Just wondering, are we still supporting Merrick Garland on this Forum?

[Tacan]

[live love laugh]

1. Why?

[Tacan]

3. I'm tired of his inaction.

[Fiendish Thingy]

36. Absence of public information is not evidence of inaction

It’s just not the specific action you desire at this moment.

[Bucky]

54. Maybe you're tired of believing there's no action going on because he's not making noise

The last thing we want is another Oliver North type flawed indictment. Remember how North got off cause Congress gave away too much immunity to him on ancillary questions so that he couldn't get indicted on the main charges.

Rock solid convictions are rarely tried first in the public eye. Public pressure on Garland is a good thing. Him giving into it and tipping his legal strategy would not be.

[Joinfortmill]

2. I am. Joe Biden chose him and that's all I need to know.

[happybird]

5. +1

[agingdem]

4. I am..

but then again this is Bash Garland Monday...

[Lunabell]

6. His work.

If he is bringing tfg to justice and upholds the rule of law, I support that work. Him? Why should I? He may be a republican, for all Iknow.

[GP6971]

7. Of course.

Why do you ask?

[JohnSJ]

8. Who?

[LakeArenal]

9. I think people expect all kinds of leaks to let us know what is going on..

But there aren’t any. People can assume anything.

Do people think. Garland is really going to work every day doing nothing?

[FSogol]

10. Go watch NCIS. I hear they wrap everything up at the end of the hour.

[jcgoldie]

13. cheers

That was a pretty good zinger.

[iemanja]

16. Yeah, 2 years is nothing.

On the other hand, Brazil has already made over 1500 arrests.

[Genki Hikari]

37. Two years is nothing when you look at history

Nixon was pardoned before he was ever indicted--2 years and nearly 3 months after Watergate. And we have no idea if he ever would have been indicted, never mind put on trial.

And people are complaining about 2 years? After DOJ got slammed with hundreds of unexpected cases in the wake of J6, never mind how the federal system was already backlogged even more than usual from the pandemic?

I'm with the idea that people are expecting TV show results with a process that has always crawled along at a snails pace. I was looking at a minimum of two years for my 1980s case with the DOJ, despite how the local yokel cops had jacked up the perps less than an hour after I banged on that farmhouse door for help.

[newdayneeded]

39. You're comparing 1 hour

to 2 years? If you or I would have gone on a Whitehouse tour and took 2 even lightly classified documents off a desk and brought them home we'd already be 6 months past the trial and serving time.

[Bucky]

60. Don't do that

It's wrong

[Ocelot II]

11. Biden appointed him and that's good enough for me.

So the answer is yes, and I am bookmarking the Garland-bashing threads for when the indictments are issued.

[Deuxcents]

12. Why wouldn't we support him?

[True Dough]

14. Jack Smith

might hold the answer to whether or not Garland gets a passing grade...


Giuliani subpoenaed amid special counsel investigation into Trump’s fundraising

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/09/politics/rudy-giuliani-subpoena-special-counsel-fundraising-trump/index.html

[iemanja]

15. Isn't the person in question now Jack Smith?

Garland has already proved that he won't prosecute Trump on his own. There is no collective "we." DUers have different views on the subject, and that's okay.

[newdayneeded]

40. I read it on here that Smith will

carry on the investigation, but Garland ultimately decides whether to indict or not.

[iemanja]

65. Yes, but Garland is waiting for Smith's recommendation

[sheshe2]

17. I am.

Last edited Tue Jan 10, 2023, 01:24 AM - Edit history (1)

He is a Biden appointee and I trust the President's choice.

Watergate took 2 years and was far less complicated than this. There are far more players here and we have to get this right.

Edit 2 years not 5.

[gab13by13]

22. Do you also support the 20 Republican Senators who voted to confirm him?

Just because President Biden nominated Garland does not give him a pass. Garland has a record to judge him by now.

