Some Tidbits On Merrick Garland

[gab13by13]

1. Garland agreed with Bill Barr that defaming someone was an official duty of the president. A district court disagreed. E. Jean Carroll had to delay her original lawsuit awaiting an Appeals court decision. After a year Garland withdrew his defense of Trump (the office) and now Carroll's suit can proceed.

2. Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are suing DOJ for invasion of privacy and violating their 5th Amendment rights. They filed a request to depose Donald Trump, Merrick Garland objected but another federal judge overruled Garland and Trump will be deposed.

3. The John Durham investigation. One of Durham's prosecutors, Nora Dannehy, who is well respected, up and quit the investigation for ethical reasons. A report was written up explaining her reasons. Merrick Garland is sitting on that report and there is talk of someone filing a FOIA to force Garland to make the report public.

Garland's special counsels

4. Appointment of David Weiss after 5 years of investigation of Hunter Biden. Why the need to make him a special counsel when he had all the power to investigate and indict as he pleased?

5. Appointment of Robert Hur as special counsel to investigate classified documents found at Joe Biden's properties. Mr. Hur has deposed 100 witnesses and has gone back to when President Biden was Senator Biden in his investigation. When will this shoe drop? Will it be a Comey moment.


Merrick Garland truly is showing Magats that he is not partisan against them. Job well done.

[mikeysnot]

1. Can't you see he's playing

Three dimensional parcheesi!

[JohnSJ]

2. Unrec!!!

[msfiddlestix]

22. why bother ?

[JohnSJ]

25. For the same reason that the some seem obsessed with posting anti Garland posts on a

periodic basis as though that will change anything, along with mischaracterization of the accusations

but hey, Perhaps it is a cathartic experience

[GoCubsGo]

38. "Trash this thread" is your friend.

Join me, won't you?

[wnylib]

3. This ongoing vendetta against Garland is getting so predictable.

Was he a mortal enemy of yours in a past life?

[agingdem]

12. Thank you...

if it wasn't for Merrick Garland, the MAGA House assholes would have collapsed the January 6 and MAL documents investigations ... days after the House turned, he received demand letters from Jordan and McCarthy... turn over all documents pertaining to the two investigations...Garland politely told them to shove it...he then appointed Jack Smith special counsel, insulating the two cases and out of the reach of MAGA filth..,

I'm guessing Merrick Garland bashers are hating on him because he didn't arrest Trump's ass the day he took office...and thank god he didn't!

[wnylib]

15. The Garland bashing is so persistent and meaningless that

I wonder what the purpose is.

The only other person who bashes Garland so persistently is DJT.

[bigtree]

18. truth.

...'what's it all about, Alfie?'

[AZSkiffyGeek]

32. They secretly want a Bill-Barr type hatchet man to do for Biden what Barr did for Trump

They don't really care about rule of law, they just want to see Trump suffer.

[msfiddlestix]

24. you see no harm done with the actions listed in the op?

Specifically with regard to the appointment of Weiss et al for SC?

[JohnSJ]

26. Should we criticize President Biden for not replacing Weiss when he became President? What should

have been done when Weiss requested that he be appointed SC?

[msfiddlestix]

28. Really? That's your argument? Straw Man. and you know it.

[JohnSJ]

29. No it isn't. The reason President Biden didn't replace Weiss was because he was currently

investigating his son, and viewed it as a conflict of interest.

The reason the AG honored Weiss request to be SC is because the pressure from the House repukes to appoint a SC on the president’s son, and because Weiss had already been familiar with the case.

In case you were not aware, the rethugs were very much against Weiss being the SC, because I suspect, the Weiss examination of the facts of the case, Weiss did not see anything out of the ordinary than what was charged.

Now that a SC has been appointed, when the rethugs call that SC before Congress, he will not comment in an ongoing investigation

[wnylib]

33. I wonder why the persistence of Garland bashers on DU

is outdone only by DJT.

