Ties Between Biden and Merrick Garland Deteriorate

[comradebillyboy]

“The already frosty relationship between President Biden and his attorney general, Merrick Garland, is now in a deep freeze,” the Wall Street Journal reports.

“Respect and admiration among White House aides for Garland, a longtime federal appeals-court judge chosen to underscore the independence of the Justice Department, has shifted for some into resignation and distrust. They point to Garland having appointed not just a special counsel to investigate former President Donald Trump, but two others as well: one looking into Biden and another probing his son, Hunter Biden. On Thursday, the latter indicted the younger Biden on gun charges.”

“Some Biden aides have said they see Garland’s handling of the inquiries into the Biden family as driven less by a dispassionate pursuit of justice than by a punctilious desire to give the appearance that sensitive investigations are walled off from political pressure.”

https://politicalwire.com/topics/white-house/

[Tickle]

1. I'm not surprised

It has been a long road with the Biden bashes. Granted Biden is strong but he's still human and you can't continually grind down anyone's child. We don't post much about the attacks on the Biden family but they do on Twitter. I would have broken down years ago.

[Ocelot II]

2. The Wall Street Urinal has an agenda.

Is the "frosty relationship" between Garland and Biden himself or only between Biden and "some Biden aides"? There's nothing in this report that quotes Biden or even suggests the alleged rift involves Biden personally. It refers only to unknown "aides," who for all we know could be one or two minor functionaries.

[musclecar6]

3. Yes

By all indications, the WSJ has swung way over to right wing point of view. I don’t read anything they write. They are as bad as Fox, Newsmax etc.

[emulatorloo]

67. WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch, so it makes sense.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

55. OR

Figments of the so-called "writer's" imagination.

[walkingman]

4. I think Garland worries too much about politics.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

56. Oh no

When did he tell you that?

[walkingman]

111. ?? What ?? I think Garland worries too much about politics

instead of enforcing the rule of law. In my opinion, the AG's job should be about law enforcement. As head of the DOJ his leadership makes all the difference in the world. When you start making decisions based on politicals issues or treating someone differently based on anything other than the law is undermines the trust we have in law enforcement.

That is where are these days in America and it is because the scales of justice are not in balance.

[Beastly Boy]

115. You have a curious conception of what constitutes the rule of law.

I always thought that rule of law entails following rules that define law. Are you implying that Garland stepped outside the rule of law in performing his duties?

Please cite examples of him doing so. Describe the rule and demonstrate how Garland didn't act within it.

[walkingman]

122. I think his delays were politically motivated. Too cautious.

To me the issue were pretty clear - those in power do not face the same justice system as your average citizen. Not sure if it has to do with access to better lawyers or just political but regardless it is obvious.

I do not consider a political figures above the law - regardless of the Party.

[Beastly Boy]

125. Thinking is good.

Backing up your thoughts with facts is better.

"I think Garland worries too much about politics instead of enforcing the rule of law" implies that Garland is neglecting the rule of law in favor of politics.

Can you back up your thoughts with examples of Garland ever stepping outside the rule of law, in favor of politics or otherwise?

Please cite examples of him doing so. Describe the rule and demonstrate how Garland didn't act within it.

[walkingman]

127. His delays were politically motivated. Too cautious.

"A Washington Post investigation found that more than a year would pass before prosecutors and FBI agents jointly embarked on a formal probe of actions directed from the White House to try to steal the election. Even then, the FBI stopped short of identifying the former president as a focus of that investigation.

A wariness about appearing partisan, institutional caution, and clashes over how much evidence was sufficient to investigate the actions of Trump and those around him all contributed to the slow pace. Garland and the deputy attorney general, Lisa Monaco, charted a cautious course aimed at restoring public trust in the department while some prosecutors below them chafed, feeling top officials were shying away from looking at evidence of potential crimes by Trump and those close to him."

[Beastly Boy]

132. Your quote is neither a rule not a demonstration of

how garland failed to act within that rule.

Care to try again?

[walkingman]

134. Nope ☮

[Beastly Boy]

136. Good move!

[Tribetime]

141. He seems weak to me no backbone

[MorbidButterflyTat]

144. Yeah

The multiple indictments, convictions, guilty pleas and prison sentences he's secured sure prove that.

[Tribetime]

152. Is any attorney general would have done that

Is plus way more

[MarineCombatEngineer]

5. Wall Street Journal?

Not buying it, all it says is some Biden aides, nothing about Pres. Biden saying it.

