Enough Of This Goose-Cackle About Garland Being Impervious To Political Considerations

[The Magistrate]

If a man's posture is that he is unmoved by political considerations, he must be unmoved by them from whatever direction they originate.

The fact is that Garland is primarily moved by political considerations, and never in an appropriate direction. He does not move quickly in a matter that needs speedy action, for fear of political fall-out if he does, and he moves quickly in a matter requiring no action at all for fear of political fallout if he doesn't.

I am very tired of people so concerned with what a righteous figure they cut. Strip this down to the bone Garland has the same fatal flaw as Comey: nothing is so important to him as showing everybody he's the last boy scout in Washington.


"What other people think of me is none of my damn business."

[Pachamama]

1. [phone]

Completely agree

[AllTooEasy]

92. "a matter requiring no action at all"? Seriously?!

Mishandling of classified docs is a serious crime, one that carries penalties of incarceration, big fines, or both. The Chain of Custody must be investigated and the criminal(s) must be brought to justice. Sayings "Oops, My Bad! Just an oversite " does not reduce one second off the criminal's jail sentence. I know this because I receive a classified briefing for my TS clearance every year, and this brief clearly repeats my previous statements. Every TS cleared person receives this brief. I'm %100 confident that Pres. Biden is Not one of those criminals, but someone else royally f'ed up...and will receive their just punishment.

Since Garland was appointed by a person involved in the case (Pres. Biden), then a special prosecutor is warranted. Pres. Biden's case is moving faster because this POTUS respects the rule-of-law and is Fully cooperating. Contrast Pres. Biden's speedy cooperation with Trump's stall tactics at every turn. Give the Biden Administration some credit.

[librechik]

102. Intent is the fine line between happenstance and criminality

so the facts make it obvious. Lots of evidence that TFG intended to keep those documents and made every attempt to hide them. He's guilty of willful retention. Biden seemingly knew nothing about the documents on his property. No criminal intent is evident. Show me the intent, FOX non-news.

Except the facts are slippery. Biden docs found in November? Shades of Comey.

It's genius. For sure Trump didn't plan this. SOP for Putin.

[ThunderRoad]

116. "Willful retention"

willful retention vs. criminal negligence?

[secondwind]

2. We TRULY need to stop talking about Garland in this way. It is not right.

FOR THE RECORD, so far:

At least 978 people have been charged in the Capitol ... - Insiderhttps://www.insider.com › News › Politics

Jan 5, 2023 — Only 465 federally charged rioters have entered guilty pleas so far. The number of people charged in the insurrection has grown as FBI agents ...

[claudette]

10. But the one

Last edited Fri Jan 13, 2023, 03:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Who committed the worst crime is running for president because Garland is afraid.

[wnylib]

54. When did Garland confide his personal feelings to you?

[claudette]

106. He didn't

I’m making my opinion based on his behavior - different response to different people.

[Handler]

127. One does not need to confide their fear to me, I can see it in their actions and demeanor.

[Meowmee]

113. This

And top people who planned it are still in the gov

[ancianita]

125. "the one" who committed

the worst crime is running for president because "the one" is afraid. Not Garland. Garland is too busy running this.



Call him afraid it you want. I call him smart and supremely competent, and I don't think he really gives a damn what others say about how he wants to be seen.

He has chosen Special Counsels to focus extended attention to the adjudicating of justice to a former and present president.

When so much about rule of law enforcement is on the line in stabilizing and justifying a working democracy's branches of government, attacks on this Merrick Garland come off as self indulgent bullshit.

He's chosen competent, solid special counsels, so let us let him let them do their jobs.

[dalton99a]

13. The foot soldiers are low hanging fruit. Nothing is happening to the masterminds and ringleaders

[padah513]

15. Nothing yet

[moniss]

31. The way the big boys

are being handled is to slow walk their end of the investigation so that a GQP President/DOJ can make it all go away.

[FoxNewsSucks]

44. That's the plan. Coward McQarthy is already planning to undo MF45's impeachments.

[wnylib]

57. ?????

How does someone undo an impeachment?

[FoxNewsSucks]

68. It's actually been proposed by asshole House republicons in the last congress

A resolution to expunge MF45's impeachment was introduced by Markwayne Mullin.

https://news.yahoo.com/mccarthy-says-look-expunging-trump-125804094.html

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said on Thursday that he would consider expunging one or both of former President Trump’s impeachments.

“I would understand why members would want to bring that forward,” McCarthy said in response to a question at a press conference on Thursday, before listing off several other key priorities for House Republicans.

“But I understand why individuals want to do it, and we’d look at it,” he added.

In the last Congress, a group of more than 30 House Republicans led by Rep. Markwayne Mullin (Okla.) put forward a resolution to expunge Trump’s impeachment in the wake of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. The resolution was supported by the fourth-ranking Republican in the House, Republican Conference Chairwoman Elise Stefanik (N.Y.).

[dalton99a]

69. Expunge it from House records

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said on Thursday that he would consider expunging one or both of former President Trump’s impeachments.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3811952-mccarthy-says-he-will-look-at-expunging-trump-impeachment/

[wnylib]

85. Good grief.

[Meowmee]

115. Ugh

They can’t expunge them from everywhere else it was recorded though

[wnylib]

82. Who is "slow walking" the investigation?

Since this is a thread that complains about Garland's handling of investigations, are you saying that Garland is slow walking them in order to allow a future GOP president or AG to let the "big boys" off?

Delaying the indictments, trials, and convictions of Trump and his accomplices would only get them off the hook if a Republican wins in 2024 and halts the whole process, but a Republican win is not a certainty as far as I know.

Even if Trump and his whole gang were convicted this year, any future Republican president at any time could pardon the whole the whole group. It would not have to be a 2024 election winner.

[moniss]

103. One would have to

disagree with the J6 Committee in order to conclude that DOJ isn't being slow. It was not just about the subpoena enforcement. It's not about the outcome of eventual pardons or withdrawn cases. Here is what you have. The insurrection happened and most of the people in the country expect investigation etc. So the people at DOJ are faced with a situation of needing to do something while at the same time recognizing that going after the big fishes carries lots of potential problems such as failure of the case in court, media manipulation by the subjects while DOJ has to remain silent, political fallout, etc. and the list goes on.

