So, Garland is extending Barr's protect-the-president bullshit

[Silent3]

And re-emphasizing the "Whoa! Elections are coming up! Slow down if anything you do could might even possibly be construed as partisan!" policy.

Tell me again how I should feel confident about the DoJ's "process"?

[onecaliberal]

1. Yup. He delayed long enough to claim this shit right here.

[Sneederbunk]

9. +100

[Roy Rolling]

55. Are states bound by DOJ policy?

Can the state of Georgia still indict him whenever they please? Of course. And Even the DOJ might declare a department policy, but it is trumped by law. 😂😂😂

Trump can't murder someone and say he’s immune from arrest. Wait, let me rephrase that. He will declare immunity but it’s bullshit and he’ll be arrested. LOL

[Sneederbunk]

88. States are not bound. Go Georgia!

[Gaugamela]

2. Do you have a link where he expresses all that? Did he give a press conference?

[Silent3]

7. It was just announced on Rachel Maddow n/t

[Fiendish Thingy]

10. You are misstating and misinterpreting the memo as reported on TRMS. Nt

[Phoenix61]

23. Nope, but nice try. nt

[Phoenix61]

3. What are you talking about? nt

[Silent3]

6. It was just announced on Rachel Maddow n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

4. I'm shocked

[Irish_Dem]

5. The Jan 6 congressional committee might be all there is?

At least the public will have been informed.

Maybe Garland is afraid of Trump's militias starting a civil war.
So is willing to damage the rule of law to prevent chaos.

But letting a ruthless mobster free to continue to damage the US is a tragic state of affairs.
And we will be wide open for the next Hitler or Stalin to take charge.

[sarcasmo]

46. Fanni Willis is our only hope.

[Irish_Dem]

86. The other state investigations seem to be going full speed and then they just fizzle.

I am hoping Willis will keep going.

If not, we have given carte blanche to the GOP criminals.

[Fiendish Thingy]

8. No he's not- you are misstating and misinterpreting the memo.

The memo says any investigation into a declared presidential candidate must be approved by the AG, it doesn’t say such investigations are unilaterally prohibited.

The memo says nothing about slowing down any DOJ investigations or processes, that’s your own pearl clutching misinterpretation.

Now, of course, Barr wasn’t ever going to approve an investigation of Trump; that same assumption cannot be made of Garland.

[Silent3]

11. This nevertheless makes it very clear that *appearances* are the fucking most important...

...thing in Garland's mind. To hell with the future of Democracy in America, so long as not even a hint of impropriety besmirches Garland's DoJ.

[Fiendish Thingy]

12. That is your own assumption, not based on any clear reading of the facts. Nt

[Silent3]

18. Where's the part of the memo that stresses the importance of protecting democracy?

Where's the part that stresses the importance of showing that no one is above the law?

All that's there is stressing the importance of maintaining appearances above all else, and showing that Bill Barr's policy is being carried on by Garland.

The DoJ hasn't done shit to earn the benefit of doubt beyond that.

[triron]

21. Why the fuck did garland keep this guidance?

[Phoenix61]

22. Memos typically cover one topic.

For the record, the AG is in charge of all investigations. All the memo does is remind everyone of that fact.
I guess all the arrests and prosecutions of J6 insurrectionists doesn’t count or Bannon being charged for contempt.

[PortTack]

13. Good clarification..thx!

[MarineCombatEngineer]

35. And here I thought we were supposed to be the more thoughtful, reasonable, intelligent

ones.

This fucking place sometimes.

[Rob_70]

59. Justice for some

I wish we were reading too much into this, but it just seems like Garland is doing his best to avoid prosecuting trump. This is so depressing. There is only justice for some not all.

[Fiendish Thingy]

63. That's your inference, not supported by the text in the memo. Nt

[Silent3]

71. It's the inference best supported by a long history in the US

That so many corrupt people in high office have seldom paid a serious price, other than perhaps resigning or choosing not to run again, makes cynicism about vigorous prosecution of the 1/6 crowd the well-earned reputation of the DoJ. Wishful thinking is what requires the greatest evidence in its favor.

[Marius25]

14. Biden needs to fire Garland

Garland is not up to the task of protecting Democracy. That's abundantly clear. A qualified AG would have already had Trump arrested.

