Where is Merrick Garland?

[Tacan]

Is He asleep, in a coma, golfing. Is He still the AG?

[kimbutgar]

1. Why isn't he going after Steve Bannon for his treasonous statements?

I wish President Biden would have picked Glenn Kirschner instead!

[JustAnotherGen]

7. What did he say?

Or did he do something earlier today? Yesterday?

Bannon is a maggot and that's all he knows.

[lagomorph777]

14. Bannon said he has 20,000 MAGAT troops ready to commit insurrection.

[JustAnotherGen]

24. Steve Bannon says

And Steven Bannon "actually has" are two different things.

He's a slob and is only as relevant as we allow him to be. He's a fraudster, a wife beater, and a conspiracy theorist.

[StarfishSaver]

25. Bannon is scum

But his comments don't constitute treason - they don't even constitute a crime.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

35. You mean now that a Democrat is in power we STILL have to respect the 1st Amendment?

We can't just lock up Republicans because we don't like what they say?

[StarfishSaver]

39. Umm - yes

Shhhh! That's not always a popular opinion in some quarters.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

41. But Republicans didn't!!!!

Why do we have to? If we want to win, we've got to be willing to do whatever it takes!

/s

[StarfishSaver]

43. Sums it up

The only way to beat Republicans is to become just like them. But that's okay because we're not them... or something

[msfiddlestix]

48. Odd, I was pretty sure Free Speech isn't a thing verbal Threats of Violence.

But according to Du Legal Eagles and other Constitutional Scholars, we are free to spew verbal threats of extreme violence against any person, place or thing, and it's all good.

Except during anti-war protests etc.

[StarfishSaver]

50. Where did Bannon make a verbal threat of violence?

[msfiddlestix]

51. wait. now you're going to pretend that he didn't mean anything by his shock troups comments, like

isn't a threat of violence.

Ok, Got it. We're Done Now.

[StarfishSaver]

52. What he "meant" and what he said are very different things

The words that came out of his mouth aren't much different than things a lot of politicians say about putting their troops on the ground to win elections.

In order to constitute a threat subject to prosecution, words have to be very specific, unambiguous, and targeted. This comment was far too general and non-specific to be actionable as a threat.

[triron]

92. WTF!

[PufPuf23]

65. Bannon and his ilk tend to toe the line. walk the edge

Many of the folks so deranged to take Bannon seriously, do hear and are primed for violence.

TFG was a master at sending unspoken messages to his cult.

[StarfishSaver]

69. Exactly

But when it comes to the law, toeing the line is key. And if he's on the right side of the line, he hasn't committed a crime, regardless how much we despise him.

That doesn't mean he hasn't committed any crime at all. He surely has. But this particular statement, as reprehensible as it may be, is not among them.

[StarfishSaver]

76. Seriously?

Did you seriously just say that to me?

[kimbutgar]

16. Steve Bannon doubles down on 'shock troops' takeover plan: 'We're going to have 20,000 ready to go'

We're winning big in 2024 and we need to get ready now," he said. "Right? We control the country. We've got to start acting like it. And one way we're going to act like it, we're not going to have 4,000 [shock troops] ready to go, we're going to have 20,000 ready to go and we're going to pick the 4,000 best and most ready in every single department."



https://www.rawstory.com/steve-bannon-shock-troops/


THIS POS should be in jail with the key thrown away!

[JustAnotherGen]

29. Read that - that's only if they win

And he's right - they weren't prepared when they won in 2016 - because no one thought 45 would win. To include 45.

He's not saying today - he's saying in 2024. With a little bit of luck -his draft dodging 'boy' trump will pass away like my dad in 2011 from Agent Orange, Pink, White, Green and Blue diseases.

Not sorry - I'm not wishing death - just saying the quiet part out loud. Trump is an obese, unhealthy slob just like Bannon - and they are assuming that he's going to be alive in 2024.

[StarfishSaver]

23. If he had picked Glenn Kirschner

This board would be full of "Where in the hell is Glenn Kirschner?" posts.

