An honest question for AG Merrick Garland:

[11 Bravo]

Sir, you have made it abundantly clear that you have no desire to "look backward", but instead prefer to "look forward"; and I harbor no doubt that you have every intention of reversing the obscene politicization of the DOJ as practiced under the former President.
But my question, Mr. Attorney General, is that as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, is it not your job to see that crimes against this country, are prosecuted, and those responsible held to account?
So tell me, Sir, in that light, is it even possible for you to "look forward" to prosecute crimes that may be committed in the future?
Is not your very reason for existence predicated on the need to ensure that crimes which have already been committed are punished? And is not such a performance of your sworn duties only carried out by "looking backward"?

Please help me out here, General Garland, for as a citizen, I am seriously confused.

[Texaswitchy]

1. I do not think he was the right pick for the job.

He should have been a federal judge.

[JustAnotherGen]

2. I don't think that's the case

He won't reject the people's House vote. Not going to happen.

I strongly suspect that he's probably talking with his team about Manchin's failure to get any GOP votes for the Right to Vote Act. Gotta walk, talk, and chew gum post Trump Doctrine

[Mary in S. Carolina]

3. When some reveals themself,

believe them. He is not up to the job, he has proven that over the last several months.

[Funtatlaguy]

4. Wish Biden had picked Sally Yates. Sigh.

[Texaswitchy]

8. Yes

She would have been great.

[Texaswitchy]

10. Garland is to old school.

He was picked because of the supreme court.

[Pepsidog]

16. He is a nice gentlemanly type guy. How about Shiff as AG or Sally Yates.

[Texaswitchy]

26. Sally Yates would be great.

She would have been ba good choice.

[NewHendoLib]

5. not a Garland fan here. either

[Joinfortmill]

6. 👍

[Alexander Of Assyria]

7. Justice for sedition does not proceed at the speed of social media, tragically.

[msfiddlestix]

11. Nor does it proceed in Real Time, all the more Tragically.

But you know, why should any of us give a fucking care about justice and accountability anyway?

lt's soooo yesterday.

[rickyhall]

9. Strange. I thought if you're in law enforcement you should enforce the law. PERIOD.

[dem4decades]

12. Great, so he'll go after future crimes but not past ones? Perfect.

[Rebl2]

17. That's what

it sounds like to me.
It’s like saying, for example, someone gets murdered a year ago, but they just now catch the murderer and we say just forget about it and no charges are brought.

[dem4decades]

25. Well we wouldn't want to make a martyr out of anybody would we? Better to do nothing, they'll

never do it again.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

13. Agree with general gist here. 'Looking backwards' is very much an inherent part of the job

whereas 'looking forward' is a luxury.

Not that one can't 'look forward' in hopes of steps toward preventing future crimes ... prosecutable crimes, pretty much by definition, occurred in the past.

But at the same time, I'm not sure where your evidence is WRT to your first sentence

Is this one of these DU posts that pre-supposes that everyone already knows ... exactly what you know?

[Poiuyt]

14. Why yes officer, I did just murder that man.

Mistakes may have been made, but I prefer to look forward.

[Pepsidog]

15. We always get the nice guy. We get Garland they get Barr. No more nice guys. Let's see Letitia James

as AG. Nice guys and gals finish last, unfortunately.

[aggiesal]

18. I getting sick of everyone saying "Let's look forward" ...

Obama and Pelosi said it with GW McIdiot (Impeachment is off the table), and that got us Pendejo45.
Do it now, and we will get someone like Pendejo45, except way more smarter.

[BlueJac]

21. We are supposed to learn from the past...

To become better!

[Skittles]

22. you know it, aggiesal

it strikes me as COWARDICE

[Fiendish Thingy]

23. I don't know of any one who is currently saying "look forward, not back"

Not Biden, Not Garland, nobody (well, except Republicans).

In fact, there are numerous elected officials speaking out for Justice. You’re not going to hear it from the DOJ because it would be unethical, and could lead to mistrials,

[BlueJac]

19. Garland...

Is that what you put on the Christmas tree that just looks good and that is all? Oh okay I get it!

[Fiendish Thingy]

20. I guess yesterday's raid on Deripaska wasn't good enough for you?

That doesn’t sound like someone who is refusing to “look back”.

I recommend emptywheel.net for excellent reporting and legal analysis on January 6 prosecutions and more, unless you’re getting daily personal bulletins from the AG.

Of course, if you’re just impatiently pining for televised executions with guillotines lined up on Pennsylvania Ave, then you’re going to be disappointed.

[LiberalLovinLug]

24. Funny to read criticism as if Garland is truly an independent operator

We all know how Barr literally worked as Trump's personal attorney.

I am not suggesting that kind of sycophancy. But for folks to think that Biden, and the top, older, established Democratic leadership, did not, and do not, approve of his decisions on pursuing indictments, or not, etc, then they are fooling themselves.

Do you not think that he was vetted thoroughly by Biden and his aids as to exactly how aggressive he would be in pursuing Trump's crimes? Or that the White House does not communicate at all with him on where best to put his energy?

No, just like under Obama, whom Biden shares much of the same governing philosophy, and who employed much the same kind of "look forward" AG, this is not Garland's doing. Or not doing. Its part of some 4 dimensional chess move that senior Democrats think will pay off somehow by not making Republicans too mad. Or they are afraid of the backlash.

And I'm sick of it. Their lack of trust in their supporters ability to drown out the naysayers. They are too afraid of Fox News, McConnell, and the MAGATS. They fail to see how much support they'd garner if they just boldly pushed forward aggressively. Just because Democratic voters want empathy, politeness, fairness, cooperation etc... does not mean we don't want strong leadership and swift action against corruption.

I honestly think that the reason Obama as President lost seats in the 2010 elections was in large part to Democrats disappointed in his lack luster "looking forward" response to Bush's egregious assault on truth. Its like Democratic leaders do not trust they have enough support in the country to push for justice. They don't understand how much of a swell of support they'd get from not only Democrats, but Independents, and never-Trumper Republicans.

[lees1975]

27. Agree completely

If Biden stands up, pushes forward, puts the pressure on and the DOJ moves forward, you will see a groundswell of support not only for putting everyone involved in Jan 6 in prison, including Trump, Don Jr. and anyone who touched the mic at the white house, but you will get your Senate majority too. This is why we voted for you. Do something for your constituency now.

[ecstatic]

28. All I know is, if Bannon's criminal defiance of congress isn't acted on immediately,

Merrick Garland needs to go. We'd finally see, very clearly, that he's not doing anything behind the scenes to hold tfg accountable.