So the least dangerous path is to try to mollify the general public by going after the low level actors and getting convictions. At the same time keep claiming that all deliberate speed is being taken against the higher ups even though it's not. Look at how long the DOJ sat on the subpoena referrals for example. At the end of this whole process the investigators get to say "We investigated and got convictions but as far as the other cases we didn't find enough evidence to conclusively prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt".

Now it is important to remember that words and phrases have meanings. Saying you "didn't find enough evidence" is not the same thing as saying "the evidence isn't there". If you don't look in all areas or otherwise restrict your investigation then you can truthfully say you "didn't find enough evidence". You won't find what you don't look for. That was explained to me long ago by a long time government employee as being a SOP for government officials. It is a general concept of knowing where not to look and which questions to not ask because that way you avoid having to acknowledge the existence of a serious matter. Acknowledging a problem when you have responsibility in that subject area means you have two choices. Take action or not. If you take action then all sorts of other problems can come up for you as the government employee. Putting blinders on allows one to keep their head down and potentially avoid problems for yourself/others like you. If for some reason the problem lands on you anyway then another strategy is to drag it along until you can find a suitable moment to shuffle it off to someone else. Then what happens after is their thing to deal with. Maybe you will have been promoted/transferred/moved on to another job by that time.

Slow walking is one strategy to make things go away, ignoring the obvious is another, claiming lack of evidence/information is another, claiming lack of authority is another, claiming lack of personnel/resources is another and the list goes on. I don't agree with people who do this but I state that it does exist in all organizations of human beings.

We can go back to all of the famous cases like Watergate, Iran-Contra etc. and we see that as far as actual criminal penalties for the top perpetrators it simply didn't happen. Not because the evidence wasn't there but for "other" reasons. I never expected this would be any different. We have to remember that most people alive today barely have any memory, if any, of Iran-Contra let alone Watergate. So they haven't seen this circus before or if they did they were likely too young to have understood the subtleties of what was happening and to not fall for those who claim their actions are complete, thorough and timely investigations when some of it may be for the sake of a different strategy.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

108. "Which questions not to ask" gave us Kavanaugh on the Supreme (now Extreme) Court.

[moniss]

123. A very astute

observation.

[ShazzieB]

137. Some musings.

At the end of this whole process the investigators get to say "We investigated and got convictions but as far as the other cases we didn't find enough evidence to conclusively prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt."

So Jack Smith accepted the job as special counsel and the charge to investigate Trump and flew across an entire ocean in order to pretend not to find any evidence? In essence, that's what you're saying, and I don't buy it.

Look, I don't claim to know what Garland's been doing all this time, but if his aim really is to stall until a Republican president shows up and makes this whole thing go away, why would he have brought in a no-nonsense guy* like Jack Smith to take charge of the investigation and any resulting prosecution(s)? And why would Smith leave what sounds like a pretty important and productive job at the World Court and fly across an ocean just to fart around and pretend to investigate, while planning to hide any evidence that points to Trump? That sounds pretty far-fetched to me. It would certainly be a very thankless job, to say the least.

I'm not going to argue that this investigation hasn't been moving slowly, because it has. But what if -- bear with me for a moment here -- what if Garland realizes it's going too slowly and decided that appointing a special counsel who will be able to focus all his attention on investigating Trump might be the best way to speed the whole thing up. Surely that's at least remotely possible.

When he announced the appointment of Smith, Garland said the following: "Based on recent developments, including the former President’s announcement that he is a candidate for President in the next election, and the sitting President’s stated intention to be a candidate as well, I have concluded that it is in the public interest to appoint a special counsel."
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/appointment-special-counsel-0
When I read those words, I feel like I could be hearing a new sense of urgency on Garland's part. They could be interpreted more than one way, but that's how it strikes me.

I'm not trying to defend Garland here, just point out a different possible spin on things, a spin that seems to me to be at least as likely as what you posited.

*This is my personal impression of Smith.

[moniss]

150. I truly hope to be entirely wrong about everything

but I would point out a few things that over the many years make me skeptical. First of all let's look at some history of these kinds of investigations. Mueller, Fitzgerald etc. The public sees obvious corruption, the heat builds and someone is appointed to investigate. Someone, with the exception of Mueller, that nobody has generally heard of before. The immediate meme in the media is that the person is a tenacious bulldog etc. and then we the public accept that meme even though we really know nothing about the actual facts surrounding the conduct of any cases that person has pursued. Did they play it straight or pull any punches? We don't know. We might get told about a conviction of this one or that but we don't know if others got to slide for example. But we so want the evil doers brought to justice that we accept the meme we're fed.

Fitz found all kinds of evidence of destruction of e-mails, documents etc. by various people in the Plame case. Obstruction charges could have been brought, charges for violating record keeping laws etc. but all we got was Scooter and the end result of that was baked in before the gavel fell. It would be naive to think Bush et al were not going to take care of it. But we had our "bulldog"!! What happened to our certainty that the media/talking heads had given us?

Pronouncements and public statements by elected/appointed officials about any particular direction they are going are the least reliable statements known to mankind. Sandbagging, slow walking, willful ignorance etc. all go on every single day across the globe while at the same time public officials involved make statements meant to make us think things are moving right along on a righteous track of pursuit and integrity.

I may seem overly skeptical but I have been through this from Watergate until now and I have yet to see anybody but a few underlings get charges.

But let me conclude by pointing out something that our media and officials have successfully ignored talking about. The entire current investigation is about the documents, fund raising, J6 etc. All well and good but we are talking about a person who, for his own political/financial benefit, knowingly wrote the death warrants for tens of thousands of Americans by withholding Covid information, knowingly making false statements, causing others under his authority to make false statements etc. and a good portion of the currently known total of over 1 million US deaths didn't have to happen and they knew those deaths would happen. Add to that the millions who somewhat recovered from Covid but now live with long term damage. Absolutely zero effort by anybody to make or bring this case. Congressional/DOJ/Media investigations? I don't see them anywhere. Investigation of Kushner et al profiteering and interfering with needed supplies getting to people? No I cannot find that either.

