Hey Merrick Garland's Defenders, You Were Wrong

[gab13by13]

I and many like me were criticized, were alerted on for calling out Merrick Garland dragging his feet well...

Wa. Post investigative reporters Carol Lennig and Aaron Davis just wrote a new book about how Garland not only dragged his feet, he obstructed the early investigation into Trump. When a prosecutor went on TV to explain what the J6 rioters could be charged with such as seditious conspiracy, Garland was so upset that he recommended that the prosecutor be sanctioned in two states.

From the book, Garland's claim of working from the bottom up was blown out of the water, when Garland was finally embarrassed into acting against Trump he used zero evidence from investigating the rioters, zero.

When Cassidy Hutchenson testified in public before the J6 committee, Garland admitted that he knew absolutely nothing about what Cassidy testified to.

Lisa Monaco was just as bad as Garland.

Leonnig just said on Deadline Whitehouse that she hopes that people come forward to let the American people know about the evidence that Jack Smith had against Trump, especially in the stolen documents prosecution. Jack Smith made a statement that other people who did less serious crimes were court martialed and what Trump did was deserving of a court martial.

Leonnig said that Garland and Monaco will never come forward to let the American people know the truth.

Garland wasn't just unqualified, too meticulous, he obstructed the investigations, including investigating the millions of dollars that Trump got from Egypt.

People are still criticizing me and others like me who had the nerve to point what we saw Garland failing to do.

Garland lovers have at me and others like me, but don't buy a copy of Leonnig's and Davis' new book. Injustice.

I want to repeat this, when a DOJ prosecutor went on TV and explained what crimes the J6 rioters could be charged with, Garland was furious and tried to get the prosecutor disbarred.

[mr715]

1. General Garland

served at the pleasure of the President.

So if you are counting chickens, let's be very honest about who bears ultimate responsibility.

[edhopper]

8. Biden

being a man of honor and knowing the President should never interfere with the DOJ, kept his hands off.
Garland was accepted as a good pick. He turned out to be the wrong man in the wrong place.

[mr715]

11. What good is honor without justice?

The "wrong man in the wrong place" could be applied upwards as well, given that Biden's temporary victory against Trump may have inflamed Trump's worst impulses.

Garland was accepted as a good pick. He was well-respected, but he probably got the gig out of patronage following the Supreme Court fiasco.

His boss was charged with protecting American democracy from Trump. In that capacity they failed. And it is they.

[gab13by13]

12. Garland appears to have been the wrong man for the job,

hopefully it was only because he feared Trump or because he was incompetent. I hope to heck he wasn't complicit.

[mr715]

15. I'm going to keep pushing.

He was appointed, confirmed, and retained. He had a boss. The boss bears responsibility. The boss is not absolved.

[themaguffin]

89. Careful, you will piss of Hunter, who was nothing but a divine asset during the term....

[More_Cowbell]

92. Thank goodness for "ignore"

Reading someone who's going to "keep pushing" the same statement over and over (and OVER) is not helpful.

[Tribetime]

66. I didn't want Garland from the beginning.I didn't think he had the balls

How would I like to see Kirschner, somebody who could attack him wasn't scared to do it.JMHO

[Blues Heron]

18. Biden expressed regret about hiring Garland, according to the Washington post

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-regrets-hiring-merrick-garland-because-he-didn-t-prosecute-trump-enough-report/ar-AA1wI1w0

[mr715]

20. Did he not have the ability to fire him?

And the optical "it'll look bad" isn't a defense. You can't defend democracy with a paper shield.

[paleotn]

64. Who do you think we are? Magats?

Hands off DoJ has been the mantra of every administration short of Tricky Dick and Trump. I agree Biden should have pushed him out, but for an administration that plays by the rules, that's not as easy as you make it out to be. Otherwise, WE'RE putting our great big dirty thumb on the scales of justice.

Unfortunately, we're now in a position where that HAS to be done, if we ever get out of this mess. If a Dem manages to take the White House in 2028, we've got to burn these bastards to the ground. Perceptions be damned.

[slightlv]

98. It'll look bad is the Democrat's downfall, IMO.

The party is so afraid of actually looking like they have an aggressive bone in their body, they spend all their energy trying to deny it. In times of Peace, this is a good thing. But when we're in war for our very existence, it doesn't help anything. No one is impressed that we "took the high ground." It looks weak... like we're afraid to take on the repuglicans. No matter how much we, the unwashed masses, pleaded with our representatives, they failed us. And now, here we are... exactly where we said a decade ago we'd be.