[Mad_Machine76]

25. You don't know that

Nobody does.

[ancianita]

41. Have you read the memo? Have you? Then stop this.

[jimlup]

15. Yeah I'm extremely disappointed in everything I have seen from Garland

seems he's just stalling and trying to run out the clock.

There are two kinds of justice. The common folk like the indoctrinated January 6 protesters who were stupid enough to actually storm the capital. But unfortunately, also the other common folk, basically, us.

The rich and powerful always get off and that will happen this time too I'm so sad to say.

[JT45242]

16. Sure sounds like some people are above the law

Just like Nixon sabotaging peace talks in Vietnam.

Just like raygun paying the Iranian extremist to hold onto hostages.

Just like bill Barr covering up for Weinberger etc al.

Just like bush 2 and the stolen elections courtesy of Scalia.

Just like kavanaugh and the bribe/tax fraud that paid off his debts.

I'll believe Garland is different the first time anyone of actual consequence is charged with serious felonies.

[FoxNewsSucks]

27. You're far more confident than me

I'll believe it when anyone of consequence is convicted, sentenced, and either executed or locked up.

[JT45242]

28. Gotta be charged first...

But I hear you ...

All these "trust Garland" posts we've seen for a year and a half and he quotes a Bill Barr memo from 2020.

I am sickened by the memo. Once again, rethugs get away with bigger and bigger crimes.

[gldstwmn]

17. Told ya.

[SheltieLover]

19. Shocking! 😱

[JohnSJ]

20. Trump isn't the president anymore, and the 2024 election is over 2 years away.

Someone who is involved in an insurrection for our government is not eligible 5o run for president

[Silent3]

24. The midterm elections are mere months away

And that's when authoritarian Republicans will sink their claws deeper into controlling the electoral system, in order to make 2024 elections a moot point.

We desperately needed to have coup plotters in jail, or at least being prosecuted, RIGHT NOW, to have a decent shot at saving our democracy.

Now democracy hangs on the very, very thin thread of hope than in this inflation-ravaged economy Democrats will keep control of the House, Senate, and many state house around the country.

But, yeah, sure, let's go slow and by-the-book for appearance's sake.

[JohnSJ]

26. The midterms have nothing to do with trump, and he hasn't been nominated for anything

[Silent3]

29. The midterms have everything to do with the ongoing coup

Prosecutions would have cut into the power structures and the reputations of many in the Republican party if the prosecutions had happened well in advance of the midterms.

[JohnSJ]

31. The most troubling part of Garlard's memo is using the Bill Barr criteria. Not good

and that the DOJ was taking off guard by the Hutchinson testimony, implies that they are so behind all of this, that the future of the country does not look very promising

[ancianita]

45. It's weird, but far from troubling. Consider this:

Sure, the Barr reference is weird, But THAT citation is for any Trump plants within the Department staff -- to know that this DOJ continues any comparisons they might want to make between Garland and Barr -- that they will remember that and respect what this DOJ does even if on some political level they're putting up with Garland to keep their jobs.

The memo is to put all Trump plants in the DOJ on notice that they are watched for leaks. And as you know, there have been NO leaks from this DOJ over any of its investigations and prosecutions. All you know is what the justice.gov announces or you read in court filings.

That's my take after reading the entire memo. Have you read it?

[JohnSJ]

60. No, but using Barr by name as a model to follow a certain policy, is more than weird. Barr is an

AG, who politically withheld information from the mueller investigation, to prevent a "bad look" on president trump at the time, and did so throughout trump's term.

In fact, up until the end I would argue, Barr as an AG did everything to protect trump.

We will of course see what happens, but I suspect that the release of this memo came from someone in the DOJ for some reason

[ancianita]

66. Garland's memo is STILL standard form for every AG to do as previous AG's have done.

You can't fault Garland for that.

I suspect that the release of this memo came from someone in the DOJ for some reason

Well don't suspect. It came from Garland himself, signed by Garland himself. As did were the signed memos by all AG's before him.

Good lord. So what if Barr was political. He didn't send a memo like this in the past just to be political. Garland is reminding all of Barr's holdovers that they can't go forward being political, either.

[ShazzieB]

65. I like this take.

I saw the segment on Rachel Maddow's show tonight and was left scratching my head a little bit. This makes a lot of sense to me.

