Anyone calling for the replacement of Garland are playing into the hands of Trump's defenders

[bigtree]

Last edited Mon Jun 19, 2023, 11:56 PM - Edit history (1)

...who are braying about 'prosecutor misconduct.'

Not to mention the zero-chance Biden would have getting a more effective AG approved by the Senate.

People making that dangerously disruptive suggestion can't be more concerned with prosecuting Trump as much as they are with defeating Garland, which isn't the goal here, in case anyone needs to hear that.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

1. +100.

[Cha]

23. TY!

[onenote]

2. Yep.

It seems like a growing number of DUers apparently think Biden is a weak president, as evidenced by his refusal to fire Garland, Wray, DeJoy, Jerome Powell, and on and on...

Not helpful

[FoxNewsSucks]

7. Could you please explain why the hell keeping Wray or DeJoy on is

in ANY way helpful?

The OP is correct about the reason for keeping Garland, but Wray and DeJoy are not just foot-draggers, they are actively working against Biden and the country.

[onenote]

12. First, Biden can't fire DeJoy. Second, firing Wray would be injecting Biden into the Trump case

and Joe is way too smart (and way smarter than a bunch of DUers) to make that politically stupid move.

[wnylib]

43. +1000

[stopdiggin]

48. thank you! concise and to the point

Biden has done a great job - of staying the hell out of things ... Don't, for the life, understand why this (both necessary and deft) stance doesn't garner more appreciation ...

[FoxNewsSucks]

50. Not directly,

but that was why we were told we had to wait a year.

It's been more than a year, and DeJoy is still there. Why?

[Grasswire2]

56. only the postal board of governors can fire dejoy

And despite the fact that Biden has appointed many who now sit on that postal board, there isn't a majority who want to fire DeJoy.

Oddly.

Some of the picks for board seats are puzzling. Why Derek Kan, who worked for Moscow Mitch and also for Mrs. Mitch?

[ProfessorGAC]

68. Because He's Not A Real Problem?

DeJoy is a lapdog. When TFG was the boss, he made noise about "dismantling & restructuring".
Now, with new governors & Biden in charge, he's doing exactly as he's told.
Firing him becomes strictly a political act, because there's no path of destruction, he's hemmed in, and playing ball.
Why fire him now, if he's playing by the new rules?

[bigtree]

14. can you tell us why you think firing the man investigating his son would go down smoothly

...or what the chances are that Biden would get his replacement choice through the closely divided Senate?

[edisdead]

20. Geez you need to do research.

[wnylib]

29. Totally agree.

[marble falls]

3. Plus 1000%. Garland knows how to prosecute and he has a good staff all around him!

[mysteryowl]

25. Too bad he didn't do that with Trump and his cronies.

[republianmushroom]

30. agree

[wnylib]

40. He is seeing to it that the work is being done.

This is just the kind of reaction that I anticipated from the Garland bashers once the indictments started. No longer able to claim that indictments would never come, the naysayers switch to how it was done, when, and by whom.

In two years DOJ under Garland has more than a thousand insurrectionists facing charges, their leaders have been convicted, and Trump has been indicted in one case with more to come. This after a couple months before Garland was confirmed and then had to reshape DOJ that Trump corrupted with his appointments.

If Biden fired Garland now for not investigating Trump earlier, it would cause a firestorm of complaints about partisanship and cost us a LOT of down ticket elections, possibly the White House. It would entangle Biden in MAGA propaganda wars that Biden is wisely avoiding.

It makes me wonder why people are pushing this issue.

[Beastly Boy]

41. Huh?

37 indictments of trump alone on his watch, and that's too bad? I wonder what would pass for not too bad on your scale.

And he is just getting started!

[marble falls]

72. You mean like Jack Smith?

[brush]

4. Most know Biden is not going to replace Garland mid-term.

We just hope he has the grace to step down in Joe's second term. He hasn't been particularly effective.

[ecstatic]

36. +1. nt

[Beastly Boy]

45. Today's trick question: Name a single AG in US history who has been more effective than Garland.

Take all the time you want.

