Thank you, Merrick Garland! After being refused a hearing as USSC nominee

[Recycle_Guru]

you have conducted yourself with grace and professionalism. Despite the toxic culture in DC and even attacks from the rank and file in your own party that you were protecting Trump or not acting decisively, you held steady until the evidence was in.

Trump now faces very serious federal charges in both DC and Florida thanks to your efforts.

I personally never doubted you.

[Sky Jewels]

1. I'm angry. He should have acted with much more urgency, IMO.

Now we’re up against the time pressure of a presidential election. It didn’t need to be this way! Our very democracy is at stake, and Garland was worried about appearing too “political.” Unbelievable!

[Recycle_Guru]

2. bahahaha--this time table is perfect

You don't know what goes into doing that job successfully and Garland does.

Investigations and evidence gathering, turning witnesses--it all takes time.

[Sky Jewels]

3. It does, but he didn't start on the process right away.

He sat on his hands for months and months. This should have been his first priority, right out of the gate, the day he was sworn in as AG. We had a fucking coup d'etat attempt. Other countries manage to bring the perpetrators to justice much, much more swiftly.

[Beastly Boy]

14. He certainly did!

Garland was sworn in on 3/11, 2021 (https://www.justice.gov/ag/bio/attorney-general-merrick-b-garland)

By April 16, a mere 36 days after him taking office, DOJ reported:

Arrests made: Over 410 defendants have been arrested in at least 45 states (this includes those charged in both District and Superior Court).

This works out to be an average of more than four defendants arrested every single day, including weekends, since January 6th.

Criminal charges:

Over 100 defendants have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees, including more than 35 that have been charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon.
Approximately 140 police officers were assaulted January 6th at the Capitol including about 80 U.S. Capitol Police and about 60 from the Metropolitan Police Department.

Over 350 defendants have been charged with entering or remaining in a restricted federal building or grounds.
Over 35 defendants have been charged with entering the Capitol with a dangerous or deadly weapon.
Over 25 defendants have been charged with destruction of government property and 15 other defendants have been charged with theft of government property.
Over 160 defendants have been charged with corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding, or attempting to do so.
About 30 defendants have been charged with conspiracy, either:

(a) conspiracy to obstruct a congressional proceeding,
(b) conspiracy to obstruct law enforcement during a civil disorder,
(c) conspiracy to injury an officer, or (d) some combination of the three.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-investigation-resource-page/100-days-january-6th-attack-capitol

Is it your opinion that he should have started 36 days BEFORE he took office?

[Cha]

19. Mahalo for these FACTS about AG Garland,

Beastly Boy!

There's so much misinformation floating around.

I'm going with AG Garland and Jack Smith doing their Excellent jobs and not those who wanted it faster.

[Beastly Boy]

24. I am just tired of spoon feeding the facts over and over again, despite them being freely available

to everybody who can google.

Mahalo for cheering me up, Cha!

[Cha]

25. No worries.. I cheered up when

I saw your name. lol

AG Garland & Jack Smith & all those who Actually Helped them Get the Job Done!

[Beastly Boy]

26. .

[Sky Jewels]

56. Fact: He did not go after Trump

until a ridiculous amount of time had passed. He only went after the nobodies who showed up on 1/6/21 to do their master’s bidding.

[Recycle_Guru]

66. that is typically how these cases work

sorry it doesn't meet your timetable.

[Cha]

74. Mahalo, RG!

[Sky Jewels]

75. Time was of the essence. He could have pursued the big guys and the little guys

simultaneously. Initially, he wasn't even planning on first going through all the Joe Blow Jan. 6 coup assholes before pursuing Trump. So your argument is wrong. This was not originally a "flip the little guys and work your way up" kind of situation.

Don't believe me? How about Adam Schiff then? Last summer, he publicly said that he was concerned that the DOJ wasn't going after Trump and the big kahunas. Garland had to be pressured appointing Jack Smith! It was utterly ridiculous!

[Recycle_Guru]

76. I disagree that he needed to go after Trump right away

no matter what the HIGHLY partisan Adam Schiff said.

[Sky Jewels]

78. "Highly partisan"?!

You're critical of Schiff because he's too much of a DEMOCRAT for you?! Really?!

[Recycle_Guru]

79. no--just that I won't look to him for reasoned approach to this legal issue

we meed highly partisan people in our party and the House of Representatives is where you'd go to find them.

I love Adam Schiff, Katie Porter, Nancy Pelosi and others who know how to be politicians. But Schiff is not who I would trust for dispassionate ams surgical application of the law.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

81. "Garland had to be pressured appointing Jack Smith!"

That is not true.

AG Garland appointed a Special Counsel because the orange asshole declared his candidacy for 2024.

[wnylib]

89. Well, Garland did not have your superior

knowledge of the law and how to conduct investigations, so maybe we can cut him some slack.

[Joinfortmill]

21. Nice!

[pazzyanne]

35. Thank you for sharing your work - again!

This information "puts the icing on the cake" for everyone. I always enjoy your logical, fact filled posts, Beastly Boy. Carry on!

[Recycle_Guru]

37. hahaha! great info

people yammering on don't know what is required to out together conspiracy cases.

[Sky Jewels]

63. He did not need to get all of the small guys first.

He could have started in on the higher-ups simultaneously. But he didn't want to go after Trump because he was afraid of appearing political. (Wrap your mind around that!) Jack Smith should have been in there much, much earlier.

[Recycle_Guru]

64. Considering what you know vs what The AG Garland knows

I will say he knows better than you.

[wnylib]

90. You speak with such authority and certainty

that it makes me wonder where you acquired your knowledge of legal investigations and prosecutions.

[Sky Jewels]

54. He was going after the small potatoes.

He needed to start in on the big ones well before he did. Time was of the essence.

[Recycle_Guru]

65. I think timing is important but not in the way you are believing

There is a reason such a slow drip drip of negative legal news for Trump has been happening.

All of these things are taking the fire out of his stupidest and most violent/loyal foot soldiers.

On top of that, many who might credibly lead and organize a new violent insurrection are now behind bars.

[Duppers]

41. +1000

[Cha]

7. You're right.. "Perfect Timing"!!

[Celerity]

15. It will not be 'perfect timing' if the trial gets spun out past the election and Trump wins

let us all hope that does NOT happen (both things).

Laurence Tribe is stating this exact thing right now as I type.

[orleans]

39. i was watching that too

and that all this work could be, essentially, erased

[Celerity]

94. here is the video

Prof. Tribe on Trump’s ‘monumental’ third indictment

[orleans]

95. thank you for this

around 50 seconds he said if the next presidency is held by trump or ... any republican there is the "horrible prospect that this will all be wiped away"

yep.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

80. WHAT?

If the trial ended in conviction before the election, it would then be appealed. A conviction will be appealed no matter when that happens. It would be "spun out past the election" because the hard work takes time.

How about he's acquitted before the election? That sound good?

It seems like you think trump would be all buttoned up in an orange jumpsuit before the election, and not run, if only AG Garland had had your incredible insight into his job.

"And trump wins..."

Laurence Tribe the new Nostradamus? Pundits get paid to provide content between pharmaceutical commercials.

[inthewind21]

84. Bravo

[Recycle_Guru]

85. egggxzactly. pundits don't get paid to say

"I don't have an opinion on this--let's see how it plays out."

[Cha]

93. Yeah, no one is perfect.. not even Prof Tribe.

But someone had to throw a cloud over the Fantastic Historic news today.. in the name of "What IF?!"

[Celerity]

91. you make incorrect positings and walk past the main point

It seems like you think trump would be all buttoned up in an orange jumpsuit before the election, and not run, if only AG Garland had had your incredible insight into his job.

I have never once said I expected Trump to do any prison time (although he should, for sure), let alone be locked up before the election.

