Garland's special counsels: The mistake keeps getting worse (Rubin/WaPo)

[BeyondGeography]

Link to tweet

?s=61&t=adGdJmeW-C-pXInwA5e3xQ

Attorney General Merrick Garland came into the job determined, above all else, to restore the integrity of the Justice Department. In trying to convince everyone that the department is above reproach, however, he has made a series of unwise, showy moves that leave it looking more, not less, political.…

One wonders whether Garland and his aides did any significant research to determine how widespread the problem of retained-and-voluntarily-returned documents actually is.


What if former secretary of state Mike Pompeo, who is clearly considering a presidential run, finds and returns classified materials? Or former national security adviser John Bolton? It’s likely that lawyers for any number of ambitious former public servants are combing files.


We might soon realize that Biden’s sloppiness is neither “criminal” nor “extraordinary,” and therefore the special counsel statute does not apply.

https://wapo.st/3kO5yAV

[gab13by13]

1. Garland would have made a good SC justice.

[Fiendish Thingy]

4. Did you contact the WH if you feel so strongly?

What is the “T” Garland doesn’t have?

[brush]

22. Cojones. Aka, testes.

[tritsofme]

5. Someone is in way over their head in this discussion. It's not Garland.

[dchill]

33. On the other hand, you may be wrong.

[Rebl2]

7. Yes please

[Fiendish Thingy]

3. I'm fine with Garland's decision to appoint a SC for Biden

And I’ll be fine when that SC concludes his investigation and reports that no charges are warranted.

[SoCalDavidS]

12. And How Will You Feel If Jack Smith Says Same Thing Regarding Teflon Man? nt

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. I would be quite surprised

If Smith doesn’t think there’s anything there, then his investigation should end shortly.

Do you think Smith will decline to seek indictments from the Grand Jury?

[SoCalDavidS]

14. I Admit, I Can't Predict What Mr. Smith Will Recommend

I still seriously doubt that AG Garland will indict.

And I'll say again, for the record, I will be THRILLED if an indictment is issued against that SOB.

[ShazzieB]

25. He won't.

What happens after that is open to conjecture, but I really don't believe Smith is going to declare Trump to be blameless.

[Boomerproud]

6. Looking closely at the posture of everyone on the stage behind Garland

especially the guy on his left had me in a fit of giggles. They look like action figures. Well, I had to have something to laugh about.

[Rebl2]

8. Look at Wray

in particular. Standing at attention.

[BeyondGeography]

9. Rubin also wrote a column ripping Wray today

She’s on fire:

Link to tweet

?s=61&t=adGdJmeW-C-pXInwA5e3xQ

[SoCalDavidS]

10. Garland Is Not Going To Indict Teflon Man

Some of us have been saying that for the last 2 years, and we've yet to be proven wrong.

Wake me up when charges are filed, and I'll admit to being completely wrong about him.

[Duppers]

26. Indeed! 👍

I took some heat here* for being critical of him months ago.

*And from my dh who has apologized to me.

Jack Smith is the only hope on this.

[Cracklin Charlie]

11. What if the documents found in Biden's home...

Were found to have been put there by someone else?

Planting documents would be a crime, if someone were found to have done that. Special counsel would apply.

[stopdiggin]

15. well, yes. but that's looking like a bigger and bigger 'what if'

(read stretch) every day.

In fact, it's not at all unlikely that 'somebody else' did put some documents someplace. But those someones are most likely drones, flunkies, secretaries and aides - and not the nefarious 'black bag job' that had everyone overheated a week or so back.

[BOSSHOG]

21. Or those who came to investigate the Biden abodes

Motive? Opportunity? Hiding in plain sight? Who would know of such things?

[stopdiggin]

37. the people that made original 'discoveries'

were his own damned lawyers. Lets' not go all Q-Anon on the conspiracy stuff. We already have a sizable population of that in the U.S. thank you.

[Rebl2]

16. I think

The Putin puppet Donald trump had it done by secret service or FBI agents loyal to him.

[tritsofme]

18. Maybe it was little green men?

Has Garland investigated them?!?1

[Rebl2]

20. Ha

You are a riot

[Cha]

29. lol.. what you said could

have actually happened.

Big Diff.

[Rebl2]

32. I know

[wnylib]

34. Agree, even though it does seem far out there.

It's the timing that makes me think that it's a possibility. I remember when Russian collusion was considered a bit of a stretch. But now we know just how extensive it was.

[gab13by13]

17. Garland as much admitted

that he appointed a special counsel for President Biden because of politics. The Biden special counsel did not meet the requirements for one. If Garland were consistent he should also appoint a special counsel for Pence.

Shit, Garland didn't have to appoint a special counsel for Trump either, that's what DOJ people do.

Garland's attempt to not be partisan has ended up being partisan against Democrats.

[Rebl2]

19. Yep

Should be special counsel for pence too.

[BigmanPigman]

24. No kidding.

Garland has NOT lived up to my expectations and I HAVE given him support but I am all out of patience with him and his actions. Many on DU will say I am a Garland hater but I am not. I just have my eyes open and a decent memory and am open to discussion.

[gab13by13]

27. I am called a Garland hater and I am not,

I criticize his actions and non actions. I think he's a nice guy.

[Ohio Joe]

39. Nonsense

The SC’s were appointed to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest… As was stated when each was appointed. It was the correct decision in both instances.

[republianmushroom]

23. Nailed it

24 months and counting

[Joinfortmill]

28. Maybe not.

[Sancho]

30. Seems like the DOJ needs a "no special counsel, return what you have day" for elected officials....

....just drop your secret docs in the drop box, and you're done!

[Just A Box Of Rain]

31. Oh look! Jennifer Rubin is wrong. Again.

How (not) unusual.

[dchill]

35. Exactly what is she wrong about, exactly?

[BWdem4life]

36. "nearly a third of the public (30%)...

...finds the actions of both to be equally serious.” That’s no doubt the result of appointing a special counsel for both, treating entirely different circumstances identically.

Um, no. That's the result of nearly a third of the public being Republicans.

[Scrivener7]

40. Garland "treating entirely different circumstances identically" certainly contributes

to the perception of the 30% that they are identical.

[intheflow]

38. I agree with most everything Rubin writes, usually, but

appointing Jack Smith was a good move by Garland. Let's have a special council for ALL former cabinet-level politicians, regardless of party. We all know who will have the most egregious hoard of classified and Top Secret files, and it's not going to be the Democrats.