[gldstwmn]

32. He's going to run anyway. Fifth Avenue and all that.

[MOMFUDSKI]

30. Garland could indict the whole load of 'em tomorrow

and I am still gonna call him a PUSSY

[ecstatic]

33. He is putting our country at risk and placing us in a terrible situation

where we're going to have to demand his resignation, which in turn, will make his replacement look political. He is a gop hack. Bad pick. SMFH.

[Bluethroughu]

34. Uuummm...it's partisan and political when a sitting president

Plans, incites, and executes an insurrection!

We already have a Supreme failure in the courts, now the DOJ is making excuses not to prosecute the seditious conspiracy to insurrect and take over the democracy of the U.S....WHAT A LAWLESS JOKE.

[ancianita]

36. Garland's memo states "near the time of a primary or general election." Which doesn't apply to Trump

until 2024. Trump can declare his candidacy right now all he wants, but the memo itself never specifies that a candidate gets DOJ investigative protection on a non-election year. For Trump's candidacy this is a non-election year. Again, he cannot get protection this year or next year, only in the election year of 2024.

The only downside is that Republican congressional primary candidates probably think Garland wouldn't approve their investigation this year, either, but he already started that stuff last year, anyway, and he's intent on following through.

So for Republican Jan 6 aiders and abettors, this memo squarely puts Garland where the buck stops.

They'll know that if Trump's indicted for document theft, seditions conspiracy to overturn the transfer of power, obstruction, manslaughter, whatever -- if they were involved, they'll get indicted, too.

Y'all are jumping up and down to conclusions like you've read the memo. Did you read it?

And if you want to discuss it, why didn't you post a copy of it?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

37. Why read the full memo when you can just read the headline

and jump to a conclusion, as many here have and are doing.

[ancianita]

39. Exactly. The OP didn't even post a copy of the memo itself, so this is BS.

Sure, the Barr reference is weird, But THAT's for any Trump plants within the Department to remember and respect even if they're putting up with Garland to keep their jobs.

The memo is to put all Trump plants in the DOJ on notice that they will be watched for leaks.

[Kid Berwyn]

38. It's got to be airtight.

Only got one shot.

It’s traditional since 1972 not to indict predecessors.

There’s no real record.

Can I see your transcript, please?

[dlk]

40. It's been said some at DOJ are so in awe of the power of the presidency, they'll never prosecute TFG

I hope not. We aren’t a monarchy or dictatorship (yet). No one should be above the law.

[people]

42. Contents of Barr's memo/rule according to CNN

According to CNN Barr's memo/rule which was extended by Garland states that no one in the justice dept. can begin an investigation of someone who has publicly declared s/he is running for president or of any high up person working on his/her campaign without first getting the approval of the attorney general of the U.S.

[Justice matters.]

43. Fani Willis is going to prosecute him.

He'll have to campaign from his prison cell in Georgia...

He won't find anyone to run for VP on his corrupt ticket...

I think he will drop out out from the nomination race.

[Silent3]

44. It's good that at least someone isn't cowed or complacent n/t

[Justice matters.]

47. DeSantanus is even more dangerous though. n/t

[Silent3]

49. That's why it's a damned shame the DoJ is so pathetic right now

Not that they have anything specific to go after DeSantis for, but strong 1/6 prosecutions might have struck a body blow to the whole corrupt structure that's gathering forces in the ongoing coup. Now it's getting (if it hasn't already gotten) too late.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

50. See post #48. nt

[Silent3]

54. As I said in another post...

I didn't post a link when I wrote the OP because I was responding to live TV coverage by Rachel Maddow.

Backing up a bad Barr policy, and also putting so much emphasis on mere appearances of impropriety, is more than enough reason to be sickened. But, please, if you find strong wording in support of defending democracy in that memo, and wording in support of sending a loud and clear message that no one is above the law -- please do let us know.

Color me skeptical that the full text is exonerating.

[Justice matters.]

72. I doubt DeSantanus would win a majority of the popular vote (again)

But the red-states legislatures will probably throw out dems voters ballots by certifying republiQan electors and send them to the USNA on Dec. 14.

[ancianita]

48. You didn't even post the memo. You are undermining your president, his DOJ and AG. Knock it off.

You really shouldn't have provoked people with your opinionated, uninformed, judgmental BS.

