Overall, I thought AG Garland's speech was fine, but one remark really "clanged"---LOUDLY.

[Atticus]

After reciting a long list of threats to long list of public officials---ranging from bombings to beheadings---he said that it "wasn't just one party" responsible for the threats! (that may not be an exact quote, but it is very close)

While I bite my tongue, can someone explain or justify that?

[OneBlueDotS-Carolina]

1. At least he didn't reference...

Very fine people on both sides, it was close...

[Siwsan]

2. My guess is he's trying to make this process look as unpartisan as possible

If he had even made a whisper of partisanship, the GQP would have gone on a self victimizing tear.

[elleng]

5. Right

[uponit7771]

8. +1, he most likely is factually correct too even if there's no equivalence but he can't be made to

... seem like he's choosing a party seeing I think this speech was mostly for FAUX News viewers

[SoCalDavidS]

10. The GQP Will Still Go On A Self Victimizing Tear

Haven't we fucking figured that out yet? They Bitch & Complain NO MATTER WHAT!

Let's just placate them and watch as they shove it down our faces.

[Celerity]

14. +10000000000000000

[smirkymonkey]

46. +1000

I am so fucking done with this shit right now. Convict them or watch our democracy come crashing down around us.

[Solomon]

54. Let me pile on here as well. I am sick to

death of walking on eggshells and placating these assholes. I don't give a rats ass what they think or say. Fuck 'em.

[agingdem]

15. that's what I heard

no GQP red meat...no bias...so no GQP exploding heads...

[Downtown Hound]

17. I agree, but it's just more pandering

Our leaders need to stop being afraid of calling the fascists out, and making it clear that the real problem is the right. So what if they freak out? They freak out over everything.

[FalloutShelter]

18. This👆

Bending over backwards to erase the idea that a DOJ is normally hyper partisan.

[boston bean]

32. He just didn't have to say it at all.

[dameatball]

3. Yeah, I'm not sure why that remark was necessary. He didn't place a lot of emphasis on it but

it was there. Kind of aggravating really.

[elleng]

4. Ditto.

but haven't we heard one threat against one repug? So had to acknowledge need for fairness in this respect.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

6. Could be other factions beside Trump insiders responsible for the Coup attempt.

Other people, groups affiliated with anarchy, etc.

I doubt AG Garland was referring to Democrats in Congress in on the conspiracy to overthrow the Government..

[DURHAM D]

7. "party" ?????

[grumpyduck]

9. I didn't listen to the speech, but

he may have been referring to "one person" instead of to a political party. Given what I've read here so far, I doubt he would have brought political parties into it.

Then again, that's a guess.

[Mr.Bill]

28. This.

Agree totally. He did not mean political party.

[2naSalit]

39. +1

[Pantagruel]

11. Don't recall

that specific line but I suppose "party" could be one person?

[maxsolomon]

12. There's a vast ideological difference

Between Patriot Prayer & The Proud Boys, right?

[Hortensis]

25. Less than between them and pro-abortion Catholic women activists.

After all one would not exact them to share the "ideology" of male white supremacist groups who claim to "venerate the housewife."

Lol, my guess is their version of "venerating the housewife" is wanting one for themselves.

[MineralMan]

13. That was his obligatory "fairness" statement.

The thing is, there is nothing from our side to go after. So, the DOJ isn't looking for anything there.

But, you have to indicate a non-partisan position if you're the AG. That was what he did with that remark.

[Atticus]

20. I think he did more than "indicate a nonpartisan position" with that comment. He literally EQUATED

the parties. I haven't kept a list, but I would bet that for every "threat of violence" made by a Democrat, there have been dozens made by Republicans.

There are those who interpret what he said as not just as an affirmation of his evenhandedness, but as a sop to the Trumpies so they "pretty please" won't get too pissed off.

Many are way past caring what pisses off Trumpies and think he should be, too.

As I said, everything else in his remarks was fine, even reassuring. But, this sure sounded like both-siderism.

