Rachel is really slamming the DOJ under Merrick Garland, everything from not doing anything

have any idea what Garland and his team are doing to clean up and root out corruption since most of that kind of effort, at this early stage, is not done in public.

Let's see what happens. Right now, I am concerned (to quote Senator Collins).

And I will remain so until every one of them is arrested, prosecuted & punished to the fullest extent allowable by law.

Every. Fucking. One.

Then I would have to distrust two men that I voted for. Two men that I have the highest regard for, Obama and Joe. I would have to distrust all the advisors they hand picked to help make the decision to make him a Supreme Court justice and The Attorney General of the US.

I can't do that.

These two Presidents aren't/ weren't working for ratings as Rachel is. Fact they are and were working for the American people.

I trust them over TV ratings and sensationalism.

It's interesting that people will jump to the conclusion that the public servants we elect - including Biden and Obama - are weak, stupid or corrupt while multimillionaire television personalities who accuse them of being weak, stupid or corrupt are our saviors wanting only to fight for us.

Talk about throwing our own under the bus ...

👍

Haven't for most of my adult life.

Eccentric? Perhaps, but definitely nobody's fool.

Actions speak louder than words. I'm waiting & watching, judgmennt reserved. High hopes, but let's face it, when is the last time you have seen real justice for the ultra wealthy? Ever?

I love ya and I to am waiting.

I recall Obama picked Garland for SCOTUS because he was a centrist, and hoped that he'd be given a fair hearing. And I think Biden felt he owed it to Garland, because Joe is a decent guy and not the "shark" his adversaries idolize.

Both Obama and Biden are cautious people, polar opposites of the corrupt numbnuts across the aisle.

I eagerly await Pod Save America's take. Lisa Monaco. i.e.. https://www.stitcher.com/episode/49213683

criticism of Garland isn't criticism of Pres Biden or Pres Obama (who nominated Garland for an entirely different position).

It could be that Garland would have been an excellent Supreme Court Justice but it's possible that he isn't suited for the current situation we're in. Personally, I was hoping Biden would nominate someone like Letitia James from New York. Someone who's not afraid to hold criminals accountable.

Again, I'm not criticizing Biden, but we cannot pretend as if the actions of the DOJ so far have been enough to meet the moment. The sham fraudit in Arizona needed to be stopped weeks ago, but now the qGOP clowns are taking their show on the road. Next up, Georgia. Why? Because there have been no consequences.

Three months, three months he has been AG and you are condemning his actions? It takes more time than that to build a case.



Are you privy to all his actions the last 3 months? Are you an insider that knows the direction that he and his team are taking? Do you personally know which cases are being worked on, how many staff are working on each one? Fact is you can't pretend to know.

As for Letitia James from New York. Someone who's not afraid to hold criminals accountable. Why would you want her removed from her case against Don? This a NY State case not a federal case and here you want her to drop it to become AG? Fact is, Tish James is Don's worst nightmare.

The issue I have is the sheer idiocy of the United States' intervention in the E. Jean Carroll v. trump case by William Barr. There was ABSOLUTELY no reason for the United States to intervene in the case (remember that Barr made the decision). I cannot fathom why Merrick Garland would continue this case when he could have had the DoJ drop it.

There are some on DU who are hell-bent on defending this decision. I like Merrick Garland, but I don't like this decision.

to advance the interests of the United States, but acting in his own self-interest, and too attenuated to be within the scope of his employment

None of this will go away anytime soon among Democrats

Garland is unlikely to have read the hundreds of snarky memes & tweets from the uninformed and misinformed. How can he possibly be doing the right thing without full access to this stuff? I mean, he is probably limiting himself to reality and what is possible. Can we trust a man who is intent upon repairing the damage of the Trump era by adhering to the actual rule of law?

That's frustrating everyone with unreal expectations. It's the new fad in outrage for those with no grasp of how the DOJ actually works. Minds with very little to compare, have limited ability to understand.

Thank you.

explained things very well in easy to understand terms on an OP/thread I read last night, and commented on this morning.