So by all means let's hope he is pursued for those items under the purview of Smith. But let's be real about the fact that we are talking about a man responsible for knowingly causing a huge number of deaths of Americans and great physical harm to many more. We in this country don't have the guts to pursue that it seems. So I hope that he is charged with crimes for the documents etc. and convicted. But in the grand scale of things it would be like nailing Allende for jaywalking. But we can say we held him accountable. Can't we?

[Evolve Dammit]

36. exactly

[Meowmee]

114. Yes

[The Magistrate]

28. It Is An Interesting Point, Sir

A few generals give a criminal order a lot of sergeants see is carried out.

If only one group could be brought to justice, which would you take?

After all, without sergeants obeying, a general's orders are merely wind, and likely as not the sergeants wouldn't have done what they were ordered to all on their own.

Modern means of communication make it implausible that some direct link between leaders and led will emerge from prosecuting the latter. It's not like an old school mafia racket with button-men and under-bosses you can roll from the bottom up the chain of command. The arrest of rioters and petty enthusiasts comprising the mob poses no particular peril to the people who saw to their assembly in violence.

[Bev54]

72. Perhaps we should look at what is slowing down the indictment of Trump.

A large part of his cabal (26), that are protecting him are lawyers and they are claiming a mixture of privilege. There is some privilege to be sure but a large part is not due to the criminal element. The lawyers are fighting for privilege in court and the DOJ has to deal with each one of these court cases, which we all know how much time they take. These cases are moving through the courts but slowly as it seems is the federal court system to a tee. So let's not pretend that it is going to be as easy to indict Trump on any one of the charges as it is to charge the others.

[Marius25]

33. And all of them got less jail time than a black guy with weed

[dalton99a]

34. +1

[Bettie]

112. +1

Truth

[uponit7771]

139. +1,

[Just A Box Of Rain]

46. Spot on!

[liberalmuse]

89. It's always right to question.

Always.

[Xoan]

95. Mostly nobodies while the Puppetmasters roam free.

[Glorfindel]

3. Completely agree, sir.

Very well said.

[Hekate]

4. Oh. Dear. This is not good.

[The Magistrate]

17. And Much Regretted, Ma'am

I would rather some other reading of the last two years made better sense. I can't find one that does.

Garland will go down in history with McClellan, whom Mr. Lincoln once said was afflicted with 'the slows', and who threw away a chance to end the war not much more than a year after it began. Because great as was the advantage he knew he possessed in the coming battle, the man just had to be sure of every last little thing before he could fight, and hadn't the nerve to commit his hoarded reserves at the pinch, being congenitally sure his foe was much stronger than he really was.

[Evolve Dammit]

37. good analogy

[FoxNewsSucks]

45. You're right, that's exactly the problem.

[uponit7771]

140. +1,

[bucolic_frolic]

5. Yes but the investigation may yet yield benefits if it turns out to be a wild goose chase

which the AG may suspect up front.

[panader0]

12. I'm sure that entered his mind.

While I agree with The Magistrate, Garland is aware that one of the main attacks of the new repub House
is an investigation into the 'weaponization' of the DOJ. The appointment of a SC takes that claim away.
Garland is definitely swayed by political considerations. Justice has to be swifter, the natives are restless.

[The Magistrate]

18. Unfortunately, Sir

Republican seditionists will make that charge regardless, and in a 'let's you and him fight' spirit the talking heads will echo them regardless. They can't be placated, only opposed and decisively beaten. The idea any action of Garland's could still their caterwauling is pure patented pollyanna moonshine, and I expect people holding office on our behalf to know this.


"This pretense of not knowing what any idiot knows has come to dominate political discourse."

[happy feet]

130. Well said!

[Solomon]

6. Hear hear Sir!

Thank you! I was lambasted here when he was first appointed for saying he was going to bend over backwards proving what a fair and impartial guy he is. In the end, it's all about him, showing how magnanimous he is.

[Bettie]

7. I agree

Especially this: "Strip this down to the bone Garland has the same fatal flaw as Comey: nothing is so important to him as showing everybody he's the last boy scout in Washington."

[dalton99a]

8. Garland belongs in a law library

A well-intentioned but terrible choice for DOJ

And this guy Robert Hur will probably take his time and leave no stone unturned to prove he is a good Republican

[claudette]

11. Imagine if he

HAD been sent to SCOTUS.

[gab13by13]

16. He would have made a fantastic justice,

it has a different job description.

[Rebl2]

30. Yep

[claudette]

122. For the

Conservatives maybe.

[msfiddlestix]

9. Great Descriptor! Goose-Cackle.

And yeah, Enough! Completely agree with your assessment.

[Magoo48]

14. This goose absolutely disagrees.

[gab13by13]

22. The fascist authoritarian insurrection has grown since 1/6/2021.

We are now exporting our authoritarianism to Brazil. Brazil is investigating who funded its insurrection we are just getting to doing that now.

[mysteryowl]

20. there is a pattern here...

Eric Holder did nothing to prosecute Wall Street.

Comey - no explanation needed.

Now Garland doing too much to be fair and hurting justice.

[gab13by13]

23. Be fair to whom?

[uponit7771]

141. +1,

[Evolve Dammit]

38. we just don't seem capable despite overwhelming events from '08 meltdown to 1/6 coup.

[Phoenix61]

21. Not true at all. The upcoming trial of the Proud Boys

for seditious conspiracy needs to play out before indictments are brought against Trump. The judge has allowed the video footage of Trump telling the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by.” If the Proud Boys are found guilty as were others previously tried on the same charges, it makes prosecuting Trump so much easier. It would be incredibly stupid not to wait for the outcome in this trial to charge Trump.

[gab13by13]

25. Ah, the pyramid strategy,

precludes being able to even investigate people higher up the pyramid.