[smirkymonkey]

47. +1000

I can't understand why he is even trying to avoid looking partisan when this was clearly a partisan attack. One side was wrong and it is very clear. What is the bullshit about tippy-toeing around partisanship?

The extreme right wing tried to overthrow our government. That is treason. WTF is the problem here? Nail these bastards FFS!

[Atticus]

48. Thank you for that. nt

[Gaugamela]

16. I believe he said it wasn't from "one ideology". I'm sure in DOJ investigations the

defendants have offered a variety of motives to explain their behavior, which could be distinguished as separate ideologies. We would consider them all aspects of a larger right wing ideology. Garland is trying to head off attacks from the Republicans that this is just a partisan witch hunt. I actually thought it was a clever move.

[Atticus]

23. Is it realistic to think that anything he might say would "head off attacks from Republicans

that this is just a partisan witch hunt"?

[Gaugamela]

35. Of course not, but Garland's obliged to say it anyway. Moreover, I could easily imagine that

the likes of Boebert and Massey may have received threats after posting family photos with guns a few days after the shootings in Michigan.

[Atticus]

36. We differ. I don't see that obligation to appease the likes of those you mentioned. nt

[Gaugamela]

38. It's not appeasement, he's stating obvious DOJ policy and being proactive against the inevitable

ring wing propaganda circus that’s about to ensue.

[Beastly Boy]

19. I see it as a hint

that DOJ is acting to protect voter rights far into the future, and that their ultimate response will not in any way be possibly taken as favoring any partisan or ideological considerations. The violence and threats of violence will be judged by action, not the underlying ideology. He realizes that the precedent being set by DOJ in defense of voting rights needs to remain relevant and applicable well beyond the prevailing partisan and ideological considerations of the moment.

[Effete Snob]

21. Except you weren't listening closely

The long recitation includes things that aren't even political. He was talking about violence in public life generally, starting here:

?t=830

Perhaps you are not familiar with one of the specific incidents he was talking about:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/new-jersey-man-arrested-threatening-kill-federal-judge-2021-11-04/

That one wasn't political at all.

---
Edit - the key context starts at 13:50 - I didn't realize DU didn't allow time-cued Youtube links.

[Atticus]

26. I did listen closely. And, I stand by my post. Even when the motivation for a threat or violent

act is "nonpolitical", I believe most of the perpetrators support the Trump party.

The specific incident you linked to does not justify equating the two factions, whether you term them Democrats and Republicans, progressives and conservatives or never-Trumpers and Trumpies.

Not everyone who ever killed a Jew was a Nazi, but that does not make it "fair" to say everyone was responsible for the Holocaust----and I don't care if that offends Nazis.

[Effete Snob]

27. You think this guy is a Trumper?

He refers to this case in particular:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/new-jersey-man-arrested-threatening-kill-federal-judge-2021-11-04/



Nov 4 (Reuters) - A New Jersey man has been arrested and charged with threatening to assault and murder a federal judge who was overseeing a lawsuit he had filed, including by telling one of his clerks that he would "put a bullet in the judge's brain."

Federal prosecutors announced the charges against Jonathan Williams, 46, late Wednesday at a time of heightened concern for judges' safety after a disgruntled attorney last year shot and killed the son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas in New Jersey and wounded her husband.


That had nothing to do with political orientation. He was upset with his case before that judge.

[Atticus]

30. In this response and your OP, you insist on putting words into peoples' mouths. Here, NOTHING

I posted even suggests that I believe that the AG is a Trumper. But, if strawmen are all you can handle, have at it.

[Effete Snob]

31. And others insist on putting words in Garland's

By taking the end of that passage out of context from the list of things to which he was referring.

I also did not make any personal commentary about you.

[Atticus]

33. You know what? You are just not worth it. "Bye, Felicia!" nt

[Effete Snob]

34. I'm not sure you understood who "this guy" was

I did not suggest that the AG is a Trumper, or that you believe the AG is a Trumper.

Garland referred to a number of incidents, including one in which a man in Newark, New Jersey threatened a federal judge because he was upset with that judge's handling of his case. The relevance of that is:

1. The incident had nothing to do with politics, and

2. "This guy" - i.e. Mr. Williams is unlikely to be a Trumper, and what he did had no relation to Trump.