[Polybius]

14. However you feel about Garland, I'm sure Biden is a little pissed at him

Family comes first, of course he's upset that his son was indicted.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

18. Sure family comes first, that's a given

but I think the WSJ, as usual, is overblowing this.

The WSJ has become nothing more than a RW rag in recent years and I take anything thing they have to say with great skepticism.

[Polybius]

21. I think we are pretty much in agreement then

I agree that the article is BS, because there's no way that Biden tells his staff how he feels about Garland. I just wouldn't be surprised if he's a little annoyed at him because of Hunter, but we'll never know because he won't tell.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

23. 100+.

[Midwestern Democrat]

49. Well, I'm pretty sure the president discusses all the cabinet officers with high level aides to get

their assessments of how they're doing - he's not just going to sack a cabinet officer without discussing it with high level aides - I'm pretty sure the highest level aides have a good idea who Biden's happy with and who he's not happy with.

[Chainfire]

106. The President, in execution of his duties has 326,000,000 in his family to look after.

Biden, the Father, has fewer.

In my personal opinion, the two Joe Bidens should be kept separate. Hunter got himself into the mess, it was not a rightwing plot that made him abuse drugs or lie on an official document. Daddy needs to help his son with his drug problems, help him with his emotional problems, help him if he needs money, love him unconditionally, but stay away from interfering as President, any way, in Hunter's legal problems.

[Kaleva]

36. He may be pissed at Hunter and not Garland

Last edited Sat Sep 16, 2023, 02:04 PM - Edit history (1)

We don't know and can only speculate

[tavernier]

48. I don't know what those words or initials stand for.

?

[Kaleva]

61. Typing on my phone is a problem for me

[Bongo Prophet]

75. Simple: "He bay br" equals "He may be..." thumb typing, most likely

Unfortunately, grammar and spelling lovers have to adjust our error-correcting algorithms to parse out the meaning of others' texts. It just takes practice.

It's a result of multiple factors, whether tech-related (tiny keyboards, voice-to-text, etc) or biological ( mumbling into that speech-to-text, clumsy typing, lack of proofing before hitting send, etc)

Since it comes in with errors, it's up to us as to whether it is worth the time and brain to do so.
I'm compelled to add that it is also incumbent upon us to aspire to clarity and a fair attempt at quality control in our output.

...and if at all possible, do it gently, and with a bit of humor.

For example, my brain spells fairly well, but my fingers are stupid as hell.

[tavernier]

89. My auto correct is constantly putting words

in my mouth, so I have written some pretty weird sentences. But in this case, I thought it was an abbreviation of some sort because everybody’s using them lately and I don’t know what half stand for.

[Bongo Prophet]

92. No worries tavernier, we all have to deal with and adapt to these things

I turn off auto-correct so I have better flow from brain to type. And that's how I know how stupid my fingers are.

Then I scan or even preview if I have photos or other links.

As to abbreviations and acronyms, I took extra pains to not use any in my previous post, in light of the respondent declaring having trouble with same.

Then I proofread again and sent my post. Then saw your response and edited my post for clarity's sake so that others might read and ponder our evolution of tech and communication.


Some people ask me why I have so few posts after all these years on DU.

[getagrip_already]

6. Garlands lack of indictments speaks for itself....

His doj has brought zero indictments outside of people involved in j6 attacks, those referred by congress, those handled out of smith's office, or those not named biden before they went to SC status.

His inspector general has not brought a single charge against anyone involved in trumps rampage of misjustice within the agency.

No charges in any other agency since biden took office.

It speaks for itself. We don't need the wsj to point fingers. Garland is a wimp. Afraid of the gop.

[Beastly Boy]

42. Give or take 1100 indictments in the largest DOJ investigation in its history, right?

[getagrip_already]

88. Those involve the direct crimes against congress...

But nice try.

[Beastly Boy]

112. Your logic is absolutely incomprehensible.

You begin with a long list of indictments you arbitrarily exclude from your consideration Because... why? Are they not indictable offenses?

Then you eliminate the indictments recommended by the Jan 6 Committee... Then you eliminate the indictments that came after Garland appointed Jack Smith to indict criminals on his behalf... Well that takes care of 99% of all th conceivable opportunities to indict any criminal connected to the Jan 6 riot.

But wait, there is more!

You go on to blame Garland for not indicting people who were not alleged to commit any crimes, within DOJ or any other government agency. Excuse me? Does "any other agency" include the Agriculture Department, or NASA, or HUD, or the US Marine Corps, or the Education department? Wow, just consider the possibilities of applying your logic across the US Government!

