Some Posters On DU Are Misrepresenting What Garland Said

[Effete Snob]

Garland did not "both sides" January 6.

There are several threads on DU which are misrepresenting what he said, so it is worth listening for yourself instead of the kids at the back of the class who weren't really paying attention.

Garland went through a laundry list of threatening public behavior, from people getting violent on planes and airports, to the guy who threatened a federal judge in New Jersey:

LISTEN THIS TIME STARTING AT 13:50:

He refers to this case in particular, among several other NON-POLITICAL threat/violence incidents:

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.

Likewise, people who have been acting out on airplanes and in airports have been generally obnoxious crazy anti-maskers or other disgruntled degenerates who aren't making any sort of partisan statement.

[mcar]

1. Haters gotta hate

[elleng]

2. Thanks, makes the point well.

[LakeArenal]

3. Garland gets damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

Some people think they know his thoughts and action (or in some opinions lack of action).

I figure there’s always more to the plan than we will know ahead.

[XanaDUer2]

4. Dumb question

But how can the DOJ address the crazy airplane people?

Strengthn laws? I wondered that when I heard him say that.

[Effete Snob]

6. By prioritizing them and going for the highest charges and heaviest penalties

Which, over time, has the consequence of removing them from the air traffic system.

Instead of letting them go easy.

[XanaDUer2]

12. Thank you

For a succinct clear reply

[ProfessorGAC]

43. ENFORCE Them!

I looked the law up back when this foolishness first started with jerks on planes.
Any interference with flight operations is at the very least, a misdemeanor with significant consequences.
Put your hands on a crew member? Felony
But, we're hoping for the no-fly list. They should looking at stiff fines & jail time.
Right now, the lack of vigorous enforcement isn't dissuading other drunken fools or mask resisting jerks from acting up.
A couple of them get 18 months, and others may get scared straight.

[PTWB]

5. You should include the objectionable quote in your OP.

@ 16:30 “These acts and threats of violence are not associated with any one set of partisan or ideological views. But they are permeating so many parts of our national life that they risk becoming normalized and routine if we do not stop them. That is dangerous for peoples’ safety and democracy.”

That’s what folks are objecting to. The inference is that “both sides” are responsible for the violence threatening our safety and our democracy. And that couldn’t be further from the truth.

[Effete Snob]

7. You removed the entire preamble

I included the video with a time cue.

You skipped past quite a bit there.

He specifically included the case I mention in the OP, which had nothing to do with political orientation.

[PTWB]

13. No. Let's not mischaracterize what he said, please.

Garland called out "dangers to our democracy." In the preamble you referenced, which specific case did he cite that would qualify as being committed by liberal Democrats or those who share our views, and also has the effect of creating a "danger to our democracy?"

Come on now. The ONLY folks threatening our democracy are radical right wingers. That's it.

You will NOT paint me with that brush. NO sir.

[Effete Snob]

37. Threats to federal officials are dangers to democracy

It is a specific class of crimes over which the DoJ has jurisdiction and which has been rising.

[hadEnuf]

39. "The ONLY folks threatening our democracy are radical right wingers. That's it."

You are correct.

[Atticus]

8. Guess I missed that. Who said Garland "both-sided" JANUARY 6TH? OR---

---are strawmen still in season for you?

[Effete Snob]

11. You tell me what the two words in bold here say:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216215296

"It is a lie that both sides had any part of January 6th"

----------

Do you see those words there?

He was talking about a much broader problem of violence against public officials than just January 6th.

Happy to have helped you find one of the DU posts that used "both sides" in relation to that passage. If you would like more examples, please feel free to let me know, and I'll go round them up for you.

[Atticus]

18. In closing, yes I see those words. I also read the rest of what that poster said, not

just a selected few words, and, lo and behold while occurrences other than January 6th were also discussed, AG Garland was not even mentioned, let alone accused of saying that, which is what your OP certainly implies.

As I said above, this response is closing further "discussion" with you. As I told you elsewhere, it's just not worth it.

