HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Rachel is really slamming...

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:17 PM

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

regarding the GOP backed voting measures that create hurdles for millions of voters, to continuing the same policies Barr was condemned for, emphasizing that Garland has done nothing about voting rights, including what is happening in Arizona

Rachel even brought up that they were following trumpís justice dept. policy on reporters sources, until they were caught. That was new to me, but her biggest criticism is that Garlandís justice department is not going after the corruption from Barrís justice department, and they are not cleaning it up, and it will then become norm because it is not getting cleaned up

It is really a scathing criticism of Garlandís DOJ

114 replies, 6205 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 114 replies Author Time Post
Reply Rachel is really slamming the DOJ under Merrick Garland, everything from not doing anything (Original post)
JohnSJ Jun 2021 OP
NewHendoLib Jun 2021 #1
Sneederbunk Jun 2021 #3
StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #2
MerryHolidays Jun 2021 #4
SheltieLover Jun 2021 #7
sheshe2 Jun 2021 #15
StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #19
SheltieLover Jun 2021 #24
SheltieLover Jun 2021 #41
sheshe2 Jun 2021 #45
SleeplessinSoCal Jun 2021 #76
ecstatic Jun 2021 #89
sheshe2 Jun 2021 #105
MerryHolidays Jun 2021 #104
KPN Jun 2021 #67
JohnSJ Jun 2021 #10
H2O Man Jun 2021 #12
sheshe2 Jun 2021 #23
H2O Man Jun 2021 #31
cilla4progress Jun 2021 #65
Bluepinky Jun 2021 #70
triron Jun 2021 #93
DiamondShark Jun 2021 #112
orleans Jun 2021 #74
triron Jun 2021 #98
DiamondShark Jun 2021 #111
H2O Man Jun 2021 #96
Cha Jun 2021 #43
TheRealNorth Jun 2021 #44
StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #49
OnDoutside Jun 2021 #79
StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #81
OnDoutside Jun 2021 #85
StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #86
OnDoutside Jun 2021 #101
triron Jun 2021 #94
StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #95
USALiberal Jun 2021 #87
StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #88
PufPuf23 Jun 2021 #102
StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #103
Ocelot II Jun 2021 #5
leftieNanner Jun 2021 #13
elleng Jun 2021 #20
OnDoutside Jun 2021 #80
Ferrets are Cool Jun 2021 #6
sheshe2 Jun 2021 #8
Hoyt Jun 2021 #16
JohnSJ Jun 2021 #21
PortTack Jun 2021 #77
ChrisF1961 Jun 2021 #82
RainCaster Jun 2021 #9
uponit7771 Jun 2021 #11
H2O Man Jun 2021 #14
Hoyt Jun 2021 #18
H2O Man Jun 2021 #22
uponit7771 Jun 2021 #27
StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #30
sheshe2 Jun 2021 #32
H2O Man Jun 2021 #35
StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #38
StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #37
Crunchy Frog Jun 2021 #46
Dark n Stormy Knight Jun 2021 #99
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineNew Reply ?
H2O Man Jun 2021 #114
brooklynite Jun 2021 #17
JohnSJ Jun 2021 #26
StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #33
JohnSJ Jun 2021 #39
Hugh_Lebowski Jun 2021 #25
StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #29
jcgoldie Jun 2021 #36
StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #40
jcgoldie Jun 2021 #42
StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #47
jcgoldie Jun 2021 #50
StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #51
jcgoldie Jun 2021 #54
StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #56
TheRealNorth Jun 2021 #48
Ocelot II Jun 2021 #55
jcgoldie Jun 2021 #60
StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #84
budkin Jun 2021 #28
JohnSJ Jun 2021 #34
bottomofthehill Jun 2021 #72
Bluepinky Jun 2021 #73
budkin Jun 2021 #75
sheshe2 Jun 2021 #107
triron Jun 2021 #110
LizBeth Jun 2021 #92
Justice matters. Jun 2021 #52
StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #57
Justice matters. Jun 2021 #58
StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #63
Justice matters. Jun 2021 #64
StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #66
Justice matters. Jun 2021 #68
StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #69
vapor2 Jun 2021 #53
jg10003 Jun 2021 #59
jcgoldie Jun 2021 #61
Justice matters. Jun 2021 #62
KPN Jun 2021 #71
Rhiannon12866 Jun 2021 #78
JohnSJ Jun 2021 #83
UCmeNdc Jun 2021 #90
treestar Jun 2021 #91
Elessar Zappa Jun 2021 #97
budkin Jun 2021 #100
triron Jun 2021 #106
triron Jun 2021 #108
burrowowl Jun 2021 #109
triron Jun 2021 #113