Have you ever tried to apply the same criteria to pile on any other government official, past or present? You may find that we were and are governed by a bunch of wimps all along! I wonder how we survived...

[ShazzieB]

124. +1000!

[emulatorloo]

70. Sure, Jan

https://youtube.com/shorts/b7LRSnHU2us?si=hc2r5QLZKVhsN-ze

[ancianita]

82. Garland is the ultimate desk where ALL indictment bucks stop. 99.9% sustained, NOT overturned.

No leaks. No bullshit.

It's NOT his IG's responsibility to bring charges -- what part of "inspector" do you not get.

YOUR inflammatory posts are aggressive ignorance.

YOU hate the best AG ever appointed across political administrations, AND by the best president of our lifetime.

Keep impugning Garland and you will be seen as impugning President Biden as the same.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

87. But according to some here,

he's the worse thing since Benedict Donald got elected, yet when I suggest that those that are bashing him should apply for the job of USAG because they think they can do a better job than AG Garland, I get ridiculed, which is fine by me, I've got a thick skin, I can take it.

[ancianita]

116. Too many here.

I admire that you have a thick skin, but imo, you shouldn't HAVE to take it from fellow Democrats.

[getagrip_already]

91. The ig is directly responsible for investigating corruption and violations

In the department. They recommend actions to prosecutors. This one was appointed by trump after he fired one who was doing his job.

Nice try.

The ag is responsible for the doj. If it is not doing its job, it is his/her job to find out why. This doj is clearly not doing its job.

The ag can't approve a prosecution that is not being handled. If people in his department are blocking them, and there are substantiated reports there are, it's the ig's job to find out why, and the ages job to fix it. It is not the ages job to ignore blatant crimes being reported out of congress and in the media.

Nice try.

[ancianita]

114. "His inspector general has not brought a single charge" Again. What part of "inspector" do you STILL

not understand. Lousy try. Check into justice.gov and learn something.

https://oig.justice.gov/investigations/criminal_and_civil_cases

DOJ OIG Special Agents investigate alleged violations of fraud, abuse and integrity laws that govern DOJ employees, operations, grantees and contractors. These investigations sometimes lead to criminal prosecution or civil or administrative action. Below are summaries of our criminal and civil cases.

You're making shit up here about what's "not being handled." Link the substantiated reports or stop your bullshit.

It is not the ages job to ignore blatant crimes being reported out of congress and in the media.

You have no idea what Garland is attending and not attending to.
He's got EIGHT DIVISIONS for all that -- THEY decide, which is why they are called "Deputy AG" and "Assistant AG."

Here. Take a look at this past week's 38 charges and cases, and prove to everyone here that you even knew they existed. You can't. Look at the investigative work that went into them, and tell me that he knew nothing about any of that.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr

Here's just since Monday, the 11th:

September 16, 2023

District Man Pleads Guilty to 2021 Homicide of 30-Year-Old Woman

September 15, 2023

Former Ambassador and U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan for Violating Federal Disclosure Laws and Unlawfully Aiding and Advising Foreign Government After Retirement
Member of the Oath Keepers Sentenced for Role in Jan. 6 Capitol Breach

District Man Sentenced for Voluntary Manslaughter and Related Charges in Killing of Cousin at 29th and S Streets Southeast
Quantico, Virginia Man Sentenced to 16 Years in Prison for 2019 Murder in Upper Northwest
Three Defendants Convicted of Federal Civil Rights Conspiracy and Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act

Offenses for Obstructing Access to a Reproductive Health Services Facility
District Man Convicted of Murdering Woman Who Went Missing in 2010 and Has Never Been Found
Indictment in Nine Year Old Cold Case

Wisconsin Man Pleads Guilty to Assaulting Law Enforcement During Jan. 6 Capitol Breach
Texas Man Found Guilty of Felony and Misdemeanor Charges Related to Jan. 6 Capitol Breach

September 14, 2023

District Man Sentenced to 35 Years for 2017 Murder and Participation in a Criminal Street Gang
Pennsylvania Woman Sentenced on Felony and Misdemeanor Charges Related to Jan. 6 Capitol Breach
Arrest and Arraignment in 10-Year Old Cold Case

Texas Man Arrested for Assaulting Law Enforcement During Jan. 6 Capitol Breach
Tennessee Man Arrested on Felony and Misdemeanor Charges for Actions During Jan. 6 Capitol Breach

September 13, 2023

Tennessee Man Sentenced to Prison on Eight Felony Charges for Actions During Jan. 6 Capitol Breach
Indictment Charges Maryland Pair in Fentanyl Distribution Conspiracy
Idaho Woman Sentenced on Felony and Misdemeanor Charges for Actions During Jan. 6 Capitol Breach

Illinois Man Pleads Guilty to Felony Charge For Actions During Jan. 6 Capitol Breach
Virginia Man Found Guilty of Felony and Misdemeanor Charges Related to Capitol Breach

September 11, 2023

Oregon Man Arrested for Assaulting Law Enforcement During Jan. 6 Capitol Breach
Repeat Child Predator Sentenced to More Than 10 Years in Prison

[ShazzieB]

119. "Substantiated reports" of DOJ blocking prosecutions?

