I have been an ardent defender of AG Garland, but after today's political charged report against

[JohnSJ]

President Biden's handling of the document case, with insinuations in the report citing "age and memory issues" as factors, and reflecting on the delays from the DOJ in investigating Donald Trump, seemingly only to initiate a special prosecutor appointment only after the January 6th committee had finished their investigation, and very likely being a motivating force in that appointment, I am personally disappointed and disillusioned in the DOJ.

The fact that by all appearances, Fani WIllis, Letitia James, and district attorney Bragg seemed more aggressive in their pursuit of Donald Trump's misdeads than AG Garland, only add to my disappointment with the DOJ.

[brooklynite]

1. Be sure to let his boss know.

[JohnSJ]

4. In other words, if I am disappointed, I should just shut up and not complain. Totally not surprised by

your snark response.

[Scrivener7]

12. Welcome to the dark side. Prepare thyself for lame, canned, illogical responses to any of your concerns,

all of which responses boil down to, "Shut up. I don't like what you are saying."

I do agree with you, though.

[Wuddles440]

18. I have!

And will continue to do so until President Biden removes this Federalist Society loving hack as the AG!

[Cthulu on call]

108. Biggest Threat to Democracy

Always has been the federalist society, every action one of their syncophant legal whores take is in line with their seditious and treasonous plan for unending white male Christian domination of this nation, and suppression of rights for everyone else.

[Orrex]

116. Yes, your shtick is well known

[brooklynite]

121. Was I assigned George Santos in the last election?

I was dealing with elections nationwide and was on the ground in Wisconsin. How about you?

Also not clear what that has to do with ranting about the Attorney General.

[Torchlight]

120. Sounds really serious.

Best of luck!

[sprinkleeninow]

2. Truth be told, Garland and his actions never sat well with me.

Just an internal sense inside.

[Merlot]

3. I didn't like him when Obama nominated him as SCJ, just had a feeling about him.

Guess who else I felt the same way about....
James Comey.
I guess this means I can trust my internal meter.

[sprinkleeninow]

7. ....

👊

[TheKentuckian]

31. I have no clue how the guy became beloved

Obama was just trying to thread the needle to get someone seated that the Republicans would tolerate.

He was never supposed to be someone we all fell in love with or be set up as someone to forever rally around.

He would have never been forwarded at all if there was a Democratic majority.

[newdayneeded]

87. Many here don't grasp this,

Obama named Garland because he was a centrist (somewhat right leaning) just to try and get McConnell and his loser brigade to accept him. Garland was never a left or far left option for Obama.

[msfiddlestix]

91. yeppers, I hadn't ever heard Garland speak until his confirmation hearings.. that was when I intuited

,a very dim forecasting of his performance as AG.

It wasn't a small pain in my stomach either.

[Farmer-Rick]

101. Exactly this

He reminds me of Comey. Pretending to give a crap about democracy while playing partisan games to help Nazis.

I guess we should be glad he f*cked over his boss now and not 11 days before the election.

[JohnSJ]

6. I have been defending him for quite some time, but with his appointments of republican special

counsels, both for President Biden and his son Hunter, to "demonstrate" how fair he is, and reflecting how long it took him to finally appoint a special prosecutor against trump, from perspective he is too weak for attorney general.

[LeftInTX]

49. Or he could have appointed a Democrat or someone neutral.

Or even an old Bush appointee. But a Trump appointee? eekk....
Did he know this guy's history???

[TexasDem69]

52. Why should he consider political affiliation?

That sounds like Trump arguing that only Republicans should judge Trump’s actions. Our government shouldn’t operate that way.

[druidity33]

75. That's a somewhat...

naive question. Why shouldn't he consider it? Because of appearances? Anything Trump has touched, nominated, lauded, etc is tainted as fuck. Any "friend" of his is our enemy. At this point that is pretty much 100% of Rs. And really, who the hell cares what Trump thinks?

[LeftInTX]

73. I don't pay all that much attention. He seemed alright to me.

But I also look at other issues besides Trump etc.

[bigtree]

5. this is nonsense

... EVERY time one of these republican motherfuckers does something ALL it seems people can do is blame Biden's AG.

