Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bigtree

(86,049 posts)
Mon Mar 4, 2024, 06:31 PM Mar 4

I've been amazed by how many people who think attacking the DOJ who's prosecuting Trump is good politics

...maybe they don't think it's good politics. Maybe they're just not thinking of the consequences.

President Biden has never said a word of criticism against his AG, so it's a mystery to me why anyone would believe that kind of attack on the man carrying forward so much of the administration's justice initiatives is sound strategy in his reelection effort.

But it's the calls for Garland to resign that seem the most ignorant to me. What do people believe would be the political effect of removing the man who prosecuted over a thousand white supremacist Trump-supporting Capitol rioters, including for charges of Sedition and obstructing the vote?

What would be the actual political result of removing the man who hired the SC who quickened and deepened the Trump investigations into dual prosecutions with multiple felony counts?

That's not even considering the logistical problems of getting a newAG through the Senate and delaying ongoing DOJ prosecutions and investigations even further.

Besides, who else is hollering from the rooftops to have the AG removed? Is it really too hard to envision who would benefit the most from that ridiculous demand?

What evidence is there that a new AG would do ANYTHING differently than Garland? I think it's tragicomedic how this 'fire Garland' refrain gets repeated like it's some sage political advice.

Thank heavens the Biden WH isn't talking like this. I'd imagine they like being the administration who's holding Trump accountable. The president has said this week that defense of democracy is the reason he's running.

Do Garland critics believe he's so hapless as to allow the absurd things people accuse Garland of to continue, unconcerned and oblivious?

Someone should ask the president how he feels about his AG and then, when he correctly expresses confidence maybe people who presume to be defending the country against this admin's Attorney General can promote something other than counterproductive, politically dense suggestions to replace him.

22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I've been amazed by how many people who think attacking the DOJ who's prosecuting Trump is good politics (Original Post) bigtree Mar 4 OP
I don't believe removing an inadequate employee is as political as you're trying to make it. Think. Again. Mar 4 #1
lol, regarding Garland as an 'employee' of Biden's bigtree Mar 4 #2
I regard garland as an employee of the federal government. Think. Again. Mar 4 #5
the ability to fire isn't a suicide pact bigtree Mar 4 #8
What are you even talking about. Think. Again. Mar 4 #10
I hear you bigtree Mar 4 #12
Look, I get it, I know there's a serious process involved in placing an AG... Think. Again. Mar 4 #15
When there was not one inkling that garland MOMFUDSKI Mar 4 #3
you mean the WH should have had access to internal details of the DOJ investigations? bigtree Mar 4 #6
Too many want too much RIGHT NOW Attilatheblond Mar 4 #4
Merrick is that you, do you need a hug? nt Hotler Mar 4 #7
how would you guarantee the prosecutions continue unabated? bigtree Mar 4 #13
"President Biden has never said a word of criticism against his AG," WRONG. republianmushroom Mar 4 #9
To be perfectly clear, it is not "the DOJ'" broadly. It is Garland specifically and narrowly Stinky The Clown Mar 4 #11
so we should remain silent about a collossal fuck up ecstatic Mar 4 #14
yep, that's what the op says bigtree Mar 4 #16
I just wanted justice before the election, no matter how it was carried out. ecstatic Mar 4 #17
Would you be saying the same if the indictments came the day before the next presidential election? Goodheart Mar 5 #18
you still arguing the fantasy prosecution in your head? bigtree Mar 5 #19
And I'll be around to demolish your next batch of nonsense, too. Goodheart Mar 5 #20
This message was self-deleted by its author bigtree Mar 5 #22
Charles Pierce: Merrick Garland Needs to Be Thanked For His Service and Shown the Door Celerity Mar 5 #21

bigtree

(86,049 posts)
2. lol, regarding Garland as an 'employee' of Biden's
Mon Mar 4, 2024, 06:42 PM
Mar 4

...considering that his post requires Senate approval.

And good luck with proving dereliction of duty or some malfeasance in office, or some other good cause for removal, other than angst because justice takes long.

Think. Again.

(9,205 posts)
5. I regard garland as an employee of the federal government.
Mon Mar 4, 2024, 06:47 PM
Mar 4

...and people are fired every day for not doing their job in a timely manner.

bigtree

(86,049 posts)
8. the ability to fire isn't a suicide pact
Mon Mar 4, 2024, 06:56 PM
Mar 4

...and it's entirely possible, probable, a surety that the president never counted on DOJ indicting the president to ensure his victory in the election.

Get back to us if that happens.

bigtree

(86,049 posts)
12. I hear you
Mon Mar 4, 2024, 07:14 PM
Mar 4

...and I can see now I have no clue how to get you to understand that the AG isn't just an 'employee' and whose replacement is subject to more than just the president's own initiative to retain or fire him.

