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.
= new reply since forum marked as read
...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).
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. 
...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?
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
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