It's a SPECIAL COUNSEL report, with zero imput from Garland.

And, lookee here, another Garland critic trying to link this to the appointment of the man who brought a historic TWO felony indictments against the former president.

Garland critics not only regularly, mistakenly conflate the work of the SCs with the AG, but take their angst to these ridiculous conclusions which aren't even based in the actual circumstances of events.

It's just another Garland-bashing opportunity, and this one is so disconnected from reality that it's just silly criticism for nothing but criticism's sake.

[edhopper]

8. There was no need forva special prosecutor

There was no need to appoint a partisan SC.
And if there was a need, why none for Pence?

[JohnSJ]

10. Exactly, and why did it take so long to appoint a special counsel against trump?

[onenote]

63. Smith was named Special Counsel six days after trump declared he was a candidate for president.

But you knew that, I suspect.

[JohnSJ]

65. Yes, thanks though

[newdayneeded]

124. But most of the stuff known

by Smith was known months before trump declared.

[JohnSJ]

9. The special counsels to investigate the BIdens,were appointed by Garland, and they are partisan republicans. and as far

a being disconnected from reality, just answer one question for me, why did it take him so long to appoint a special counsel to investigate trump?

[ShazzieB]

29. If I remember correctly...

Garland appointed the special prosecutor for Trump when it became clear Trump was going to run again. I don't know why he didn't feel the need to do it sooner, but that was evidently the catalyst that made him realize appointing a special prosecutor NOW was an absolute necessity.

I'm not going to defend his waiting so long, but I'm not ready to dump on him for it, either, because I have no idea why he evidently thought it wasn't necessary until then.

I am not so much a Garland defender at this point as a Garland agnostic. I feel like there's just too much I don't personally know about what's gone on behind the scenes.

Others are welcome to form their own opinions, of course. That's fine with me.

[JohnSJ]

32. A thoughtful reply

[ShazzieB]

119. Thank you.

[msfiddlestix]

94. That Sick Fuck made his intentions to run for office again was made to ALL before he left the white-house

He made no secret of his intentions, before and after the 2020 elections. He campaigned for donations long before he officially filed.

So, no.. that notion will never wash.

[LeftInTX]

72. This particular appointment was bad judgement.

I'm not one to pile on Garland, because I really don't follow him all that much. But this SC was a bad appointment. Did Garland know that this guy was a political hack?

[Silent3]

85. Zero input from Garland? Only if he chose to give zero input. It was his job to review...

...the report before it was released.

[Brainfodder]

107. Everything the GOP has to CYA for Ayatollah Complainy is nonsense at this point, defending Mr. 91 and LOSER!

If he wins in Nov. has to be voter suppression and/or fraud, there is no way the American People are gonna vote this a$$hole back in legit.

Expecting massive riots, looting like never seen before and large scale destruction of FN/OAN/NM offices if he does pull it off.
The level of pissed off will be off the charts?

[hlthe2b]

11. He prosecuted the OKC Tim McVeigh trial which I followed closely, being in Denver at the time...

I can't reconcile his tough prosecutorial demeanor and work in that trial with what he seems to project today. I just honestly don't know what to think. Even though he was a judge in between, there are many tough and strategic judges. I just don't see the 3-dimensional chess if it is there today and I'd dearly love to see that tough-as-nails prosecutor back.

[Scrivener7]

13. People always cite that case. But despite the horror of the result, McVeigh was one kid,

and a not too bright one at that, helped by a few friends and relatives. It was a pretty straightforward case.

I don't think his successful prosecution of that case was an indicator of great genius.

[TheKentuckian]

115. McVey was not wealthy, connected, or a Republican politician

That prosecution was also a long time ago.

[FHRRK]

14. Well done

As you obtained additional info you were able to amend your original opinion.

Kudos, others have a difficult time admitting they were wrong and double down.

[JohnSJ]

33. Thanks. I have never had a problem admitting an error in judgment or being incorrect

[ShazzieB]

34. No one else is obligated to change their mind just because you or anyone else thinks they should.

There's this thing called agreeing to disagree. The way it works is we all get to form our own opinions, and we all agree to respect the rights of others to hold a different opinion from us.