It's not me, it's you.

What about the efficacy of that decision to the resolution of the dual indictments and other administration priorities.?

Everything doesn't get solved by merely putting Garland down. It's such a insultingly dense argument because, it assumes that something would change - an absurdity which isn't supported by anything other then the ill-informed conjecture of critics outside of the investigation.

It's even more absurd, assuming the dozens of the nation's top prosecutors involved at DOJ and with the SC care just as much about convicting Trump as anyone else.

Think. Again.

(9,205 posts)
15. Look, I get it, I know there's a serious process involved in placing an AG...
Mon Mar 4, 2024, 07:35 PM
Mar 4

....and I understand it could be disruptive at this point in time.

But I'm not out here demanding he be immediately escorted from the premises by building security with a box of his personal desk items and spare pair of socks.

I have only ever stated that I believe he has done a piss-poor job of defending justice and I also question whether he has some political bias as motivation for that.

All of that leads me to believe that he should be replaced as AG in an ideal world.

MOMFUDSKI

(5,907 posts)
3. When there was not one inkling that garland
Mon Mar 4, 2024, 06:44 PM
Mar 4

was on the stick after a year, he should have been replaced. It made the American people feel like a President can do anything and life goes on. And after the Nixon crap, we the people have not much tolerance left for 2 sets of laws.

bigtree

(86,049 posts)
6. you mean the WH should have had access to internal details of the DOJ investigations?
Mon Mar 4, 2024, 06:53 PM
Mar 4

...how does that work? How would he know of the state of the investigation?

Maybe show me one instance where the president expressed any frustration with the pace of investigations.

Or somewhere, anywhere he's criticized the efforts of Merrick Garland.

And the question remains. How do you get a replacement through the Senate once the GOP sees the blood in the water?

It's just absurd and fantastical to think that the admin would replace their AG.

Maybe show us where President Biden has said or indicated that he expected or expects DOJ to win this election for him.

bigtree

(86,049 posts)
13. how would you guarantee the prosecutions continue unabated?
Mon Mar 4, 2024, 07:25 PM
Mar 4

...what responsibility do 'fire Garland' people take for the upheaval of the ongoing prosecutions?

Thank heavens this is just internet babble, and not actually an administration suggestion or impetus.

I'm certain any move or suggestion from the WH to remove or replace Garland will be positively orgasmic for the Trump team. I'm less convinced his critics understand the negative political and material implications of that.

...for you:



...enjoy (you're as likely to get one of these off of the page as you are to get Garland replaced).

republianmushroom

(14,080 posts)
9. "President Biden has never said a word of criticism against his AG," WRONG.
Mon Mar 4, 2024, 06:57 PM
Mar 4

The New York Times reports, “The attorney general’s deliberative approach has come to frustrate Democratic allies of the White House and, at times, President Biden himself." The Times says that "while the president has never communicated his frustrations directly to Mr. Garland, he has said privately that he wanted Mr. Garland to act less like a ponderous judge and more like a prosecutor who is willing to take decisive action over the events of Jan. 6.” Biden’s frustration notwithstanding, the blame is not only Garland’s.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/04/biden-garland-jan-6-prosecution-frustrated/

Stinky The Clown

(67,864 posts)
11. To be perfectly clear, it is not "the DOJ'" broadly. It is Garland specifically and narrowly
Mon Mar 4, 2024, 07:01 PM
Mar 4

The conversation in some circles and on some platforms can at times get stilted when it centers on a member of our team.

Have a nice day.

ecstatic

(32,843 posts)
14. so we should remain silent about a collossal fuck up
Mon Mar 4, 2024, 07:31 PM
Mar 4

His lack of action has our entire democracy in jeopardy. We could literally be in a dictatorship come January 20, 2025. And he shouldn't be criticized? Sorry, but no.

bigtree

(86,049 posts)
16. yep, that's what the op says
Mon Mar 4, 2024, 07:45 PM
Mar 4

...right there, in bold.

How do you reconcile all of that criticism with the fact that neither charges or a conviction can be used to keep Trump from assuming office?

Trump Indictment: Why A Conviction—Or Imprisonment—Wouldn’t Prevent Him From Being President

The charges, some of which carry a maximum sentence of up to 20 years in prison, would not prevent Trump from continuing his third campaign for the White House nor would a conviction keep him from holding office, experts have said, noting the Constitution only requires presidential candidates to be natural-born citizens who are at least 35 years old and have lived in the country for 14 years.