How many people have flipped on Trump? DOJ even declined to prosecute Mark Meadows for defying a subpoena. Too bad because Meadows would be a good one to flip.

"Too much caution turns into immunity." Adam Schiff.

[jaxexpat]

67. It's incredibly stupid to tolerate the obvious.

Garland will use no effort to charge TFG because that would make the GOP look bad. He will discover multiple "reasons" to downplay such an action's importance. He is saving those who profit from their support of the GOP from exposure. The untouchable will remain untouched. All trails lead to points beyond Trump.

[Effete Snob]

71. This fantasy was discussed several times during the Oath Keepers trial

The conspiracy being prosecuted is the conspiracy being prosecuted.

If you are aware of necessary parties to the prosecution of that conspiracy who are NOT currently named as defendants, then you should get ahold of the prosecutors and let them know before the case is dismissed on the ground that you believe to be a "strategy".

[yaesu]

24. Yep, zero justice in this country unless you are rich, well connected or fascist

Then you have YUGE protections under the law. Look for a complete breakdown in lawlessness as people figure this out, all crime statistics are about to skyrocket, again. We needed a fighter as AG, not a panda.

[gab13by13]

29. You nailed it,

this new insurrection committee is going to rile up the unwashed Magat base into violence. We are already seeing violence against school board members, election officials, elected officials, the FBI, the freaking National Archives. Can you imagine, violence against the National Archives.

If you are a member of the Republican party you have immunity. The only case that can prove me wrong is Scott Perry, but he is busy investigating the people investigating him.

The United Staes is quickly turning into Somalia.

[markodochartaigh]

62. The US legal system is full of justice.

It can provide as much justice as you can afford.

[mn9driver]

26. Well said.

Your comparison of Garland to Comey is spot on. Like Comey, Garland is convinced of his own virtue and will watch the republic fall while assuring himself that no one can criticize him for acting like a partisan.

And should he write a book while strolling through the smoking ruins of New Magaland, we can all be comforted by his blameless conduct. It’s a shame that he missed his Supreme Court seat; at least then he would have had a few peers to tell him to get over himself.

[Xoan]

96. Or pat him on the back.

[onenote]

27. He moved with equal speed for similar reasons in appointing a special counsel

There was no cause for a special counsel investigation with regard to Trump until Trump declared his candidacy. Once that happened, Garland moved quickly. Until that time, there was an investigation, but done by DOJ.

And as soon as an investigation became warranted in the Biden situation, he moved quickly to appoint a special counsel because Biden is currently president.

[gab13by13]

32. Go to the msnbc archives and watch yesterdays Deadline White House.

Nicolle Wallace said that Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony before the J6 committee shocked DOJ, shamed DOJ into investigating Trump and his inner circle. Wallace opined that DOJ did no big investigations into Trump's inner circle prior to that.

I wish we could all admit that DOJ did zero investigations into Trump and his inner circle for at least a year, if not longer. Garland's pyramid strategy was his excuse to do no investigations of the coup planners. How many people has Garland flipped on Trump?

We exported our authoritarianism to Brazil. The day after the insurrection in Brazil it announced that it was investigating who funded the insurrection. We in the US are just getting into that now and if we run into a Supreme Court justice's wife the investigation may slow down.

[Evolve Dammit]

43. So what lies behind the failure to act, whether it be torture, attacking a country that didn't

attack us, collapse of financial markets by Wall St. banksters, 1/6, etc.?
We can't even see an un-redacted Mueller report FCS.

[onecaliberal]

118. We know there was no investigation because Mr Smith is now issuing subpoenas for basic information

About communication. That’s where you start. Not where you are two years in.

[PufPuf23]

65. You are looking at the current situation with hindsight and

defining today as all is good when it obviously is not.

Garland is kicking the can down the road and the instigators and those that benefit are immune.

alas.

[KS Toronado]

39. Often wondered if political considerations were directing his decisions.

[Earth-shine]

40. This post was alerted for "No Bashing of Democratic Figures."

I don't consider Garland to be a "Democratic Figure."

He's a Federalist Society member.

[FoxNewsSucks]

47. I'm not surprised. There are some here who favor censorship over discussion.

[gab13by13]

48. Well it hasn't been verified that he is a member but,

he did moderate a dozen of Federalist Society events.

Chris Wray is a member of the Federalist Society I believe.

[dalton99a]

49. "a repeat moderator for Federalist Society events"

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/civpro/2016/03/judge-merrick-garland-was-a-repeat-moderator-for-federalist-society-events.html
Judge Merrick Garland was "a repeat moderator for Federalist Society events"

[Just A Box Of Rain]

50. That is a lie.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

110. A lie is a deliberate deception. You have evidence of this?

[LiberalLovinLug]

119. I'm glad this OP stayed up

Because there literally is no forum or way to post critical thought towards Democratic leadership from a Democrats point of view on here. Constructive criticism if you will. And I think its retrogressive to the spirit of an open political discussion board.

Because there will always be one over-sensitive member who will alert on even mild critical analysis. Even with backing source material, which I have had and been blocked on here in the past.

And I don't understand why. Its not like R's are going to have the same kind of criticisms and use it to make their points. In fact, its important to have a platform when anti-progressive legislation has NO critics by either party, like what went on with the rail workers for instance. Why do we have to go to places like Democracy Now! to get proper analysis of issues where our own leadership is wanting?

I'd better stop now.

[KS Toronado]

146. Your first paragraph

[PortTack]

41. Trashing!

[bmichaelh]

42. RFK

I wish Biden had nominated more of a Robert F Kennedy type attorney general. A fighter.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

120. How on earth did JFK get away with appointing his own brother as Attorney General?

[kairos12]

51. Another Comey. Another Mueller.

A standup, turn off the century boxer, who comes out of the corner upright and ready, and MAGA comes out and kicks him in the nuts. Boy Scout and old boxers get destroyed.

It's happening again.

[Beastly Boy]

52. Political considerations have always moved all AGs, without exception.

Anyone saying otherwise is full of shit.