Response to JohnSJ (Original post)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:19 PM

1. I am glad someone is calling out this bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewHendoLib (Reply #1)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:20 PM

3. +100

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnSJ (Original post)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:20 PM

2. I love her to death, but neither Rachel nor anyone else criticizing DOJ for not "cleaning up" DOJ

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:22 PM

4. That may be

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MerryHolidays (Reply #4)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:27 PM

7. Same here

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

Every. Fucking. One.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheltieLover (Reply #7)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:46 PM

15. If I am to believe Rachel...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #15)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:51 PM

19. This

 

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 ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #15)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:55 PM

24. This is what has been keeping me sane

👍

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #15)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:17 AM

41. I don't even watch tv, She, as I have no stomach for bs

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheltieLover (Reply #41)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:27 AM

45. I know that, SL.

I love ya and I to am waiting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #15)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 02:25 AM

76. I want to agree completely, as it would make me feel good.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #15)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 08:30 AM

89. Pres Biden promised to be hands off with the DOJ, so

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ecstatic (Reply #89)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 09:09 PM

105. Well.

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.


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

but we cannot pretend as if the actions of the DOJ so far have been enough to meet the moment.


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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #15)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 08:26 PM

104. We both have the highest regard for Joe and Barack.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheltieLover (Reply #7)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 01:15 AM

67. Ditto.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:34 PM

10. The argument by the judge against trump in the Carroll case was that trump was not using his office

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:43 PM

12. True, but

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #12)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:54 PM

23. Nailed it.



Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #23)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:02 AM

31. I thought that 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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #12)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 01:09 AM

65. No grasp?


?s=19

Is this opinion unsound?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cilla4progress (Reply #65)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 01:32 AM

70. Seems to me like Garland made a wrong decision on this one.

Trump was not acting within his ďscope of employmentĒ when he insulted Ms Carroll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluepinky (Reply #70)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:25 PM

93. Not just this one; it's an ominous pattern reminisent of Chamberlain's concessions to Hitler.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to triron (Reply #93)

Thu Jun 10, 2021, 12:51 PM

112. Stop with the FUD.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cilla4progress (Reply #65)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 02:12 AM

74. that's what i'm thinking--in the name of bi-partisanship he's over fucking correcting. ugh!

(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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orleans (Reply #74)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 04:09 PM

98. Reminds me of Chamberlain's concessions to Hitler.

Maybe I dramatizing it a bit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orleans (Reply #74)

Thu Jun 10, 2021, 12:46 PM

111. For every court battle, remember one thing...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cilla4progress (Reply #65)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 03:59 PM

96. You are right.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:24 AM

43. Yeah, Rachel isn't infallible.. she knows

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:26 AM

44. My thought of what may be going on.....

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."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheRealNorth (Reply #44)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:31 AM

49. You are dead on

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 03:32 AM

79. Based on what IS visible though, they're cleaning nothing. You can put to one side anything that

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Reply #79)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 06:58 AM

81. Unless you have an in with the Presidential Personnel Office, Office of Personnel Management,

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #81)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 08:09 AM

85. I said "Based on what is visible" and by that metric it's pretty shit.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Reply #85)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 08:20 AM

86. It's not a matter of me being "content"

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #86)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 05:45 PM

101. It actually is, and on the visible evidence of this thread, you appear overly defensive on the

subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #81)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 01:08 PM

94. Almost seems like you are bending over backward trying to whitewash what is quite visible. Sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to triron (Reply #94)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 01:13 PM