[BannonsLiver]

19. That's not the flex you think it is.

I DO hold him responsible for Garland and at least one other bad decision. Zero problem with that. Next? 🤷‍♂️

[mr715]

29. I don't think it is a flex

Maybe. For me, it was a highly significant failure. On the pie chart of things that had to happen post Trump 1, the January 6 stuff was a big chunk. So it is quality of the mistake, not quantity. This was a bad one. Yeah the Attorney General is responsible for prosecuting cases, but the President should be responsible for preserving democracy.

[Crunchy Frog]

99. I totally agree. The AG position was something that the country

couldn't afford to have fucked around with. It was arguably the most critically important appointment that the president made in that term, and he totally fucked it up, and our country will be paying the price for that for decades if not longer.

People at the top failed to take the threat to our country seriously, even after watching the events of J6 unfold. Acting like we were still acting under politics as usual was a fatal mistake.

It means that all we got out of the 2020 election was a 4 year reprieve in the slide to fascism.

I get livid when I think about it.

[Silent Type]

2. Think Garland and Biden knew prosecutions would be chitshow and might help trump. Way it turned out too.

While trump deserved everything, including a firing squad, didn’t work for us.

[dem4decades]

7. How much more could it have helped? At least he could have sought justice.

Garland was a disaster.

[lostincalifornia]

49. Garland was a disaster, but the real disaster was in 2016 by those who refused to vote for Hilllary and allowed trump

to appoint THREE supreme court judges, along with judges like Canon.

They demonstrated they were NEVER going to allow trump to be convicted of anything.

and in spite of people knowing the Supreme Court was at stake in 2016, Hillary lost every critical swing state by less than 1% in that election, while Jill Stein received 1% of the vote in those swing states. It didn't take much.

[Crunchy Frog]

100. To be fair, one of the people who enabled Trump

to appoint a a Supreme Court justice was RBG. By refusing to retire at a time when she would have been guaranteed to have her replacement chosen by Obama. In spite of her advanced age and having at least two types of cancer.

But yes, our side has a tendency to not think about things like SCOTUS appointments during elections and we all end up screwed because of it. The other side has had a single minded focus on SCOTUS for a long time.

[lostincalifornia]

103. I disagree. First, the republicans made it clear they would not allow President Obama

to appoint a Supreme Court nominee. McConnell successfully blocked President Obama's Supreme Court nominee for over a year by refusing to hold hearings or a vote, and it is naive to believe that that they would not have done the same thing if RBG stepped down doesn't cut it, especially given that the republicans had the majority in the Senate from the 2014 midterm election.

I am sorry but that is a false narrative that was used by some who refused to vote for Hillary in the general election in 2016.

In every critical swing state Hillary lost by less than 1%, while Jill Stein received 1% of the vote in those critical swing states.

The result of that disaster was that trump ended up appointing three supreme court justices, plus federal judges such as Canon.

I suspect many who refused to vote for Hilllary in the general election in 2016 did not realize the damage that would done by that lost.

[Crunchy Frog]

104. I meant retiring prior to the 2014 midterms. Sorry for not making myself clear.

In fact, I was surprised and dismayed when she didn't retire before the 2012 election as Obama getting reelected was by no means guaranteed.

The fact is that it is very rare for the same party to hold on to the presidency for more than two consecutive terms, so it was fairly predictable that a republican would win in 2016. And the republicans retaking the Senate in 2014 wasn't too difficult to foresee either, or their despicable actions upon retaking that body.

There is nothing that RBG would have been able to do for the American people with a few more years on the SCOTUS that wouldn't be massively undone with her successor being chosen by any republican at all, let alone Trump.

Yes, the electorate is bad for not enough of them voting for Hillary and stopping Trump, but it wasn't so unpredictable either, and no excuse for RBG to fail at putting her country first by retiring in a timely fashion.

[Blues Heron]

14. Cool theory!

[Bluetus]

30. So you admit that BIden was probably very pleased that Garlandtorpedoed the whole thing?

Last edited Mon Nov 3, 2025, 09:51 PM - Edit history (1)

I have not seen hard evidence of this, other than the simple fact that Biden had many opportunities to take some action. He could have ordered Garland to recuse himself, for example.

Biden is from the tradition that says, "No matter what anybody does in office, when you get in, you turn the page. You may have only about 9 months to get your agenda enacted and you shouldn't waste any time on the crimes of your predecessor."

It is the same thing with Obama versus Cheney's war crimes.

There is an argument for that. But the argument against it is that Trump's level of criminality, treason and brazen corruption is completely unprecedented, and will be repeated over and over if not punished.

And that's where we are now. The most brazen criminals are now in charge and may never give up control in our lifetimes.

[yellow dahlia]

36. I felt that Biden didn't want to fire people or replace cabinet positions,

because he didn't want to look like the deranged grifting maniac before him.

[republianmushroom]

43. Yup, Old style Democratic politics.

Why there needs to be a change in the Democratic parties leadership and thinking.

[Magoo48]

88. This business with fascism is a street fight.

If one enters into a street fight determined to fight fair, they will generally be defeated.

[lostincalifornia]

50. The problem was in 2016, and those who refused to vote for Hillary. Because of that trump appoint three supreme court

judges, along with judges such as canon, who were NEVER going to allow trump to be indicted for anything.

That is the real tragedy.

[Bluetus]

78. It was not JUST 2016

Obama made no effort to make his rightful appointment to Scalia's vacancy. He could, for example, have sued the Senate, forcing the SCOTUS to make a decision. That very well might have been successful because the court was 4-4 at the time, I believe.

And it was the selfishness and ego of RBG, refusing to give up her seat at a time when she could have been replaced by somewho would carry on her legacy.

The road to hell is paved with lots of good intentions.

[Crunchy Frog]

101. When the other guy is plotting to come roaring back next term

to destroy our democratic system and make himself dictator, it probably makes sense to set aside those qualms.

[LymphocyteLover]

67. I think there is some truth to that

[paleotn]

68. Interesting point. It's hard to say how it would have played out.

Certainly would have galvanized Repukes and widened the division. Then again, there are times in life where you simply have to make a hard choice, repercussions be damned, because the risks from not making that choice are just too great. Risks such as a 2nd Trump term and perhaps the end of American democracy.

[NewHendoLib]

4. Follow the money.

[gab13by13]

6. Garland shut it down.

[cachukis]

5. Your insight was certainly on point.

Last edited Mon Nov 3, 2025, 09:37 PM - Edit history (1)

I had suggested he had to overcome a department in disarray with many trump supporters unwilling to investigate. Leonnig and Davis alluded to the disarray and the fear of retribution.
Nonetheless, Garland failed to understand the big picture and will be forever maligned as not up to the job.
You deserve acknowledgement.

[gab13by13]

9. Yes, thank you for pointing that out,

Trump had his people in the FBI and DOJ who didn't want to investigate Trump.

[walkingman]

10. Agreed, it was so obvious and yet many believed the excuses...

Biden did not show good judgment or leadership, and now the US and the rest of the world is paying the consequences. The lack of accountability seems to be a characteristic of government. Is it any wonder that our government is held in such low esteem?

[Blues Heron]

13. Garland was playing for the other team, clearly.

He’s a traitor like most pukes.

[Clouds Passing]

16. Garland was a party to the crime, complicit. Joe should never have put him in charge in any capacity.

[BigmanPigman]

17. There were 2 Garland bullies on DU for months

They apparently were a tag team and in cahoots. The 2 DUers would bully everyone did not agree with them. Many DUers reported them over a 6 month period and they were permanently suspended by DU, thank Dog!!! They were so obnoxious

[BannonsLiver]

21. The Garland Society is still active albeit in smaller numbers.

[Ponietz]

47. Big Tree and Fiendish Thingy need to acknowledge their posts enabled the creep

[gab13by13]

79. Yeah, I had a few discussions with those two,

but their argument was that Garland was OK because President Biden nominated him. I do not blame Joe for nominating him, I thought Garland would be OK. Once Garland showed his reluctance it would have been political suicide to fire him.

There were a few signs about Garland;

1. Rabid Senator Mike Lee asked Krasnov to replace Comey with Garland.

2. 20 Magat Senators voted to confirm Garland.

[moonscape]

94. I could be mis-remembering, but

I thought Biden nominated him because there was little chance someone he’d truly prefer could get confirmed.

[gab13by13]

22. I will probably get spanked for this thread,

If I do I will wear it with a badge of honor.

[KS Toronado]

65. Here it is

[Akakoji]

96. Garland was the biggest mistake of Biden career

Okay maybe Clarence Thomas, but how many of you were here for that shiteshow?

[Queso Delicioso]

102. One of them, for sure.

But I think failure to pack the court gives it a run for its money. The traitor SCOTUS has fucked us harder than anything else.

[AStern]

23. Garland is besties with one of Trump's lawyers. IMHO, he deliberately threw the case. This could've been stopped.

And anyone that asserts 'oh well - what's done is done' is just gross.

[gab13by13]

24. Remember when I said that Garland waited 11 months to search Mar-a-Lago?

Garland dicked around negotiating with Trump to please return the stolen documents.

Then we hear what Smith said, that other people have been court martialed for doing much less.

I can still picture the boxes of top secret documents stacked in Trump's shitter.

[yellow dahlia]

38. That was a powerful statement - people have gotten court martialed for less.

[gab13by13]

25. People who defended Garland were right about one thing.

DOJ/Garland doesn't leak, that was absolutely true. DOJ didn't leak because it didn't have anything to leak.

[moondust]

26. Was he influenced by SCROTUS?

Did Carol and Aaron mention anything about SCROTUS interference?

[gab13by13]

31. I don't recall they did,

but I was yelling at the TV.

There is another possibility, when I was younger I led our small town in stopping powerful people from fracking for gas and stripping for coal on our watershed. I got death threats and I will say that I spent many sleepless nights. We didn't stop them but we put so many restrictions on them that our watershed was protected.

Garland could have gotten death threats, or worse.

[yellow dahlia]

39. They did reference the immunity decision from SCROTUS, in the interview.

It affected what Jack Smith could do, and held him up for a bit.

[John Coktosten]

27. True!

Garland is the short reason why Dump is in power now!

[QueerDuck]

28. JFC... let it go.

I haven't seen this much grudge-holding since 2016. Without a time machine, this told-you-so-ing really serves no useful purpose, does it? It changes nothing and only perpetuates distrust and resentment... picking at scabs and opening old wounds that (for many) have nearly been forgotten or healed. Sigh.

[gab13by13]

32. You are absolutely wrong,

Leonnig talked about hoping that prosecutors who were involved in the investigations will step forward and let the American people know the truth. Many people who were involved in investigating Trump have been fired and are having a hard time finding a job. Leonnig said they are forming their own law firm, and there may be a way for them to tell the story.

The truth should not be buried.

Do you also believe that the Epstein files should be buried? Many years have gone by without justice for the victims. Should the victims just let it go?

[elleng]

33. Thank you.

[Cirsium]

34. You must be kidding!

The OP is a response to the relentless "picking at scabs and opening old wounds" by the Garland defenders. Now that the critics have been proven correct, after they were bashed here for months, now you want to move on.

[lostincalifornia]

46. If you want to open up "old wounds", it was 2016, and those who refused to vote for Hillary who determined what we have

today, because it was under the trump presidency in 2016 where he appointed those judges such as Canon, three on the supreme court, etc. that insured that trump would NEVER BE CONVICTED.

[Cirsium]

51. What?

We are going back to argue about that? Is there anyone here who who refused to vote for Madam Secretary Clinton - (not "Hillary" ffs). I doubt it.

Why don't we just really waste some time and energy and argue about Nader?

[lostincalifornia]

53. Well said.

[Keepthesoulalive]

37. This is DU

This is what they do. Every president has made mistakes and some have cost lives. Korea, Vietnam and interfering in South America. Ready aim fire at toes.

[reACTIONary]

42. You are absolutely [strike] wrong [/strike],

You are absolutely wrong right

[lostincalifornia]

45. It is called obcessive/compulsive disorder. Ignoring of course what happened in 2016 when Garland wasn't even on the

scene, and with the help of the Hillary haters who refused to vote for her, we lost the Supreme Court, and the final blow which insured the Supreme Court would be lost for decades on 2024 by those who refused to vote for Harris.

In the end, even with the unnecessary delays Garland imposed, when it finally DID get to the SC, they insured that they WERE NOT GOING TO ALLOW trump TO BE CONVICTED OF ANYTHING.

This whole sad fiasco was written in 2016 with the trump appointed judges such as Canon and three supreme court judges to insure more delays, and protect trump from ANY conviction. It was never going to happen.

That is NOT an excuse for Garland's awful performance as Attorney General, but the damage from those that refused to vote for Hillary, cast the die for what we are going through now.

It sure as hell also doesn't answer why trump won in 2024, in spite of the sociopath inciting the insurrection against our government on January 6, 2020, and during the campaign telling you exactly what he was going to do. That is what Project 2025 was all about.

[iemanja]

63. Who cares about history

When ignorance is so much easier.

[malaise]

35. Then we owe you an apology

Will try to read the book

[yellow dahlia]

40. That was a powerful segment. Nicolle conducted a great interview.

The book is on pre-order.

[republianmushroom]

41. Oh, damn, Merric the Meek's cheerleaders,

will be very PO'ed tonight.

[reACTIONary]

44. Here is a review of the book....

NYT, no paywall https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/03/books/review/injustice-carol-leonnig-and-aaron-davis.html?unlocked_article_code=1.yk8.-edP.MLqfG9qVKYSh&smid=url-share

[erronis]

48. Thank you. Time for a more reflective read.

[FakeNoose]

73. Also here's a link to an excerpt from the book given in today's MSNBC article

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/news/trump-arrest-classified-documents-probe-maralago-rcna241155

I don't know, maybe it's one chapter, or part of a chapter. But it gives a lot of facts and details into the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago in 2022. This was posted by DUer SOP in today's Editorial Forum.

[lostincalifornia]

52. Absolutely. Those three supreme court judges that trump appointed, along with judges such as canon, had nothing to do

with trump not being convicted.

[Kaleva]

54. And what did you win for being correct?

[mr715]

57. 1 broken country

250 years old, give or take

[Torchlight]

105. Most likely the same which was lost by those not correct?

[Orrex]

55. You just need to give him more time. Any day now, any day.

Who cares if the republic crumbles for the lunatic whims of the festering orange prolapse? The real tragedy would be if anyone spoke ill of dear Attorney General Garland.

[mr715]

56. Everyone knows

he is an honorable man.

[Mr.WeRP]

58. Well said.

[Sogo]

59. Joe Biden's BIG mistake: appointing Garland and never replacing him.

nt.

[Mr. Sparkle]

60. He will forever be a stain on our party and our country.

He is a modern day Benedict Arnold

[lostnfound]

74. (I was wrong...)

Last edited Tue Nov 4, 2025, 08:02 AM - Edit history (2)

I have mistakenly believed that “ He is not in our party; he was a republican.” but fortunately a DU-er corrected me.

Thanks WizImp. I’m a bit embarrassed but man, this is why I love DU.

[Wiz Imp]

85. Completely False. Garland is a lifelong Democrat.

Just because you don't like some of the things he did or didn't do don't change the fact that has always been a Democrat. He clerked for Justice Brennan, and worked for the Presidential campaigns for Mondale & Dukakis.

[lostnfound]

87. OMG..Thanks for correcting me! I was so sure of it, i didn't even check.

Somehow I had that piece of misinformation firmly implanted in the old grey matter for a very long time.
Genuine thanks for bothering to reply.

I definitely don’t want to spread misinformation

[CaptainTruth]

61. I'll defend Garland as a nominee for SCOTUS.

[LymphocyteLover]

62. OK, fair enough. I didn't know this. That sucks.

[spanone]

69. K&R

[RoeVWade]

70. Though not a lawyer I was reminded of previous commentary.

When a prosecutor went on TV to explain what the J6 rioters could be charged with such as seditious conspiracy, Garland was so upset that he recommended that the prosecutor be sanctioned in two states.

Prosecutors should generally not talk about specific details of cases they are going to prosecute on TV prior to doing so, as it is widely considered a violation of ethical rules in the legal profession. The primary concern is that such extrajudicial statements could prejudice a potential jury and jeopardize the defendant's right to a fair trial

I might add I never heard Jack Smith say a word about the case(s) he was going to prosecute other than announcing the indictment officially.

[gab13by13]

75. Nothing specific was talked about,

No names were mentioned, the prosecutor only said the "possible charges" that could be made.

[angrychair]

71. All Republicans are scum

All Republicans are scum. No exceptions to that rule.
There is, very literally, not a single Republican I would so much as piss on if they were on fire and I had a full bladder.

[quakerboy]

72. It does make me wonder

I wonder who Garland cares about or is beholden to. Im not sure id place a bet on it, but I definitely would NOT vote against it being someone on the Epstein lists.

[msfiddlestix]

76. Leonig is the most credible reporter that I ever listened to thank you for reporting this story.

I'm quite eager to read this book

[gab13by13]

77. Carol Lennig was just on Rachel,

Remember the fake electors, when I said that Garland was doing nothing, even after Dana Nessel sent a criminal referral from Michigan, remember? Garland sent Lisa Monaco on TV to say that she was looking at the criminal referral, and that's all she did was look at it.

Lennig also said that the National Archives was showing Garland the fake elector documents and Garland ignored them.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

80. Yeah, yeah, yeah!!

So you felt the need to rub it into those that defended Merrick Garland?
Pretty lame dude, pretty fucking lame.

[gab13by13]

81. Doesn't look like I hurt too many feelings.

I took a pretty good beating and never pulled the alert button, have never pulled the alert button. I choose to air my differences keyboard to keyboard. I certainly haven't been right all the time, but I try to admit when I am wrong.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

82. Maybe so, but, still, for whatever reason,

you felt the need to chastise those, including me?
Like I said dude, pretty fucking lame.

At the time, those of us that felt the need to defend M. Garrick were doing the right thing.
Your OP is not needed, we now realize that we were wrong but we don't need the BS.

[RoeVWade]

84. If this just came out, Garland may still respond to it. I'll wait for that at least.

nt*

[MineralMan]

90. Exactly!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

83. Many wanted to give Garland time to do a proper job. He took the time and did not do a proper job. . . . nt

[MorbidButterflyTat]

86. The book is due for release tomorrow

I'd like to read what you are reporting for myself.

Have a link?

[bmichaelh]

91. We needed a RFK Sr.

We needed a RFK Sr type of Attorney General.

He went relentlessly after Organized Crime when his FBI Director publicly tried to downplay existence of Mafia.
Although, Hoover had meetings with Mafia boss, Frank Costello.

Sidenote: My admiration of Sr is not transferrable to Jr; For whatever reason, Jr. is trying to destroy his family's legacy.

[ihaveaquestion]

93. Is there anything that explains Garland's action/inaction from his point of view?

I'm sure I'm not the only one who wants to know what he was thinking he was doing.

[RANDYWILDMAN]

95. Why does it feel like Bill Barr played a role in

all this?

Garland is now right up with Barr is the History books, with his world class cockblockery of justice for the American voters and the officers who worked on Jan 6 in Dc and any other person busted for stealing classified documents from the US government and Democracy itself.

*More people than in any other presidential election voted that Loser Trump out and they voted Biden and the DOJ to go after him and put him in jail for his crimes !!!!

Hope Garland's headstone talks about what a traitor to American Justice he really is.

Is any one surprised he is member of the Federalist society and that group has nothing but people trying to rape, pillage and slowly destroy America!!!

[gfarber]

97. Justice That Stumbled

We warned that the law was asleep,
While Garland his calm tried to keep.
He dragged both his heels,
Ignored what appeals,
And buried the truth far too deep.

Reporters have written, "Take heed!
He stalled when the nation had need."
Obstruction was plain,
From foot-dragging strain—
A justice delayed, yes indeed.

A prosecutor spoke on TV,
Explaining the law’s gravity.
But Garland took fright,
Declared it not right—
“Sanction that lawyer!” said he.

His method, “from bottom to top,”
Was cover for making things stop.
When push came to shove,
He rose not above—
The probe hit a bureaucrat’s drop.

When Cassidy told what she knew,
Old Merrick was caught with no clue.
He’d heard not a word,
Till her story was heard—
A shock that was long overdue.

Lisa Monaco, steady and prim,
Was cut from that same cautious trim.
Each “wait” and “review”
Let chaos accrue—
Their vigor was frighteningly slim.

Leonnig said, “Please, let them talk!
Jack Smith knows the proof they still block.
For crimes of such scope,
There’s no room for hope,
While Garland stays chained to his clock.”

From Egypt came millions, it’s said,
Yet Garland turned down the thread.
Too careful, too late,
Too bound by the gate—
Justice lay silent, half-dead.

We spoke, and they called us untrue,
For saying what Garland would do.
But now with this book,
Just give it a look—
The warnings? They all have come through.

The lovers of Garland still yell,
But facts have a story to tell.
“Injustice” they wrote—
A stinging footnote—
On justice that stumbled and fell.