challenge the Garland haters to stand by their principles

If he has shown dereliction of duty, or violated his oath, as some are certain, and Biden won’t fire him, and can’t ethically order him to prosecute Trump, then impeachment seems to be the only recourse.

This OP was intended to separate the truly principled (albeit wrong) from the recreational whiners.

[Fiendish Thingy]

24. It would only take a handful of centrist Dems in the house, and 17 in the senate. Nt

[MichMan]

45. If indeed he isn't prosecuting Trump and other Republicans aggressively enough

Why would Republicans vote for his removal and risk someone tougher?

[Budi]

10. Well there's another angle to consider in that 'replace Garland' screeching..

It would certainly delay the process AG Garland is already set on.
Imagine how much the investigation would be delayed, to find another AG, & the time it woukd take to inform him/her of all that is already compiled by team Garland.
They probably bring in new staff, who would also have to sift thru the piles of data & leads & legal speak.

That would certainly buy some time.
Who would benefit from such an orchestrated delay, ..who?

If they were so desperate to keep Biden from being certified on Jan 6, as to storm the Capitol, disrupt the process & threaten to murder the House Speaker, its not really a stretch to think they'd find another desperate method to keep the worst of the criminals from being prosecuted. Or revealing who opened the door to foreign interferance in destroying Democracy & the US gov't, in order to protect the names at the very top.

I certainly understand why certain players with a Media presence, would enlist an all out degrading smear campaign & hit it relentlessly, to disrupt & condem business of the DOJ & AG Garland.

Carry on AG Garland, ignore the noise of those desperados.

[Autumn]

15. You are in the DOJ circle? You come off acting like you know what they doing.

Delay? That can point both ways.

[Mad_Machine76]

12. Locking Trump up isn't Garland's "job"

Running the DOJ competently and honestly are his primary responsibilities, and so far there is no current evidence that he is failing at either. If prosecuting Trump is the only benchmark for him having and/or continuing to hold that post, it was never explicitly stated as such, nor should it be expected.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

13. Why would you ask this of a bunch of everyday citizens on an internet forum....

for whom you don't know the qualifications for providing a rational answer?

I can't think of many things more damaging to the Democratic Party and our chances next year or 2024 than impeaching a member of President Biden's Cabinet.

Please remember it's known that right-wing trolls lurk on DU and copy-and-paste many bits and pieces of our discussions.

KY......

[Fiendish Thingy]

25. People are already sharing their opinions about Garland, I'm just upping the ante

If someone will whine on DU about Garland not doing his job, then what should the next logical step be?

Biden can’t ethically order him to prosecute Trump, and isn’t going to fire him, so…

[cadoman]

14. really?

It's pretty common practice to not comment on pending investigations.

It's frustrating, but the reason that investigations and prosecutions are performed independently from Congress is so that Congress--being the branch most immediately responsive to the broader population--doesn't exert mob justice in response to popular fury.

There are a _lot_ of pieces that would need to fall into place to get an insurrection or sedition charge. A mob of people interrupting a Congressional event--even as important as the electoral vote--isn't gonna cut it with an insurrection charge. We can ride that rhetoric as long as it's politically productive, but the expectation should be that we're unlikely to see many charges that go beyond "parading".

[Fiendish Thingy]

28. Several militia members have been charged with Obstruction of Congress

Which carries a 20 year max sentence.

Liz Cheney quoted From the Obstruction statute this week in outlining the mission of the committee in the New Year: to determine if there is evidence that Trump and the coup architects conspired to obstruct a congressional proceeding.

[rockfordfile]

18. trolling

[Scrivener7]

21. Yup. And not very well.

[Budi]

27. Go back to trolling school. How to up the game & be a better troll.

Who exactly wants AG Garland & his DOJ work upended, stalled, paused...dropped all together?
We all know why smear campaigns exist, now. Its a desperate cry for, "Stop him!!!"

[Fiendish Thingy]

30. There are several on DU who insist Garland isn't doing any work at all

If they truly believe Garland is doing absolutely “nothing” to investigate Trump and the coup architects, then one would logically expect those same DU’ers would support his impeachment for dereliction of duty or violation of oath, based on…a complete lack of evidence that they use as “proof” for their outrage.

[Budi]

35. THIS: .."a complete lack of evidence that they use as "proof" for their outrage."

Who are they supporting then?

I mean, It's AG Garland vs Trump, afterall.
🤔

[Scrivener7]

38. I'm one of them. But impeachment of the AG

is not a thing. As I am sure you know.

[Fiendish Thingy]

53. Apparently congress has impeached a cabinet member at least once before, so it is "a thing"

According to this site:

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII_S4_1_2_1/

There is debate on the definition of who is a “civil officer”, but it’s not something that has a lot of precedent.

[former9thward]

59. The cabinet member impeached by the House (in 1876) was a Republican.

And the House was overwhelmingly Democratic (by about 80 votes). So it was the opposite party doing the impeachment. Not what exists now. The Senate was overwhelmingly Republican and the cabinet official was acquitted.

[Fiendish Thingy]

26. Confronting. Those who believe Garland is derelict should put up or...nt

[Budi]

29. K & R

Who exactly is shoving that meme all over soc & Msm?

If storming the House just before they certified Biden as President backfired, then I doubt they just stopped trying & all went home.
Their necks are all on the line.

Now why would they be shoving out the 24/7 meme that "Garland is failing! Garland is incompetant! AG Garland has to be replaced!"
IMPEACH HIM, NOW!
And hurry up!
🙄

[Fiendish Thingy]

31. Lots of veteran DU'ers are pushing that narrative, minus the calls for impeachment

I’m challenging them to show the courage of their convictions, even if based on a total lack of evidence.

[Budi]

36. There is none to show.

👍

[Scrivener7]

40. Show the courage of our convictions by engaging in your

bonkers scenario?

Kay.

[jmbar2]

48. BINGO!

I agree with Budi. Someone is shitstirring and we are falling for it. None of us know what Garland is up to. We are not supposed to.

[Scrivener7]

39. Sure. Because we are the ones who decide whether he stays or goes.

Except we aren't.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

32. In what universe does this make sense?

Why do this? This makes no sense. You will never get a two -thirds vote in the Seante and this stunt would only hurt Joe Biden. Why would anyone want to pursue such an action if the only effect would be to help the GOP win the House and Senate in 2022?

[IA8IT]

34. Elect more House and Senate Democrats. That will show them we mean business.

[Polybius]

41. Impeach who?

You didn't say in your OP.

[MOMFUDSKI]

42. Everything written here

is all well and good. What was written in 1930's Germany? After the fall, did the people wish they had done some things differently? We could very well be there as we write.

[Scrivener7]

61. Yes. This is the entire point, succinctly stated.

[Sneederbunk]

43. The proof is in the pudding, although I have concluded there is no pudding.

[jcgoldie]

46. Meh

Seems like you put a lot of effort into very unconvincing bait.

[BlackSkimmer]

47. I guess you're trying to make a point here?

[Iggo]

49. Is it a crime to cause me impatience?

[Meowmee]

51. AG

Can be replaced. No need to impeach.

[Fiendish Thingy]

52. If Biden won't fire Garland, impeachment is the only option- Do you support?

Biden isn’t going to replace Garland, so…where do you stand?

[Meowmee]

60. Does it matter?

None of this will ever happen most likely and I certainly have no influence.

[ecstatic]

54. Of course not, but I do think he should resign because he hears the

outcry from his peers, the public, and Congress and still refuses to act. Biden needs to appoint someone who has the strength and integrity to defend this nation from all threats, including and especially the white domestic terrorist threat that is growing larger by the day.

I'm not sure if it was your intention, but your post seems kind of condescending and almost making a mockery of a serious situation. Our country was attacked. The lack of serious consequences for the perpetrators weakens our country on multiple levels. First, it makes it a lot more likely that it will happen again and the next time it will probably succeed. Second, there's a clear racial component as well. Had this been carried out by anyone of color or of the Muslim faith, I assure you, there would not have been any hesitation whatsoever in bringing every last person involved to Justice.

Merrick seems like a nice guy, but at this point he has lost the confidence of a lot of people. Not just with the way he's handled the terrorist attack, but the way he's handling the qOP voter suppression/ election nullification laws that are springing up around the country. He should step down and enjoy his life, maybe play some golf. Honestly, I wouldn't even want to take the chance of appointing him to the Supreme Court again.

[Fiendish Thingy]

55. The situation is indeed serious, but the outcry on Garland is largely uninformed impatience

If you think he is doing poorly enough that he should resign, then, since Biden won’t fire him, why shouldn’t he be impeached?

I don’t agree with impeaching Garland, but it seems like it would be the position that is consistent with all the outrage being expressed around here- that’s the disconnect I don’t get.

[ecstatic]

56. Because impeachment is usually associated with high crimes,

abuse of office, and misdemeanors. I don't think Garland is grossly incompetent or that he has abused his power in any way. I'm not looking to punish or humiliate him. I just don't think he's the right person for the job right now. He's vastly underestimating the threat that we're facing.

So regarding the disconnect you're feeling, it's simple: we're not assholes who wish to get our way by any means possible. Leave that to the qOP. I just want justice and law and order restored.

[fishwax]

57. no

[Mr.Bill]

58. It would be interesting to see which republicans

would not vote to impeach him.