Maybe it's just me ......but I had junior high school teachers that taught the reasons for the three branches of government, and high school teachers that taught the relationships between the three branches.Because it was a topic that fascinates me, I did further studies on the college & university levels, plus have read a large number of serious books covering these important issues. I will speculate that our ability to repair the damage the Trump years did to our federal institutions, and thus work towards social justice, depends upon the number of people who understand these things. Hence, I admire and appreciate your patient teachings here.

Link to tweet

?s=19

Is this opinion unsound?

Trump was not acting within his “scope of employment” when he insulted Ms Carroll.

The court needs to make the ruling, this is no longer the Barr DOJ, where Barr was the one to decide Trump was the client. US DOJ is doing the right thing, and the court will make a ruling.

(prove me wrong!)
(and i hope to god he does prove me wrong)



all this dicking around with republicans, concessions/ concessions (capito crap) and they still do the royal fuck you to us. what a fucking time waster

didn't rachel say we've had one judge confirmed and it's been four months -- a judge obama chose six years ago. we should be ramming our judges through like mcconnell kept ramming his judges up our collective ass.

i get tired of bringing a bouquet of flowers to a knife fight

Maybe I dramatizing it a bit.

You lose every legal argument you don't make. Simple as that. This is not a partisan process, this is a legal process. And in a legal process you have the court make a ruling, this isn't the Barr DOJ, this is the US DOJ. In the US DOJ the federal court makes the decision. Barr DOJ buried so many things that should have been argued in court, US DOJ is still working through the Barr DOJ mess.

I was wrong to make it sound like everyone who thinks differently on the DoJ lacks insight, and/or does not have a valuable opinion. Most of all, I apologize to you, a Good Thinker who I have much respect for. I own that mistake, and should have more self-discipline than to post when I am in a grumpy mood.

I do think, however, that there are members here who do not grasp how the DoJ works .....just as there are some who think everything the administration does hits the bull's eye. In the context of the DoJ in this instance -- or instances -- it would seem to me that those who are motivated enough to post positive or negative comments should have a good idea about what they are talking about.

That includes understanding the dynamics that involve both the form and substance within the DoJ. What each is, and how they can relate in potentially positive or negative ways. Or both, because federal law enforcement is rarely simple. More, even those in the general public with a good grasp on how some-to-all of the DoJ workings go, can not and do not know what is going on within the department now, except for what they release to the media -- or the lawyer for someone in trouble leaks information. For we only see that tip of the ice cube that is above the surface.

a lot but not everything.. especially what is going on behind the scenes.

I bet some people in the Biden Admin watch the show.. so now they know Rachel's list of what she wants Done.

Maybe the only way to truly resolve some of these things is to have the courts rule on them. Otherwise, the next Republican will do the same without a court case saying, "No, you can't."

Some issues can't be decided by DOJ on its own - especially questions of law as this one is. As I said elsewhere, I suspect a main reason DOJ is continuing this appeal is so that the court can rule on the limits of the Westfall Act instead of DOJ doing it unilaterally, which could lead to real problems for them in the future.

happened from Jan 20 to the day Garland entered the DOJ, but he'll have to wear the stink of the E Jean Carroll continuance as a "garland" of shame. Is he going to sweep Horowitz's investigation of Jeffrey Clark under the carpet too.

Cleaning house does not mean sweeping the shit under the carpet. This is deeply disappointing. At this rate (on top of Manchin etc) the US is going to be fucked for a generation.

DOJ White House Liaisons, Inspector General, each US Attorney's office and myriad other offices in DOJ, you have absolutely no idea WHAT they have done or are doing to clean house over the past three months.

But if you want to feel miserable, angry and frustrated assuming that unless you've seen what's happening inside that massive agency, nothing's happening there - or even worse, imagining that they're up to all kinds cover-ups and evil-doing because they haven't given a blow-by-blow account of every internal decision they've made in the last 90 days, that's on you.

