Merrick Garland's Cruel Shoes

[kentuck]

What would you do if you were in Merrick Garland's shoes?

He professes that he has no concern except to follow the rule of law. Politics is not a factor with him.

But, everything is political.

Merrick Garland is confronted with a dilemma not of his making but one of his choosing. He chose to be the Attorney General of the United States. He accepted the responsibilities of that job when he took it.

Does he wait for the Select Committee to complete its investigation before he decides whether or not to prosecute criminal activities?

Does he wait for the Supreme Court to make a ruling which will give legitimacy to his investigations and prosecutions?

Or does he weigh the political consequences of prosecuting the political leaders of one Party, further dividing the nation into warring sections? Is the prosecution of one or two Republican leaders worth the risk of tearing the country asunder?

Or does he put those concerns aside and simply follow wherever the law takes him, as he has stated in the past?

It is not an easy decision. It is a cruel and grueling decision that should have bi-partisan support. But is that possible?

What would you do if you were in Garland's shoes?

[BlueTsunami2018]

1. What I would do is prosecute the fuck out of those traitors.

Politics be damned.

But I’m also not a lawyer and have limited knowledge on what the procedural steps are. The evidence seems pretty plain to me but I’m not sure how to get from point a to point b.

[jimfields33]

13. I wouldn't do a thing until the house send over the evidence.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

15. Sshhh, you're disturbing today's "Shit on Garland" thread nt

[jimfields33]

16. Lol. True.

[kentuck]

20. No...no one is trying to crap on Garland...

...they are only crapping on DUer's attempting to have a productive discussion.

One might mistake this as a political discussion board.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

23. What's productive about this?

You aren't having a discussion.
You're hosting a collective bitch fest about a Democratic public figure because you feel that you should be privileged enough to know the inner workings of the most important investigation done by the Justice Dept. in a long time.
Garland isn't going to read this and say, "hey, a bunch of random posters are calling me names and saying I'm incompetent, I better go galloping into court right away!"
But then, there are people on our side who believe that pounding on Manchin's car is going to change his mind as well. And we saw how well that worked out.

[dem4decades]

21. Really? Do nothing? That's a great DOJ strategy.

[malaise]

60. THIS n/tj

[DemUnleashed]

2. I...

I think he needs to follow the law wherever it takes him! By not prosecuting those that need to be prosecuted, THAT is the part that is political!

[Sneederbunk]

34. +100

[Bev54]

50. Exactly - just follow the law and investigate and indict

Says right in the OP that is what he has said he would do, and I suspect he is or will.

[Alpeduez21]

3. There is plenty of evidence that crimes were committed

From election fraud to election interference. From misuse of campaign funds to racketeering. From accepting
Foreign aid to foreign bribery. If I were in his shoes I’d bury them under the jail. I think Garland is sympathetic to republican ideologies and unfit for the position which these times require.

[berni_mccoy]

4. It is not cruel. Cruel is an action done to another. Garland signed up for this

He is derelict in his duty to prosecute those who have obviously sought to overthrow our government.

Imagine if the attacks of 9/11 were ignored like this?

[Beetwasher.]

5. Anna knew she had to have a new pair of shoes today...

[edhopper]

6. I would do my fucking job!

And not worry about "politics" when crimes were committed.

[Picaro]

7. Both choices are bad but there is really no choice

Merrick Garland is squarely on the hot seat.

If he doesn't follow the law and go after the powerful, famous, and rich people that incited this terrorist act he will pound the final nail in the coffin of our constitutional system of government. If he does act there will be howls of outrage over political bias and persecution. There also may be armed insurrection.

By not acting he will confirm that we have a two-tier system of justice. The wealthy, white, and well connected are virtually immune from prosecution and incarceration. All others, such as the hundreds of lower echelon insurrectionists will suffer at least some legal and financial repercussions. Trump, Navarro, Bannon, Guliani et al will skate and go on to continue to foment revolution.

Garland is not a stupid man. But the question is, is he brave enough to follow the law?