[boston bean]

41. What is that guys political ideology cause that is what Garland was talking about.

Was that guy a lefty or a righty.

[Effete Snob]

49. Neither

He was a criminal who believed it to be appropriate to threaten a federal judge - in other words, the threat he posed was NOT A MATTET OF ANY POLITICAL ORIENTATION.

In that passage of the speech, Garland was talking about the unprecedented volume of threats faced by public officials (or on airlines subject to federal law enforcement jurisdiction). He was talking about violence and threats which are not based on, or exclusive to, any particular political orientation.

The end of that passage is being taken out of context.

[Hela]

22. Wrong use of "party" -- not Democrat v. Republican

It's legalese meaning "person or group of persons." "The party of the first part," etc. etc.

Party (law)
From Wikipedia

A party is a person or group of persons that compose a single entity which can be identified as one for the purposes of the law. Parties include: plaintiff (person filing suit), defendant (person sued or charged with a crime), petitioner (files a petition asking for a court ruling), respondent (usually in opposition to a petition or an appeal), cross-complainant (a defendant who sues someone else in the same lawsuit), or cross-defendant (a person sued by a cross-complainant).[1] A person who only appears in the case as a witness is not considered a party.

Courts use various terms to identify the role of a particular party in civil litigation, usually identifying the party that brings a lawsuit as the plaintiff, or, in older American cases, the party of the first part; and the party against whom the case was brought as the defendant, or, in older American cases, the party of the second part. In a criminal case in Nigeria and some other countries the parties are called prosecutor and defendant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party

[Mr.Bill]

29. Correct. n/t

[uponit7771]

51. +1

[Hortensis]

24. It's true. Read about who are causing trouble in communities

across the nation. They're strongly RW, but not entirely, and they have many agendas, from organized Republican to completely nutso.

Some turn DU into a kind of a bubble environment where preferred "views" are shared with some who feel the same, while the rest of the truth, and sometimes basically the truth, gets lost. Or kicked to the side.

[Shellback Squid]

37. yes, no Dems or libs have ever threatened or shot a public official except:....

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/james-hodgkinson-shooting-republicans-baseball-game

his statement is correct even if few events are attributed to Dems or libs

He is addressing the nation

[nolabear]

40. People on both the left and right have been threatened.

By self-proclaimed right or left leaning threateners.

I believe it. There are rage-filled, impulsive, aggressive people with all kinds of political and personal leanings. I know that for a fact. It’s not the equivalent of “very fine people.” It’s not a catch phrase, i.e. “both siderism.” It’s taking responsibility for the toxic legacy of these horrific acts and their affects on the vast emotional territory that gets reduced to sound bites.

The difference is in the percentages of people who want to force others to suffer and themselves to have power and will lie, kill and oppress to achieve that. THAT part leans heavily, heavily to the right wing.

[DFW]

42. Big P or small p?

"Wasn't just one Party" implies it was not just the Republicans

"Wasn't just one party" implies it was, among others, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Congressional Republicans, mainstream Republicans

[ibegurpard]

43. I think you misinterpreted his use of "party."

He meant party in the formal context of referring to a person or people... not a political party.

[Atticus]

45. As I said in my OP, I did not have an exact quote at that time. Now I do.

What AG Garland said was that responsibility for the threats and violence was (QUOTE) "not with one set of partisan or ideological views". "Party" was my word not his, but as I also said, was "very close" in meaning.

I regret not having the exact words for the OP, but I doubt that some who are intent on disagreeing with what I did NOT say would have been satisfied with anything short of 100% agreement with everything the AG said.

[gollygee]

44. There were probably people from both the GOP and the Libertarian parties

Another thought is that the word "party" doesn't necessarily mean political party - that he was saying that there were a number of different groups involved.

[Orangepeel]

50. sure. it's the republicans and the libertarians and maybe some fringe others

[uponit7771]

52. +1, good point also

[LetMyPeopleVote]

53. I also liked AG Garland's speech