The ag can't approve a prosecution that is not being handled. If people in his department are blocking them, and there are substantiated reports there are, it's the ig's job to find out why, and the ages job to fix it.

Can you provide links to any of these "substantiated reports"?

You're making some serious allegations here that need to be backed up with facts.

[Fiendish Thingy]

7. Exactly as it should be

Well, this story should stick a knife in the back of the “weaponization of DOJ” narrative- wouldn’t be surprised if the Biden campaign planted the leak.

[Recycle_Guru]

12. yup

I think the WSJ article is BS, but it does give Dems a strong talking point.

[Kaleva]

39. Body of article doesn't support the title

Article talks of aides to Biden but doesn't mention anything about Biden himself

[emulatorloo]

71. ++++ It is just ridiculous, but to be expected from a Murdoch newspaper.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

60. And what's that?

MAGAts twist everything to their own manufactured reality.

No way there's a "Oh President Biden is super pissed at Merrick Garland so that means he's not weaponizing the DOJ so that means he's not weaponizing the DOJ against our orange lord and savior!" epiphany happening.

I would hope Dems didn't "leak" or plant this garbage.

[cachukis]

8. As a mover and a shaker, patience is often a sign of wisdom.

Things need to play out. But things have been playing out in deference to obvious criminality and political probing with little to no merit except to harm the country.
Were I Joe Biden, I would be a POMF. (pissed off...)
He has chosen his mien in deference to a harmonious democratic republic.
Sadly, few people are reading much these days and their inferrencing skills are often shallow.

These are the cards on the table. People are wondering why he is not a screaming mimi. Is it his old age?

Garland has played with the cards he has been dealt.

The founders never thought we would allow the likes of trump to ascend after their admonishments.

But here we are.
Romney's reveal is not telling to us.

If we are not the screamers, then we are done.

[BoomaofBandM]

9. Media by Murdoch news corp.

[Sky Jewels]

10. I really, really wish Biden had appointed someone else as AG.

It was a major mistake.

It's clear Garland was not the right person for the job.

[triron]

11. I agree.

[Recycle_Guru]

13. your complaint is noted

[Sky Jewels]

20. Umm, okay ?

It's a political discussion board. I'm stating an opinion.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

22. Well, if that's your opinion,

then maybe you should apply for the job as USAG, you seem to think you can do a better job.

Can't hardly wait for your confirmation hearings.

[Sky Jewels]

27. Wow, what a realistic scenario that would be.

Thanks so much for the suggestion.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

29. You're here practically every day bashing AG Garland,

so I'm taking an educated guess that you think you can do a better job than him and if that's the case, then why not apply for the job?

Seems logical to me.

[dchill]

68. And I'm taking an educated guess that if Trump gets re-elected...

... that'll be just another sign to you that Garland did it all perfectly. You really have no doubts, do you? Well, many do.

[ancianita]

86. IF -- a hypothetical, and by the numbers a ridiculous one -- stands as credible argument to you?

Puh-lease.

[dchill]

95. Did you happen to see that...

...Ken Paxton was acquitted?

[bigtree]

109. who was foolish enough to believe he'd get impeached in Texas?

...did you see that Texas republican youth group invite Bobert to speak after her fondling, vaping embarassment?

[dchill]

142. She is a Good Christian who is being unfairly attacked...

.
.
.

[ancianita]

120. So Texas is representative of the US Government? What's your point. And don't give a hypothetical.

[edhopper]

31. What a nonsense post

because someone, with cause, thinks an appointee is not the right person for a job, you jump to an inane statement that the poster should be the appointee instead.
I am sure they, or anyone could come up with a list of who they think would be better.

The argument you make here is one without merit. Full stop, period, End of sentence.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

32. And that would be YOUR opinion.

one I don't share.

There is that old saying, opinions are like derrieres, everyone has one.