[boston bean]

5. We are stuck. I'll give you that.

[triron]

17. True that.

[Fiendish Thingy]

6. B-b-but people want and need to be outraged!

Why deny them the simple pleasures in life?

[FalloutShelter]

8. +100

Absolutely right.

[Stinky The Clown]

9. Playing into their hands is the DELAY OF JUSTICE

That ain't me.

[GP6971]

10. K & R

[JohnSJ]

11. President Biden will not do that

[doc03]

13. There is no way Biden will replace him because it would look

like it was political.

[anciano]

15. Agreed ......

Things may not be progressing as some folks may like, but they are progressing. IMO, AG Garland made the right call to get a special counsel and he picked the right person for the job. And I am confident that Jack Smith knows what he is doing and has his "ducks in a row".

[Duppers]

16. I don't think Garland is as effective as he should be, BUT...

it's the "the zero-chance," mentioned above that most concerns me.

[dsc]

18. We only need 50 votes to replace him

I will say we are stuck now with him in that replacing him in the middle of the prosecution would look like interference but we could get a replacement through the Senate.

[bigtree]

49. if we had a true Democratic majority

...but you are correct.

There is in fact, as you say, just a simple majority required for all presidential appointments to the executive branch and the judiciary.

[gab13by13]

19. Saying that Garland should be replaced is a distraction,

I haven't seen anyone here at DU call for him to be replaced but I'm sure there were a few.

The problem is that people who worked over 20 years in the justice department, like Andrew Weissmann, stated that he takes no pleasure in criticizing his former workplace, but the fact of the matter is that in his attempt to show he was not partisan, Garland became partisan by showing his appeasement to Trump. Weissmann used the word appeasement. He also said it is foolish to think that we are at the same place today even though DOJ waited over a year to investigate.

People like Weissmann and Katyal agree that TIME MATTERS in prosecuting Trump. It is doubtful that we will have a DOJ Trump trial before the election because Garland waited to act.

Merrick Garland is a good man but his pyramid strategy was a huge mistake.

As a matter of fact, the Michigan AG has opened up a fake elector investigation because DOJ ignored her criminal referral.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

24. Just as an aside,

I do thoroughly enjoy reading your posts, you've always been very fair on this subject, and even when I do disagree, I respect your opinions.

Keep up the good work.

[wnylib]

44. Appeasement to Trump? Sure, that's why

Garland appointed a top notch special prosecutor to go after Trump. He didn't have to appoint anyone if he was appeasing Trump. He could have appointed a less qualified prosecutor if he wanted to appease Trump. He could have refused to sign off on the docs indictments when Smith brought them to him if he was appeasing Trump.

[Mme. Defarge]

21. Watch Lawrence tonight.

He and his guests - among them are Andrew Weissman and Neal Katyal - provide some good perspective on this.

[UTUSN]

22. Who is calling for that besides wingnut flying monkeys?

[stopdiggin]

53. here you go

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017838251

(not sure about the flying monkeys part .. )

[Beastly Boy]

61. Careful who you are calling wingnut flying monkeys!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216024504
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217034885
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1002&pid=15965129
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1002&pid=15965789
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1002&pid=15967336
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1002&pid=18020956
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216896409
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1002&pid=18020691

You may be messing with the DU terms of use!

[MN2theMax]

26. It almost feels like

There is a deliberate attempt going on to divide DU. Getting people to snipe at each other over the speed of Justice progressing. Fire this one…get rid of that one…playing into the narrative that TFG and Putin want. I’m just going to count on Jack Smith and hope for the best. I feel like that is what the situation requires. Just my two cents worth.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

27. +100. nt

[wnylib]

46. +1000

Thank you. It needed to be said.

[wnylib]

28. +1000000

Thank you.

[mysteryowl]

31. I don't see anyone calling for Garland replacement, maybe I missed it.

What I do see is a devastating betrayal to America for not investigating and charging Trump for J6. I am gutted that NOTHING was done for over a year about trump. We still don't know if anything is being done about J6 with trump. We are running out of time and I for one, don't want to live in a fascist country.

[stopdiggin]

54. happening on DU

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017838251

[Beastly Boy]

70. You missed it.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216024504
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217034885
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1002&pid=15965129
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1002&pid=15965789
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1002&pid=15967336
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1002&pid=18020956
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216896409

I don't know how, but you missed it.