This nightmare has landed in his lap after the federal judiciary has been co-opted by the radical Federalist society and the right wing billionaires that fund the right wing ecosystem. The Supreme Court is now clearly partisan. But so are most of the appellate courts. There are also clear signs that the right wing infection is surging through federal and local law enforcement.

I've thought for many years that we have been lurching toward civil war. But now the storm clouds are dark and looming. Our institutions seem to be crumbling. Everywhere you look there's evidence of right wing capture. The legislative branch is being taken over by insane zealots who are fundamentally uninterested in legislating, but are focused only on fanning the flames of conflict. There are many judges in place that have a scant legal education from august institutions such as Liberty University--their only qualifications being the extremity of their views and their contempt for precedent and the rule of law in general.

The one bright spot has been the presidency--where the voters have for most part rejected Republican extremism. Now the termites in our system are seeking the power to simply overturn the will of the voters.

It looks very grim.

I'm not a prayerful man, but I find myself praying that we can somehow dig our way out of this.

We need Merrick Garland to have a very stiff spine. But, by acting, he may spark civil war. I would bet he knows that. But, in the end, what alternative does he (and we) have?

[kentuck]

10. But, cannot the Supreme Court co-opt him, depending on how they choose to handle it?

If they choose to take Trump's case about "executive privilege", doesn't that mean they will probably seek to delay the prosecution of Trump and others for political purposes? What can Garland do then?

[Joinfortmill]

48. 👍

[doc03]

8. If he prosecutes saditionists it would tear the nation

asunder! I would say if doesn't he invites another coup and won't that tear the nation asunder. From what I have seen he should have fired months ago.

[kentuck]

9. I think the right thing for Garland to do...

...is to follow the law. Politics be damned. Political Parties be damned. This is the time to defend our country and our Constitution.

[Effete Snob]

11. Cruel?

One can decline an appointment to the job.

Pretty sure he lives more comfortably than most folks reading this site.

And living well is what matters. It is what insulates the governing class from the rest of us, and allows them to be calmly objective about decisions which, after all, will have no impact on their own lives.

It's those people with something to lose, or who have already lost and have a chip on their shoulder, whom one has to look out for. If you let the aggrieved pursue their grievances in an actually effective way, it would upset too many apple carts. Justice must not proceed at a precipitous rate.

[kentuck]

12. It's only a figure of speech...

...do not take it too literally.

[lamp_shade]

14. Exactly what he's doing. Follow the law, ignore the whiners, take no risks.

That's what I admire about him.

[secondwind]

17. Hear, hear.... my sentiments exactly!!!!!!!!

[lapucelle]

18. If I were in his shoes, I would have the requisite expertise, judgement,

education, and institutional competence to be the attorney general of the United States or sit on the Supreme Court.

[kentuck]

44. Do you mean like Matthew Whitaker?

Or perhaps William Barr?

[lapucelle]

56. A Democratic president didn't appoint Whitaker and Barr. Why would anyone compare Garland to them?

[brush]

19. I'd certainly take action against the inciters and participants of the insurrection...

which attempted to take down our government. It can't be more obvious that should've been job one for him.

[bluestarone]

22. I'm thinking Garland is waiting on the MOST important decision from the SC

About TFG'S papers released to the committee. THEN he will start making his moves after receiving the committee report.

[Frustratedlady]

24. I'm concerned that Garland is such a kind soul that he won't be as aggressive as he needs to be.

He doesn't impress me as being the type to push beyond his comfort zone, which is needed in this situation. However, as someone mentioned on a news program today, he should be running his own investigation by now. There is enough information gathered by the 1/6 commission to indicate there were all kinds of violations of our laws and they just need to tie up the loose ends. They know it and someday we should also be shown the whole picture. If they are allowed to buy time, they will never agree to testify to anything in the future. Why would they?

Would those who refuse to testify before the commission refuse to testify to the Attorney General? The Repukes have scoffed at and bullied up to the commission to the point of endangering any feeling of legitimacy of the investigation from the general public. They are good at sticking together and doing that. There needs to be an outcry from the public to let the inciters know this is serious stuff and we demand answers. My prayer is that I don't die before the job is done.