If Trump is convicted and sentenced to prison, he could potentially serve as president from behind bars—a scenario that would introduce unprecedented security and logistical challenges, Reuters noted.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/06/09/trump-indictment-why-a-conviction-or-imprisonment-wouldnt-prevent-him-from-being-president/?sh=29c9fdf01c31

Goodheart

(5,358 posts)
18. Would you be saying the same if the indictments came the day before the next presidential election?
Tue Mar 5, 2024, 12:06 AM
Mar 5

Or that they came too late?

The investigation and the indictments CAME TOO LATE because Garland made a political decision to not rock the boat. Only when the J6 committee embarrassed him did he decide to act. I'm "amazed" you can't see that.

bigtree

(86,049 posts)
19. you still arguing the fantasy prosecution in your head?
Tue Mar 5, 2024, 12:22 AM
Mar 5
Anthony Coley @AnthonyColey (Former Head of Public Affairs, U.S. Justice Dept.)
🧵 on now-debunked narrative that Garland's DOJ wasted 2022...

My great frustration running comms at DOJ is that I couldn’t always correct the record on things that were factually wrong – matters related to grand juries, for instance.

That inability to insert key facts into the public discourse often leaves the public with a wrong impression – or incomplete context – of DOJ’s work.

In the gap, many well-meaning people speculate wildly and often come to wrong conclusions.

For example, in the election interference case against Trump, one wrong conclusion was that Garland’s DOJ was slow; inept; behind the ball – you pick the euphemism from your favorite talking head.

That was really wrong. (Politico) “The filing indicates federal prosecutors began weighing obstruction charges in connection with the Trump probe well before the House’s Jan. 6 select committee formally recommended that the former pres. be indicted on the charge.”

And this: “…the underlying documents show that the Justice Department fought extensive battles throughout 2022 to access crucial information to support a criminal case.”

**Throughout** 2022.

The takeaway: Much of DOJ’s investigative work takes place out of the public eye. DOJ speaks through its filings. And just because the public doesn’t see action/movement on a matter, that doesn’t mean nothing is happening. End


THREAD:




(Politico) “The filing indicates federal prosecutors began weighing obstruction charges in connection with the Trump probe well before the House’s Jan. 6 select committee formally recommended that the former pres. be indicted on the charge.”


...merrily on my way, again.

La la la la la.

Response to Goodheart (Reply #20)

Celerity

(43,982 posts)
21. Charles Pierce: Merrick Garland Needs to Be Thanked For His Service and Shown the Door
Tue Mar 5, 2024, 12:34 AM
Mar 5


https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218672668

I have come to the sad conclusion that, like Brian Wilson, Attorney General Merrick Garland just wasn't made for these times, and, like Tom Hagen, he's just not a wartime consigliere. I hung in there longer than most people I know. But, this week, the case against him got overwhelming. The man needs to be thanked for his service and then shown the door.

He is not equipped to use all the tools god gave the Department of Justice to thwart the genuine threat to the Republic that is El Caudillo del Mar-A-Lago, and the dangerous political climate he has created. The former president* should have been charged federally with insurrection literally years ago. (Hell, during Thursday's oral arguments in the Supreme Court concerning the former president*'s eligibility under the 14th Amendment, even Justice Brett Kavanaugh wondered why he hadn't been so charged, and Kavanaugh used to work for Ken Starr, if we're talking about using all the DOJ's tools at your disposal.) The DOJ should have gone hammer-and-tongs after all the members of Congress who had the slightest connection with the insurrection. Somebody higher than the bear spray crowd should have been arrested and held until trial. Some of the expensive loafers should have been confiscated during the booking process rather than all those duckboots.

As diligent as Jack Smith has been, and god save the good work, he shouldn't have been necessary. This business didn't need a special counsel. It needed the Attorney General and the FBI right from jump. It should have been the very first item on Garland's plate when he walked in the door. And he's spent nearly four years faffing around until Republican congresscritters, some of whom had very curious connections to the events of that day, feel free to call the thugs and vandals, "political prisoners," and we've even come to arguing over whether or not the violence of that day constituted an "insurrection." Mother of god, the former president* is even money to be the next president, and the only real obstacle in his way seems to be whether or not his coronary arteries will do good service.

Thursday was the end for me. Appointing a Republican hack like Robert Hur to "investigate" the non-crimes of the president was bad enough, but then to allow Hur to pile on a political hit piece about the president's memory, thereby normalizing one of the former president*'s attack lines on DOJ stationery, is not admirably fair-minded, it's constitutionally suicidal. God save us from the fair-minded. They'll kill the country and wonder how they did it.

snip

Kick in to the DU tip jar?

This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.

As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.

Tell me more...

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I've been amazed by how m...