[edhopper]

33. Not an opinion

a critique of your inane, false argument.
It is clearly NOT what the person was saying. You made an assumption that the poster said they could do better. They clearly and obviously did not say that, your statement about them thinking they should be the appointee or thinking they could do better is objectively wrong. This is not an opinion in any way.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

34. Again, that's YOUR opinion,

one I don't share.

Have a great day.

[edhopper]

37. Not an opinion

as I showed. You said the poster thought they would be a better AG, They never said or even implied that, not in any way. You reply was a false argument. Not an opinion, a simple statement of objective fact.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

38. See post #34.

Have a great day.

[edhopper]

45. And your statement that what I said is an opinion

is also false, as what I said was not my opinion but the objective truth that you saying the poster thought they would be a better AG was false.
The Earth is a sphere is not my opinion.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

73. Final time,

See post $34.

[MusicLikeDirt]

59. it's like a reverse form of gaslighting?

That's how I read that argument.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

77. Read it however you like.

Welcome to DU.

[Scrivener7]

97. Given the frequency with which they respond with that, I think they think it's witty.

Which means they probably don't understand how impotently dopey it is.

[edhopper]

98. The Michael Scott school

of being clever.

[Scrivener7]

99. I think of it as the "nyah, nyah, nyah!" phase of the discussion.

[Celerity]

105. it's an appeal to accomplishment genetic fallacy

see

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218277450#post102

[Celerity]

102. Classic appeal to accomplishment genetic fallacy that I have seen being used here repeatedly

on this and other subjects.

To adopt that stance you are taking would falsely render any comment or opinion on any subject automatically invalid, save for someone with the same credentials in the same field.

An appeal to accomplishment fallacy does not rebut the content of the positing that it is used against at all, it simply is an attempt to quash debate via erecting a faulty exclusionary gatekeeping mechanism.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

104. Wow!!!!

I can't even understand what point you're trying to get across, maybe you can put it in layman's terms so I can understand what point you're trying to make.

Peace out
Daniel

[Celerity]

107. There was nothing opaque or labyrinthine in my reply. You were employing a logical fallacy

to try to dismiss the other poster, not by rebutting their argument, but by creating a false barrier to entry of debate.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

108. Again, please put in laymen's terms,

I'm just a dumb truck driver who doesn't understand what you're saying.
I'm usually on your side, but this is bafflling me,

[Celerity]

113. Instead of rebutting the poster's argument, you tried to block them from debate via an invalid

Last edited Sat Sep 16, 2023, 05:39 PM - Edit history (1)

credentialing standard, a standard that would render debate on many subjects invalid simply because a person doesn't have comparable accomplishments (nor the likely chance to obtain them).

You tried to kneecap them, not for what they said, but for who they are or are not.

It would be like someone, if I were to say:

'I think Trump committed bank and tax fraud via artificially inflating or deflating real estate values on properties he owns in order to secure favourable loan terms or avoid taxes.'

trying to rebut me by demanding to see my tax law degree and/or my commercial real estate portfolio,and/ or demanding I obtain said degree and/or portfolio, in order to call out Trump in a 'valid' (for them) manner.



edited for a misspellïng typo

[edhopper]

117. I did not expect to see

anti-intellectualism on this Forum.

[ancianita]

123. The anti-intellectualism on this thread, more precisely. When people don't read DU, or keep up with

Last edited Sat Sep 16, 2023, 06:42 PM - Edit history (1)

Main Justice news, or know what's been going on in the vast work of the Department of Justice, they say dumb anti-intellectual things like echoing politicalwire, that doesn't back this "news" up with ANY facts or information whatsoever.

It's a fluff piece of wholely made up baseless conclusions that appeal to those predisposed in the FUD media climate to fear, uncertainty and doubt about the excellence of this entire Democratic administration.

OR the anti-intellectual desire to use these kinds of links to show off their unfounded cynicism as wisdom.

This is media hype and we should be intellectual enough here to know it when we see it, and stop indulging in drama provocation threads. That Garland and Biden have "deteriorating ties" is rank bullshit.


Next year, we can't be doing this and call ourselves good Democrats.
We're either united and mutually supportive of difference, or we're not going to be a place where other Democrats can come to rely on solid information that helps do the greatest good for the greatest number, nevermind GOTV.

[edhopper]

126. None of which

has anything to do with why I made the comment.

[ancianita]

128. You made an interesting comment. I get it. I'm basically elaborating

on what I see as anti-intellectualism on the thread. I'm not making what I posted about you or why you posted.
I am, though, interested in why you made the comment. Care to elaborate a bit?