Although it's been denied, I'm secretly hoping a certain bigwig's wife gets nailed for giving financial support to the insurrectionists. I can't believe she wasn't involved in some way. (Sometimes, we just need a little package of hope in our back pocket to open when the time is right. Taking that smirk off her face would do it for me.)

[MineralMan]

25. I am not in Merrick Garland's shoes.

I am in no way qualified to be the Attorney General of the United States. I doubt that anyone on this website is so qualified.

What is he doing? I do not know, exactly. I check the DOJ's press releases each day at:

https://www.justice.gov/news

I can see what is going on there that way. However, the ongoing investigations of January 6 and of people involved with that show up only when specific actions have been taken. The DOJ keeps its investigations and plans private until then. So, I keep watching to see what shows up. That way, I don't have to guess.

[CaptainTruth]

37. Now there's a great idea. Thanks for the link!

[Xoan]

61. Press releases?

Don't Look Up.

[Thomas Hurt]

26. I think he is waiting on two things...one, for the Pig to exhaust his appeals and,

two, criminal referrals from the committee.

[kentuck]

55. I think you are probably right.

Also, if the Committee refers Trump to the DOJ, I would expect a Special Prosecutor to be named.

Of course, none of us are experts and this is only a conjecture.

[PBC_Democrat]

27. I trust the AG

Remember him, the guy nominated to sit on SCOTUS?

My sincere hope is that's he's putting together a airtight case that is going to as difficult as possible to criticize.

Not that will stop the Rs, but it may force them to nitpick on trivial points.

Sadly, these things don't progress at the pace you and I would like.

[Martin Eden]

28. "Does he wait for the Select Committee to complete its investigation"

I am not an authority on such matters, but it seems prudent to gather as much evidence as possible before issuing indictments against a former president and his close associates (including current government officials).

Why?

Because these are extremely high stakes in a case that could be very difficult to win. Acquittal would be an unmitigated disaster portrayed as total exoneration, demonstrating there are no consequences for attempting to overthrow our government. The chances of a successful coup in 2024 would be greatly increased.

However, there may be a fine line between gathering sufficient evidence and delaying too long -- especially in terms of public perception. Although justice should not be partisan, how this plays out politically will impact whether or not justice is truly served.

Our democracy hangs in the balance.

[Joinfortmill]

49. 👍

[Autumn]

29. Politics not being a factor with him is just an excuse. This is about obvious crimes against our

political system. committed in broad daylight much of it televised. Those leading it didn't even bother to hide. It is an easy decision, very easy. The easiest fucking decision anyone could ever make. He needs to understand this can not have any bi-partisan support. The other party was in on these crimes so that they could retain power. They were willing to throw our democracy out the window to have that power.

He should do his fucking job, he accepted the responsibilities of that job when he took it. Prosecute. If he doesn't have the balls to do it he should appoint a special prosecutor and step down. Right now he is giving the appearance of running out the clock.

[George II]

40. He accepted the responsibilities of that job when he took it, and he's doing it....

Unfortunately many are thinking an Attorney General should send out a morning email blast every day revealing all the details of the investigations being conducted by the DOJ.

It doesn't work like that.

[Autumn]

42. Whatever George, no one expects an email blast. Can't wait to see Muellers report!

Oh? Nevermind.

[Midnight Writer]

30. Appoint a special counsel (prosecutor).

We have used them for far less important scandals.

And that counsel should have the same protections as Durham does, so the investigation cannot be kneecapped by political changes.

[Rabrrrrrr]

31. What would I do? Ignore the whining of the left and the right both, and just do the right thing

as I saw it.

I'm a big fan of Star Trek, and in the next generation series there were lots of episodes dealing with the need to do the right and moral thing even though there would be major fallout from it. I have learned from those shows that, yes, I need to channel my inner Picard and just do what is right, even if it costs me a career, does harm to friends (if they are the ones who did the bad thing), or other things that we might sometimes say, "Well, maybe this time, in order to save the union, we shouldn't....."

I think we also should have all learned from Nixon's pardon that Ford's attempt to save the country from a nightmare, while good-intended on the surface, actually did us a hell of a lot more long-term harm than if we'd have just the system work itself out and taking the hell of a lot of short-term harm.