95. Not at all. I'm bending over backward trying to explain a complicated area of the law to people who

 

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


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 08:21 AM

87. And you do?? Lol!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to USALiberal (Reply #87)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 08:27 AM

88. No, I don't nor do I claim otherwise

 

Last edited Wed Jun 9, 2021, 09:22 AM - Edit history (1)

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 05:50 PM

102. Perhaps the DOJ could improve their messaging then? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PufPuf23 (Reply #102)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 06:12 PM

103. Perhaps

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnSJ (Original post)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:26 PM

5. How does she know what's really going on inside the department?

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ocelot II (Reply #5)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:44 PM

13. She doesn't

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ocelot II (Reply #5)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:51 PM

20. Thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ocelot II (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 03:34 AM

80. They've publicly announced they're going to fight the E Jean Carroll case, are you ignoring that ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnSJ (Original post)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:27 PM

6. K and R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnSJ (Original post)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:32 PM

8. Early on, I liked her.

I am not going to listen to this bullshit.

A scathing criticism of Garlandís 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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #8)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:47 PM

16. +1. Used to love MSNBC and Maddow, but switched to something else.

 

I do like Nicole Wallace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #8)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:52 PM

21. I don't know sheshe, but whether they are doing something behind the scenes or not, by the

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 isnít just being reported by Maddow, the Washington Post, NY Times, etc., are also voicing observations and concerns in their reporting on this





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 02:27 AM

77. Ranting for ratings...great line. Love her or hate her, ya know this is going on

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 07:06 AM

82. She did the same thing during Obama's first two years

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnSJ (Original post)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:33 PM

9. I'm with her - every public action and lack of action since Garland took the helm

has been a disappointment for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainCaster (Reply #9)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:40 PM

11. SheShe2 has a good point, Garland is supposed to get all that done in less than 3 months? We're not

... 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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #11)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:45 PM

14. True, however

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #14)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:50 PM

18. That made me laugh out loud.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #18)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:54 PM

22. The demand for

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #22)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:57 PM

27. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #22)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:02 AM

30. Lol!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #22)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:03 AM

32. This

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

StarfishSaver:

This is a kindergartnerís view of the world. And yet so many liberal defeatists are subscribing to this nonsense, itís more or less taken over the political discussion this week on social media.


https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215507089

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #32)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:07 AM

35. StarfishSaver is a DU Treasure!

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #35)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:14 AM

38. Thanks, friend

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #32)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:13 AM

37. Great quote, but it was from Jim Palmer, not me

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #32)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:27 AM

46. Thanks for that. Reminds me why I have her on ignore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #22)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 05:17 PM

99. Rachel Maddow is neither immature nor uninformed on political issues.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dark n Stormy Knight (Reply #99)

Thu Jun 10, 2021, 06:04 PM

114. ?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnSJ (Original post)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:49 PM

17. She has the right to her opinion...

...just like every other television news personality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #17)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:57 PM

26. Yes there was opinion, but there was also observations of actions, or lack of actions being done by

DOJ

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnSJ (Reply #26)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:03 AM

33. Her assumption that all actions must be observed and if she can't see them nothing's happening

 

is odd and counterfactual, to say the least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #33)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:15 AM

39. True, but the argument can also be made if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it is

true. Of course it is more complicated and nuanced than that, and it really comes down to what the judge said, was the presidentís 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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnSJ (Original post)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:56 PM

25. Gotta keep the ol' powder dry, people!

You know the drill!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugh_Lebowski (Reply #25)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:01 AM

29. Yes, we DO 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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #29)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:12 AM

36. I'm not a legal expert as you seem to be but it is evident to me that Garland...

...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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jcgoldie (Reply #36)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:17 AM

40. It may not be a popular political call, but it is a sound legal one

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #40)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:21 AM

42. sure except that the argument is in defense of Donald Trump defaming a person he raped.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jcgoldie (Reply #42)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:28 AM

47. The argument is NOT in defense of Trump defaming anyone

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #47)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:32 AM

50. Was Donald Trump acting in his role as President when he defamed the woman he raped?

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jcgoldie (Reply #50)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:35 AM