[JustAnotherGen]

30. Yep eom

[LetMyPeopleVote]

95. You do understand that Treason is defined in the Constitution

Bannon is an asshole but these comments do not constitute treason as defined in the constitution

[JustAnotherGen]

2. He's doing his job

He doesn't have to react to every single crook in MF45 world.

[MineralMan]

3. In his office, I assume.

He doesn't do press conferences, as far as I know.

[StarfishSaver]

10. He does press conferences when it's time to announce important developments

He's done several of them. But some folks think the AG is supposed to give us regular briefings on the progress of ongoing investigations, which of course, no AG is going to do.

[MineralMan]

13. Yes, but he doesn't do daily briefings or any other such thing.

I don't know why people would expect him to.

[StarfishSaver]

18. Exactly

[JustAnotherGen]

20. Plus 1000

[JustAnotherGen]

17. This

I think people got used to the AG's office being a tool of political punishment . . . It's like they forgot that decent Americans who want to do their job effectively don't have time to twitter, go on a bunch of tv shows, radio shows, etc. etc. The A.G. is not supposed to be 'out there'.

He has more than 40 divisions, functional groups to manage including agencies such as the FBI, Marshals, DEA - offices such as AntiTrust, Violence against women, Tribal justice . . .

Are we just as bad as the others? And why are we allowing THEM to determine the narrative. Their way of running the country was an abject FAILURE.

[StarfishSaver]

21. Thank you

[sarisataka]

4. That reminds me

[PortTack]

5. He busy filing suits..including one against the tx abortion law- was just in court

Has filed suit in GA against their election law.

Stop!!

[comradebillyboy]

6. Good question. I wish he was more aggressive. nt

[StarfishSaver]

12. Being seen publicly talking about investigations has nothing to do with "aggressive."

[Ocelot II]

8. Working on preparing cases instead of going on tv to disclose to the whole world

the details of sensitive criminal investigations, which details would enable the suspects to hide or destroy evidence and intimidate witnesses. He's not obligated to tell us what he's doing, or to go faster just to satisfy the impatience of people who don't understand how complex criminal investigations and prosecutions work.

[StarfishSaver]

15. Be careful

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and all opinions, regardless how uniformed, are equal, so you are being condescending and telling people to STFU if you remind them that there are some things they might not know.

[Ocelot II]

28. As Isaac Asimov once said:

[StarfishSaver]

32. Asimov was partially correct

We have now reached a point where "my ignorance is superior to your knowledge because your knowledge makes you biased while my ignorance allows me to remain untainted and, therefore, objective ... And, btw, how dare you act like you know more than me!"

[Thunderbeast]

26. Contrary to recent history...

The AG works best when they are not focused on the news cycle. It will take a careful and deliberate case to successfully prosecute these VERY high profile criminals and their kleptocracy. A unanimous verdict will not be easy when at least a third of the jury will likely be MAGATS.

RICO cases take time. The DOJ is collecting the documentary evidence now. Expect the big cases to be next year.

[orangecrush]

77. Just like.

.

[Ocelot II]

78. No, not just like.

[StarfishSaver]

9. Interesting question

Even more interesting that it doesn't seem to ever be asked about any of the other cabinet secretaries - most of whom we haven't seen much, either, because, like the AG, they're busy doing their jobs and not making the rounds of television appearances.

[George II]

58. Only people in government who are NOT doing their jobs appear on all the Sunday morning shows....

....each week or appear on Chris Hayes' show 2-3 times a week. They have the time for interviews, Garland and ALL of Biden's cabinet don't have all that free time because they're busy working in their offices getting the jobs done.

[StarfishSaver]

62. So true

I've worked with many people in these positions, and appearing on television was not only time-consuming (it wasn't just the time spent on the air, but lots of prep time was required, even on topics they knew cold), it was far down on the list of scheduling priorities.

The idea that an AG is supposed to be regularly visible in order to "assure" people he's doing his job is unrealistic. And I'll bet that before Bob Barr, no one here can poi t to more than one or two times they ever saw any particular AG on television talking about what DOJ was doing - and they NEVER saw an AG on television talking about an ongoing criminal in investigation or grand jury proceeding.

