I think Garland needs to come out

[edhopper]

and state that he made a mistake in appointing Hur and that Hur did not fulfill his duty in a way appropriate to DOJ guidelines.

[MichMan]

1. After issuing his unedited report?

Kind of late now

[Irish_Dem]

2. Garland obviously doesn't feel that way.

Or he would have done it right away.

He is complicit in all of it.

[bigtree]

6. he's complicit in the exoneration the president touted?

...he's complicit in this clear partisan republican, nonetheless exonerating this Democratic president?

Where has the president criticized Garland on anything?

I think Jamie Raskin was correct in the hearing when he pointed out how Pres. Biden didn't ask for ONE line of the report removed.

Just what genius do you believe you're promoting in calling for Garland to put one finger on this exonerating report, or the person who produced it?

[underpants]

3. But isn't giving the Republicans want they want or expected

I know this is all for spin but he’s not giving they nearest they thought they’d get.

[bigtree]

4. why do you think the president hasn't said anything like you've counseled?

...and instead HIGHLIGHTED THE EXONERATION AND MOVED ON?

Who is supposed to benefit from this political genius?

[edhopper]

8. Because Biden did not appoint Hur

Garland did. Biden needs to stay out of it. Garland needs to step up and do the right thing.

[bigtree]

18. he hasn't said a word against that appointment

...how foolish would that be to drag the SC who exonerated you as not legitimate?

[edhopper]

19. Again

Biden should not say anything except refute this hack. Garland needs to acknowledge his mistake.

[bigtree]

21. that's probably the dumbest thing he should do.

here's your version of this political genius.

Garland: 'I made a mistake in appointing the man who exonerated the president.'

Do you hear yourself yet?

[edhopper]

23. Or

"We see that the President would have been exonerated by any SC I appointed, I made the mistake of appointing one who violated DOJ guidelines for political partisanship".

[bigtree]

26. you must not be watching the hearing

...wanting this clear republican partisan who exonerated the president to be replaced with a Dem SC who would never outlive charges of collusion and favoritism.

But go on and tell us how politically harmful a clear exoneration by a republican SC is to this Democratic president in this election.

[edhopper]

27. Most of America is not watching the hearing

and i doubt there will be a tenth of the coverage the initial report had.
A statement by Garland would get much more press.

[bigtree]

29. a statement by Garland would be about everything except the exoneration

...basically taking the win and acting like it's a fault, even further perpetuating the salacious passages in the report to the obscuring of the exoneration.

Brilliant.

[edhopper]

30. We disagree

as we do about Garland in general.

[MOMFUDSKI]

5. Garland is on his way out the door.

He is weak.

[bigtree]

7. Trump wishes.

[edhopper]

9. Probably after the re-election

he says hopefully.

[bigtree]

16. while DOJ is fighting the Supreme Court TODAY

...on whether charges against riot leaders for trying to stop the vote is valid, the same charge Jack Smith brought against Trump, some people are indeed pining for the man who appointed the SC who brought two historic indictments against the president to be fired.

I have to admit, I didn't expect those calls to be coming from people who claim to want the accountability the AG has brought against over 1000 white supremacist Trump supporting Capitol riot leaders.

[Think. Again.]

10. That would be one way...

...garland could try to keep pretending he isn't trying to hurt the Dem party.

[bigtree]

20. so he should help Trump by removing the man who effectively caused him to be prosecuted?

...Jack Smith took over a team of over 20 prosecutors investigating Trump and his WH working uder Garland.

Of course, you can pretend he's not responsible in any way for the indictments. It would be provably false, though.

Why are Garland critics trying to hurt the Trump prosecutions? Why are they working so hard to give what would be a gift to trump and republicans?

Imagining we'd be better off with the headline, Garland quits' or 'Garland fired" right in the middle of prosecuting him is a profound misunderstanding of election politics or even the politics of law.

Republicans would have a field day with that, and rightly so, because it would be a an epic self-inflicted wound.

[Think. Again.]

22. I definitely think garland should be replaced by Jack Smith!

Good Thinking!

[bigtree]

25. that seems a good measure of what you're promoting here

...an unserious absurdity.

[Think. Again.]

28. Thank you for bestowing your precious wisdom on me!

[bigtree]

32. I bring receipts.

...Garland critics bring projection to each and every republican crime or abuse.

It doesn't even wait a day.

report: republicans criming

Garland detractor response: damn Garland!

I mean, it would make at least an impression of being concerned with more than just tearing down the person working to hold Trump accountable (yes, Garland is facing the SC right now on whether one of the Trump charges is valid) if these same critics brought the reams of reports against our party's actual opponent to DU, like my own which have unfailingly drawn several of these monosentence replies about Garland.

Nonetheless, it's still seen as some kind of brilliance to jump on those threads with "Garland has to go!" like that's going to do more than send a thrill up Trump and republicans' legs.

[Think. Again.]

33. (pssst...ya got nuthin.)

[bigtree]

34. says the person posting Garland attacks on a republican abuses thread

...I mean, who on that committee is attacking Garland right now?

Who are the people attacking DOJ on that committee?


Who does that?

[Think. Again.]

37. I don't trust garland.

I believe he is pro-rightwing based entirely on his actions and non-actions as AG (and maybe a little based on his federalist society connections).

So, if we're talking about republican abuses, there's my contribution.

[bigtree]

38. the man who prosecuted over 100 white supremacist trump supporting Capitol rioters

...and handed over to Jack Smith more evidence on Trump and his WH than Mueller had gathered in his ENTIRE investigation?

Nonserious absurdity. But thanks for playing.


receipts:

___ Jack Smith takes over a staff that’s already nearly twice the size of Robert Mueller’s team of lawyers who worked on the Russia probe.  A team of 20 prosecutors investigating January 6 and the effort to overturn the 2020 election are in the process of moving to work under Smith, according to multiple people familiar with the team.

Smith will also take on national security investigators already working the probe into the potential mishandling of federal records taken to Mar-a-Lago after Trump left the White House.

Together, the twin investigations have already established more evidence than what Mueller started with, including from a year-long financial probe that’s largely flown under the radar.

“Mueller was starting virtually from scratch, whereas Jack Smith is seemingly integrating on the fly into an active, fast-moving investigation,” said Elie Honig, a former federal prosecutor and senior CNN legal analyst.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/11/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel-high-profile-moves-trump-criminal-investigations/index.html


____the other investigative team, looking at efforts to block the transfer of power from Trump to President Joe Biden after the 2020 election, had even a year ago been given the greenlight by the Justice Department to take a case all the way up to Trump, if the evidence leads them there, according to the sources. Work that’s been led by the DC US Attorney’s Office into political circles around Trump related to January 6 now will move under the special counsel.

Partly led by former Maryland-based federal prosecutor Thomas Windom, DOJ has added prosecutors to the January 6 team from all over the department in recent months. Windom and the rest are also expected to move over to the special counsel’s office. Some, like Mary Dohrmann, a prosecutor who’s worked on several other Capitol riot cases already, appear to be reorienting, according to court records of open Capitol riot cases.   

Another top prosecutor, JP Cooney, the former head of public corruption in the DC US Attorney’s Office, is overseeing a significant financial probe that Smith will take on. The probe includes examining the possible misuse of political contributions, according to some of the sources. The DC US Attorney’s Office, before the special counsel’s arrival, had examined potential financial crimes related to the January 6 riot, including possible money laundering and the support of rioters’ hotel stays and bus trips to Washington ahead of January 6.

In recent months, however, the financial investigation has sought information about Trump’s post-election Save America PAC and other funding of people who assisted Trump, according to subpoenas viewed by CNN. The financial investigation picked up steam as DOJ investigators enlisted cooperators months after the 2021 riot, one of the sources said.

In interviews with people in Trump’s orbit over the past several months, some of the DOJ focus has been on the timeline leading up to January 6 and Trump’s involvement and knowledge of potential events that day, according to a source familiar with the questioning.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/11/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel-high-profile-moves-trump-criminal-investigations/index.html

[PufPuf23]

40. Garland should have started from the top down, not rounding up the mostly

simpletons on the ground January 6.

Like members of Congress, Stone, Bannon, inner Trump circle, leaders of Proud Boys (got some, undercharged and prosecuted, they will be back); those would have been easier to find. Instead they behave as if bear no risk

Instead, the insurrection is ongoing and the outcome not a sure thing.

This is nothing new. Have been a Democratic voter and politically active for over 50 years.

GOP commits crimes. Even when the crimes are investigated, the perps walk or at least the crimes pay for themselves. Here is a not inclusive list:

Nixon et al got slaps on wrists for Watergate.

Iran-Contra

BCCI

USSC stealing 2000 election from Gore

Mueller investigation

The story remains the same.

Thought POTUS Obama was wrong to nominate Garland for USSC and thought Garland a questionable choice for AG.

[bigtree]

41. he did.