[edhopper]

130. I was just referring to

Last edited Sun Sep 17, 2023, 09:51 AM - Edit history (1)

the two posters in the sub-thread my comment was part of. One explained why what was said was a fallacious argument, the other asked why she was using Big Words. Too me that is mocking and anti-intellectual.
I was not talking about this thread's topic.

[ancianita]

131. Understood. Thanks.

[Celerity]

143. She, to be precise.

One explained why what was said was a fallacious argument, the other asked why he was using Big Words.

Celerity = Female who likes Big Words.

I even have a theme song:

Deadsy - She Likes Big Words (Original 1999 Mix)

[edhopper]

149. corrected

Sorry about that, I usually use "they" when I don't know the gender of the poster.

[edhopper]

110. That is well said

and a perfectly clear explanation of the posters attempt. No need to" dumb it down".

[NewHendoLib]

15. me too.

[Polybius]

17. Kamala Harris would have been an outstanding AG, had she not been VP

Doug Jones and Preet Bharara as well.

[BWdem4life]

138. Damn

Just imagining the RW response if Kamala Harris had been in charge of investigating Trump. Maybe it's better we got someone like Garland after all... lol

[Scrivener7]

19. I'm with you.

[Paladin]

28. +1000.

[jrthin]

30. I agree! nt

[Beastly Boy]

44. Yet he has accomplished more than any AG ever.

If he is not right for the job, no one is. There is simply no better candidate currently alive.

[edhopper]

47. How so?

[Beastly Boy]

50. You must be kidding. It a matter of record.

And if you consider it to be a mere hypothesis, you can test it yourself: compare Garland's record as an AG to that of any AG in history, side by side. That will give definitive answer to your question.

[edhopper]

53. Do you have a link?

I here what you are saying, but there have been some incredible AGs in history.

Now I would agree Jack Smith might be the best SC in history.

[Beastly Boy]

72. Wikipedia will do

Here's a start - US AGs in the 21st century:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Barr
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Sessions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loretta_Lynch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Holder
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mukasey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Gonzales
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ashcroft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Reno

[Walleye]

16. I'm thinking about Janet Reno

[bigtree]

24. where a right wing rag is used on a Democratic message board to bash our president

...you filtered it through 'Political Wire' which is a slick way of elevating right wing propaganda without posting the ACTUAL SOURCE. (wsj)

Alerted.

[The Magistrate]

41. This Is Nonesense, Sir

Do you seriously imagine only people of right-wing views, or duped by right wing propaganda, feel this is an accurate assessment of the matter?

“Some Biden aides have said they see Garland’s handling of the inquiries into the Biden family as driven less by a dispassionate pursuit of justice than by a punctilious desire to give the appearance that sensitive investigations are walled off from political pressure.”


That is exactly my view. I'm tired of people who value their repute for personal rectitude above all else, and I have seen no reason to believe Garland is any less afflicted than Comey by the desire to be taken for the last Boy Scout in Washington.

[comradebillyboy]

43. Thank you for your insightful response.

[Beastly Boy]

46. Ok, it's "some Biden aides" and a whole lot of right wingers.

Of course, both are hardly partisan in their own different ways. And their opinions are highly partisan as well.

Here's my take: to an extreme partisan, non-partisan actions may seem as betrayal of their partisanship in favor of extreme partisanship on the opposite side. That's a totally subjective perspective.

[Beastly Boy]

63. If it weren't so blatantly patronizing, I would have taken it as a compliment. As it is,

I am taking it as a sign you wish to skirt the issue altogether.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

79. Dammit,

I step out for a couple of minutes and I missed that one.

[Beastly Boy]

80. Not of any consequence to the thread.

Just your everyday clash of personalities. Not even sure why it was removed.

[emulatorloo]

74. Yeah, it is typical Fox News style "Many Many People Are Saying"

Fact-free unsupported nonsense from a RW owned paper.

[tavernier]

51. Agree.

And he has always come off as a bit Barney Fife to me.

[Sky Jewels]

57. Good point, Magistrate.

Thank you.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

81. You know,

AG Garland is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.

Comparing Garland to Comey is like comparing Melanoma to Michelle. Bullshit.

Cheerleaders who claim Jack Smith is simply marvelous and AG Garland is a no good political coward, might be reminded that AG Garland appointed Jack Smith as SC. Oh I'm sure that was just a fluke tho.

After everything that's come out: indictments, trials, convictions, prison sentences, plea deals, and everything that continues to be revealed, to read the snark continually piled on an honorable man like AG Garland makes me sick.

Oh but trump! Oh but MAGAts in congress! That's not the way to do it! Know it all pundits and podcasters could do it better and faster and appease me!