[George II]

63. Other than Barr, the only times I've seen any Attorneys General holding press briefings or...

...press conferences were to announce major indictments or investigations. Even then, that's been probably less than a dozen times in the ~50 years I've been following politics and government.

[StarfishSaver]

64. I don't think I've ever seen an AG announce a major investigation, until the investigation was over

and indictments were handed down.

The Trump-Sessions-Barr DOJ was a drastic exception.

[George II]

66. Right, it has mostly been announcements of the results of investigations and indictments...

There have been a few though - actually the AG in question here, Garland who is being accused of being invisible, announced in April that he was launching an investigation of the Louisville Police Department, and Loretta Lynch did likewise in 2015 of the Baltimore Police Department.

Any such announcements that I recall have been of government agencies, never civil criminal investigations.

But NONE of those resulted in periodic updates of the status of such investigations.

[StarfishSaver]

72. Exactly - the investigations that you're talking about are not criminal investigations

They are "Pattern and Practice" investigations of local law enforcement agencies that DOJ conducts as part of its oversight responsibility and are announced and conducted in public (except where confidentiality is required) because transparency in these matters is important.

Those investigations are not intended to determine any criminal culpability but are instead designed to help local law enforcement agencies improve their operations.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

11. WHAAAAAA!!!!! THE AG DOESN'T CONFIDE IN ME!!!!!!!!!

[madamesilverspurs]

19. Well,

seeing as how he's not working for TFG, he's not into anything but doing the appropriate work of his office. In addition to the standard requirements of the job, he's also likely going about the business of undoing Barr's damage and restoring the integrity that trump stripped from DOJ. Unlike Barr, he has no need to jump in front of a camera every twenty minutes to explain/defend his actions.


.

[ornotna]

22. Right on time

The bi-weekly 'Where's Merrick' thread.

[BlueJac]

27. Maybe he is reading a good book,

How To Save America From Fascism, would be a good start!

[kentuck]

31. What would you have him do ?

Other than save our democracy?

Do you think he is waiting for evidence to prove Trump interfered with elections, or evidence that he incited an insurrection against our country, or that he obstructed justice, or tried to extort people so he could stay in power, or that he broke some trivial law that no one really cares about?

What do you think he is waiting on?

[StarfishSaver]

34. Why does anyone think he's waiting on anything?

Not talking about the investigation publicly is not the same as "waiting."

[Ocelot II]

36. What makes you think he's "waiting"?

Nobody at DoJ is waiting. They are working, gathering evidence and preparing cases. This is never done in public. The fact that he isn't giving us a blow-by-blow report doesn't mean he's just sitting on his ass in his office watching soap operas and "waiting" for ... something...

[StarfishSaver]

42. This is so much like

little kids who think everything disappears whenever they close their eyes ...

[stillcool]

33. He's probably at work...

Call your local Feds and ask them.

[revmclaren]

37. Interesting that your first post in years

is bashing a AG picked by Biden to investigate the Magats infesting our country.

IMHO of course.

[StarfishSaver]

40. Great catch

Interesting indeed.

[Tacan]

60. My first post in years is a problem?

I'm a firm Biden supporter and have voted straight Democratic my entire life. I'm 74 years old and over that time I've watched the Democrats' turn the other cheek every time a Republican President, Governor or Senator does something illegal or harmful to my country. I'm tired of turning the other cheek. Ever hear the phrase "Silence is Compliancy"? When was someone held responsible for the invasion of Iraq, the torturing of prisoners' The Trump** crime family, the ignored subpoenas during the congressional investigations, Sedition on January 6th. etc. Silence on our part encourages disinformation on their part. To quote the movie "The American President" "They're the only ones doing the talking". Do you wonder why so many people don't know what's in "The build back better plan"? It's because we suck at getting the word out. Where is our AG and all the rest of the administration?

[sheshe2]

67. The plan, here ya go.

It has been on the news. Biden has been on TV/ Town halls talking about it and what it means to all of us.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/budget-reconciliation-bill-build-back-better-act/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/build-back-better/


As for the where adount of the AG and the rest of the admin, they are doing their jobs.