Garland has never denied this is the case. However, political considerations are not the exclusive motivating factor in his decision making. Far from it: he repeatedly reminds the public of the ways he intends to resist being influenced by them, as his job demands. This is a far cry from showing he is the last boy scout in Washington: all of his statements, without exception, refer to his job description, not his desire to appear holier than thou. To suggest the opposite would be a gross misrepresentation of Garland's record.

The multitude of laws, rules and regulations governing DOJ and its head are designed to prevent political influences on DOJ exercising its immense powers, not facilitate them. Some former DOJ employees, like Barr and Comey, chose to ignore those rules. So far, I don't see any evidence that Garland intends to do the same. This being the case, the issue of Garland being righteous or not is essentially moot, and the extent to which Garland is permitted to be moved by politics is dictated by a single measure: how well Garland follows the rules imposed on him by the position he is holding. How well he is doing this is the only means, a pretty narrowly defined one, to exercise his integrity. The rest is not determined nor dictated by him in any way.

DOJ rules, not Garland's posture, prevent him from being primarily moved by political considerations. Outside his office, the judgements to the speed an action may require and how quickly Garland appears to respond are a matter of pure conjecture, and they would vary from individual to individual. This being the case, I would defer such judgement, without agreeing or disagreeing with it and without praising or bashing it, to the individual most informed on the matter: Garland himself, not casual observers or armchair prosecutors who are moved by their own unrestrained political considerations.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

64. Recognizing that one is in a position of having the "appearance of a conflict of interest"

in a political case is inherently a "political consideration."

In such cases, those who act responsibly take measures to mitigate any "appearance of a conflict of interest."

That's the proper course for people in positions of authority who respect the norms of a liberal democracy.

[Beastly Boy]

76. That's a perfect example of how DOJ rules determine the political considerations of an AG,

and it flies in the face of those who insist that it is the AG who determines the political considerations he is to exercise in conducting investigations.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

81. AG Garland is acting as a responsible person in his position should.

He is following the law, ethics, and DOJ policy.

I fear what some would desire as the alternate.

[Beastly Boy]

93. My fear exactly.

I break out in cold sweat every time I see demands to administer justice based on populist sentiments of the day.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

94. I have the same response. Populism is a clear threat to liberal democracy.

You are right to fear the potential consequences of populists taking power.

It is the scourge of our time and populist movements threaten liberal democracies worldwide.

[Xoan]

97. He acts so quickly ...

when it's a Democrat he thinks need nailing.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

99. Or he may think Biden will be quickly cleared, as there seems to be zero criminal intent,

and the nation can move on, while at the same time protecting the institution of the Department of Justice.

Garland is doing the right thing.

[Progressive dog]

132. I agree.

I don't want Garland to be like Barr. Garland is also restricted by funding.

]But the work is far from over and the department needs more resources to move full-speed ahead, more than a dozen sources close to the investigation told NBC News in July. As one official put it, "We don’t have the manpower."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/doj-says-needs-money-jan-6-probe-spending-bill-may-last-chance-rcna51767
DOJ did luckily get extra funding in the budget passed just before Republicans took charge.

[gab13by13]

66. Do you think it was just coincidence

that Garland appointed a Trump appointed US Marshall and a Trump appointed special counsel to investigate President Biden? I do not for one second believe that he did it because he is partisan, he did it for political reasons to show Magats that he is not partisan.

Garland is a self-proclaimed institutionalist and that is probably why he agreed with Bill Barr when he chose to defend Trump (the office) in the E. Jeanne Carroll defamation law suit. Garland agreed with Barr that defaming someone is an official duty of the president. A district court took exception to that and shot it down so Trump's lawyers have appealed that decision.

Yes Garland has a record he should be judged on. His only writing a stern letter to the pro-Trump bogus Cyber Ninja group allowed fraudits and the Big Lie to spread across the country. The Big Lie was the rallying cry of the traitors who attacked our Capitol. The Cyber Ninjas violated both state and federal laws and to this day they have not been held accountable.

[Beastly Boy]

74. Of course it wasn't a coincidence!

It was careful deliberation, in which the candidate's qualifications to do the job right outweighed considerations of who appointed whom or how many degrees of separation there are from one appointment to the other. Showing Magats that he is not partisan is just icing on the cake, and does not deserve to be elevated to the starring role in his decision.

Defending the office of the President is an absolute duty of an AG. Like it or not, Garland was duty bound under the circumstances to defend Trump, even if it was a repulsive ethical choice, and even if he was certain he would lose the case.

And if you agree that Garland should be judged on his record, you don't get to pick and choose what parts of his record, to the exclusion of all others, you want to judge him on. It is his ENTIRE record that is in evidence, and that's what he should be judged on.

[gab13by13]

77. Garland was not bound to defend Trump (the office) in the E. Jean Carroll suit.

A district judge has already disagreed with Garland, an Appeals court now has the appeal. If this decision comes down in Trump's favor that means a sitting president is untouchable, free to do whatever he wants.

Slandering someone is not an official duty of the president.

[Beastly Boy]

91. I fail to see how any of the judges' decisions relieve an AG from

the duty to subsequently defend the office of the president. In fact, the duty to defend is unconditional, according to the governing rules of the DOJ.

[Peregrine Took]

53. Well said. Thank you. n/t

[msfiddlestix]

55. Garland's rise to stardom sprung from McConnel's refusal to confirm him for SCOTUS

A Cause Celeb. He was Obama's very moderate pick, which had nearly full support from the Senate for the previous confirmations.

Biden selected him as his choice for AG as an acknowledgement of the unfairness in how he was treated by the very party he was associated with, Republican Party. A sort of Moderate, Traditional Conservative.

It should be mentioned, this choice appeared to me to have wide support among our rank and file due to the unfairness based on credulous rationalization of "election" campaign underway.

So with all of that, it seemed an appropriate, just and politically practical choice at the time.

I no longer recall the specifics, but it was during the confirmation process when the seeds of doubt that he was the "right person" for that office began to sow. I know it was my first experience listening to him engaged. I missed any of the earlier confirmation hearings during Obama's term. I'm not sure any of those were televised, but I was working then so I would have missed them anyway.