[Silent3]

51. I posted as soon as I was hearing the story live on TV

If there's a website you've found with the full text since then, be my guest.

Backing up a bad Barr policy, and also putting so much emphasis on mere appearances of impropriety, is more than an enough reason to be sickened. But, please, if you find strong wording in support of defending democracy in that memo, and wording in support of sending a loud and clear message that no one is above the law -- please do let us know.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

53. And if you find any thing that says AG Garland won't authorize investigations

if warranted on a candidate---please do let us know.

[Silent3]

58. I never said that it did say that

What I said is that the memo shows the priorities are all fucked up, appearances above all else. That, along with the long, long history of the powerful and well-connected seldom being prosecuted in this country, is precious little reason to give the DoJ the benefit of the doubt. They haven't earned it.

[ancianita]

56. Not cool. You want to put down Garland without ANY reference to the memo he wrote. Not cool.

[Silent3]

61. Live TV shows don't produce links

And if you're so sure the full text will provide a wonderful, inspiring defense of the DoJ, by all means, link away.

Garland has not earned my benefit of the doubt.

[ancianita]

67. That's right. An INTERNET does. Your post is sloppy in that respect, and you excuse yourself from

grounding your judgment on what you remember from TV? As Obama would say, come ON.

[Silent3]

69. As reading the full text now shows, Rachel Maddow was quite thorough

Nothing in the full text makes this BS sound the slightest bit better.

[dalton99a]

52. The memo:

[MarineCombatEngineer]

57. So if I'm reading this right,

this says nothing about not investigating nor prosecuting if the evidence warrants it?

[ancianita]

62. Yeah. After all the hearsay crap going on here, I'm glad you posted it. I refused. This OP should

not have even gotten to the front page without a link to the memo. All this thread has done is foment hearsay and doubt about the president's DOJ and AG, and I'm not having it.

I could have posted the memo, too, but that's on the OP, imo.

You're a good egg, dalton.

Now maybe there will be more light here and less heat.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

64. +100.

I suspect it won't make any difference to the doom and gloom crowd we seem to have on DU here lately.

[Silent3]

68. Now I've read the full text. It adds nothing to what sickened me while hearing about the memo...

...on TV while watching Rachel Maddow.

Main emphasis on "appearances" and "reputation". Check.

Maintaining Barr's policy that puts even bigger roadblocks up against prosecuting anyone who's running for office (which would include many of Trump's congressional enablers, running in the 2022 elections in just a few months). Check.

No mention of the importance of making sure everyone, even the powerful, well-connected, and those running for office, being equal before the law, not above it. Check.

No mention of the ongoing coup and the crisis of our threatened democracy. Check.

[ancianita]

70. You're making yourself sick for nothing. It was a standard memo that AG's send at election time,

so don't taint Garland with the same attitude Barr had. Even Rachel stated the fact of AG history in sending these "election sensivities" memos.

He notes Barr. He only maintains that HE gets the last word now just like Barr did. Considering some of Barr's holdovers are still in the DOJ, I'd think you'd realize that is a good thing.

That you expect the memo to mention what you want it to mention shows you don't realize that the memo itself cannot refer to recent political historical events.

[Silent3]

74. This is no time for standard memos

That in itself demonstrates a lack of concern for the gravity of the situation.

Now is a time when, if the choices are risking looking "too political", or timely prosecution of coup plotters no matter how close the next elections are, timely prosecution is demanded, appearances be damned.

[ancianita]

75. Hell yeah, it is! This exactly the time institutions have to hold to make elections meet standards

of free and fair.

It EXACTLY demonstrates the gravity of the situation, just not with all the political wording you think it needs. Pfffft

[Silent3]

78. The DoJ's old, standard practice, however, isn't free and fair

It's an institutionalized protection of the rich, powerful, and well-connected hiding behind a gloss of objective propriety.

If no one considers the appearance of impropriety of coming after me for something illegal I might do, but people in high office and/or running for office cause such concerns, then people in high office or running for office are safer from being prosecuted than I am.

If no one is very afraid of prosecuting and losing their case against me, but they can't bear to face the public embarrassment of going after the rich, powerful, and well-connected because of how bad it would look to lose such a case, then the rich, powerful, and well-connected get away with a lot more wrong-doing, because the bar for sufficient evidence to prosecute goes that much higher.