[NoMoreRepugs]

32. The DOJ and FBI contain some individuals not anxious to prosecute

and investigate TFG - that’s a lot to overcome in the largest case in American history IMO.

[Orrex]

33. Who's calling for Garland to be replaced?

[PatrickforB]

34. I hear you, but we still need to get to the bottom of the crater from this

newest bombshell - that Garland and Wray drug their feet purposely on prosecuting Trump.

I'm not going to argue - the whole Garland thing makes for passionate argument on here. But I will say that if the allegations brought up today are correct, then there will have to be some changes made in FBI and DOJ leadership.

Not to mention cleaning house on all the Trump appointees.

[Jarqui]

35. They had to start at the bottom

They flip folks as they work up through the chain of command.

I have not seen all the facts yet.
I'm reserving judgement until I have more facts.

[stopdiggin]

51. and yet, even that (tried and true) methodology

is called into question. ("pyramid scheme huge mistake&quot

Let's face it - we have a lot of, "Lock him/her up!" - in force on our side of the aisle as well. Like it or not.

[Beastly Boy]

37. With all due respect, I doubt that anyone really wants Garland replaced.

He has become too convenient of a target for venting certain unfounded frustrations. "It's Garland's fault" has become a well established narrative that serves as a substitute for critical analysis of his actual role, mission and record. Just expressing "opinions" to that effect gives the narrators plausible workaround to avoid addressing facts and circumstances that don't fit a specific set of poorly founded assumptions.

Imagine if, were Garland's detractors to be granted his removal, he was suddenly gone and was replaced by some incompetent fuckup who would follow the "opinions" of Garland bashers to predictably devastating effects. No, Garland needs to stay so he can be scapegoated despite his unprecedented record of accomplishments. Without him maintaining his position, the whole "it's Garland's fault" narrative would disintegrate in the face of potential string of devastating failures that arise from the aforementioned groundless assumptions being acted on, exposing those assumptions for what they are.

No, that wouldn't be acceptable. Garland needs to stay.

[wnylib]

47. +10,000

[Gore1FL]

59. I would like that.

Why would his replacement be a fuck up? Do you lack condfidence in Biden?

[Beastly Boy]

62. As I stated,

"Imagine if, were Garland's detractors to be granted his removal, he was suddenly gone and was replaced by some incompetent fuckup who would follow the "opinions" of Garland bashers to predictably devastating effects".

Were Garland to be replaced by someone who would follow the "opinions" of Garland bashers, that someone would be a total, unmitigated, irrefutable, undisputed fuckup.

Whether you would like this or not is, of course, up to you.

[Gore1FL]

63. I read it. I just don't see the logic.

Based on what we know, it seems like Garland is the "total, unmitigated, irrefutable, undisputed fuckup." you describe unless you consider not going after those who commit huge crimes as not being a "total, unmitigated, irrefutable, undisputed fuckup."

Whether you would like this or not is, of course, up to you.

[Beastly Boy]

65. I guess I have to go a bit more slowly.

"Were Garland to be replaced by someone who would follow the "opinions" of Garland bashers, that someone would be a total, unmitigated, irrefutable, undisputed fuckup."

Emphasis on "someone who would follow the "opinions" of Garland bashers". And that would include the patently false and easily disprovable, based on Garland's record alone, opinion that he is not going after those who commit huge crimes.

In case you are still perplexed, no I don't think Garland, based on his extensive record of going after people who commit huge crimes, is a fuckup. And I do think that anyone who would be guided by the various fact-free, baseless and, frankly, less than informed opinions expressed by Garland bashers is a total, unmitigated, irrefutable, undisputed fuckup.

I don't see what in hell can possibly prompt you to disagree with this, but hey, who am I to argue with opinions?

[Gore1FL]

75. Go as slow as you would like.

I am having a hard time if you are explaining something illogical well, explaining something logical badly, or explaining something illogical,badly.

In any event, it doesn't make any sense in the english it was written.