Maybe consider that a trump acquittal before the election would hand the fucking thing right to him. Between those assholes at Fox, and apparently every freakin "news" talking heads ALREADY treating the criminal traitor like a legit presidential candidate, giving him interviews every other day, could you imagine the victory laps for the MAGAts???

I sincerely cannot understand the disconnect or willful misunderstanding and unrealistic demands on ONE MAN.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

83. 100+

I swear to got, this fucking place sometimes.

[emulatorloo]

84. Well said n/t

[bigtree]

96. the first and foremost 'punctilious desire' came from President Biden in keeping Weiss in place

...but don't let that overriding fact get in the way of a good Garland psychoanalytical rant based on yours (and the innocent folks over at WSJ's) nonfactual projections about this Democratic administration's AG.

Whatever Garland can be criticized for, jumping on him for following the lead of Pres. Biden in avoiding any perception of interference in the investigation or prosecution of his son has to be one of the most mindless pursuits out there for anyone identifying as a Democrat.

Any legitimacy House republicans may dream of achieving behind their barrel-of-monkeys impeachment scheme hangs on their Trump-linked insistence that it's Pres. Biden directing DOJ, not the independent prosecutors who've been given free reign by Garland to bring charges anywhere they find evidence.

Most of the handwringing attacks on Garland after Weiss announced the gun charges assume there's something Garland could do, should do, or would do to alter some move Weiss might make against Hunter - even falsely supposing it was the Special Counsel designation which allowed Weiss to bring or initiate gun charges which he could have leveled against Hunter at any time in his 5 year investigation.

There is nothing Garland could, can, or will do to affect the Weiss effort in any way that limits his authority or ability to carry it out as the SC sees fit, like it or not. That was made perfectly clear when Pres. Biden decided to keep Weiss, along with Durham, after letting the rest of the Trump DOJ appointees go.

No one is helping Hunter Biden, or more importantly, the President, by expecting Garland to touch the Weiss investigation with as much as a ten-foot pole.

All of the hyperbolic slinging of insults and derision on Garland for following the president's lead is just politically amateurish, and a bit embarrassing for people trying to make a legal argument; advocating what would amount to the interference republicans are desperately looking for to ignite their dud of an impeachment bomb.

In fact, the Durham goose egg conviction rate is the best example of the wisdom of that hands-off approach.

[bigtree]

101. walking back to this embarassing response to a right wing rag's smear of the WH and the AG

...it's amazing to me that people who are ostensibly concerned enough to post on a Democratic message board would allow their opinions to be co-mingled with the efforts of obvious anti-Biden propaganda from a well-known republican-leaning rag.

But it's it's become the norm (again, as in the Obama terms) to co-opt republican attacks with defensive self-righteousness without recognizing the rw line that runs through the entire complaint. This one comes directly from a source of the derision, but it's brushed off like it's cw, instead of anonymous opinion from a conservative source.

Who here should farking care if you agree with them?

Who here is actually looking to the WSJ for validation of their animus toward this President's AG? It should be a wake-up call to have your views associated with such pernicious and demeaning propaganda.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

133. Yes

[ancianita]

137. +1000

[republianmushroom]

25. I like it

[triron]

26. The appointment of a special council for the classified documents

Biden had inadvertently stored in his home was absurd.

[Recycle_Guru]

40. the faxt that it is not loudly and publicly already concluded is even more absurd

[Kaleva]

35. Article talks about aides of Biden but not Biden himself

The WSJ article is behind a paywall and I can only read the article that refers to the original source

[MorbidButterflyTat]

54. WTF

"Some Biden aides have said..." somehow translates to:

"Ties Between Biden and Merrick Garland Deteriorate," and “The already frosty relationship between President Biden and his attorney general, Merrick Garland, is now in a deep freeze.”

What a steaming load of crap. :poop:



PS. Why no poop emoji?

[Karma13612]

146. You mean this one?

💩

I often cheat and mix and match the DU emoji smiles along with emojis on my iPad/iPhone keyboard.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

151. Yes!

That's him!

💩

Thanks!

That's what this OP is: 💩 💩 💩

[Karma13612]

153. You are welcome and

I agree about the Biden/Garland B💩 as well🤣🤣❤️🙋🏼‍♀️!!

[sinkingfeeling]

58. Why would I trust anything the WSJ has to say?

[emulatorloo]

65. What total bullshit. Welcome to DU.

[wnylib]

69. Did you take a wrong turn on the Internet highway

and accidentally end up here?

Or are you intentionally spreading disinformation on DU?