If the indictment (and trial) had come earlier then it is quite possible that not only would we have had a verdict, but also some of the appeals may have been dealt with pre-election as well. The trial itself is not going to drag on for months and months. Every legal expert so far has agreed on that.

Laurence Tribe the new Nostradamus? Pundits get paid to provide content between pharmaceutical commercials.

Sorry but I absolutely rate Tribe's opinion over yours. Tribe is one of the foremost US Constitutional scholars on the planet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Tribe

Laurence Henry Tribe (born October 10, 1941) is an American legal scholar who is a University Professor Emeritus at Harvard University. He previously served as the Carl M. Loeb University Professor at Harvard Law School.

A constitutional law scholar, Tribe is co-founder of the American Constitution Society. He is also the author of American Constitutional Law (1978), a major treatise in that field, and has argued before the United States Supreme Court 36 times. Tribe was elected to the American Philosophical Society in 2010.

Link to tweet

snapshot

[Cha]

6. Too bad.. AG Garland Got the Job done with

Jack Smith.

I don't care if it wasn't Fast enough for some who weren't doing the work.

This Is Perfect Timing!

[jcgoldie]

8. And thats the key

Could Garland have acted faster maybe... did he try too hard to be apolitical allowing it to almost be political maybe... but one thing is undeniable... when he had the chance to select anyone special counsel in the Trump cases he chose the biggest asskicker he could find. He knew who he was getting and what it meant... and thats what got us where we are today.

[pazzyanne]

36. + 1 nt

[canetoad]

40. Yep

What's that old saying? When you go for the king, you'd better not miss.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

82. Right there

with you!

[Cha]

83. Thank you, MorbidButterfly..

[lees1975]

28. Well said!

I have exactly the same sentiment. Congress and the FBI had mountains of the evidence sorted and organized. Why did it take so long to appoint a special counsel? There's no reason that couldn't have happened a year ago.

[Recycle_Guru]

38. there are undoubtedly a lot of reasons they waited to do so

since you don't know--best to let the leaders do their jobs (which they clearly are)

[lees1975]

77. Let the leaders do their jobs?

They work for us. And if it hadn't been for intense public pressure, I seriously doubt whether Merrick Garland would have pushed to get this where it is now. This was political pressure from people coming up against the White House, and there are several Biden administration folks, including Jen Psaki, and Kamala Harris, who have said as much.

In a democracy, even the best leaders have to feel public pressure and sentiment to be leaders that do their best work.

[Recycle_Guru]

87. if it makes you feel better that this lifetime professional had to be

pushed by the rabble into doing his job, feel free to run with that.

Many of us know better--thus the thread.

[we can do it]

73. I know more than professionals! I am counting and stamping my feet

[Cha]

4. I never doubted AG Garland

was doing his job so there would be Indictments.. If not Fast enough for many.

He said in the beginning that ".. No one is above the Law.. ".. and here's the Proof from him and Jack Smith. Boom

[Recycle_Guru]

5. yay!!! I am kind of in a haze about today's

like, it hasn't quite sank in that we are now here after waiting for justice to be served for his treasonous behavior

[Cha]

9. Yeah, I'm in a haze of happiness, too..

I texted my Sister in Gainesville and said.. We've come a long way since she texted me on J6 with a "WTF!".. Regarding the Attack on our Capitol Building, of course.

I didn't know what she was talking about at the time.

Such Amazing work by AG Garland & his Appointee SC Jack Smith!

[summer_in_TX]

10. I am grateful.

Thank you, Mr. Garland. Thank you, Jack Smith.

Now I pray that the way these charges have all been meticulously put together will have been in time.

[Recycle_Guru]

11. I bet you we will be able to keep him from office even if

he's still free by election day and not yet behind bars

[Silent3]

12. Thank you, Jack Smith

Garland. Meh.

[Recycle_Guru]

13. it is thoughts like this that made me post what I did

and it is uncalled for.

Clearly, people are allowed to attack Garland on this site and staye their ill-informed opinion.