Just because someone doesn't see things the way you do does not necessarily mean they can't admit they were wrong, or that they ever were wrong. We are allowed to see things differently.

[FHRRK]

62. Duly noted

Last edited Thu Feb 8, 2024, 11:54 PM - Edit history (1)

but there was an immediate snark response. I am supporting the OPs right to change opinion. Will go back a look to see if responses were made to the snark.

Edit: went back and looked, there was no response from you on the snark.

Yet a comment to me for defending the OP.

Again, Duly noted, you seem to feel free to comment on my defense, yet ignores others trying to shut down discussion.

[ShazzieB]

69. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I wasn't sure what "snark" post you were talking about at first, but looking back at the earlier posts in the thread, I'm thinking you must mean the comment about letting Garland's boss know about the poster's displeasure. I actually thought that was kind of funny and not all that harsh, tbh, but in any case, I didn't connect the post I was replying to with that.

What I was reacting to was this line from your post: "Kudos, others have a difficult time admitting they were wrong and double down." I unfortunately took that as a dig against people like me who are still willing to give Garland the benefit of a doubt. I realize now that I took it the wrong way, but that's how it struck me at the time, and I reacted accordingly.

I definitely don't agree with everything Garland has done, but it takes a lot for me to condemn someone as strongly as some folks at DU have been doing. Some of the criticism of him that I've read here is extremely severe, and today seemed to be especially bad, due to the release of the special counsel's report.

I understand why people are upset with Garland, and I respect everyone's right to hold whatever opinion they hold and hope others will extend the same courtesy to me. That said, I have been finding today's barrage of Garland hate hard to deal with and let that leak into my reply to you, which was inappropriate. I appreciate you clarifying the point of your post and regret overreacting the way I did.

[Scrivener7]

81. "Be sure to let his boss know" has been posted many multiple times in every single thread that expresses concern

about Garland for years now.

You still find it funny?

[ShazzieB]

118. I had no idea that's been posted repeatedly.

Much less that it was a sore point with anyone. I admittedly don't always read every post in every Garland-bashing thread, because I find those threads tiresome. (Too much of the same thing, over and over. I know a lot of people here hate Garland. I don't need to read every thread that says so to be aware of that.)

I do still find it funny. Sarcastic for sure, but sarcasm can be quite funny. Perhaps I wouldn't be amused if I had seen the overuse you describe, but I have not.

[Demsrule86]

15. It is not the week before the election. Thus I don't think it will hurt Biden.

It is also a very busy news day. As for Fox, they are always on about something... but their audience won't vote for Biden anyway.

[BeyondGeography]

17. I agree, next up will be presidential immunity or lack thereof

Which will blow this off the radar screen. Not to mention the pain NY is about to impose on Trump.

This slander will change few minds if any.

[Demsrule86]

19. Yup, I do not not believe that Trump wins the immunity case.

I am annoyed with Garland. He should have said no charges like he did with Pence. He did the same thing Comey did to Hillary. I hope Bidens cans his sorry ass after the election.

[Cha]

23. That's What I've been saying, Dems..

but I can't get anyone to pay attention. lol

It's a Valid Point.

[ShazzieB]

36. Some of us hear you and agree! 😁

[Cha]

39. Mahalo, Shazzie!

[ecstatic]

24. true, but he might not be done talking yet.

We don't know what the fuck that clown will say before election week / night. It seems anything goes. No oversight whatsoever.

[JohnSJ]

35. CNN tapper was laying it on against Biden today, but that is par for the course for him.

[jaxexpat]

44. But it is many, many weeks beyond 1/6/2021.

[doc03]

53. I don't think this will go away they have a SC saying Biden is old and

has mental problems. It sounds like it was written by the Trump campaign.

[dem4decades]

80. Yes it does. Trump's Attorney General would never allow such a partisan report to come out. Shit, his AG didn't

even let a fair report come out.