I just don't understand why anyone would want to torture themselves that way.

You seem content with the E. Jean Carroll DOJ decision ?

I understand why they made the decision and it's not an unreasonable one, notwithstanding the reaction by some.

And your "based on what is visible" metric is pretty weak since visibility has no relation to what they're doing - that would be akin to saying that, based on what's visible to me, most people on DU lead unproductive lives because I can't see and don't know what they do everyday beyond posting here.

subject.

have no training in the law but are interested in better understanding what's going on in this matter.

But unlike her and the naysayers on this board, I recognize that I don't know and therefore I'm not attacking and second-guessing them.

High-profile investigations are not carried out in public, with good reason.

But one of the issues she mentioned was the Arizona fraudit. DOJ sent them a "strongly worded" letter saying that the way they were handling the election materials was against the law. Then nothing.

I am not going to listen to this bullshit.

A scathing criticism of Garland’s DOJ? The man who only took office on 03/11/2021. Is she privy to the inner workings of cases that are being investigated? How the F**K does she know what they are working on. She has insider info that she wants to share with us or just ranting for ratings. This is why I never watch MSNBC until Sunday and can watch Johnathan Capehart.

I do like Nicole Wallace.

time we find out, especially in regard to state voting laws, where local elected officials can be over ruled by partisans, it may be too late

It also isn’t just being reported by Maddow, the Washington Post, NY Times, etc., are also voicing observations and concerns in their reporting on this

Constantly attacking him for not going far enough, not being pure enough.

has been a disappointment for me.

... talking about supposition we're talking about what we already know and proven.

I know, Putin's Whore was horrible but I don't see things turning on huge ship America in less than 6 months no matter what administration it is.

non other than Jim Morrison shouted, "We want the world, and we want it now."

instant gratification shows political maturity at a level unseen since infancy.

Here... different post, different subject. Same result.

StarfishSaver:



https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215507089

I was reading SfS's comments on a discussion on GU:GD last night. The ability to deliver important lessons in easily understood terms is an art. I was pleased to read both of your comments on that thread. Other comments left me shaking my head.

I sometimes wonder if my efforts to explain are worth it.

The concerns she expressed about the DOJ under Garland are not, "Why doesn't he fix everything yesterday???!!!"

I'm not going to argue the specific the issues she raised, but this line of criticism against her for raising them is somewhat simplistic and immature in its own way. And these sarcastic & condescending replies to DUers who believe Maddow's criticism of Garland have merit are, as well.

Progressives/Liberals are being told we're responsible for not having been angry enough or fought hard enough about loads of issues in the past. Yet we're also to be scolded for being too angry about what many who know more than the average person about politics say is something to be concerned about.

Maybe we'd better we step away from having any opinions or taking any actions, including voting, until we all all get our poli sci & law degrees.

I like and respect Rachel Maddow. I can't remember my mentioning her here on DU -- and certainly not in the context of the current DoJ situation -- but since you have, let me clarify my view on her. She's definitely one of the very top journalist-reporters of this era. Highly intelligent lady with a great education. And she has put together the best team of researchers of anyone currently on any channel.

More, I have watched her DoJ segment that does play a role in the discussions about the speed that the department is moving in. It's a topic with value. Yet it would be curious if that translated into a robust support of every post on the discussion threads -- at least in my opinion, though I recognize that others think differently than do I.

Let's focus for a moment on one of what may be the most important issues that Rachel addressed -- the DoJ spying on journalists (among others). One need not have their copy of Dan Rather's 1977 book "The Camera Never Blinks" handy, but it would be useful. For the spying upon journalists is not a new problem. The issue of "leaks" to the press was the original source of motivation for the Huston Plan in the Nixon administration. Or, in more common terms, it led to "the Plumbers." Which, among other bad, bad things, led to the break-in at Rather's home.

