Eli Mystal rightfully chews out Merrick Garland

[Marius25]

https://x.com/elienyc/status/1702384315806466475?s=46&t=_oTAnkSr6WTyboKs41DpGA

Good job, Merrick Garland. Your weakness has orchestrated the indictment of a private citizen trying to overcome drug addiction so Republicans can try to hit a bank shot off of him to his loving father, all because you were afraid of looking "political" to Fox News viewers.

Merrick Garland has done nothing to go after Jared Kushner, or Ivanka, or Dumb and Dumber Jr. for their crimes.

But he let a Trump-appointed special counsel indict Hunter Biden based on a law that many consider to be unconstitutional.

[Pluvious]

1. In support of this criticism...

The AG is not a Democrat figure, he’s a public official.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

2. Whose administration is he a member of?

Since you are so keen on trashing Biden's AG...

[edisdead]

11. Does the AG serve at the pleasure of the admin?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

21. So now we're criticizing Biden for not firing Garland?

Gotta love this site some times...

[edisdead]

24. I am certainly not criticizing Biden

Uite the opposite.

I do not believe the AG is supposed to serve at his or his admins pleasure. I believe the spirit is that they act independently but others here seem to have a different view.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

25. So what are you saying then

Come on out and say it, you know you want to...

[edisdead]

27. Exactly what I was saying.

Only I was asking it sort of sarcastically. I thought that was evident but I should have used the sarcasm thingy.

People here seem to be not only criticizing Garland (which I find ridiculous) but the not stopping there but going further and trying to tag Biden (or his administration at least)

[AZSkiffyGeek]

29. Fair eonugh

Peace.

[Firestorm49]

37. BS. He's speaking the truth.

[edisdead]

92. who is?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

58. I agree.

this fucking place sometimes.

[dchill]

53. Biden does NOT have an AG.

But the Republicans seem to.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

54. Someone else who doesn't understand how government works

[dchill]

56. You confessing?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

57. I didn't say that Garland was serving Congress

So no, I'm not the one who doesn't understand how our government works. But it's okay, you've got a lot of company in this thread.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

61. Judging by some of the posts in this thread

that Civics 101 isn't taught in our schools anymore.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

67. It still is, despite what a lot of people claim

But the would-be authoritarians didn't seem to pay attention to things like the Constitution, due process, seperation of powers....

[MarineCombatEngineer]

71. 100+. nt

[Magoo48]

88. Players aside for a moment, can we agree this is another example of a multi tiered justice system?

[Recycle_Guru]

5. not true. he is part of our Dem administration

[Emile]

48. I never seen Garland name on my ballot.

[Beastly Boy]

76. Did you ever vote for Hillary to be Obama's Secretary of State?

[Cha]

93. Nicely Done.. I appreciate

being in n the minority regarding AG Garland with the likes of you, Beastly Boy.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

96. I don't know that you are the minority

But those who support the Biden administration don’t get together for a circle jerk whenever Dubya’s press Secretary has someone on to trash it.

[Cha]

106. Oh right! Just as far as

this Thread goes.

Thank you for the distinction.

[Cha]

107. You too btw, AZSkiffyGeek

[agingdem]

10. and it is not incumbent upon Merrick Garland

Last edited Thu Sep 14, 2023, 08:04 PM - Edit history (1)

to "go after" anyone...he may have been appointed by Joe Biden but he serves the people unlike Bill Barr, Trump's personal attorney and hatchet man..

and we have no idea if the DOJ is/is not investigating Jared...

[kacekwl]

23. If we have no idea if Jared

is being investigated why do we know Hunter is ?

[agingdem]

31. because Hunter was/is Trump's obsession...

don't forget Trump's "perfect" extortion phone call to Ukraine's Zelenskyy...dirt on the Bidens in exchange for military aid...

[wnylib]

32. Because MAGAs shout it from the rooftop.

And because it became public knowledge when a special prosecutor was appointed.

[usedtobedemgurl]

152. If he was being investigated...

The orange one would be shouting witch hunt and retaliation for what they are doing to Hunter. Trump and junior would not be quiet.

[Sky Jewels]

82. I agree with you, however...

as a heads-up, I've been warned about criticizing Garland. So tread carefully.

[Beastly Boy]

85. Have you been warned about factually based and well articulated criticism of Garland or

gratuitously piling on Garland because... Garland?