I've taken a lot of shit here for criticizing Garland and DOJ and their slow response to Trump's crimes, I was even accused of not being a good democrat but I was only repeating what Katyal and Weissmann were saying and agreeing with them. I still do.

[LeftInTX]

71. NBC coverage was disastrous.

I don't even have a TV. Hubby has TV with an antenna. He was watching the Nightly News on his TV in another room.

I was in absolute total shock. I'm sitting here and I'm hearing Lester Holt and I'm like, "What on earth. I can't believe this??"

[Wuddles440]

83. That's true regarding the Faux News viewers,

but the ugly reality is how their coverage and propaganda influences and dictates the coverage of the MSM - not only nationally, but from a local perspective also. They had already created this negative narrative regarding President Biden's age and the indecent attack by this Garland appointed hack only reinforces their talking points.

[Farmer-Rick]

104. But, what worries me is

That if Garland would do something like this now. What will he do 11 days before the election? Write a letter to Congress about Biden's dangerous emails? Make a deal with terrorists to hold on to hostages to make Biden look bad?

Could he not find a special counsel who didn't work for the liberal hating judge Rehnquist?

This is such a Comey like move. Pretend to be all fair and supportive of the administration then turn around and betray his boss to help out a known Nazi lover.

[Oopsie Daisy]

16. Oh well.

[ecstatic]

20. It's not a fun club to be in, but welcome aboard, I guess.

Shame on everyone involved in approving the wording of that report. With Garland, all I can do is shake my head. So disappointing.

[dalton99a]

21. Garland was a bad choice. Biden felt sorry for him. No good deed goes unpunished

Garland belongs in a law library. He has no business running the DOJ

[Sky Jewels]

47. Of course many DUers assured us that Garland's milquetoast kowtowing to the GQP

was actually 3 dimensional chess. Riiiiight.

I got a post hidden for criticizing Garland, even though he is NOT an elected official, and certainly not a Democrat.

[onenote]

64. So Biden didn't know what he was doing when he appointed him? Why hasn't he replaced him?

What you're saying doesn't reflect well on Biden.

[Scrivener7]

78. Joe made a mistake. People do. Do YOU think less of him because of that? I never expected he was infallible.

[onenote]

82. Should he have corrected his "mistake"?

I don't think he believes appointing Garland was a mistake.

[Scrivener7]

84. That's nice.

[msfiddlestix]

99. Cleaerly, he doesn't. at least not enough of a mistake to take action on.

which obviously would certainly be skewed to be based on a groundless or strictly political.
I do hope Biden does privately think it was a big mistake, and makes a change in his next administration, which is often the case in second term.

[msfiddlestix]

96. This one is a truly case in point on "no good deed goes unpunished"

If ever this often misused meme /cliche has any applicable meaning, it's definitely in this case.

[sop]

22. The language and conclusions in Robert Hur's Special Counsel report amount to prosecutorial misconduct.

I've never read anything more outrageous from a special prosecutor. The report isn't a legal document, it's a political hatchet job.

[Cha]

25. TY.. I'm hoping something can

be don'e about that.

[JohnSJ]

37. I don't think so Cha except to push back on Hur's accusations.

[Cha]

41. Thanks John.. At least it's in February and

Not a Week Before the Freaking Election!

I'm interested in how PJB & his Team are going to handle this.

[JohnSJ]

42. Absolutely. A least not a comey fiasco

[Cha]

48. Team Biden..

Link to tweet

[hadEnuf]

113. This type of garbage works well for the GOP.

Expect much more of it.

Be surprised at nothing these people do.

[TxGuitar]

105. Agree- push back is necessary

and it should start with Garland.

[TomSlick]

26. President Biden crowing about the report.

The short answer is the Special Prosecutor found no evidence to rebut innocent explanations for the retention of the documents. The report also notes President Biden's efforts to cooperate - unlike Trump. I think President Biden's crowing was justified.

The fact the Special Prosecutor is a Republican is helpful at this point.

[JohnSJ]

38. His old and forgetful comments are anything but helpful in my view

[Scrivener7]

55. It's the only smart response for him to have.

[LeftInTX]

74. We could have done without the commentary. That was political, unprofessional total BS.

[TomSlick]

110. Agreed.

It was unprofessional and predictable.