[ancianita]

80. Just your opinion, man. The last DOJ saw the biggest election in US history --2020-- when Biden won.

Free and fair, dude. Even Barr did all the investigating tfg wanted, told him the truth, then said to others that the whole drama over "the steal" was bullshit.

[Silent3]

81. It didn't require going after anyone for a crime to simply state that the last election...

...had been free and fair.

Your response does nothing to negate what I say about how standard DoJ policy affords greater protection from prosecution for the rich, powerful, and well-connected.

[Fiendish Thingy]

73. Doug Jones has a sensible take on the memo:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216942463

[Silent3]

76. Funny. Doug Jones apparently did just what I did... responded before reading the full text...

...based on what he heard on Rachel Maddow.

Yet you aren't raking him over the coals for such supposed recklessness. Funny that.

[Fiendish Thingy]

77. Because Jones responded rationally rather than emotionally

Also, I have read the full text of the memo, and it doesn’t contradict Jones’ take that it is no big deal.

[Silent3]

79. If the difference is between rational and emotional responses

Then that's all you should have complained about.

Complaining about not posting a link to the full text in one case, but not in the other, about not seeing the full text in one case, but not the other, is a hypocritical double standard.

[ancianita]

82. Tragic that you could have avoided all the emotional responses here.

But that's really what you wanted. Baseless agreement. DU is better than that and you did it a disservice.

[Silent3]

83. Yes, terrible tragedy that I vent some well-earned frustration...

...with the DoJ rather than treating them like they're a criminal defendant and I'm a judge and dare not say the slightest disparaging thing about them without a boatload of incontrovertible evidence first.

This is not a courtroom, and the DoJ as not earned the benefit of the doubt.

[Fiendish Thingy]

87. I did no such thing. Nt

[LetMyPeopleVote]

84. Barr's memo was in response to Comey's being pond scum and helping to elect TFG

Part of Barr's memo was due to the extraordinary and insubordinate actions of James Comey. Comey helped elect TFG. Barr was in part responding to the fact that Comey violated DOJ procedures in both his July press conference and the reopening of this investigation just before the election violated DOJ guidelines and were extraordinary and insubordinate

Link to tweet

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/14/politics/ig-report-clinton-email-investigation/index.html

The Justice Department’s internal watchdog found that former FBI Director James Comey’s actions in the Hillary Clinton email investigation were “extraordinary and insubordinate” and flouted the department’s norms but that Comey was not motivated by political bias.

The inspector general released a sweeping report Thursday detailing a series of failures by the top federal officials in charge of the investigation ahead of the election, concluding that the FBI’s actions ultimately “cast a cloud” over the bureau and senior leaders did lasting damage to the FBI’s reputation.

The damage caused by these employees’ actions extends far beyond the scope of the Midyear (Clinton) investigation and goes to the heart of the FBI’s reputation for neutral factfinding and political independence,” the report by Inspector General Michael Horowitz states.

A key finding: Comey erred in his decision not to coordinate with his superiors at the Justice Department at critical moments. Horowitz said that Comey was “extraordinary and insubordinate,” and did not agree with any of his reasons for deviating from “well-established Department policies.”

But Horowitz concluded that the prosecutorial decisions in the Clinton case were “consistent” with precedent and not affected by bias or other improper actions.

The report is likely to reopen wounds left festering since the 2016 election and breathe new life into the debate over the extent to which Comey’s actions secured Trump’s victory.

Barr's memo is trying to correct the actions of Comey

Lets be real. The DOJ is not going to indict TFG without the approval of Attorney General Garland. I was nt really upset at Rachel's report tonight

[Silent3]

85. I'm most upset not by what the memo said, but what is didn't say

The status quo of the DoJ is a slow, ponderous mode that, for all of DoJ's history, has protected the rich, powerful, and well-connected more than the average citizen. In the name of maintaining the appearance of being impartial and above the political fray, DoJ standard operating procedure helps put the elite above the law.

Since this memo strongly reinforces that old status quo, that tells me what I've been most afraid of is probably true: no one is properly responding to the gravity of the ongoing threat against our democracy, a crisis which requires putting action above appearances.