Example; Bill Barr chose to defend Trump (the office) in the E. Jean Carroll defamation law suit. Merrick Garland took over for Barr, he did noy have to defend Trump but he did. Carroll's attorney filed an appeal and a District judge ruled that defaming someone is not an official duty of the president, Garland thinks it is. Trump's lawyers appealed and the case now sits with the Appeals court.

Am I wrong in saying that Garland is wrong in believing that defaming someone is an official duty of the president? Do I have to blindly agree with everything that Garland does?

[former9thward]

29. Five years! LOL

People used to post Watergate took two years -- which was not true. Now its five years. Next it will be 10 years. The burglars were arrested quickly and tried quickly. The higher level cover ups did not even start until about 6 months after the burglary. Within a year all were indicted. And that was with a DOJ in the hands of the same party that was being investigated. Not the case here.

[newdayneeded]

43. Garlands waiting for a repub

to be elected president. Then he can just say, oh well, I tried, but the new president stopped all investigations.

[Genki Hikari]

44. WTF

All were indicted?

No, they weren't.

Nixon was NEVER indicted. He was pardoned before it ever happened.

I don't think any of the trials took five years.

Haldeman, Ehrlichman and Mitchell went on trial in September 1974, two years and three months after the Watergate break-in. They were finally convicted almost four months later on 1 Jan 1975; however, they didn't exhaust their appeals until 1977, and only then did they go to jail. The appeals process is probably what the above post is referring to.

[sheshe2]

48. Edited.

I meant to write 2.

[Bev54]

18. Yes

Do you have any idea how tricky it is to navigate through this investigation. There are somewhere between 17-25 lawyers caught up in his crimes and all of them claim one or more types of privilege, all taking it to court. This not only has slowed the investigation but the DOJ cannot overreach because of this or they could screw up the whole case.

[gab13by13]

23. Fani Willis got through all of the red tape.

She beat Giuliani, Meadows, Lyndsey Graham, Michael Flynn and more who were claiming privilege.

It took Mueller 4 months to indict and convict Manafort, Gates, Papadopoulos. Not sure how long to convict Stone and Flynn?

[Bev54]

35. One case to investigate and not 25 lawyers going to court to fight subpoenas.

[gab13by13]

45. One doesn't defy a federal subpoena,

plus DOJ has much more clout and manpower. DOJ can do search warrants.

[Bev54]

52. One fights it in court as we have seen, even with the secret court hearing these cases

we have seen others fight in open court. Some of them actually have some privilege and it must be parsed question by question in some cases. The DOJ cannot afford a mistake which could blow some part of the case. Much different baby.

[Genki Hikari]

46. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Williams' investigation was far smaller in scope, both in range of crimes and number of witnesses and potential suspects than what the feds are investigating.

The two investigations are in no way comparable.

It's shocking that anyone would even consider comparing the two.

[SoCalDavidS]

19. I Never Expected Him To Indict Teflon Man To Begin With

Why should I really be disappointed that he probably isn't going to do something I wasn't thinking would happen?

[Hekate]

20. Joe Biden appointed him. Also that thing about NCIS wrapping up things in an hour pertains.

And Watergate took 5 years.

sigh

[former9thward]

31. Watergate did not take five years.

Posters used to say it took two years. Now its up to five. sigh

[Genki Hikari]

47. Stop. Seriously

By the time the entire saga had played out with the appeals process, it was five years.

[Bucky]

57. Burglary was in 1972. Haldeman & Mitchell (the biggest fish caught) didn't go to prison till 1977.

For the record, those were the White House Chief of Staff and the US Attorney General. They each only did a year and a half.

[Hekate]

61. Sorry, former9th -- "a long time"

Also, somewhere along the way I got less welcoming to newbies who jump in with criticism, and I really am sorry about that.

[nini]

21. Anyone who understands how complicated this is does

And that’s all I’ll say about that

[gab13by13]

25. I agree with the seditious conspiracy case,

I don't think Trump should even be charged with that.

Give me the name of one former prosecutor who does not believe there is enough evidence to indict Trump right now for his theft of government documents, and obstruction. Just one name.