We certainly have our defenders and I wish I had the same level of faith in him as they seem to have. I had hoped he would do what we expected and in a timely manner. It just hasn't panned out to that effect.

It' s not about how many of the low hanging fruit have been eventually prosecuted. Of course that was important too. But stopping there isn't quite a sufficient enough response for what happened.

Eric Holder was also beloved, until Too Big Too Fail (and that crazy position he took on cannabis) which I fear where we are again it seems. If the SC remit doesn't go beyond investigating Trump's Classified Documents, I'm not really clear on that point, well it's going to be worse than a heartbreak.

[gab13by13]

70. Remember this also,

Mike Lee of Utah recommended Garland to Presideent Obama.

It still amazes me that 20 Republicans voted to confirm Garland as AG.

I believe he is an honest and sincere man who is better suited for the bench where slow deliberations are a plus.

[msfiddlestix]

152. Indeed. Big Sigh for 'if only'. It is what it is, and learning to Accept.....

the reality of the matter being totally out of our collective hands is a difficult struggle, but speaking for myself, it's what I must do to maintain a modicum of mental well being. It's a mighty struggle for me.

So I do hear myself thinking, "if only he thought this through a bit more" ... but I can understand the pressure leading to decisions less optimal in an incredibly difficult period of having to quickly form a cabinet that would get approved by the Senate we had.

Doesn't mean I'm successful however in achieving "acceptance of the things I cannot change" .

Disappointing for sure, though. I'll allow that to a point, but at a certain point I become the fiddler on the Titanic.

[orangecrush]

56. KICK

[BannonsLiver]

58. I've noticed an uptick in desperate rationalizations of Garland this week from his fans here

I also sense they are swallowing a lot of rage and anger while outwardly showing support for him because if they show those emotions the Garland skeptics will have won.

[onecaliberal]

59. I've been fried here so many times over the last two years for saying the same.

He's clearly not up to the job. We're now in a much more dangerous situation with the insurrectionists running the House.

[Scrivener7]

109. Yes you have. And you are appreciated.

[onecaliberal]

117. I guess it's all out there now isn't it.

Now the danger is in charge of the house.

[sprinkleeninow]

144. He doesn't appear to be 'up to the job' at this stage.

It's become more troubling to me to consider that. But then again, what do I know.

[XanaDUer2]

60. Re alerts on this op

I don't consider him a "Democratic " figure.

[The Magistrate]

79. One Of These Days, Ma'am

I may actually 'bash' a Democratic figure, just to illustrate how that differs from blunt criticism well-deserved....

[XanaDUer2]

83. It's a great op

And should be allowed to express. I voted to keep it.

[onecaliberal]

84. That has been clear to me for a very long time.

[Ninga]

61. I'm not smart enough to know what to make of Garland. But what I do know, is my gut is

in a permanent state of unease. I try my best to stay informed, but it doesn’t help the helplessness or the worry that the road to making trump accountable will just fade and slip off the edge of the paper. Damn it all.

[Duppers]

63. Lady Justice wears a blindfold

Does she not?

Garland seems to be cowardly, imo.

[markodochartaigh]

73. One thing which is rarely mentioned,

and which hasn't really been a problem for at least a century, is the possibility of violent retribution against governmental powers by the general public. However, if you pay close attention now, occasionally you hear even Republican politicians say that they are afraid of their authoritarian base. Add to this the "lock her up" type threats and rhetoric by authoritarian politicians of the reich wing and I think that Mr Garland has every right to be terrified, for himself, the Jewish community, and for Democrats in general. Whether trying to "play it down the middle" to an absurd degree will be enough for him to escape the demonization which is being targeted towards Dr Fauci remains to be seen. I don't know what the the answer is, but having seen the attempt on the governor of Michigan, the attack on the husband of The Speaker of the House, and the problems even in The Secret Service, I hope that an effective solution is found quickly.

[Paladin]

75. Nicely and truly stated, sir. (nt)

[cbabe]

78. Servants of the Damned: Giant Law Firms, Donald Trump, and the Corruption of Justice

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/60461917-servants-of-the-damned

Servants of the Damned: Giant Law Firms, Donald Trump, and the Corruption of Justice

David Enrich, 2022

From the New York Times’s Business Investigations Editor and #1 bestselling author of Dark Towers comes a long-overdue exposé of the astonishing yet shadowy power wielded by the world’s largest law firms, following the narrative arc of Jones Day, the firm that represented the Trump campaign and much of the Fortune 500, as a powerful encapsulation of the changes that have swept the legal industry in recent decades.

In his acclaimed #1 bestseller Dark Towers, David Enrich presented the never-before-told saga of how Deutsche Bank became the global face of financial recklessness and criminality. Now Enrich turns his eye towards the world of “Big Law” and the nearly unchecked influence these firms wield to shield the wealthy and powerful—and bury their secrets. To tell this story, Enrich focuses on Jones Day, one of the world’s largest law firms. Jones Day’s narrative arc—founded in Cleveland in 1893, it became the first law firm to expand nationally and is now a global juggernaut with deep ties to corporate interests and conservative politics—is a powerful encapsulation of the changes that have swept the legal industry in recent decades.

Since 2016, Jones Day has been in the spotlight for representing Donald Trump and his campaigns (and now his PACs)—and for the fleet of Jones Day attorneys who joined his administration, including White House Counsel Don McGahn. Jones Day helped Trump fend off the Mueller investigation; challenged Obamacare; defended Trump’s Muslim ban and border policies; and handled Trump’s judicial nominations. Jones Day even laid some of the legal groundwork for Trump to challenge the legitimacy of the 2020 election.

But the Trump work is but one chapter in the firm’s checkered history. Jones Day, like many of its peers, have become highly effective enablers of the business world’s worst misbehavior. The firm has for decades represented Big Tobacco in its fight to avoid liability for its products. Jones Day worked tirelessly for the Catholic Church as it tried to minimize its sexual-abuse scandals. And for Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, as it sought to protect its right to make and market its dangerously addictive drug. And for Fox News as it waged war against employees who were the victims of sexual harassment and retaliation. And for Russian oligarchs as their companies sought to expand internationally.