...what a gobbled mess of misinfo you assembled to make that false assertion about what Garland was doing.

The AG was not only prosecuting 1000s of white supremacist MAGA who attacked the Capitol, he was, at the same time, investigating the Trump WH.

I noticed you provided zero PROOF of your claims, so let me put my receipts here instead.

this article from Dec. 2022 points out that the financial probe into the Trump WH began a year earlier:

___ Jack Smith (took) over a staff already nearly twice the size of Robert Mueller’s team of lawyers who worked on the Russia probe. A team of 20 prosecutors investigating January 6 and the effort to overturn the 2020 election (were) in the process of moving to work under Smith, according to multiple people familiar with the team.

Together, the twin investigations have already established more evidence than what Mueller started with, including from a year-long financial probe that’s largely flown under the radar.

“Mueller was starting virtually from scratch, whereas Jack Smith is seemingly integrating on the fly into an active, fast-moving investigation,” said Elie Honig, a former federal prosecutor and senior CNN legal analyst.

____the other investigative team, looking at efforts to block the transfer of power from Trump to President Joe Biden after the 2020 election, had even a year ago been given the greenlight by the Justice Department to take a case all the way up to Trump, if the evidence leads them there, according to the sources. Work that’s been led by the DC US Attorney’s Office into political circles around Trump related to January 6 now will move under the special counsel.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/11/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel-high-profile-moves-trump-criminal-investigations/index.html


...that contradicts your claim that Garland's investigation wasn't 'top-down.'

From the evidence available, his DOJ was not only prosecuting rioters and riot leaders, they were also, at the same time investigating the Trump WH in late 2021, including their finances.

No wonder the AG felt he had to hire Smith after he gathered all of that evidence described above. Whatever you're talking about doesn't resemble anything that actually happened here.

[PufPuf23]

42. Too bad you feel the need to insult others to have a conversation. nt

[bigtree]

43. I'll tell you what's insulting

...disinfo about the man who began the prosecution of Trump in fall of 2021 at the latest, accusing Biden's AG of dereliction without a shred of proof.

All of this on a Democratic message board where I wouldn't have expected to find people railing against the man holding trump and his rioters accountable.

You posted an untruth and got called on it. If you had proof of what you claimed you'd post it.

For conversation's sake, show proof that Garland's investigation wasn't 'top down' as I've shown here. Dispute these facts, if you're able.

All of this anguish, but I'm showing you that Garland was extremely involved in investigating Trump from as early as fall of 2021.

Converse on that.

Many of the 'simpletons' who led the riot were charged with Sedition and obstructing the vote. The very same obstruction charge against the rioters has been leveled as one of the two election interference charges against Trump.

That obstruction charge is the subject of a SC challenge right now about it's validity. The two prosecutions, the AG and the SC's are inextricably linked.

For example:

The DC US Attorney’s Office, before the special counsel’s arrival, had examined potential financial crimes related to the January 6 riot, including possible money laundering and the support of rioters’ hotel stays and bus trips to Washington ahead of January 6.

In recent months, however, the financial investigation has sought information about Trump’s post-election Save America PAC and other funding of people who assisted Trump, according to subpoenas viewed by CNN. The financial investigation picked up steam as DOJ investigators enlisted cooperators months after the 2021 riot, one of the sources said.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/11/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel-high-profile-moves-trump-criminal-investigations/index.html

...converse on that.

Tell us again about the importance of the 'simpletons' who Garland's investigators investigated and Jack Smith integrated into his own investigation over a year later; probing their 'Save America' pac, and investigating money laundering.

If this is what's visible in the mostly secret probe, imagine all of the other efforts you missed in this really bad summary of events of yours.

Converse.

[TwilightZone]

11. That would be a monumentally dumb thing to do.

Garland already allowed the report to be released unedited. Coming out after the fact and criticizing Hur would only complicate matters and keep it in the news for a longer period of time.

The claims that Garland should have redacted the report are similarly misguided. The Rs would have just leaked it in full and then beat everyone over the head with the argument that Garland was trying to hide something.

[berksdem]

12. don't hold your breath...

a tad late, no?

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. After today's hearing what purpose would that serve? Who would benefit?

Numerous threads on DU detailing how Hur’s reputation has been shredded by the Dem committee members, that Hur said Biden has a photographic recall, but didn’t put that in the report, and that Hur has “thrown Trump under the bus”…

So what purpose would a Garland statement serve?

