They should all burn in hell, if it exists.

Should have had to answer for his part. He was found to have violated a few laws by a federal judge. But he only had to resign as Labor Secretary, and is living the good life in private practice.

They are "liberals" that feel "uncomfortable" about being liberals/democrats. Gnawing at them in the back of their minds is their Republican Daddy's voice telling them that the Republicans are the party of fiscal and moral responsibility. And they can't "shake" it. That's my fucking take anyway...

they just can't admit that they were wrong so they double down on their defense of a milquetoast AG who was more concerned with appearances of bias than he was with an aggressive pursuit of justice. They point to his past success as a prosecutor and how anything he WOULD have done as AG would have been nullified by the the Roberts Court, blah blah blah.

And none of those apologists are actual insiders. What info we do have from insiders like Tanden and members of the J6 Select Committee, for example verifies what we're saying.

People rarely can admit when they were wrong so they double down. It’s like most facets of life. It’s usually ego. I hate to say it, but that sounds remarkably Trumpy. He’s definitely not one to ever admit he is or was wrong about anything.

...I can still hear the echo of, "Garland, where the eff are you??" in my head.... It was such a disappointing time. To say nothing more could have been done is like praising firefighters that showed up with a bucket of water instead of a firehose.

none of it makes any sense to me

leaders, the Epstein files was obviously no concern of his.

He ended up accomplishing little, taking two years appoint Jack Smith, too late. trump then outmaneuvered him and declared for president again then ran out the clock on Merrick the Meek as once he declared for president, he couldn't be touched.

I've seen rabbits actually bite a threat.

Didn't save them, but at least the rabbits didn't just roll over and give up.

I had stopped my car, and then so did a cop....we watched for a bit, then the cop got out and shooed them along

What's the bar here?

Not meaning to compare Garland to Hitler

But that’s a low bar!

There's that Barr.
Who beats Barr? Bondi or Garland?

Take the poll and record your true feelings about Garland for posterity:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220509563

P.S. we found out this week that it takes an order from a judge, not the AG, to release grand jury files.

there is only one answer and Garland is blameless.
Got it!

There is but one reality, one truth.

Just trying to shift the mythology vs reality ratio a bit.

is Garland did everything perfectly, I would say many, including Pres. Biden, disagree with your completely subjective analysis.

I have never said Garland is free from criticism, only that most criticisms of him are not based on facts, but are opinions based on a lack of information and the passage of time.

My point, repeated ad nauseum, is simply this:

Garland is not the villain of this story

As I have responded to numerous Garland bashers, pick your preferred AG- the outcome would have been exactly the same:

The corrupt Roberts court would have ensured there was no Trump trial before the election

Never said he was the villain of the story, talk about putting words! What a strawman!
Your last sentence is pure speculation and opinion.

My reply focused on MY point of view (which you had distorted in your post), and described the general POV espoused by many Garland threads- Trump escaped justice because of Garland- and they never, ever mention the role of the Roberts court.

The obstruction of the Roberts court is an established fact, and there is no evidence that another AG could have forced a trial before the election, and plenty of evidence that the Roberts court intended to delay any trial until after the election, regardless of the timing of any indictments.

The immunity ruling alone guaranteed another year, if not multiple years, of delays with hearings and appeals to determine which crimes were “official acts”.

I know it and you know it.

Some posts share opinions, others share verifiable facts, and others assert that subjective opinions are verifiable facts.

As a member of the reality based community, I challenge the latter.

Read my signature line.

And I know the difference between the two.

Or as some folks call it, “tHe rEaLiTy baSed cOmMuNiTy.” 🤪

Since she actually took the time to write a reply to my email to her regarding the Russian interference in the election. That is an automatic "plus" in my book.

since it pissed me off a lot at the time.

he died in 2019, under djt's and bill barr's watch.

ghislaine was arrested and charged the following july; djt and barr were still in charge of BOP. .

she was convicted at the end of 2021.

not sure as there was any role for garland wrt epstein, at least beyond any continuing ongoing investigations into others involved; i never heard of any such. his case was essentially closed after he died. there was no call from anywhere i'm aware of to "look into it." during biden's admin.