[onecaliberal]

4. But, but, but, he playing eleventy dimensional chess...

[gab13by13]

5. What do they say when people can't debate?

Oh yeah, attack the messenger.

Any rebuttals of what I posted or just personal attacks?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

7. What do they call people who write inflammatory posts and demand others debate them?

[bigtree]

19. we had a term that used to be popular here

...flamebait.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

31. That wasn't what I was thinking of, but it applies...

[EndlessWire]

21. Where do you get this from?

OP has done nothing wrong to point out any inconsistency with a public official's behavior. That is what discussion is for. That is what caution is about. That is what this place is for.

It would work for you if you like sticking your head in the sand to avoid a scrutinizing look at information. If OP is concerned about something and you are not, just move on from the post. Otherwise, don't imply nastiness.

I am increasingly irritated with Garland's initial slowness. We sure could use that year back. But otherwise, I am cautiously anticipating August 5, 2024, to be the cutoff. So is Trump. I don't think that anyone will persuade Garland to break the unwritten 90-day custom of ceasing to prosecute, because he is old school, as shown by OP's post.

Am I allowed to say that?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

30. Where is this rule about ceasing prosecutions?

You're so clued in on how badly Garland is doing and defending his detractors who post falsehoods (and get corrected) on a weekly basis, I'm sure you can cite where it says all prosecutions must cease.
I'll be waiting...

[JohnSJ]

27. You do realize you are responding to your own OP?

[Beastly Boy]

34. It's on the messenger to cite sources for the messenger's opinions.

But you hardly ever do. Any wonder why so many people question your motives?

You have been debated and proven wrong countless times. Enough is enough. You will get your rebuttal when you provide sources which would make your rant based on facts. Or not based on fact. Otherwise, it's idle and, frankly, tiresome chatter at the very best.

Your move!

[bigtree]

6. once again, Garland bashing without ANY corroborating proof

...just a counterproductive effort to ANY justice being done by his office today.

If you're still bashing the man who prosecuted over a thousand MAGA, and hired the man, by himself, who brought 91 charges against Donald Trump, you're doing justice advocacy wrong.

And god knows what this is really all about, because it doesn't serve Democratic politics to keep pretending Garland isn't prosecuting, and ignoring his prosecutions to bash him is just noise at a time when he should be getting support against MAGA and Trump attacks.

It's just amazing that anyone would go back to this? Why today? Why this screed without any reciepts?

Without putting a fine point on it, Trump is attacking this administration's AG, and you're attacking this administration's AG. Well done.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

8. 6. If it weren't for the J6 Committee forcing his hand, DOJ would have let Trump skate for J6.

Merrick Garland has fans here. I'm not one of them.

[Earth-shine]

9. +1 That's what I think.

I also think that anyone in the AG's position is going to be controversial. It's the times. They are complicated.

[gab13by13]

10. If it were not for Cassidy Hutchinson's J6 testimony

DOJ was not investigating Trump. Cassidy shamed DOJ into investigating Trump.

If we don't get a Trump trial before the election it is because DOJ waited a year and a half to investigate him, and gave the lame excuse of the pyramid strategy. Nobody who was arrested and convicted who attacked the Capitol has flipped on anyone. Zero. Zilch.

[onecaliberal]

11. This. Also, trump announcing his 2024 run forced garland.

[bigtree]

17. fiction

...and when did we start relying on DOJ to win elections?

Thing is, there's nothing more we should expect DOJ or Jack Smith will do, or should do to influence that vote. It's one thing for them to be mindful of an election cycle, and quite another for them to spend time adjusting their investigations and prosecutions to fit a election timetable. However sweet that would be for those of us who loath watching the Defendant out on the campaign trail, it's not what DOJ does, or should involve themselves in.