Seems that appointing a Trump lackey neutralized any serious criticism that the DOJ wasn’t conducting a serious inquiry into the Biden document case, and now Hur’s biased report has been shredded on the public record, so win/win.

IMO, a statement by Garland now would dilute the impact of today’s hearings.

[edhopper]

15. I will wait and see if today's hearing

gets even one tenth the coverage of Hur's initial report did.

Most are paying no attention to today's hearing.

[Hotler]

14. That would just be another chapter for his book, do out in 23-months, look for it.

[Hotler]

17. Don't matter, damage done. nt

[bigtree]

24. why is an exoneration 'damage?'

...Hur has been thorougly revealed as a partisan hack who, nonetheless exonerated the president.

What kind of brilliant strategy are you suggesting to make that any more beneficial to the president?

[edhopper]

31. Because the main take away from most of the Media

when Hur came out with the report was Biden has memory problems.

[bigtree]

35. well, the main aim of the people wanting Garland to make a stink about this independent prosecutor

...is to elevate those salacious parts of the report over the exoneration.

Hell, they don't even bother to mention the declination to bring charges.

What political value is there for Democrats to elevate the complaints over the exoneration?

What's the purpose?

[edhopper]

36. Because

it discredits the messenger and throws cold water on Hur's allegations.

But why keep on, there is nothing about Garland you would ever criticize or see any criticism of him as legitimate. Even though so many here have stated things so clearly.

[bigtree]

39. it's just weird to refuse to call for the firing of the man who's responsible for hiring the SC who's prosecuting Trump

...to cheer on the man who's prosecuting over 1000 white supremacist trump supporting capitol rioters, and who was responsible for forming most of the case against the trump WH BEFORE he appointed Jack Smith.

Right? That's what you're saying here.

I realize you don't have a clue about what Garland was actually doing, so I'll help.

receipts:

___ Jack Smith takes over a staff that’s already nearly twice the size of Robert Mueller’s team of lawyers who worked on the Russia probe.  A team of 20 prosecutors investigating January 6 and the effort to overturn the 2020 election are in the process of moving to work under Smith, according to multiple people familiar with the team.

Smith will also take on national security investigators already working the probe into the potential mishandling of federal records taken to Mar-a-Lago after Trump left the White House.

Together, the twin investigations have already established more evidence than what Mueller started with, including from a year-long financial probe that’s largely flown under the radar.

“Mueller was starting virtually from scratch, whereas Jack Smith is seemingly integrating on the fly into an active, fast-moving investigation,” said Elie Honig, a former federal prosecutor and senior CNN legal analyst.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/11/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel-high-profile-moves-trump-criminal-investigations/index.html


____the other investigative team, looking at efforts to block the transfer of power from Trump to President Joe Biden after the 2020 election, had even a year ago been given the greenlight by the Justice Department to take a case all the way up to Trump, if the evidence leads them there, according to the sources. Work that’s been led by the DC US Attorney’s Office into political circles around Trump related to January 6 now will move under the special counsel.

Partly led by former Maryland-based federal prosecutor Thomas Windom, DOJ has added prosecutors to the January 6 team from all over the department in recent months. Windom and the rest are also expected to move over to the special counsel’s office. Some, like Mary Dohrmann, a prosecutor who’s worked on several other Capitol riot cases already, appear to be reorienting, according to court records of open Capitol riot cases.   

Another top prosecutor, JP Cooney, the former head of public corruption in the DC US Attorney’s Office, is overseeing a significant financial probe that Smith will take on. The probe includes examining the possible misuse of political contributions, according to some of the sources. The DC US Attorney’s Office, before the special counsel’s arrival, had examined potential financial crimes related to the January 6 riot, including possible money laundering and the support of rioters’ hotel stays and bus trips to Washington ahead of January 6.

In recent months, however, the financial investigation has sought information about Trump’s post-election Save America PAC and other funding of people who assisted Trump, according to subpoenas viewed by CNN. The financial investigation picked up steam as DOJ investigators enlisted cooperators months after the 2021 riot, one of the sources said.

In interviews with people in Trump’s orbit over the past several months, some of the DOJ focus has been on the timeline leading up to January 6 and Trump’s involvement and knowledge of potential events that day, according to a source familiar with the questioning.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/11/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel-high-profile-moves-trump-criminal-investigations/index.html


...in case you didn't notice (because it doesn't appear you watched the hearing) congressional Democrats took care of all of that degrading of Hur's salaciousness in his report without even mentioning the name 'Garland' at all.

Go figure who did end up attacking the DOJ in that hearing, though. You know who.