In this gripping and revealing new work of narrative nonfiction, Enrich makes the compelling central argument that law firms like Jones Day play a crucial yet largely hidden role in enabling and protecting powerful bad actors in our society, housing their darkest secrets, and earning billions in revenue for themselves.

(Behind the curtain string pullers. Search for favorites ie Scalia.)

[bigtree]

80. it might help if you bothered to mention that Biden is a public official

...and Trump a private citizen, who earned a SC appointment when he officially announced his presidential run.

Maybe talk about how that appoinment wasn't actually something most people looking for a Trump prosecution believed was necessary or prudent. Interesting to see that appointment being portrayed as some ultimate measure of justice or prosecution today, instead of just a measure related to the DOJ policy on prosecution of public officials and aspirants to public office.

But I see that you're 'tired,' so...

[The Magistrate]

86. Pettifoggery, Sir

Trump is a major political figure commanding the loyalty of the Republican party. Whether at the moment he actually holds an office in government does not alter the weight of his position in our political life, nor alter the significance of crimes he committed while in office. Any action or inaction in a case involving a major political figure will be met with 'that's just politics', so better ignore how it can be made to look, and strike the blow needed to preserve Constitutional government, by vindicating it against insurrection led by the highest in the land.



"This pretense of not knowing what any idiot knows has come to dominate political discourse."

[bigtree]

101. I don't need to agree with it to understand the DOJ reasoning

...but the Biden SC is consistent with the reasons he gave for the Trump SC.

I don't personally believe DOJ needed a SC to remove the Biden DOJ from consideration of conflict of interest in Trump's case. But I also can't see where it hurts anything. Criminality will be outed where its found, and nothing looks criminal in the Biden doc recovery, so I'm not really understanding the uproar.

Special counsels, in both investigations, will buttress the impartiality of either prosecutions or exonerations. The political consequence is the mostly same as without, but the quick appointment may well put a ceiling on any suggestion Garland was ignoring potential crimes or favorable to the President.


One final point. The length of time it's taking to move the investigations of Trump and pals from grand jury to prosecution is mostly dictated by the number of challenges and appeals to the evidence gathered, like cell phone content, and whether conversations with the president are privileged and protected. In that effort, the courts set the dates of hearings, subject to defense objections, as well.

Indeed, the delays are a direct function of the financial ability of the defense to mount those challenges. From the standpoint of folks who are accustomed to greased prosecutions of people without legal means, this looks like privilege, and it is, but not some special dispensation from Garland.

When folks who aren't relying on their pessimism to gauge the progress of Garland say that indictments are a month or two away, it's those court challenges and court calendars they're referring to.

Conversely, when folks complain that Garland is taking too much time and should just leap forward, those court challenges don't factor in their complaints, as if Garland controlled court scheduling, or has some flawed understanding of how the evidence he's gathered (or ostensibly should have gathered) will be regarded by juries.

Most interesting to me is how fact-free these complaints against Garland have been, not bothering to inform about the state of appeals, or even the state of the 'Oath Keepers' or 'Proud Boy' trials which, if you accept the Jan.6 committee findings, are an integral link to the WH culpability in the Capitol riot.

It would transform the complaints about Garland from apathy to informing if critics would tell us how they view the actual state of the investigations, including GJ actions and court challenges. Instead, almost all of these are absent any discussion of even the most basic developments in the DOJ effort.

I'm left either abandoning reason for angst, or just regarding the haranguing as just more anti-Garland noise, evidently not the exclusive ground of our political opposition.

[ancianita]

128. Amen, bigtree. Thank you.

[AncientOfDays]

87. Garland definitely political

To investigate tRump he appointed a prosecutor who was apolitical

To investigate Biden, he appointed tRumpsters.

I'd be glad to be proved wrong.

[LiberalLovinLug]

121. And the crazy thing about it is that the MAGATs won't even care

IF these appointees come back with a conclusion of innocence for Biden, McConnell and Mcarthy, and Fox News et all, will screech about a partisan pardon by Democrats, while prosecuting Trump for the very same thing!!!!!. And if you interview any MAGAT on the street about it after that, they will be fully indoctrinated that the Democrats let him off with a sham investigation, no matter who leads it.

So why not just appoint someone who is a Democrat? At least we will know they got to the bottom of it, and the red hats will be in the same cloudy haze. So sick of this cowing to the right for important appointments to "prove" our non partisanship. Comey etc.... It always backfires.

[liberalmuse]

88. I have no issue with an investigation of the docs.

Mainly why the department responsible for keeping track of them didn't even know they were missing. What other classified docs are out there in the hands of people who should never have even had them? I'm talking about people who were close to Trump. I've pretty much lost all faith in Garland. He is either a GOP hack or he is very weak and not up to the task of an AG. We deserve better, especially now when we have so many factions ignoring the rule of law and getting away with it. Fool me once (Mueller, a proven partisan hack) shame on you and all that.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

90. You're good! Because I read your post twice and I still don't know

Whether it's Garland positive or Garland negative LOL

One side having been burned on multiple occasions, thinks the wheels of Justice are moving too slowly and ineffectively against trump

The other side thinks DOJ is rightly cautious and everything legal takes time.

[ismnotwasm]

98. By the way, Where have you been?

Putting anyone on a pedestal is not a good look

[librechik]

100. Yes, exactly so, Sir. Well said!

and I got a giggle over the goose-cackle.

[Goodheart]

104. Excellent post.

Garland should have indicted immediately on ten counts of obstruction of justice in the Mueller probe, but let it slide. He doesn't seem to have a backbone.

[Tom Rinaldo]

105. I believe he is a good man, but I believe you have it nailed

Good men too often bend over backwards to comfort and placate those who seem most distressed, and console rather than confront when confrontation is critical. Peace at any price equals no peace and far too high a price. With all of the pressure that has been brought to bear on Garland now by the work of the 1/6 committee etc. I think it more likely than not that Trump will face indictments, but it has taken far too long and that is still not assured. Those who realize the importance of holding Trump and team fully accountable can not ease up on Garland until the indictments have been filed.