[Effete Snob]

15. Here are some more for you

I would suggest that if you want to see things posted to DU, that you read DU:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216215233#post18

I was astonished to hear the "both siderism" re: "political violence on both sides

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216215233#post25

and there are bad people on both sides!”

You'll see the phrase bandied about some more in that thread - including a posted Tweet from Thom Hartman also referring to 'both sides". There are also "Chuck Todd" references, as he is prone to that sort of thing.

Have these examples helped you?

[wellst0nev0ter]

19. The OP included some rando who threatened a judge

So no political party is at fault. Huzzah!

[Effete Snob]

35. MERRICK GARLAND INCLUDED HIM

Good golly, did you listen to the speech.

The video is right there. At 13:50 Garland rattled off a catalog of threats to federal officials, which is a crime within DoJ jurisdiction.

In that list, GARLAND specifically talked about “a man in New Jersey” who threatened to kill a federal judge. They was the case that GARLAND WAS TALKING ABOUT.

[dpibel]

44. Good golly, did you listen to the speech?

Garland refers to a man who actually murdered a judge's son and wounded her husband.

Not a man in New Jersey who threatened to kill a federal judge.

Not the man whose mug shot you like to post.

[wellst0nev0ter]

49. The WHITE suspect that Garland was referring to

Is a self-described anti-feminist, hardly a leftwing radical who fits Garland's mind-boggling warning against bipartisan violence.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-judges-son-shot-killed-husband-injured-attack/story?id=71871708

[JustAnotherGen]

9. Glad you posted this

But they don't care. It's just like Eric Adams. . . some people are not going to get respect from certain quarters at DU.

[ShazzieB]

45. "...some people are not going to get respect from certain quarters at DU."

That's for damned sure.

I need to embroider these words on a pillow to remind myself of this.

Maybe if I can get it through my head that this is just how some people are going to be, and that there's nothing I can do to change that, it will stop driving me so crazy. Maybe. *weary sigh*

[sheshe2]

10. Thank you.

[CatWoman]

14. now you've ruined their "GOTCHA" moment

[cilla4progress]

16. Brooklyn Dad Defiant Twitter post

Link to tweet

?t=phqutgGmOdmyZc1Sy0-Sig&s=19

[George II]

27. He also said, in different words, that the little fish are leading us to the bigger fish.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

29. And that is how you bag the conspirators!

Thank you sir

[ColinC]

46. This is something I've been thinking

I also wonder how many deals we don't know about may have been made with a lot of the more small fish insurrectionists. Garland is an easy target because he represents the entire DOJ, but (and this has become a cliche since the bush years but true in this case) there is a lot of information that we simply don't know about and he is privy to. Particularly in the case of who will lead them to what.


Just because Trump isn't thrown in an orange suit locked up in a federal prison, doesn't mean the doj isn't getting the evidence that will lead that direction. It just means they aren't bragging about it every day and showing the potential suspects their hand.

[fishwax]

17. But the sorts of violence and threats he's talking about *are* associated with specific ideologies

Violence and threats may not be exclusive to a particular ideology or partisan allegiance, but the sorts of threats he's talking about (against congressfolk, against school board members, against election officials) are in no way coming randomly from across political and ideological spectra. The claim is neither accurate nor, imo, good strategy for the dangers we face.

That said, while I think this was a misstep in his speech, it certainly isn't the same as both-sides-ing January 6th, and it doesn't mean that there isn't plenty of good to find in today's statement, etc. But that particular line is objectionable.

[Grasswire2]

20. yes.

It is not only objectionable, but it could be interpreted as showing little understanding of what's taking place on the streets of America.

"POLITICAL VIOLENCE" on both sides??

Is that what you see? Is that what he sees?

In order to cite "political violence" on the opposite side from MAGA, he would have to be talking about BLM protests.

And he would be very wrong in that assessment of equity to MAGA. Does he consider BLM protests to be "political violence"?

Well?