[sheshe2]

73. More:

Secretary Raimondo's Remarks on President Biden's Build Back Better Agenda to the City Club of Cleveland
https://www.commerce.gov/news/speeches/2021/09/secretary-raimondos-remarks-president-bidens-build-back-better-agenda-city

[StarfishSaver]

75. Can you cite any other instance (pre Trump) when DOJ announced an ongoing

criminal investigation and/or provided public updates on such investigations?

Can you name any criminal investigation DOJ is currently conducting?

[StarfishSaver]

79. Maybe instead of wasting so much time worrying about what Merrick Garland is doing

people who want to know what Build Back Better is could just watch the news, read a newspaper, go to the White House website, or just Google "Build Back Better." They'll get more than enough information to satisfy their curiosity.

I know that takes some effort, but since Biden isn't going to come to our houses and brief us one-on-one, that's the best and easiest way to get the information.

[Tacan]

82. Do you not understand

I know what is in the Build back better plan, and I'm all for it. What I'm saying we are doing a shitty job competing with the disinformation that the Republicans are putting out. It's not enough to just tell people to go read a newspaper or go to the White House website, we have to find a better way to communicate it.

[StarfishSaver]

84. How exactly do you think Democrats should be communicating this

that they're not doing but that will reach people they're not reaching now?

Please be specific.

[Tacan]

86. I am not an expert at communicating our policies to the people

I can just tell you we suck at it. Surely there are people in the Democratic party that are experts at that. It just seems that the Republicans are far better at getting misinformation out. I can say that the embarrassing sentences being given out to the people trying to overturn our election, is ridiculous. In many cases the penalty is what the DOJ is suggesting. I believe Merrick Garland is in charge of the DOJ--back to my original point, Where is Merrick Garland?

[StarfishSaver]

87. You admit you're not an expert and have no idea what they should do, but you just know they're doing

it all wrong.

Gotcha.

Since you seem to know exactly what they need to be communicating - you just don't have an idea of how they should do it - maybe you can expend some of the effort your directing on criticizing the Democrats online and instead work on communicating what you know about the plan to people in your circles. That would certainly be more effective than complaining here about what you think the Democrats aren't doing right.

And your question about where Merrick Garland is has been answered repeatedly here and elsewhere.

I don't think you're actually looking for an answer. This seems to be just another backhanded way to smear President Biden and The man he selected to head the Justice Department.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

96. Exactly!!!!

[secondwind]

38. He's super busy.......... DOING HIS JOB

[Vinca]

44. Where are all the Trump subpoenas we were expecting once he left office? So far nada.

The guy is going to skate on everything in the same way he avoided money laundering charges when he owned a casino.

[StarfishSaver]

46. Who promised you "Trump subpoenas?" No one on the Biden administration did

And, FYI, you have no way of knowing there aren't any "Trump subpoenas" since they would be issued by the grand jury and grand jury proceedings are secret. You not knowing about the subpoenas does not translate into non-existence is said subpoenas any more than my not knowing what Willie Nelson had for dinner last night means he went to bed hungry.

[kentuck]

47. Are you saying you know there are subpoenas?

You do not know there are subpoenas anymore than anyone does not know if there are not any subpoenas? Six of one and half a dozen of the other? People are impatient because they are worried and concerned about our democracy and our country. They have seen crimes committed with their own eyes but they don't have the proof for a jury trial. But, we do not know what Merrick Garland is doing about the leaders of the insurrection? We do know he wasted little time in taking on the abortion case in Texas? So, he is apparently still alive. The same people that advised people here about what Mueller was doing are now advising people about what Merrick Garland is doing. They do not know.

[StarfishSaver]

49. I'm saying that you can't assume there are no subpoenas just because you don't know about them

But I do know, based on my legal experience and knowledge, as well as my experience working with DOJ in the past, that under this set of circumstances, it is far more likely than not that DOJ is conducting a very in-depth criminal investigation and that their silence not only isn't evidence of inaction, it's completely consistent with them doing exactly what needs to be done the way it should be done.

That said, a few fyis:

Bringing a civil suit against a state to stop enforcement of a new law is very different than conducting a criminal investigation.

People thinking they were "seeing crimes committed with their own eyes" isn't evidence and it certainly isn't enough to get an indictment, much less a conviction, no matter how impatient some people may be.

