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
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Overall, I thought AG Garland's speech was fine, but one remark really "clanged"---LOUDLY. [View all]Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)49. Neither
He was a criminal who believed it to be appropriate to threaten a federal judge - in other words, the threat he posed was NOT A MATTET OF ANY POLITICAL ORIENTATION.
In that passage of the speech, Garland was talking about the unprecedented volume of threats faced by public officials (or on airlines subject to federal law enforcement jurisdiction). He was talking about violence and threats which are not based on, or exclusive to, any particular political orientation.
The end of that passage is being taken out of context.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
54 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
Overall, I thought AG Garland's speech was fine, but one remark really "clanged"---LOUDLY. [View all]
Atticus
Jan 2022
OP
+1, he most likely is factually correct too even if there's no equivalence but he can't be made to
uponit7771
Jan 2022
#8
Yeah, I'm not sure why that remark was necessary. He didn't place a lot of emphasis on it but
dameatball
Jan 2022
#3
Could be other factions beside Trump insiders responsible for the Coup attempt.
ProudMNDemocrat
Jan 2022
#6
I think he did more than "indicate a nonpartisan position" with that comment. He literally EQUATED
Atticus
Jan 2022
#20
I believe he said it wasn't from "one ideology". I'm sure in DOJ investigations the
Gaugamela
Jan 2022
#16
Is it realistic to think that anything he might say would "head off attacks from Republicans
Atticus
Jan 2022
#23
Of course not, but Garland's obliged to say it anyway. Moreover, I could easily imagine that
Gaugamela
Jan 2022
#35
We differ. I don't see that obligation to appease the likes of those you mentioned. nt
Atticus
Jan 2022
#36
It's not appeasement, he's stating obvious DOJ policy and being proactive against the inevitable
Gaugamela
Jan 2022
#38
I did listen closely. And, I stand by my post. Even when the motivation for a threat or violent
Atticus
Jan 2022
#26
In this response and your OP, you insist on putting words into peoples' mouths. Here, NOTHING
Atticus
Jan 2022
#30
What is that guys political ideology cause that is what Garland was talking about.
boston bean
Jan 2022
#41
yes, no Dems or libs have ever threatened or shot a public official except:....
Shellback Squid
Jan 2022
#37
sure. it's the republicans and the libertarians and maybe some fringe others
Orangepeel
Jan 2022
#50