[The Magistrate]

107. Well Said, Sir

Good men can find their decency turned against them by bad 'uns.

Being but an honest rogue myself I confess some difficulty understanding why they allow it.

[malthaussen]

134. Ambition, perhaps?

A desire to leave a "legacy" to posterity, something I see bruited about quite a bit of late? Perhaps they should worry less about posterity and more about getting it right in the here and now? Just speculation.

-- Mal

[Hekate]

111. Sir, it has come to the point that I want a Bobby Kennedy clone for AG, someone out for blood...

… so to speak. Bobby unapologetically went after the Mafia, the rackets, corruption.

In 2023, in our perilous circumstances, someone with “judicial temperament” no longer seems like the best choice. How about a crusading prosecutor who aims to wipe out corruption and treason?

I never thought I’d say these words — having grown up on tales of the worst excesses of the Commie-hunter Joe McCarthy.

[uponit7771]

143. +1, and that's the response we needed after a failed dictatorship take over of the country!! A ...

... person "out for blood" and erroring on the side of intolerance for the coup plotters.

Up to till now Garland has given them waaaaaaaay too much say in what his actions dictate.

I still give it the "what if 99% of everyone involved were Muslim" test and Garland fails every time.

If 99% of the people involved were Muslim and people of color people would be executed and or in supermaxes.

Michelle Obama said on Kimmel that her husband would be in someone's jail by now if he treated documents like Trump did.

She knows !!

We need an asshole for wartime not a diplomat less coup plotters normalize their treason which that's exactly what the GQP leadership has done with the tollerance given to them.

[malaise]

124. Sir I think you'd. Love The Beat with Ari tonight

Very interesting

[Handler]

126. It is amazing that Garland can stand upright, missing a spine and all.

[PatrickforB]

129. You bet. Garland is every bit as politically motivated as Comey.

The idea of the JD as being strictly apolitical ended with me when Comey fatally injured Clinton's campaign right before the November 2016 election.

Apolitical my eye.

[sprinkleeninow]

145. Comey's kabosh on HRC's potential victory.

[republianmushroom]

131. like it

23 months and counting

[malthaussen]

133. I tend to agree.

As far as the documents found in offices formerly used by VP Biden, what this suggests is that an investigation of whomever is in charge of oversight is in order: that classified documents could be "missing" for such a long period, and then miraculously "discovered" all of a sudden begs an explanation. Clearly, whoever was responsible for oversight fumbled the ball with Mr Trump; it appears the office also fumbled the ball with regard to Mr Biden.

Mr Garland's action in moving quickly in the latter case, contrasted with the glacial speed of his actions in the former, also begs explanation. Not that I expect we will ever get one in either case.

-- Mal

[3catwoman3]

135. I will be adding "goose cackle" to my...

…vocabulary.

[summer_in_TX]

136. A couple of things to point out.

1) Biden stated multiple times before being elected and when appointing his AG that it was very important to him to restore full faith in the DOJ as an impartial American institution – so he appointed Garland who he knew would be impartial, careful, and play everything close to the vest.

2) By appointing an SC (for both Trump and for Biden), Gym Jordan and those who might want to investigate the SC process and use it as a cudgel will have less opportunity to do so, by law. Special Counsels' work is independent.

I don't like it that Trump hasn't been charged yet either. But I don't know what I don't know about the complicated considerations they are going through, which undoubtedly have to be carefully and thoroughly weighed. I do see the investigations moving forward, which gives me cautious optimism.

[uponit7771]

142. 1, Appointing horrid Trump DOJ lackeys to anything doesn't restore faith in DOJ, 2. is the BEST ...

... reason given for the SC for both situations but if 9/11 style prosecution of J6 was done then Jim Jordan's would be in jail awaiting their trials (for not responding to subpoena's ... etc) and not sitting on committees to interfere with anything.

Historically we've seen what happens to when too much consideration of traitors and coup plotters perspectives have been given by those who want to uphold democracy.

We're damn near following Spain circa 1937 step by step and look how that turned out for them for 2 - 3 generations.

No one should EVER EVER think "it can not happen here"

[summer_in_TX]

151. Good warning.

It's a balancing act to restore a culture of refusing to do political purges. But we are in a much more extremist Republican environment and we are at great risk.

[Gore1FL]

138. Golly! I forgot about you.

A while back you demanded that I put you on ignore. So I did. It's been glorious!

Anyways, apparently ignore doesn't work new threads.

Hi! Presumably, I won't see any responses, so Bye!

[Snoopy 7]

147. I told everyone

Merrick Garland was not the answer to the investigation. I also reminded everyone that he was President Obama's last choice as he was trying to get a judge on the Supreme, or as it is not the NOT so Supreme, Court. Garland was his last choice because he is a republican and President Obama actually thought the republicans would vote for him. I also told everyone to sit on their hands because it would take years for any small results. Now the republican, Garland, is taking even longer by hiring a "special council" who will now take more time. Garland's "investigation" started on JAN 7 2021 and how long has it been? We need people in power who are honest but the new republican mafia in the house and senate will not allow that after all they are getting rich off the idiots sending them money. These idiots are not just the "mom and pop donors" it the ultra rich who can afford to send the republican mafia enough money to make the RICH. Politics are dying on the hands of the all mighty mana...

[uponit7771]

153. +1, we see the GQP as the mafia because they tried to install TFG as dictator and people were killed

... as well as a shit tone of cops affliated with that day dying.

I would put good money on it that Garland does not see J6 and MAGA through those lens IE MAGA's thoughts get consideration vs a middle finger.

I couldn't imagine Osama Bin Laden's feelings about justice being taken into consideration after 911 and there was no way he and his incel crew was a threat to democracy like MAGA is.

[Samrob]

148. Makes wonder what kind of SCOTUS justice he would have been?

Would the relative sanctity and job security of the Court enabled him to be more liberal or more conservative.

We may have dodged a knife in the back?

[Owl]

149. Exactly. Well said.