There's plenty of evidence that whatever disagreements FBI and DOJ engaged in at the beginning of the probe, it is ridiculous to assume, as Carol Leonnig made famous, that DOJ was either unconcerned with focusing their investigation on the Trump WH, or indifferent, or negligent, just based on the fact that there wasn't an official probe announced.

Nor has it been proven that some indictment of Trump in the first year of Garland's term would have resulted in an effective conviction, given that NONE of the major figures surrounding him were talking, and no incentive for them to talk at that time. What people assume was obvious from news reports doesn't necessarily translate into successful prosecutions.

It was Garland, by himself, who appointed Jack Smith over objections that he would slow the probe, and despite accusations that he was there to divert blame from Garland for declining to indict. Turned out, the man who appointed the SC that accelerated and broadened the probe is just as interested in prosecuting Trump as the rest of us.

All the cynicism, apathy, and fear about the pace of the DOJ probe has everything to do with a political process of elections which the legal process is dubiously accountable to (non-interference), or responsible for. Whatever delays Trump can engineer, the trial eventually will move forward to a verdict.

Always amazing to me how Fani Willis isn't tagged with the same nonsense about delay that DOJ is hampered with by pundits and other critics. Here we have an arguably less complex case moving at almost the same pace as the Smith probes. Always perplexed how the Fulton prosecution effort has escaped the same hyper concerns about delay in relationship to the election. Especially with any conviction there effectively insulated from the presidential pardon process.

How about these ill-infomed, gaslighting critics use their expertise to remind readers just how complex these types of cases can be? Tell them how moneyed defendants are able to drag the process out, most often regardless of what the prosecution does. Don't just feed the cynicism.

For some reason, there's a belief out here, or the faint of a belief, that running against a multi-indicted, past election loser requires a DOJ prosecution to be successful. When did we start relying on DOJ to win elections?

[bigtree]

20. this is a lie

Jack Smith’s filing shows he has 3.1 million pages of Secret Service emails that reveal agents were communicating with seditionist Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes. Smith revealed in his filing that the 3.1 million pages of Secret Service emails did exist – and he has them.

The agency was moved under the purview of the Department of Homeland Security, a Cabinet-level position that was added after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. The Secret Service was sounding the alarm to Trump's acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf, who abruptly left on Jan. 12, 2021 after pledging to stay in office until Jan. 20.

Wolf and acting deputy secretary Ken Cuccinelli both were found to have deleted text messages around Jan. 6, 2021.

It raises questions about whether Wolf was given the information by the Secret Service and if he passed it on to the White House, the Pentagon, Congress or any other law enforcement agencies.

https://www.rawstory.com/secret-service-emails-obtained-jack-smith/

[bigtree]

14. completely false, again without any receipts

...I have receipts.

This July 26, 2022 article by Carol D. Leonnig, the same person who claimed there wasn't attention at DOJ on the Trump WH, including the president, should give pause in accepting the claims that DOJ was negligent in the early days of Garland's time in office.

Justice Department investigators in April (2022) received phone records of key officials and aides in the Trump administration, including his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, according to two people familiar with the matter. That effort is another indicator of how expansive the Jan. 6 probe had become, well before the high-profile, televised House hearings in June and July on the subject.

The Washington Post and other news organizations have previously written that the Justice Department is examining the conduct of Eastman, Giuliani and others in Trump’s orbit. But the degree of prosecutors’ interest in Trump’s actions has not been previously reported, nor has the review of senior Trump aides’ phone records.

or, consider this:

(@MuellerSheWrote) Before Jack Smith was appointed, Merrick Garland:

Seized John Eastman's phone
Seized Jeffrey Clark's phone
Seized Scott Perry's emails
Seized Eastman's emails
Seized Epshteyn's phone
Seized Mike Lindell's phone
Seized Mike Roman's phone
Seized Scott Perry's phone
Got Kash Patel's testimony
Appointed Windom
Appointed Cooney
Subpoenaed the fraudulent electors
Subpoenaed 7 state's election officials
Subpoenaed Sidney's PAC
Subpoenaed Rudy
Opened IG probe into Clark
Opened IG probe into DoJ response to 1/6
Negotiated subpoena for Meadows
Battled the 11th circuit for classified docs
Subpoenaed trump for classified docs
Subpoenaed trump for surveillance video
Executed a search warrant on trump
Convicted Bannon of contempt
Indicted Navarro for contempt
Subpoenaed the speakers from 1/6
Subpoenaed the organizers of 1/6
Secured seditious conspiracy convictions
Subpoenaed records for any member of congress involved in 1/6
Subpoenaed info on Jenna Ellis
Secured testimony from Mark Short
Secured testimony from Jacob Engel
Secured testimony from Philbin
Secured testimony from Cippollone
Subpoenaed info on trump's PACs
Won privilege battles for Short, Engel, and the Pats
Negotiated for Pence's subpoena
Seized the phone records of Meadows
Secured the 1/6 committee transcripts
Subpoenaed 7 secretaries of state

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1647043510544273408.html

...that's just what's in the public record. DOJ secrecy rules (correctly) prevent us from definitively knowing or saying just what they did in the early days of the investigation. The absence of that information may well be an open invitation for Garland critics to speculate the worst of his actions and intentions, but it's still bunk without that inside knowledge, which is essentially the bulk of the case, and not available in anything we read in the news.


posted by Bev54: Here is some of the timeline of the 1/6 investigation prior to Smith being appointed.

Some key dates in the January 6 investigation are:
January 4, 2021: DC authorities seize Enrique Tarrio’s phone
January 25, 2021: Stop the Steal VIP Brandon Straka arrested; DOJ IG opens probe into Jeff Clark and others
February 17, 2021: First allegedly cooperative interview with Straka
March 17, 2021: DOJ makes first tie between Oath Keepers investigation and Roger Stone
March 25, 2021: Second allegedly cooperative interview with Straka
April 21, 2021 (Lisa Monaco’s first day on the job): DOJ obtains warrant targeting Rudy Giuliani’s cell phones in Ukraine investigation
June 23, 2021: First Oath Keeper who interacted with Stone enters into cooperation agreement
August 19, 2021: Alex Jones sidekick Owen Shroyer, who participated in Friends of Stone list and served as a communication hub between Proud Boys and others, arrested
September 2021: DOJ subpoenas records from Sidney Powell grift
September 3, 2021: SDNY makes an ultimately successful bid to review all content on Rudy’s devices for privilege (making such content available if and when DOJ obtains January 6 warrant targeting Rudy)
Fall 2021: Thomas Windom appointed to form fake elector team
October 28, 2021: Merrick Garland tells Sheldon Whitehouse DOJ is following the money of January 6
November 2, 2021: Special Master Barbara Jones releases first tranche of materials from Rudy’s phones, including content through seizure
November 22, 2021: Trump appointee Carl Nichols asks James Pearce whether 18 USC 1512(c)(2) might be applied to someone like Trump (he would go on to issue an outlier opinion rejecting the application)
By December 2021: JP Cooney starts long-invisible investigation into financial side of January 6
December 2021: NARA and Mark Meadows begin process of completing his record of PRA-covered communications
December 10, 2021: Judge Dabney Friedrich (a Trump appointee) upholds application of 18 USC 1512(c)(2) to January 6
Mid-January 2022: DOJ finally obtains contents of Tarrio’s phone
January 5, 2022: Merrick Garland reiterates that DOJ is investigating the financial side of January 6
January 19, 2022: Jones releases remaining content from Rudy’s phones; SCOTUS declines to review DC Circuit rejection of Trump’s Executive Privilege claims with respect to January 6 subpoenas
January 5, 2022: Lisa Monaco confirms DOJ is investigating fake electors plot
February 18, 2022: In civil cases, Judge Amit Mehta rules it plausible that Trump and militias conspired to obstruct vote certification, as well that he aided and abetted assaults
March 2, 2022: Oath Keeper in charge of Stone security on January 6, Joshua James, enters into cooperation agreement
March 28, 2022: Judge David Carter issues crime-fraud ruling covering John Eastman’s communications with and on behalf of Trump
May 2022: DOJ subpoenas all NARA records provided to J6C
May 26, 2022: Subpoenas for fake electors plot including Rudy, John Eastman, Boris Epshteyn, Bernie Kerik, and Jenna Ellis, among others; warrants for email accounts of Jeffrey Clark, John Eastman, Ken Klukowski, and one non-lawyer
June 6, 2022: DOJ charges Proud Boy leaders with seditious conspiracy
June 21, 2022: Second set of fake electors subpoenas, adding Mike Roman and others, warrants for NV GOP officials and GA official
June 22, 2022: DOJ searches Jeffrey Clark’s home and seizes his phone
June 28, 2022: DOJ seizes John Eastman’s phone
June 23, 2022: DOJ completes exploitation (but not scoping) of Shroyer’s phone
June 24, 2022: Ali Alexander grand jury appearance
June 27, 2022: Then Chief Judge Beryl Howell permits prosecutors to obtain emails between Scott Perry and Clark and Eastman
July 22, 2022: Marc Short appears before grand jury
August 9, 2022: Scott Perry’s phone seized
August 2022: Mark Meadows provides previously withheld PRA covered materials to NARA
Early September, 2022: Pre-election legal process includes seizure of Boris Epshteyn and Mike Roman’s phones, subpoenas to key aides including Dan Scavino, Bernie Kerik, Stephen Miller, Mark Meadows, subpoenas pertaining to Trump’s PAC spending,
October 13, 2022: Marc Short and Greg Jacob make second, privilege-waived grand jury appearance
November 18, 2022: Merrick Garland appoints Jack Smith