despite knowing a lot about a lot of things, neera tanden far too often speaks about things she knows nothing about.

this is clearly one of those times.

as for garland, i continue to be stunned at how many folks around about have such strong negative opinions about him while openly exhibiting thin as gruel grasp of the procedural limits of the AG, the facts of the various djt matters, and the events of the any of the cases. you don't have to trust me, but i've followed this epstein case very closely, since 2007 and i don't recall any clamor for garland to go after epstein outside the MAGA fever swamp.

to borrow a phrase from the obama years, garland was not our magic monkey. folks need to grow out of that fantasy, as it's become so destructive, doing damage to the unity while Rs sit back and relish. garland is a good and decent man and a great jurist. no one was gonna deliver the outcome we all wanted on any matters concerning djt, as that was pre-determined, in case you didn't notice. SCOTUS and the Rs have had this rigged for years.

Maybe you think it's cool, but it actually makes your stuff harder to read.

In fact I'm not gonna take the extra trouble to read your stuff anymore. The fact that you're a Garland supporter seals the deal for me.

I thank you for your fact based post that doesn’t succumb to the mythology built upon uninformed opinions.

The predictability of it is comical. Can we move past the Garland fixation? It's exhausting and unproductive. It's divisive, it scab-peeling. The bellyaching and whining serves no good purpose. Obsessing over Garland changes nothing. Let's focus on the real issues that need our attention.

Krasnov runs the judiciary branch of government, Krasnov is ruler of the executive branch of government.

Krasnov is working to control the military, has ordered the National Guard to suppress peaceful protest, has sent marines to the border and to the streets, has given unknown mercenaries under the guise of ICE a bigger budget than the FBI.

Yes let's focus on the issues. I guess the issues are GOTV because every day I get a dozen texts to donate money to the election. I am being asked to donate money for drapes for our house while it is burning down.

Let us learn from the inactions of Merrick Garland. 3 months ago I wanted Dems to do town halls based on the issues by putting faces on the harm that the Big Ugly death bill is going to do to us. I wanted Dems to do town halls like the MSNBC town hall where fired federal workers told their personal stories. I wanted Dems to hold these town halls in blue, red, and purple districts, now they want my money for TV ads. I donate to Indivisible and the ACLU who are fighting for our democracy. I will donate to Democrats when it gets to election time.

Last night Chris Murphy stated that he is doing a town hall in a red district, Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, what a great idea, an idea that every Congressional Democrat should have done 3 months ago before the Big Ugly Death Bill became law.

Get your Tutsi frutsi ice cream…

I see now that this is yet another juvenile nickname for Trump that creates stumbling blocks for the exchange of information among folks who do not have the Jockey Code Book... or for those who simply do not see the value in memorizing the nickname-du-jour for Trump. (ie: cheeto, TFG, TSF, Farty McFartface, Slobfather, etc)

Jimmy Kimmel has used these nicknames and puns as a source of great amusement... but when it comes to sharing information and having adult conversations with (presumably) other mature adults, these cute-sy nicknames do sound a bit childish or sophomoric and detract from the discussion and seriousness of the topics.

It's just a way for the "in-crowd" and the "cool-kids" to identify themselves as such with their secret-codes and in-jokes... leaving ordinary folks shaking our heads and rolling our eyes... wondering what good or useful purpose is served by these types of games.

Who has time?? It makes no sense to keep checking their Code Book, and Master Code Book, and Breeder's Guide (the whole set), or the Jockey Handbook. --- By the time the rest of us figure it out... the race will be over and Trump will be out of office.

Ugh!

... in the real world, however, these types of cool-kids and in-crowd (ever changing) nicknames only serve to confuse and add stumbling blocks to adult political discussions the clear exchange of information, knowledge regarding current events.

Scapegoating is so much easier and satisfying - note the hundreds of recs Garland bashing threads get.

Yes... excellent observation, there. I'm sure it must be very satisfying. Perhaps there's a belief that this type of obsessively repetitive showboating and public signaling improves one's street-cred (or internet-cred?) ... it's hard to tell for sure, but in that regard, such things are usually perceived by reasonable people as being closer to a self serving rant than any serious attempt at solving or addressing real issues that need urgent attention right now.