[brush]

34. The stolen docs case is not complicated.

Can't get more open and shut now that that corrupt judge Cannon is out of the way.

Garland should've moved to indict on that and deal with the insurrection and fake docs case when he got to it. That would shut critics up and there's a very could chance of getting a conviction. But you have to show some cajones.

[mvd]

24. I do in general

I think he is working carefully because investigating a former President, even TFG, is tricky. But I don’t know why he was so quick with the Biden papers today. That is a nothing story.

[SoCalDavidS]

27. Let's Not Forget That DOJ Recently Announced They Were Investigating Hunter Biden nt

[gab13by13]

30. Yeah, Garland took over the Biden case from the Archives

a lot sooner than he took over the case on Trump. Can't look partisan.

[Bettie]

64. And he was quick to appoint

a Trump appointee to work on that case.

I expect we'll see a lightning speed smear campaign, from him (the trump appointee) on that one.

[liberalmediaaddict]

26. What choice do we have?

We're stuck with him for the next 2 to 6 years. Biden is never going to fire Garland especially not with him investigating his handling of classified documents and his son Hunter. Unless Garland resigns he's all we got.

Honestly Garland was really meant to be a Supreme Court justice. On the bench he would have all the time in the world to craft perfect legal theories and endlessly ruminate about cases.

Biden should have picked someone like Glenn Kirshner or Sally Yates to be AG.

[SoCalDavidS]

28. Glenn Kirschner Would Have Been An Excellent Pick

I have little doubt that he would have already indicted Teflon Man by now. At least for his January 6th involvement.

I think that's one of the reasons Merrick was picked over someone like Glenn. So Teflon Man could stay Teflon Man.

[gab13by13]

32. I still go back to 20 Republicans voting to confirm Garland,

that's a high number.

Merrick Garland would have made a fantastic SC justice, then again Mike Lee of Utah recommended Garland to President Obama.

[Genki Hikari]

51. A high number according to whom?

And what are you implying against Garland with that remark about the bipartisan vote for him?

Garland was well-known in DC circles because he not only had a sterling judicial record behind him, but also had served on the local federal appellate court for so long. Of course he would be well-known enough to have people on both sides of the aisle who knew him to be a good judicial appointment--to anything.

It's completely uncalled for to imply that he must be dirty, somehow, because he was respected on both sides of the aisle.

[Cha]

33. Yes, of course.. anyone who

talks about inaction has No idea what's going on at the DOJ & the Special Counsel.

And, comparing this to Brazil? As someone posted.. Paraphrasing.. it's really helpful when those in charge Support Democracy.

[RussBLib]

38. That's pretty trollish of you

I support him and wouldn't care what everybody "here" thought about it.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

49. Yep

You nailed it.

[Bucky]

59. I can't assume it's trollish, meaning disingenuous. But it does ask for groupthink.

We're all free to form our own separate and even contrary opinions.

Mandating officially (or even informally) sanctioned opinions is a pretty illiberal way of running a political movement

[Frasier Balzov]

41. It will take courage. I understand when someone is hesitant.

I'm not that courageous either.

[Lucinda]

42. Of course n/t

[ismnotwasm]

50. Yes.

[ColinC]

53. Yes. All the way. 100%. Even if he doesn't do what I want

[herding cats]

62. What's your alternative?

I'm curious?

Also, to what end?

Your post is extremely vague in any details and lacking in anything other than angst. What do you propose to alleviate what you're displeased about?

Follow up: explain what your displeased about. Beyond the rote, "it's been 2 years" without commentary. Explain in some semblance of detail what has actually transpired in that time vs. your expectations. Be sure to include what has transpired and not knee jerk back to the rote, it's been 2 years diatribe. Which is meaningless without follow up, thought and reflection.

I want more too, but I'm exhausted with people not bothering to follow up and just doing the lame social media argument of "it's been 2 years" repetitively. That crap is literally everywhere without thought or retrospect.

Use your words.

The ball is in your court.

For clarity Inspired by their post above: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=17546141

[Hekate]

63. All this

Thanks