[agingdem]

16. if it wasn't for Merrick Garland "fleshing out" the

J6 committees evidence, applying the law, and appointing Jack Smith special counsel thereby insulating the January 6/MAL stolen documents investigations and out of MAGA asshole reach, there would be no Trump accountability...and Garland did this while he pieced together a broken Trump/Barr DOJ, arrested and prosecuted over a thousand January 6 rioters, prosecuted domestic terrorists, sued states suppressing minority voting rights, monitored national security threats.. and the list goes on...

you're not a Merrick Garland fan?...I'm sure he's crushed...

[Beastly Boy]

35. How so? Can you for once be more specific than that?

[stopdiggin]

13. but of course you have always

respected the man ....
--- --- ------ -- -- ---

[Captain Zero]

23. Yes. He demonstrated he would serve the office

Of President, and let courts and judges decide whether Donalds crimes fell inside or outside his duties as president. Then No one can convict HIM (Garland) of acting politically for Dems/Biden.

Pretty savvy but ate up some time.

[Beastly Boy]

36. "Merrick Garland truly is showing Magats that he is not partisan against them." As he should.

That's in his job description.

Any other purpose for your rant, perchance?

[edhopper]

37. He has made missteps

and you have every right to point them out.

[Beastly Boy]

39. Without sourcing or providing any context to the "missteps"?

No.

The first step in pointing out missteps is to show missteps were indeed made.

[edhopper]

40. The OP

was pretty clear on what they were. All points mad3 were accurate.

[Beastly Boy]

41. No he was not. He was pretty clear on what he thought they were.

Quite a few of them were proven to be false, even in this thread alone.

Previously, he was proven he was wrong about the same things, on multiple occasions, again and again. This never stopped him from reposting the same old tales, rarely if ever giving any sourcing to the information he presumed to be true with no apparent cause for having this presumption. All along, it was not the responsibility of his detractors to prove him false, it was his responsibility to prove himself accurate.

Still not happening.