The House and Senate did have significant investigations of the Nixon abuses of power, and the DoJ did prosecute a fair number of those who broke the law. Not all, but quite a few. A lot of good came out of the investigations into Nixon administration and intelligence agency practices. A part was the concept of the FISA court, which opened in 1978. Considering the percentages of warrent applications getting approved, one can make a strong case that the rules of the FISA court system need to be up-graded.

The chances of Congress passing improved law on this would seem rather stark at this point. The republican party currently is channeling the pathology of Donald Trump, despite the expressed concerns of a few party members. Now, the Attorney General can change the department's policy, which is a good but temporary solution, since the next republican AG is likely to be as crooked as William Barr.

So where, a rational person might ask, does that leave us? Let's think: there are three branches of the federal government. Two of them would have difficulty doing much to prevent a future administration of over-stepping their authority -- something that happens frequently, and always starts by the entering of gray areas. So what might help us identify the gray areas from the definitely criminal ones? Might we consider the possibility of the judicial system?

Most rational citizens in the United States recognize that there is a US Constitution, and that it includes the Bill of Rights. That Amendment 1 was designed to protect a free press, among other things. The spying on journalists, while repulsive, has at times been in one of those gray regions, creating situations where federal prosecutors do not have quite enough solid evidence to be 95% sure of a conviction. But an area known as Constitutional Law -- based in decisions by the US Supreme Court (lower federal courts also have a role to play).

A good reference book for those interested in, but not really familiar with previous federal court decisions, is "The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding" (edited by Eugene W. Hickok, Jr.; University of Virginia Press; 1991). The second chapter provides an easy to understand explanation of major Amendment 1 cases. One of the good things about the book is that it uses court decisions that one may agree or disagree with, which offers the bonus of understanding how the issues involved are viewed and decided.

That's a great thing about the concept of a free press. A person need not be a university professor, nor a federal attorney, to read books such as the two I've mentioned. One can simply borrow a copy from a public library, and gain the benefits of reading. Maybe it's just me, but I think if one is upset enough to complain on a public forum about an issue, it should inspire one to know what they are talking about. I accept that others may disagree with me.

...just like every other television news personality.

DOJ

is odd and counterfactual, to say the least.

true. Of course it is more complicated and nuanced than that, and it really comes down to what the judge said, was the president’s actions within the scope of his job and country, or his own self-interest

I think the Carroll case will get to the SC. It will be interesting if they hear it, because this cuts both ways politically

You know the drill!

It involves attacking Democrats who don't deliver magical ponies and unicorns within three months of taking office and responding to any rational effort to remind people that things can't be done overnight with such comments as '"gotta keep that old powder dry" - as if not completely cleaning up DOJ til it's spic and span and locking every Republican in sight in 90 days or less is the same thing as not doing anything at all.

...made a pretty big blunder in regard to handling this E Jean Carroll case. I do not see how they could not have predicted just how this position would be perceived. Whether its technically defending Donald Trump it certainly has the appearance of providing cover for him in his most loathsome and vile element. It's completely tone deaf.

And I've had enough of a Department of Justice that makes its decisions based on the political demands and will of the base of the president's party. If Garland makes sound legal decisions that may not be politically popular, I'm fine with that.

That is more than just politically unpopular its closely related in an especially vile way to the legal arguments the Trump Administration made for 4 years that the president is above the law.

The legal distinction is nuanced and probably difficult for non-lawyers to understand, but it's an important one.

If not then why are his actions defensible? How is that premise any different than saying he could shoot someone as President?

If he wasn't acting in an official capacity, he is not protected by the Westfall Act and must remain the defendant in this case.

It will be up to the court to decide.

So why would Garland DoJ choose to make that argument? Its a choice they made. Seemingly based on pure bureaucratic momentum and tone deafness.

As I said, it's complicated.

And no, they're not tone-deaf. They are experts and know what they're doing - they certainly know more than the armchair quarterbacks with no responsibility for making tough decisions who are calling them ignorant and clueless.

Saying one way or the other that the President can/cannot use the DOJ for his personal problems. Otherwise, we'll be arguing about legal theory the next time a Republican tries this shit.