But no one is listening to them because he gets results

[Silent3]

16. He eventually gets around to getting results...

…sometime after Congress embarrasses him into the need to aim higher than the street rabble, yes.

[Beastly Boy]

22. This is ridiculous.

What is your evidence? Do you have any documentation of Congress or anyone else embarrassing Garland into doing anything? What exactly was it that made you think Garland was embarrassed? What is the higher aim that the Congress ever articulated? When was it articulated? How you define "street rabble"?

These are nothing but overused memes that do nothing other than trigger a knee-jerk reaction in people who are too lazy to examine the facts.

[Silent3]

30. Where's your evidence?

This isn't a court with a "beyond a shadow of a doubt" standard, and your fawning admiration of Garland is no more backed up by trial-ready evidence than my doubts about him.

[Beastly Boy]

42. My evidence for what? That you have no evidence?

Isn't that self-evident? We are not even talking about evidence that conforms to any minimal standard: you have no evidence at all. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Bobkes. You can't even articulate what evidence YOU are looking for.

Embarrassing Garland? Higher aim? Street rabble? Fawning admiration? These are hyperbole plucked straight out of a second-rate melodrama. Care to explain what specific data you would accept as evidence that addresses hyperbole plucked straight out of a second-rate melodrama?

And wouldn't you consider over 800 indictments to be trial-ready evidence? The judges that seated dozens of grand juries who had been presented with that evidence certainly thought it was. You don't get to be a judge if you seat grand juries out of fawning admiration!

[Silent3]

44. 800 indictments not-of-Trump is not evidence of any sort...

...that Garland and the DoJ were diligently and fearlessly pursuing charges against Trump before the 1/6 Committee concluded. You simply want that to be accepted as a given unless proven otherwise. I'm not buying that.

I've listed (not just in general, but to you specifically) my reasons for having big doubts about Garland, and I'm sure you've heard them before too, from me and others (and believe in your own mind to have heroically vanquished all of it), so unless you show some signs of holding yourself to the same high standards of evidence without magically excusing you from proving anything, I'm not wasting the keystrokes on repeating myself.

[Beastly Boy]

45. 800 indictments of not Trump is certainly evidence, unless you are stubbornly determined

to disregard all evidence except evidence that leads to indictment of Trump. If this is the case, you will reject 99.9999% ofr all evidence presented to all federal courts since the inception of DOJ.

Tell me how this definition conforms to anything remotely sane.

You, on the other hand, list your personal doubts which are based on god knows what that you yourself cannot articulate and call it evidence.

And this is not ridiculous... why?

[Silent3]

46. The indictments filed today were not all all built on the street-rabble indictments n/t

[Beastly Boy]

47. Who said they were?

But why deflect to indictments that were filed today all of a sudden? Are they the only ones that count now?

I have no idea where you are trying to take this.

[Silent3]

48. My complaint about Garland and the DoJ is that they weren't working hard enough...

...soon enough on going after anyone BUT the street rabble, until the Congressional 1/6 committee forced the issue.

For that point, you bringing up these 800 indictments is pointless. I never said the DoJ wasn't doing anything at all. They were clearly focusing on the part that took less courage to do.

What evidence can you present that the indictments filed today must have required 30 months of solid, dogged, fearless DoJ pursuit of Trump and his inner circle? What are the hallmarks of these indictments that clearly distinguish them from being something largely produced after foot-dragging until November 2022, when Jack Smith was appointed, and then the DoJ finally getting their collective asses in gear to go after the big fish?

[Beastly Boy]

49. So you have complaints, not facts. That's rich.

Well, here are the facts: Over 800 indictments is PRECISELY the measure of Garland working hard enough. Over 100 indictments for serious felonies in the first 36 days of Garland's taking charge of DOJ is PRECISELY the measure of him starting soon enough. And again, what is the scale you are measuring "less courage" by? Less courage than what? Complaining on an anonymous site?