Many of the same people who are bitching and moaning about Merrick Garland also bitched and moaned about Nancy Pelosi two years ago, accusing her of not doing anything to impeach Trump ... Only to go very silent after the Democrats impeached Trump not once but twice, and now are back on the "if I don't know about it, it can't be happening" bandwagon as if they hadn't completely misread the impeachment scenario.

[kentuck]

68. But we should not assume there are subpoenas either...

Right?

I sincerely hope so but I have no evidence.

I think a lot of people believe that the DOJ and Congress should be moving with much more urgency.

I'm hoping that these Committee hearings will bring forth enough evidence to get the DOJ publicly involved, even if it is a few people charged with criminal intent for refusing to testify.

That would seem like progress, at this time, in my opinion.

[StarfishSaver]

70. I'm not making such an assumption

I am, however, giving them the benefit of the doubt and recognizing that they could be following normal practice and protocol and conducting an investigation in the manner they are supposed to do - and not trashing President Biden's attorney general and DOJ based on something I don't know.

[kentuck]

83. I think a lot of folks believe this is not a time to follow "normal practice".

They feel threatened. Right now. They do not have the confidence that you do that the DOJ will act at all beyond the foot soldiers.

[StarfishSaver]

85. "Normal practice" in this instance is the only way to do it successfully

What possible benefit do you think will come from talking about the investigations publicly?

While you think about an answer to that, I can tell you what can go terribly wrong with the investigations if they go public about them at this point.

Among other things, public disclosure could

1) alert the targets of the investigations to information they can use to thwart the probe;

2) give targets a heads up on the evidence they have on them, providing a roadmap for obstructio;

3) put other potential targets on notice that they may be in the crosshairs, thereby enabling them to take steps to cover up their crimes;

4) put witnesses in danger and discourage them from cooperating out of fear of retaliation, thereby potentially shutting down numerous avenues of investigation;

5) throw a monkey wrench into grand jury proceedings; and

6) open themselves up to contempt of court for revealing secret grand jury information.

And that's just off the top of my head.

There's a reason criminal investigations are kept confidential until completed.

[orangecrush]

80. Isn't it nice

To be told you have no right to expect ANYTHING from an official appointed by a man we voted for and worked our asses off campaigning for?

[StarfishSaver]

88. Being told that the Attorney General and President aren't going to brief you personally every day

about each and every thing they're doing at the very moment they're doing it is not the same as being told "you have no right to expect ANYTHING" from President Biden.

[orangecrush]

89. I wasn't talking to you.

[StarfishSaver]

90. Lol. I guess that's the best response one can come up with when they got nuthin'

But if you really don't want anyone other than your direct correspondent to respond to your comments on this public discussion board, perhaps you should communicate via private message.

In the meantime, I'll respond or not respond to whatever comments I choose.

[mcar]

45. I imagine he's working

[brooklynite]

53. What, you didn't see where the FBI broke a conspiracy to kill the VA AG for approving the election?

It was on last week's episode of FBI: MOST WANTED. All wrapped up in 44 minutes.

Maybe actual criminal justice takes longer.

[tritsofme]

54. What nonsense. Sorry he hasn't shared his day planner with you?

[Silent3]

55. As long as his answer isn't "I'm clearly right in front of the elevator"...

...I won't fret too much.

[George II]

59. That question that was asked of that Senator was silly, and I'm glad that Senator answered that way.

[Silent3]

81. There's a good reason to be asking Simema where she stands (figuratively!) when she's being...

...obstructionist about very important legislation, and pretty much the future of Biden's presidency, Democrat's chances of holding Congress in the midterms, and maybe even the future of American democracy.

Her answer was just as flippant and childish as she has been acting, instead of showing real leadership.

[George II]

57. What's your point? I'm sure you know the answers to those questions. Attorneys General....

....do NOT hold press conferences to give status or updates of investigations or legal cases.

[lapucelle]

61. ...

[orangecrush]

71. Who?

[George II]

93. Psst....here he is, DOING HIS JOB!!! See:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142808833

[LetMyPeopleVote]

94. Garland has been busy

Link to tweet