It is called, in some circles, failure to act or negligence. Alternatively, we can pretend he was an appropriate fit from the get-go.

She criticized Joe for doing what president's are supposed to do, stay at arms length away from the AG and DOJ. That's how it's supposed to work.

We have Krasnov giving his former lawyers and cronies positions of power in the justice department and then ordering them what to do.

Please convince me that we aren't a Dictatorship already.

Democrats need to keep on the offensive, need to keep Epstein Gate front and center. Democrats, demand that the Epstein autopsy be released, many Magats will join in. This is how to bring Krasnov down, flip a chunk of his base, demanding the release of the autopsy will do that.

But you will boost her mythologizing when it bashes your favorite scapegoat?

Even Joe Biden (privately) expressed regret about appointing Merrick Garland as Attorney General. The country is now suffering the consequences.

It was around Garland’s pick of special counsel for Hunter’s case, that’s it.

If you can find reports that he expressed broader regret for hiring Garland at all, please post it.

"President Joe Biden is quietly expressing regret about appointing Merrick Garland as attorney general. According to a report in The Washington Post, Biden believes Garland was slow to prosecute Donald Trump for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, and allowed for an aggressive prosecution of his son Hunter."

https://san.com/cc/biden-regrets-appointing-merrick-garland-as-attorney-general-report/

"The Washington Post has an in depth profile of President Biden's administration. Apparently, Biden regrets selecting Merrick Garland as Attorney General, and would have preferred former Alabama Senator Doug Jones."

"In private, Biden has also said he should have picked someone other than Merrick Garland as attorney general, complaining about the Justice Department's slowness under Garland in prosecuting Trump, and its aggressiveness in prosecuting Biden's son Hunter, according to people familiar with his comments."

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/12/29/president-regrets-selecting-merrick-garland-as-attorney-general/

I would post the WaPo article just for you, but it's paywalled.

Not even attributed to anonymous sources “close to the president” or anything like that.

It appears to be post election scapegoating and damage control to protect Biden’s legacy (too late).

If the reports are true, then the Buck stops with Biden, who, if he wanted a more “aggressive” AG (as if that would have made any difference with the Roberts court) with Trump who would also have been less aggressive with Hunter, then he should have fired Garland.

Of course, the WaPo also published an attention getting expose about a year earlier than these Biden regret articles that refute the scapegoating mythology about Garland and affirms, with many on the record sources, that Garland pursued investigations into Trump’s crimes despite interference and obstruction from pro-Trump career employees at DOJ and FBI.

impartial. Even when everyone knew he missed his chance and that it was over for him, he still had hopes of getting there.

"It might look political."

I thought the standard was, if it is illegal, we prosecute?

We elected Biden, at least in part, to clean up the mess that Trump made. We had, for two years, both houses of Congress and the White House. Does anyone realize what that meant, as far as preventing this destruction of our country now? We should have first of all eliminated public enemy #1, the Supreme Court by packing it, expanding it and making sure the justices that we appointed would follow through with the agenda. That would have included overturning both Citizens United and the Immunity ruling, an saving Roe. It would also have opened the door for Garland to expidite Trump's trials for insurrection and stealing classified documents, overruling his delaying tactics and getting the trials into court where he'd ben found guilty, prevented from holding public office, and likely jailed.

This is exactly why people want to see new leadership in the Democratic party, because doing things like this don't work.

Garland bashing inevitably comes down to derogatory speculations on Garland's personality, never bringing up the facts, the legal circumstances or the statutory boundaries which determine the limits of the powers of the office of an Attorney General.

If one looks critically at the themes being brought up by the purveyors of the "evil Garland" mythology, it always comes down to something like "If only Garland was more like Barr, he wouldn't be worse than Barr."

What a jellyfish.

and mistakenly believed that they were competent and doing their jobs.

Seems like a waste of time and energy to me.

the Epstein files because big donors and maybe some Democrats were in it. I think it’s somehow worse if it’s because Garland didn’t want Sean Hannity saying something bad about him.