[ecstatic]

38. Doesn't matter what we think. Our opinions and complaints

don't matter, or at least that was the mantra a week ago. That said, I'm not an idiot and I know Biden can't touch Wray or Garland with a 19 foot pole right now. If anything, they would have to do the right thing and resign themselves. Preferably with a bit of distance from this news story. But right now, their removal is the least of my concerns.

[Skittles]

39. is this the new meme?

yeah OK

[Cha]

42. It's ridiculous.. all for a

feel good Bashing AG Garland Moment which he does Not even deserve.

Oh the fucking Irony.

[Hekate]

52. [phone]

[TrotskyistTidings]

55. Fire? Why would I want that?

I'm looking forward to the trial in 2039. It's coming soon.

[summer_in_TX]

57. The WaPo article today has a lot of heavy-weight pushback.

For instance, Emptywheel (Marcy – M.T. Wheeler) points out the WaPo article relied quite a bit on Steve D'Antuono – but a deeper dive would raise questions about his own role and his credibility.

The WaPo has a story that many Merrick Garland attackers claim confirms their fears about the DOJ investigation. Except the story has really important gaps, most importantly in its portrayal of the fake electors investigation, which is the damning part of the story about Garland or Lisa Monaco’s direct decisions (as opposed to those of FBI).

Moreover, the one thing it proves definitively is that former FBI Washington Field Office head Steve D’Antuono repeatedly shot down investigative prongs of this investigation, just like he did the stolen documents investigation. That the head of the WFO was running interference for Trump raises key questions about FBI missteps with people like Brandon Straka, someone arrested early who had direct ties to the scheme in the Willard, to say nothing about WFO’s ineptitude in advance of the attack.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/06/19/the-wapo-shows-there-should-be-more-scrutiny-of-steve-dantuono/

On Twitter, she points out "One reason FBI (and to be clear, this story is primarily about FBI, not DOJ) was hesitant to investigate Trump is bc w/exception of NYT, no journalists have covered how John Durham criminally investigated the FBI because they investigated Trump."

"From March, on how THE POINT of the Durham investigation was to make the FBI think twice before taking steps against Trump."

From her blog:
Trophy Documents: The Entire Point Was to Make FBI Obedient

https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/03/06/trophy-documents-the-entire-point-was-to-make-fbi-obedient/

Then there's this from Allison Gill posting as Mueller, She Wrote:
"Today’s Washington Post reporting contradicts Washington Post reporting from March 2022 that subpoenas for info on the leadership of the coup had been going out since Jan 2022."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/03/30/jan-6-fbi-subpoena-justice/

[Gore1FL]

58. Good move comparing your fellow DUers to Trump supporters.

Especially in light of their years of criticism now being demonstrated to be true.

For some reason, I see your Original Posts, despite hiding you; don't expect a response, but thanks for further justifying this long-ago decision.

[N.I.4.N.I.2023]

60. Not Joe's style throwing people under a bus

That would be Tramp's modus operendi, not Joe's. Garland and DOJ had their hands filled with convicting as many traitors that they have. already. Anyone know when will the J6 statue of limitations expire?

[Earth-shine]

64. Sheer nonsense! So if we criticize Garland, we get accused of stating we want Biden to replace him?

This is straw man bullshit!

The reason I'm not calling for Garland to step down is that it would benefit Trump.

[Beastly Boy]

69. No, but if we say we want Garland fired, we rightfully get accused

of stating we want Garland fired.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216024504
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217034885
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1002&pid=15965129
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1002&pid=15965789
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1002&pid=15967336
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1002&pid=18020956
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216896409

But thank you for sharing one of the many reasons why replacing Garland makes so little sense.

[arthritisR_US]

66. 100% Agre!!!

[Irish_Dem]

67. I'm not asking Garland to resign. I am asking him to do his damn job.

[Emile]

71. Amen +1

[Recycle_Guru]

74. it's almost as though they want to blame Garland for Trump's sins

If he isn't setting up the noose for Trump to suit their wishes.

Garland has done nothing to indicate he's not vigorously mounting thorough investigations into Trump's many crimes.

[Act_of_Reparation]

76. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Any kind of critical self-reflection on our part is ammunition for the Republicans. The hottest of takes.