51. It's very different

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #51)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:38 AM

54. Of course he wasn't acting in an official capacity

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jcgoldie (Reply #54)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:47 AM

56. Because they need the court to rule on it

 

Last edited Wed Jun 9, 2021, 07:17 AM - Edit history (1)

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jcgoldie (Reply #42)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:30 AM

48. The purpose may be to get a court ruling....

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jcgoldie (Reply #42)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:46 AM

55. Actually it isn't. It's an argument that the president was acting

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ocelot II (Reply #55)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:56 AM

60. thanks for the explanation... and based on that the question I have remains

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jcgoldie (Reply #60)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 07:19 AM

84. They didn't "take up the case"

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnSJ (Original post)

Tue Jun 8, 2021, 11:58 PM

28. Garland has been awful so far

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to budkin (Reply #28)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:05 AM

34. The argument is that he isn't defending trump, but the executive branch to say what he wants without

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 presidentís duties, that is another matter entirely

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to budkin (Reply #28)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 01:52 AM

72. My god, he has been there for less than 100 days

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to budkin (Reply #28)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 01:54 AM

73. It almost seems like Garland has been threatened by Trump or Repubs to not stir the pot.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluepinky (Reply #73)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 02:15 AM

75. It's not right, and it's not ok

Something STINKS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluepinky (Reply #73)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 11:04 PM

107. You are stating that Garland is being blackmailed?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluepinky (Reply #73)

Thu Jun 10, 2021, 12:43 PM

110. Thanks for pointing this out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to budkin (Reply #28)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:21 PM

92. Nothing in his background gave me high hopes. One of the few disappointments Biden chose.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnSJ (Original post)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:36 AM

52. Turns out GaRland is a HUGE deception (if he doesn't start doing his job soon).

And if he keeps refusing to do his job properly, then fire him and nominate a new one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Justice matters. (Reply #52)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:49 AM

57. Who are you giving this instruction to?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #57)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:56 AM

58. I'm giving my personal opinion on a forum.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Justice matters. (Reply #58)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 01:00 AM

63. I see

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #63)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 01:07 AM

64. Ok. I have not been elected President of the United States.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Justice matters. (Reply #64)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 01:11 AM

66. You think if he hasn't "cleaned up the house of the dRumpf left overs" in 90 days

 

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

Gotcha.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #66)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 01:16 AM

68. Yes. Find another "Doctor" who is able to do the job completely.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Justice matters. (Reply #68)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 01:24 AM

69. What's with the random dollar signs and capital Rs?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnSJ (Original post)


Response to JohnSJ (Original post)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:56 AM

59. what can the DOJ do about the voter suppression laws

being passed at the state level?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jg10003 (Reply #59)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 12:59 AM

61. I think the criticism is that they could have interjected themselves somehow in the Arizona circus

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jg10003 (Reply #59)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 01:00 AM

62. The canceR is spReading fast.

And the Doctor seems to be MIA ATM...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnSJ (Original post)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 01:34 AM

71. Pressure from the media to take real action to secure democracy is a good thing. Pressure from the

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

I understand, but really donít understand, the fuss. Leaders usually and should have thick skins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnSJ (Original post)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 03:16 AM

78. Here's the video for those who missed it:

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rhiannon12866 (Reply #78)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 07:13 AM

83. Thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnSJ (Original post)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 08:48 AM

90. 100% Agree. There must be a few Trump left overs from Trump's DOJ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnSJ (Original post)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 11:27 AM

91. That's why I watch these people only during Republican Presidencies

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnSJ (Original post)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 04:05 PM

97. Meh.

Itís early still.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnSJ (Original post)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 05:22 PM

100. Go Rachel

I agree with her 100%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnSJ (Original post)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 10:16 PM

106. She is asking tonite whether Garland's DOJ will have the guts to open an investigation into Trump.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnSJ (Original post)

Thu Jun 10, 2021, 09:34 AM

108. knr

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnSJ (Original post)

Thu Jun 10, 2021, 09:49 AM

109. Kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnSJ (Original post)

Thu Jun 10, 2021, 03:40 PM

113. knr

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread