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
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Did Garland just say...? [View all]JustAnotherGen
(31,688 posts)64. Yeah - I listened and I'm reading the transcript
Searched the one word *one* and *party*
These acts and threats of violence are not associated with any one set of partisan or ideological views.
The central norm is that, in our criminal investigations, there cannot be different rules depending on ones political party or affiliation. There cannot be different rules for friends and foes. And there cannot be different rules for the powerful and the powerless.
There is only one rule: we follow the facts and enforce the law in a way that respects the Constitution and protects civil liberties.
We conduct every investigation guided by the same norms. And we adhere to those norms even when, and especially when, the circumstances we face are not normal.
I guess I didn't hear or read the same thing Hartmann did?
And Garland is right - just look at the number of groups involved in 1/6.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
79 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
No, "VP Harris should have been appointed AG," that would've been a demotion from being a senator.
PunkinPi
Jan 2022
#79
I disagree, He said, We don't care if the threat is made by a liberal or a conservative, all threats
ShazamIam
Jan 2022
#10
He didn't say that, that is how you heard it. I don't like it but understand why he had to say it.
ShazamIam
Jan 2022
#48
I initially cringed (exploded), but then realized if anyone has to thread that needle...
Pacifist Patriot
Jan 2022
#13
He had to address it since conservatives and their media have publicly claimed
ShazamIam
Jan 2022
#32
That is how you see it, you wanted a more divisive partisan kind of statement. I think he made it
ShazamIam
Jan 2022
#47
I think the DOJ is focused on Federal & Congressional law and regulations, the Supreme Court makes
ShazamIam
Jan 2022
#78
Yes, because otherwise it seemed like he was spot on. I guess he was really trying to hit the sweet
LymphocyteLover
Jan 2022
#52
On this site, if I said something threatening or extremely violent, I would expect a
fwvinson
Jan 2022
#75
I was astonished to hear the "both siderism" re: "political violence on both sides."
Grasswire2
Jan 2022
#18
Garland - "Hitler and the Allies need to knock it off. This has nothing to do with politics."
Oneironaut
Jan 2022
#25
He's technically right. One doesn't need to be a Republican to be a White Nationalist.
haele
Jan 2022
#39
The republican party is the political arm of the white nationalist movement.
BaronChocula
Jan 2022
#57
He's blunting the "political persecution" tact they are piling on with. Nt
Baked Potato
Jan 2022
#49
I didn't hear bothsiderism. I heard: "If you think terrorists are all brown & black & non-Christian.
Hekate
Jan 2022
#53
I have not heard it but from your quote I think that he does not want it
question everything
Jan 2022
#54
I hope he didn't get into the ol "there are good people on both sides" bullshit but lets hope he's
yaesu
Jan 2022
#69
Sean Hannity will love that statement. He's always going on about the Antifa and BLM "rioters"
progressoid
Jan 2022
#76