And, it the courts say it is okay, well then either we can do it or we can try to pass a law explicitly prohibiting it.

within the scope of his presidency when he said what he said, not that it was OK to say it. If he was acting in that capacity the government is obligated to raise a defense on his behalf and substitute itself as the defendant. The catch, of course, is that the government can't be sued for defamation, so the government would be off the hook for damages. in Clinton v. Jones, the Supreme Court case held that a sitting president of the United States is not immune from litigation for acts done before taking office and unrelated to the office, but this is a case involving an act done while the president was in office. So they have to rely on Nixon v. Fitzgerald, which held that a president is absolutely immune from litigation for discretionary acts done while in office. The decision is very broad, and although it doesn't define exactly which activities Fitzgerald covers, the case is generally interpreted to mean that as long the action is within the broadest understanding of the president's function as president, he's immune. The reason the appeal is being taken by the current DoJ is not to protect Trump but to determine, by an appellate court, where that line is. The notion that a president can make allegedly libelous statements regarding a situation not related to his function as president is a huge stretch and it will probably fail, as it should. But it is in no regard inappropriate for the DoJ to want to get an answer to the question for the sake of future administrations.

Why take up a case "to get an answer to the question for the sake of future administrations"... when it involves making arguments in defense of actions by a person who overstepped the bounds of the office in every single way imaginable. When Bill Barr DoJ took up this case on behalf of Trump it was acting as his personal legal team. All this Justice Department is doing now is validating that approach.

DOJ already had the case. The alternative would have been to withdraw the appeal, which has all kinds of ramifications that could be problematic for the agency in the future.

I had such high hopes when he said his top goal was holding Trump accountable. Now he is literally defending him.

civil legal consequences

The counter to that is if it is being done to protect the country is one thing, but if it is done for personal gain or outside the scope of a president’s duties, that is another matter entirely

And has taken over after an Insurrection there are over 400 charges and another couple hundred investigations going on. That alone seems to be a lot of territory in 100 days, then you have to realize that every step he takes is into a pile of shit left behind by brilliant legal minds like the Keebler elf Jeff Sessions, that boob Matt Whittaker, that no good fat fuck Barr and then that disgrace to a Harvard degree Rosen. What a crew of misfits. 100 days ( not even) is just not enough to clean up that kind of mess

He seems to have made some bad decisions since being appointed three months ago. It’s not only Rachel Maddow who has criticized him, it’s also CNN, Vanity Fair, Slate, and New Republic, to name a few.

Something STINKS

You are stating that he is weak and corrupt? You are accusing our AG of a crime. You don't know what you are talking about and frankly neither does Rachel, a TV personality that rants for ratings.

Dear Goddess, Democrats eating their own.

This i more expected than disappointment. I didn't want him on SC when Obama put him up.

What about the sternly-worded letter to the law-breaking cRazy ninjaw$ in Arizona?

How is that doing the We The People DOJ's job?

"Then fire him and nominate a new one" sounded like you were issuing someone an order.

Obviously, and I presume the USAG is a tough job, especially after dRumpf corrupted it with barR, but Garland may be in way over his head. If he cannot clean up the house of the dRumpf left overs, then Biden should intervene. I cannot fathom Joe, and moreso Kamala... accepting nothing less.

it means he's "in over his head" and should be "fired"?

Gotcha.

But it's just my humble opinion ATM.

Let the cRazy ninjaw$ expand their lawless ciRcu$ without putting a strong stop to their crimes? No.

being passed at the state level?

... Made some legal objection to farming out the election "audit" to private entities.

public in support of things the public would like to see is a good thing as well. That’s how things work.

I understand, but really don’t understand, the fuss. Leaders usually and should have thick skins.

Trump Corruption of DOJ Lingers Under Garland, Risks Precedent - Rachel Maddow - MSNBC
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017660813

Have a Democratic President, and all they do is carp.

It’s early still.

I agree with her 100%

I am not holding my breath and I bet neither is she. The next wanna be dictator will have a green light from the DOJ.