[DemocratInPa]

27. I am not holding my breathe that he is going to go anywhere..

I am still waiting for Biden and his appointees to remove the guy who is going to delay mail in votes and continues to destroy USPS.

[JohnSJ]

40. That is up to Biden. That is up to the postal board of governors

[TeamProg]

28. +1

[AllaN01Bear]

30. i felt ag garland should have left along time ago. but i was ignored.

[lees1975]

43. Join the club.

We are pressed against election deadlines because of his delays. If this doesn't get to trial before the election, Garland will have to shoulder that responsibility.

[calimary]

45. I'll take this Joe Biden, today, over ANY day in years past

when the Donald was supposedly at the top of his “game”.

[Sky Jewels]

46. A lot of us knew Garland was terrible long ago,

and got scolded repeatedly for saying so.

[Emile]

79. +1 People are starting to realize Garland is not a Democrat.

[The Magistrate]

50. I Agree, Sir

Pretending to be 'above politics' is a political stance, and generally a poor one.

Mr. Garland has made support for him impossible by his feckless posturing, as if his reputation weighs greater then the future of democracy in our country and the world.

[doc03]

51. I just read the report on Politico. It couldn't be worse if Trump himself

wrote the opinion. It played right into the Republican claims of Biden's age and mental condition. This is
going to be exploited by the Trump campaign, this bad, real bad.

[TexasDem69]

54. Is there anything you think is wrong about the report?

Or is it just unhelpful? A special prosecutor isn’t supposed to worry about making anyone happy.

[The Magistrate]

56. Only One Sentence Required, Sir

I found no evidence of wrong-doing by Mr. Biden.

Period.

Full stop.

It has the benefit of accuracy and brevity, always to be striven for,

The rest is just a partisan Republican hack doing what they do.

[doc03]

57. After the SC finds no cause to prosecute Biden, he basically makes a

political ad for Trump. I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up on Hannity giving the Trump
campaign sound bites for their ads.

[yankee87]

122. Interview for

Faux Nezzzz

[JohnSJ]

59. It also isn't the job of the special counsel to make appraisals of Biden's

competence or his age

It is a hit job to hurt him in the election.

This is what Comey did to Hillary by implying that the email investigation was reopened, which it wasn’t, and then late Friday the weekend before the election Comey quietly came out and said nothing new was found.

The only difference is that was brought up 11 days before the election, and this bullshit was brought up 8 months before the election, but you can be sure that good ole boy Jake tapper and the gang at cnn will bring this up with the rest of the MSM every chance they will get.

This is another swift boating what they did to Kerry

[jaxexpat]

112. "Swift Boating", a very appropriate description of the SC's editorial pointlessly set within his "finding of fact".

[jcgoldie]

58. cosigned

That report is amateur hour. Garland has bent over backwards so far to appear apolitical that he's repeatedly a liability to this administration.

[JohnSJ]

61. We have just been swift boated by this special counsel, and anyone who

does not realize the damage being done has a short memory when Comey sent a letter to republicans in Congress saying he was reinvestigating Hillary’s email, which the media falsely declared that the email investigation was being reopened parading every right wing pundit across their outlets affirming that until late Friday the weekend be the election, Comey came out and said no new information was found, but by that time the damage was done.

This is an extremely serious situation of the level of the swiftboating of Kerry or what was done to Hillary, and almost was done to Obama with rev wright, but Obama got ahead of that within 24 hours.

That is Biden’s only chance to get ahead of it and push back and say the special counsel’s mental assessment of him is bullshit, and politically motivated

[republianmushroom]

60. Oh, damn, are we looking a little political.

36 months (3 years) and counting

[Scrivener7]

77. You take a lot of heat for this, but, yep.

[Takket]

66. I agree with you

I have not bought into the "he was doing nothing" narrative investigating drumpf. Seems to me that has been debunked a dozen times over.

But this report is so bad, ABC described it like this: "Details ostensibly meant in part to explain a lack of criminal liability border on mockery." If it is being described as "mockery", it should not have been published.

