Garland Teed Up Sly Attack Dog Special Counsel Hur to Screw Biden (and the country)

[autorank]

Hur’s mandate “was to judge whether a crime was committed... not speculate on what the jury would do, not to speculate on how full or sharp Joe Biden’s mind is,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) similarly said.

Garlland's special counsel Hurl damned Pres Biden with a feint and insincere praise. He didn't charge Biden who he called a really nice man with serious memory problems; a man so nice rhe spcial councill didn't think he could get a jury to convict. Hur thinks we're morons. The clear message is that Biden is too out of it the counyty and doesn't deserve a second term.

Maybe Garland and the rest of the geniuses who made the appointment missed these obvious clues that Hur was a ringer:

Hur was a legal clerk for the ethically challenged former SCOTUS Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist a |suppreter of the "separate but equal" doctrine that justified school segregation.

Hur wasn't required to clerk for Rhenquist, he chose to.

Hur was a legal clerk for disgraced Judge Alex Kozinski. The judge fled to retirement after multiple harassment and porn relatedcharges.

Hur wasn't required to clerk for Kozinski, he chose to.

Hur was a senior advisor to Trump deputy Attorney General Rod "obstruction of justice" Rosenstein.

ANOTHER VOLUNTARY CHOICE BY HUR.

Hur did his job, which was to smear Biden. Garland, his staff and the lazy faction of the corporate media failed at theirs.

[MistakenLamb]

1. Put down the bong

[LuckyCharms]

3. What do you mean?

[MistakenLamb]

7. accusing AG Garland of using Hur as a hit job on Biden is absolute fucking lunacy

[Bucky]

9. Yeah, it's conspiracy theory style thinking when we just *presume* someone's motives

Like imagine the political hay the Republicans would have made if Garland had suppressed or redacted the snarky unsubstantiated editorials Hur threw in there. Releasing the whole thing was the smart move. That way we get to see the hit piece on its own "merits"

[autorank]

18. HUR should never have been selected

to write a report that needed to be redacted.

Harris is standing tall for Biden right now. Great atuff.

[Bucky]

34. Yeah 20/20 hindsight

[autorank]

16. Garland was rolled. Garland, his team

This guy was a ringer. Clerking for a segregationist Chief Justice, a sexual harasser judge, and being Ron Rosenstein's "advisor" WERE ALL HUR'S CHOICES. Hardly a resume that would indicate fairness. No conspiracy, just asleep at the switch.

[dem4decades]

30. Who should be blamed for that shit report? The buck stops at the top, and

The top of DOJ is Garland.

He can always write a "I was only protecting the institutions" book like Comey did for us all to enjoys.

[Emile]

5. What does that even mean?

[bigtree]

19. lol

+1000

[The Magistrate]

4. Cold But Fair, Sir

I do not think divided loyalties can be ruled out in assessing Garland's actions here.


"Don't care what you say. I care what you do."

[dalton99a]

6. +1

[Bucky]

10. Imagine how Republicans would have benefited if Garland had suppressed the report or redacted the snarky bits

Releasing the full report was the smart move. Hur's political hatchet job stands on it's own without any free publicity about as effort by the DoJ to suppress it.

If you want to impugn someone's motives, meditate on why Hur would do this. It's likely an audition to be Trump's AG choice in 2025

[The Magistrate]

11. How Obvious It Was Hur Would Do a Hatchet-Job Somehow, Sir, Is The Gist Of My Critique Of Garland

Garland, at best, made a mistake.

There is never, ever, not just hardly ever, but never fucking ever, does it pay to do, or to not do, something for fear of Republican attacks. They will anyway, no matter what you do.

Do what ought to be done.


"I'm tired of hearin' you boys tell me how Bobbie Lee's gonna jump around and do this or that. Start tellin' me what we're gonna do to Bobbie Lee!"

[Bucky]

13. "Do what ought to be done." - Best advice ever.

The full report with snark was gonna all come out anyway. Releasing the whole thing was the right move (as well as the smart one).

I assume you're not saying Garland should have buried it or should have tried to edit out Hur's bullshit editorials.

Is there some way you think Garland should have handled it differently?

[Beausoleil]

14. Garland should not have appointed a Special Prosecuter

When there was absolutely no evidence that a crime had been committed.

As was the case with Mike Pence.

[The Magistrate]

15. He Should Not Have Appointed The Man

And is accordingly responsible for any damage stems from it.

When people do things which have a predictable result, one which they purport not to want, they either have displayed poor judgement, or do in fact desire the result obtained.

[triron]

22. You nailed it.

[autorank]

23. "Is there some way you think Garland should have handled it differently? "

Yes. He and staff should have done the 20 minutes it took me to get enough bio yo say, "No to this guy." Or Gatland could gave called the guy on the carpet and told him , "How dare you,! This is bullshit. If you want a career, you better fix iit." Garland could have called Hur's firm and said, 'WTF is with this guy Hur?"

[Sanity Claws]

26. Couldn't Garland have reviewed it and said this report has things outside the scope of your work?

And asked him to rewrite the report so that it was consistent with his assignment?

[autorank]

17. TY

[Bucky]

8. Rehnquist was the grandfather of minority voter suppression

He cut his political teeth in Arizona as a partisan pollwatcher involved in Operation Eagle Eye

Despite his denial of personally opposing Brown v Board, as late at 1967 he was still arguing against school desegregation in Phoenix.

[ecstatic]

12. My only question: do we have to worry about Hur popping up again?

Perhaps closer to the election next time.

Or is he officially relieved from special counsel duty?

[getagrip_already]

28. Expect him to be called before house hearings...

His notes, transcripts, any recordings, etc, will be subpoenad.

This will be drilled into in excruciating detail, on TV, over and over.

Garland might as well have indicted biden.

[Goodheart]

20. +1000%

Garland is quickly progressing from a disappointment into the outrage department.

There was no excuse for this garbage.

[autorank]

25. +1

[Happy Hoosier]

21. I don't think Garland tried to attack Biden. He's naive.

I am afarist that Garland has no idea what's at stake here, and he's trying to appear absolutely "impartial." I think he picked Hur because looking at the case itself, he was certain that there could be no charges, and that by appointing a MAGAt, he avoids any claim of partisanship. He probably wanted to let the report come out unedited for the same purpose. But IMHO, he had a duty to slap Hur down and instruct him to confine his comments to matter at hand, and to keep opinions he is entirely unqualified to make to himself.

Garland failed in that duty IMO. If Biden wins, he should request and accept Garland's resignation, IMO.

[autorank]

24. his staff sucks

This was an unforced error.

[TheKentuckian]

27. A naive AG is close to oxymoron.

That would mean he is manifestly unfit for the job.

[autorank]

33. When Biden wins he should fire Garland

...and make a clear message -- "Do your job," iI's too important to miss obvious Republican reools

[doc03]

29. Garland always has his defenders. Just what has Garland done right?

Was it right to wait two years to appointment a SC for Trump. The Hunter Biden case was being settled and he
appoints a SC and blows it up. It just seems Garland is so afraid he might offend the right he ends up screwing
Democrats instead.

[Autumn]

31. I agree.

[Marcus IM]

32. Remember that O selected him because he was conservative...

... to make it obvious that the GOP would reject ANY SCOTUS pick he made, including a conservative.

Why did President Biden choose him for AG?