The largest and most complex investigation in US history. The most people ever indicted by any AG in US history. The most indictments (and convictions) for the charges of seditious conspiracy against the US in 28 years. All this happening way before today's indictment. Pointless? C'mon, is there any limit to what you are willing to dismiss with a casual blurb? You think it should have taken less than 30 months? Without resorting to gratuitous hyperbole, describe how you think it is even conceivable for DOJ to disregard every single crime investigation in their charge (are you even aware of how many investigations DOJ handles at any given time?) and go after two dozen traitors. And how much quicker do you estimate it would be if you were granted this insane wish?

And once again, what is this new obsession with the indictments filed today? Do you really think today happened in a vacuum?

[Silent3]

50. It is not truth of anything regarding work done to go after the big fish

I also never said going after the street rabble was pointless... where did I say that?

Before I go one step further, justify that conclusion based on anything I said.

[Beastly Boy]

51. Ok, let me quote you.

My complaint about Garland and the DoJ is that they weren't working hard enough...

...soon enough on going after anyone BUT the street rabble, until the Congressional 1/6 committee forced the issue.

For that point, you bringing up these 800 indictments is pointless.

Your complaint, as you described it, was that DOJ wasn't working hard enough or soon enough, and in that context me bringing up 800 indictments was pointless. Well I clearly demonstrated how this is not pointless when you accuse DOJ of sloth and laziness. The subject was DOJ's pace and tanacity, not going after the rabble. Nice try at deflection, but not this time.

So I am not about to waste my time justifying the conclusion that isn't mine to justify. And I have already justified my conclusion that your accusations of DOJ being too slow and too lazy are not to be taken seriously.

Any other deflections?

[Silent3]

52. Geez, even right there in what you quoted back from me...

…is the all-important “on going after anyone BUT the street rabble”, making it clear what my complaint is specific to. Only in your mind did that become a generalized criticism, for which you nonsensically countered with talk of the hundreds of other indictments.

[Beastly Boy]

53. So, in your awkwardly constructed sentence, you DO, ever so evasively, give DOJ credit

for the largest and most productive investigation in the history of DOJ, all the while bitterly complaining of their sloth and laziness in matters that DON'T make their investigation the largest and most productive in the history of DOJ! No wonder it's nearly impossible to make heads or tails of what you are talking about.!

Well, well, well, that makes your complaint infinitely more ridiculous. I must admit, I couldn't conceive of such twisted logic. You are faulting Garland not because he is bad at his job, but DESPITE his demonstrably stellar record which you summarily dismiss. And the only reason why you are complaining is because the priorities of this seasoned and accomplished prosecutor do not coincide 100% with yours in just one area of the vast scope of his responsibilities Now that's a novel approach if I ever saw one!

Imagine being perpetually pissed at Einstein for being slow and lazy in tackling quantum string theory while dismissing his theory of relativity as "pointless" in the context of the string theory. Then, imagine you demanding that I justify my conclusion that Einstein is an effing genius for coming up with the theory of relativity while insisting that I base my justification entirely on what you said about him and the quantum string theory. Boggles the mind.

[Silent3]

58. I'm not here to praise the DoJ for simply doing their job, but if it makes you feel better...

Gosh, golly, Mr. Garland! You and your team did a swell job going after the politically-easy street rabble! Yay, team!

But if anything was going to be delayed and slowed down by a lack of resources and personnel, it should have been the low-level prosecutions, not the high level ones. And that's not just my out-of-the blue opinion. Many members of the House 1/6 committee shared that few. Lawrence Tribe grumbled about this problem.

Your analogy sucks because Einstein's relativity was foundational and a necessary first step before anyone could go on to explore string theory. Street trash prosecutions were not foundational to the recent, finally-at-long-last-here Trump 1/6 indictments.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

60. You really seem upset that people are happy Trump was indicted

You're posting all over this thread of people who are excited that justice is coming.
I wonder why someone on a Democratic board would be so upset at Trump getting indicted...

[Silent3]

69. I'm happy Trump has been indicted

But that happiness is greatly tempered by the lateness of the indictments, and how nearly toothless our justice system will be to render effectively swift punishment.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

71. Interesting you skipped right past the whole "trial" part of our toothless justice system

How authoritarian of you...