This report, with no crime to show, was dispatched to be a political hit piece on the "senility" narrative. The SC was employed to to provide the DOJ with an objective analysis of the facts and recommend charges. I doubt that writing what amounts to an opinion piece on the President's mental state was within the SC's scope of services. I doubt the SC is a Doctor or employed any Doctor to make any assertions on Biden's mental state.

Garland should have returned that report to the SC and told them to remove the musing and the ruminations, and please just write a report on the facts of the case without the editorializing and politics. He should have known better than to let something like this out into the public. Allowing this unprofessional report out has inflamed the "Biden is senile" narrative all over again.

Garland should do the right thing and resign, and if he does not, Biden should replace him after the election.

[sprinkleeninow]

67. "Unprofessional report." Exactly. nt

[LeftInTX]

70. You state this eloquently. I'm all out of hearts....Wish I had one....

Can the report be rewritten?

[Scrivener7]

76. I don't want to beat a dead horse, and we are in agreement about how Garland should go forward.

But if you are considering the emptywheel list that has been linked here ad nauseam to be the "debunking" of the idea that Garland was not going hard after the planners and perpetrators of January 6, I invite you to take another look at that long, long list of things Ms. Wheeler says he did in the year and a half before he appointed Smith.

The list has many words, but I invite you to really read it. All those words just camouflage the fact that, in all that time, he only actually interviewed five third-tier organizers of the attempt to overthrow our government. Five. In a year and a half.

But I'm glad to be in agreement with you about him now.

[budkin]

68. Garland is a coward

Absolutely terrified of offending Trump and MAGA

[dalton99a]

86. People give him too much credit for Oklahoma City

Heck, the whole country was united against the bombers, Garland had every resource at his disposal, and it wasn't that hard to prosecute Timothy McVeigh

[spanone]

88. Garland okay'd that summary. He is responsible for it.

[JohnSJ]

90. You are darn right he is.

[Duppers]

89. I've not supported him.

And my stance has been questioned both here and by my hubby who has apologized.


"Activism is the rent I pay for living on the planet."
- Alice Walker, author

[PatrickforB]

92. Garland had no business allowing this report to be published 'as is,' because

the anecdotal observations made by Hur are clearly political shots at Biden. He should not get to do that. The report could/should have been shortened to a few pages.

This is what happened. There is no evidence of crime. Period.

To my mind, Garland has leaned WAY too far backward in trying to 'seem' nonpartisan. But now we see these troubling similarities between what Comey did to Clinton, and what Hur tried to do to Biden. The only credit that seems due is that the report came out now instead of October, like Comey's did.

Both acts are still disingenuous, and downright negligent on the part of DOJ.

If you're going to be impartial, great! BE impartial. But don't fuck around with reports like Comey's and Hur's, because both were the acts of partisan hacks....hey, that rhymed!

[msfiddlestix]

97. Well said! n/t

[msfiddlestix]

93. It was a frustrating experience to express feelings and thoughts of doubt right out the gate...

There were signals during the confirmation hearings for me. I didn't make a point of memorizing, statements or comments.
I just recall a deep sinking feeling the man was not up to the job before him.

I felt Biden appointed him to compensate for his painful experience waiting for the Senate to confirm him for the Supreme Court and it never happened. I also understood Biden's motives were principled just shouldn't have been for that position, imo.

It's a shame, but we'll get past this I think.

[3825-87867]

95. If my goal in life were to be a Supreme Court Justice...

got a great education, met +the right people, did a great job, won some high profile cases then was nominated to become a Justice only to be turned down because of politics, I might understand.

But after having been nominated highly by the president then being turned down and realizing that the president who nominated you did virtually nothing to get that appointment, I might tend to be a little upset at no support. And further, had to accept waiting until the election because...

Would that affect my life's work down the line? Maybe. Depends on how much I really wanted it yet got no support. In such a case, I might feel a tendency, maybe even subconsciously, to try some form of retaliation. And please don't think that this couldn't happen.

Certainly possible. Probably not. But we're all human. As far as we know, Garland is, too.

Just a thought.