[Atticus]

23. Thank you. That is all I have ever said, but somehow I am now "anti-Garland" and

apparently guilty of not rolling over when challenged.

[leftstreet]

24. +1

Violence and threats may not be exclusive to a particular ideology or partisan allegiance, but the sorts of threats he's talking about (against congressfolk, against school board members, against election officials) are in no way coming randomly from across political and ideological spectra. The claim is neither accurate nor, imo, good strategy for the dangers we face.

Very nicely stated

[hadEnuf]

40. Well said.

[Hortensis]

47. Yes. Not disputed. The issue is dissemination and inhaling of dishonesty.

Dishonesty to self and others is our nation's biggest political problem, one that threatens to destroy us all. And specifically US first.

When EVERYONE knows tsunamis of anti-Democratic deceits elect Republicans and defeat Democrats, allying with those who generate and spread smears and deceits is no more innocent for those on the left than it is for RWers. It's not accidental. It's not ignorant. It's not new, nor are its consequences. For most it's a pattern of years, and they seek out favorite hostile agents and share the fellowship of the group with other spreaders.

Everyone knows this behavior could once again hand the next, existential election to the Republicans, and some must understand that they risk turning themselves into timid, silenced, impoverished citizens of a RW authoritarian state. Crazy.

[spanone]

21. Maybe misinterpreted would be better.

I was watching CNN and Jeffrey Toobin had the same reaction, he accused Garland of both-siderism.

I didn't hear it that way, but obviously he and others did.

[IrishAfricanAmerican]

26. Toobin might have been distracted at the time...

and didn't really get the context.

[spanone]

28. Well, that is a real possibility.

[Generic Brad]

31. Toobin has things well in hand

[sheshe2]

30. ...

[Effete Snob]

36. Okay, well golly

I wasn’t jerking off at the time.

[Sogo]

22. You are correct.

It's as if some on here were poised to go off at any little perceived slight.

But the CONTEXT of the comment was everything....

[randr]

25. BTW-Garland is not a standing Democratic figure

He is supposed to be independent of political persuasions and appears to be doing just that.

[dpibel]

32. You are, putting it generously, confused

The frightening mug shot that you post here and elsewhere actually has nothing to do with the case Garland mentioned.

If you read your excerpt carefully, you will find that the article does refer to the murder that Garland references. But that is not the case associated with the scary man mug shot.

I also find it interesting that, in your first use of this scary mug shot, you stated that this obviously was not a Trumper. What is it that makes it obvious to you?

[PTWB]

48. Not only that...

But the person who they’re talking about was a radical right wing extremist. He was a self-described anti-feminist and men’s right’s activist.

[llashram]

33. per the "misrepresentation"

some people just don't get the truth or nuance. AG Garland acquitted himself and his hundreds of Justice Office personnel working to uphold our Democracy and Constitution quite nicely.

Incontinent 45 and his greed and grifter club better start shaking in their boots if they haven't already. Seems a day of reckoning is approaching for those deluded enough to think that trump should be Emporer.

[KS Toronado]

34. Only thing missing from Garland's speech today was.....

"You have 48 hours Mr IQ4.5 to turn yourself in to Federal Authorities"

[LiberalLovinLug]

38. He HAD to phrase it like that or he'd be roasted on FOX News.

He will anyways but why give them more ammunition? If he said only Republicans were guilty and the only ones he was going after, he wouldn't have a chance.

It won't change the facts that it's the extreme right who are guilty and who will be punished.

[3825-87867]

41. But to those indies who don't pay much attention to politics

they may have only heard that it's not just the republicans who are causing the problem or why he couched it that way. And THAT really is the problem. Those people need to be and become better informed of exactly what's going on rather than "Democrats want to take away your guns" or "Democrats raise taxes" so I'll vote republican!

And the media is doing a piss-poor job of presenting all or any facts whenever they choose to report. Somehow that seems "partisan" to me.

[Effete Snob]

42. I guess they ignored a lot of the speech then

Because Democrats aren’t going around saying the elections are corrupt.