[Beastly Boy]

68. What makes me feel better is Garlands exemplary and undeniable accomplishments as AG

What you say about him is as ridiculous as it is fact free and inconsequential. So no, nothing you say about Garland makes me feel any better. I rely on facts to guide my feelings, not the other way around. And sadly, there is a gaping absence of facts in your responses. Garland has a record which is undeniable and impervious to gratuitous attacks, and it takes a great deal of imagination to pretend this record doesn’t exist.

On the positive side, you have a great deal of imagination. This is also undeniable.

[Silent3]

70. You have no facts to back your position either.

Until, of course, you step around what you should know by now I'm talking about, and bring up non sequitur facts.

[Beastly Boy]

72. Oh please! I gave you a shitload of facts, complete with links!

And you ignored them all.
You need more facts? Don’t bother me anymore. Just go to the DOJ website and do some searching of your own. That’s how I became aware of the facts. You can do it too, can’t ya? Unless you are determined to remain ignorant of the facts. In which case, quit demanding what you don’t want to see.

[Beastly Boy]

92. Hmmm...

... because Einstein's relativity was foundational and a necessary first step before anyone could go on to explore string theory.

A perfect analogy for Garland's work being foundational and a necessary first step before anyone could go on to explore criminal charges for Trump, isn't it?

I feel so validated!

[Sky Jewels]

55. Exactly. He went after the low-hanging fruit,

the little people, but sat on his hands when it came to Trump.

[Sky Jewels]

57. Thank you, Silent3

Garland’s delays in going after Trump were very harmful to the health of our democracy.

[Recycle_Guru]

67. actually, quite the opposite

[Beastly Boy]

17. This is a thank you Garland thread. Not a meh Garland thread.

Consider starting your own.

[Silent3]

18. I'll comment as I like, where I like n/t

[Beastly Boy]

23. And I will demonstrate how poor your choices are, wherever and whenever you choose to comment.

[Beastly Boy]

43. In a thank you Garland thread it certainly is.

I don't have to go anywhere. I feel comfortable in a thread full of DUers who suck up to Garland.

Because we have facts on our side. And you have nothing other than a never-ending string of nebulous grievances that are oblivious to facts.

[Recycle_Guru]

31. thank you for keeping this Garland appreciation thread kicked

to the top

[Silent3]

32. If having this sycophantic thread kicked thrills you so much...

...here, have another. Means nothing to me.

[Recycle_Guru]

34. this is the appropriate type of content on Democratic site

on a red letter day like today.

As always thank you for tour support.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

59. For something you don't care about it you're certainly posting a lot

I think there's a word for someone who does that....

[Silent3]

62. I didn't say I don't care about the SUBJECT of the thread

I said I don't care if the thread gets kicked or not.

[MineralMan]

61. Ok, real good, then.

[Joinfortmill]

20. Me either. Always felt Joe & Merrick had a meeting of the minds

[lees1975]

27. Don't you know that Mitch McConnell is kicking himself right now...

...oh, wait, he's still sore from his recent fall.

And perhaps Mitch, like a lot of other Republicans, is secretly hoping that they lock Trump up.

I'm still not understanding why, in the wake of a congressional investigation that gathered, and organzed, mountains of this evidence, much of it from the FBI who already had it that it took so long to appoint a special counsel. Time is still a critical issue now. They haven't brought him to trial yet, and the election is 15 months away.

I'll sing his praises when we get Trump's convictions and jail time.

[Recycle_Guru]

33. lets put it this way

if Trump can actually get reelected despite multiple indictments in multiple jurisdictions related to how he conducted himself as president, then we are already fucked as a country no matter the timing of these trials amd potential convictions.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

86. That's it, right there.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

88. I thank AG Garland, too.

He is an American hero.

The vitriolic accusations of laziness, cowardice, etc. against our esteemed AG are stunning, and sad, to me.