[emulatorloo]

64. RUPERT MURDOCH'S WALL STREET JOURNAL. Just like Fox and the New York Post.

[BumRushDaShow]

66. "the Wall Street Journal reports"

DU is so predictable. Presidential election after Presidential election.

[emulatorloo]

90. +1

[bringthePaine]

76. smells like a BOGO deal on Dems🤨

[comradebillyboy]

93. What is "BOGO"? I've never seen that term before.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

94. I always thought it meant:

By One, Get One free.

But, in this case, I think it means something else.

[ancianita]

78. Given the currently flammable political climate it is exactly logical that a good AG would

Last edited Sat Sep 16, 2023, 06:45 PM - Edit history (1)

be driven by a dispassionate pursuit of justice, and at the same time and AS MUCH AS any "punctilious desire to give the appearance that sensitive investigations are walled off from political pressure" -- namely by the Freedom Caucus loons of Congress and their criminal leader, tfg.

This is just some WSJ (Murdoch owned) opinion, fluffed up by a couple of aides quotes.

Don't believe the media hype.

You can co-hype this on DU all you want, but Biden stands by Merrick Garland.

[Elessar Zappa]

85. This article is horseshit.

The Wall Street Journal has always been a poor source for actual information.

[mcar]

100. Ooh, "some Biden aides"

[Beastly Boy]

121. Garland bashers are running out of halfass plausible narratives. Beggars can't be choosers.

[LiberalFighter]

103. WSJ is not reliable.

[ecstatic]

129. Regardless of what the article says, Garland was not the right pick for the moment we're in

To be 1,000% honest, I think it should have been KH for AG, Cory Booker or Gavin newsome for VP. Merrick Garland is not a leader. He believes in outsourcing every task, and he's far more concerned about what repugs think than doing the right thing. Under his watch, my right to vote remains in peril, police brutality is still rampant with no resolution in sight, states have passed laws that are severely endangering women, and now President Biden's only remaining son is facing charges that no one else would be charged with.

And when I say that Garland isn't fit for duty, it's not meant as an attack on President Biden. Biden made what he thought would be a good decision. We all make mistakes. Obviously it would be too messy for Biden to try to fire him. But Garland knows he's not up to the job--he doesn't want to be involved or get his hands dirty. He should resign so that someone who is willing to do the things that need to be done can step in.

Of course, this is just my opinion and people are free to disagree with it.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

135. Never ceases to amaze me

how Democrats and Democratic administrations are always to blame for Republican bullshit.

"Under his watch, my right to vote remains in peril, police brutality is still rampant with no resolution in sight, states have passed laws that are severely endangering women, and now President Biden's only remaining son is facing charges that no one else would be charged with."

You can lay these charges where they belong, totally on Republicans.

[liberalmediaaddict]

145. I'm still trying to figure out why he picked Garland

Other than giving him a consolation prize since he was denied a seat on the Supreme Court.

I think he would be an excellent Supreme Court justice. And in somewhat normal, pre-Trump era would have been a fine AG.

Biden really should have picked a stronger communicator who could stand up to the Republican bullies on capitol hill.

Sally Yates, Glenn Kirshner, Doug Jones, Neal Katyal, etc...

Or simply a bad ass like Jack Smith. That's one decision Garland definitely got right.

[lees1975]

140. Blah, blah, blah.

Republican propaganda is everywhere and this is more of it. It's in the whole attempt to undermine the President's re-election with third party possibilities and the "he's too old" crap, and the doubts about Kamala Harris. It's in the "progressives vs. the rest of the Democrats" rhetoric, in all of the attempts to invent connections between the President and his son in business that did not exist, and to project the same stuff that makes Trump unfit for any office on the President.

I do not read this kind of speculative trash. How it managed to stay posted here without a jury looking at it has to be an oversight.

[live love laugh]

147. Agree... sounds more like gossip column material than anything.

If true, distance between the investigators and the investigated — Biden by association — is a good thing.

[DFW]

148. Murdoch's editorials are designed to stir up dissent in the ranks

OUR ranks, that is.

Don’t let them get away with it.

Back in 1996, when Fox Noise was created, Murdoch’s media hatchet man, and Fox Noise director, Roger Ailes, said, “we have an agenda.” Ailes is now gone, but Murdoch has the same agenda. This WSJ editorial is nothing more than one more part of that agenda. Please be conscious of this while reading it. It is not meant to be informative. It is meant to be manipulative.

[Hotler]

150. My relaionship with Merrick Garland is frosty also, not returning my calls.

Doesn't want to be seen as political I guess.