[George II]

41. A voice of reason, thanks! He's doing just what you say, doing the right thing.

[Joinfortmill]

52. 👍

[Escurumbele]

32. Why think indictment of the criminals of the GOP would divide further the country? I happen

to think it will have the opposite effect. I believe that MAGAts with a little bit of brain and less stupidity in their personality will become outraged at how they were deceived, they will start asking themselves how was it possible they could have followed a con man and his gang, they will finally understand that the GOP has no interest in governing, only grift.

This question you ask "Or does he weigh the political consequences of prosecuting the political leaders of one Party, further dividing the nation into warring sections?" I happen to believe is invalid, the truth will bring the country together, many people will finally open their eyes to realize they have been conned, and there is nothing that hurts a human ego the most than to realize they have been played for idiots.

I understand that one cannot cure stupid, so I o expect that some people will remain MAGAts and stay on that side, but I feel the majority of thinking people on that side will have a rude awakening to finally understand they have been duped.

Garland must do the job he was appointed to do, there is no room for selective politics here, it is either "the rule of law" and "no one is above the law" is true, or it is not, there is no grey area here, there is no middle ground, he must follow the rule of law and prosecute all those who have committed crimes against Democracy and the nation, there really is nothing to consider about dividing the country, or whatever other excuses anyone wants to provide Garland for not doing his job. By nature his job is apolitical, there is no consideration to make here other than prosecute and indict where it merits.

You either love your country or you don't, there is no middle ground in there.

[Joinfortmill]

53. 👍

[40RatRod]

33. But, but, but...

...What if he has already unleashed the power of his office to investigate and is just waiting for the right time to name names and kick ass?

[Escurumbele]

35. Amen, I hope that is true.

[KS Toronado]

46. What I've been saying for some time now.

Law enforcement never advertises who they are looking into and what they have on them.
Silence and timing is everything to them.

[nowforever]

38. I would be a man of action

Time to start calling out traitors for who they are and using the power of the jail cell. Pussyfooting around is not a strategy that works with treasonous souls.

[George II]

39. I would do exactly what he's doing - following wherever the law takes him.

[grantcart]

43. Yep and only prosecuting cases certain for conviction

[Joinfortmill]

45. Follow the law, but

timing is everything. He can't get this wrong. There's a lot of misinformation and lies filling the airwaves - the Jan 6th hearings will be a national and world-wide truth telling.

Lots of people are armed - getting them in prison will help diminish the chances of another insurrection. Ongoing surveillance/investigations will root out more information. Install a secret grand jury as soon as enough evidence/witness testimony is available.

I believe this and more is what is now occurring at DOJ. But, what do I know? All I know is Biden and Garland are patriots. I am placing my trust in them.

[oldsoftie]

47. No one here knows what is or isnt being done. The DOJ usually isnt vocal. nt

[fwvinson]

51. Aren't the Congressional hears on the 1/6 insurgency

suppose to start first part of Jan.? I think I read that a couple days ago. Probably on DU.

[Joinfortmill]

54. Yup. Early in 2022. Truth telling time.

[sarcasmo]

57. Cruel Suede Shoes

[Takket]

58. I think he wants to wait for the Jan 6 committee to finish

Since it is a bipartisan congressional effort it can provide DOJ the "cover" it needs to eliminate any "controversy" that prosecuting drumpf is a partisan hit job, especially since he works for the executive branch, not Congress. IN THE MEANTIME, he should be fully investigating everything he can alongside the jan 6 committee so he is ready with indictments when they are finished. The jan 6 report should be the END POINT of investigations, not the beginning.

Personally I think there is no need to wait for the committee if you have indictable offenses, but I THINK that is what Garland is doing (waiting for them).

[ecstatic]

59. The country is already warring. My right to have my vote counted

*regardless of an election's outcome* is already pretty much gone here in Georgia. Obviously I will continue to vote and encourage everyone else to do so, but the bottom line is the war has already begun. The question is will Democrats continue to sit on the sidelines while the qOP assault on civil and human rights continues.