[JohnSJ]

98. What are you talking about? President Obama nominated Garland for SC justice

not Biden, and there was nothing Obama could do because McConnell blocked any hearing in the Senate from being heard. There was nothing that Obama could do if the Senate wouldn’t allow the vote to proceed

[3825-87867]

100. I know Obama nominated him.

I was merely making a point that support could have come in different ways not simply , oh well, nothing I can do.
Presidents can apply pressure in many ways. That might have happened but we we're privy to it. And even if Garland accepted that, it might still have weighed on his mind. That's a premise that could be considered.

Garland's decisions have been suspect for many reasons. This was one added with the same weight as all the others. The fact the report to Garland was not sent back to be rewritten without the innuendo says more to me wondering what Garland was thinking.

When you get down to government, it's really just business on a national basis. Politics is a fancy word for business. And that means whomever has the biggest guns runs the place. And McConnell had them then and used them. But I'd sure like to have had more public criticism by Obama, even with our Right Wing Press.

[Sneederbunk]

102. DUers finally coming to conclusion that TFG will not be tried before election.

[cactusfractal]

103. You can't criticize Garland

Not here, anyway.

You're supposed to accept whatever he says or does and be happy about it, because despite his lack of personal partisan affiliation, he's been declared a "Democratic public figure" here, and that renders any critical comments non grata.

[Scrivener7]

111. It's almost funny to watch the doubling down on "Everything Garland touches is three-dimensional-chess gold,"

in response to this inappropriate slime job that Garland allowed to ooze from his DOJ.

[republianmushroom]

106. And the light does come after the darkness.....

[damifino10]

109. Dem DOJ's

The last 2 Democratic DOJ's have been weak. Obama's man failed and now Biden's man has too.
Maybe we need a woman. They seem to have "more balls" than our leaders picks.

[TomDaisy]

114. "Garland is the gift that keeps on giving." - Mitch McConnell

[LetMyPeopleVote]

123. 'Confidential' in name only: Merrick Garland's delicate decision to release the Hur report

In theory, the attorney general could have kept the report secret. In practice, he had only one option. If AG Garland did not release the Hur report, it was going to be either leaked or disclosed by the GOP in a hearing which would give the report far greater exposure and coverage.

Link to tweet

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/09/garland-decision-release-hur-report-00140806

The White House is livid over the Justice Department’s release of a special counsel report that painted a devastating portrait of Joe Biden. But Attorney General Merrick Garland’s decision to release it was a foregone conclusion — and anything short of publicizing the full report would have been worse.....

In practice, though, burying or censoring the report would have been untenable, former Justice Department leaders say.

They described a high-stakes calculus for both Garland and Hur informed by previous politically sensitive investigations: Special counsel reports have always been made public in recent years, and Garland would have been slammed by Republicans and the press if he tried to keep this one under wraps. Hur, meanwhile, clearly understood that political reality, so the harsh language he included was exactly what he expected the public to see.....

While the DOJ regulations used to appoint special counsels call for their final reports to be confidential and Hur labeled his as such, in recent years it has become customary for attorneys general — facing political pressure — to vow to release them publicly to the extent the law allows.

Despite the caterwauling from the White House this week, the conclusion of Hur’s probe was sure to draw a flurry of Freedom of Information Act requests and lawsuits from news organizations and Biden’s political foes. House Republicans could also have subpoenaed the report and related records. The letter Biden’s lawyers sent to Hur indicates transcripts exist of the prosecutor’s interviews with Biden, so the memory lapses Hur cited may have become public whether Hur had colorfully characterized them or not......

And while some Justice Department veterans said the buck stops with Garland, others argued that the attorney general had no choice but to release the report Hur delivered. Hur and his team likely would have understood that their words would become public, even though the report was labeled “confidential.”

“Mr. Hur’s report had to be released unedited lest the attorney general were to be accused of protecting President Biden,” Rossi said.

Even if the full report was not leaked, the report would had eventually come out when Comer or Gym Jordan subpoenaed Garland, Hur and the report itself. Disclosure of the full report would have been a bigger deal than releasing the report in full this far in advance of the general election.