[Sky Jewels]

95. It's a fact that he took no action on the big kahunas

who planned a violent coup d’etat that almost toppled our democracy until almost two years after it happened.

He went after the low-hanging fruit, the little guys, but that wasn’t part of a pyramid strategy to work his way up.

He wasn’t planning on taking action (according to sources who know, such as Good Democrat Adam Schiff), because he didn’t want to appear to be “too political.” In the wake of a violent coup attempt. In the wake of an attempt to overthrow the government. In the wake of an attempt to overturn the votes of 80+ million Americans. In the wake of an attempt to install Trump as dictator. That’s breathtaking legal malfeasance, in my opinion.

[Beastly Boy]

101. That's not a fact, it's actually a lie.

All evidence suggests that the DOJ investigation into Trump has been ongoing since even before Garland took office (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/us/politics/justice-department-trump-capitol.html), and way before the J6 Committee came up with their criminal referrals in December of 2022. In March 2022, WP reported that "In the past two months, a federal grand jury in Washington has issued subpoena requests to some officials in former president Donald Trump’s orbit who assisted in planning, funding and executing the Jan. 6 rally", eaning the subpoenas went out as early as January 2022. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/03/30/jan-6-fbi-subpoena-justice/). In April 2022, "Sources confirm to Reuters that the U.S. Justice Department was investigating Trump's removal of official presidential records from the White House." (https://www.voanews.com/a/timeline-of-the-trump-documents-inquiry-/6734453.html). In July 2022 DOJ was already investigating Trump himself (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/03/30/jan-6-fbi-subpoena-justice/), and has not ruled out charging him (https://www.businessinsider.com/merrick-garland-hasnt-ruled-out-charging-trump-over-january-6-2022-7). In May of 2022, DOJ subpoenas National Archives for Trump's classified docs. On August 8,2022, FBI raids Mar-a Lago for classified docs (https://www.voanews.com/a/timeline-of-the-trump-documents-inquiry-/6734453.html).

And that's just the timeline fr investigating Trump.

On edit: I am really tired of the same old same old very tired narrative of :big kahoonas", "low hanging fruit", "too political", yadda yadda yadda. There is nothing factual about metaphors and idioms. They prove nothing except the fact that the author using them has no clue.

And with all due respect to adam Schiff, he is awfully quite these days. Maybe because he is eating his words right now, and he knows it is not polite to speak with his mouth full.

[True Blue American]

122. Just thinking the same thing.

I read some of Eli Mystal columns and everyone complains of something Democrats failed to do. He does the same on MSNBC. GO READ SOME OF HIS COLUMNS ON GOOGLE.

I think Merrick is doing a great job considering how many cases he has to deal with. He has done a fine job of choosing the Special Council.

Complaining and whining solves nothing. I see Garland as Git ‘er done Garland.

[Hortensis]

105. Yeah. Some think Democratic actions can be safely attacked here

by focusing on particular Dems involved in some event a lot of people are anxious about. Even, probably especially!, targeting people we're proud to have in our camp. The "alt-" factions don't have anyone approaching their stature.

But as targeting grows and maybe little swarms form, the light starts coming on and whatever safety there ever was dwindles dramatically.

[True Blue American]

123. Agree!

Want to complain or print articles complaining about Democrats? Find a board that allows that, not here.

[Recycle_Guru]

3. ahhh..another Garland hater. Duly noted

[Recycle_Guru]

9. you are entitled to your bad opinion

[Recycle_Guru]

18. througjout his judicial career he was seen as thoughtful impartial judge

whose decisions rarely challenged. He has shown centrist and moderate tendencies on the bench and tended toward favoring prosecution in criminal cases.

[brush]

6. Agreed with Eli Mystal.

Garland took forever to go after trump for J6, finallly appointed SC Smith who is doing a tremendous job so I guess he thought the SC route was the way to go with the 5-year-long republican smearing of Hunter Biden for relatively minor charges.

Wrong. God, Garland has proven to be a poor AG.

Now the repugs can drag this mess out to false equivalency heaven in equating this mess with trump's four indictments, two impeachments and sexual abuse (rape) conviction.

Again, it was a nonsensical decision to give SC status to the trump-appointed prosecutor in the Hunter Biden case who will continue to drag out the smearing through to the election to hurt Joe Biden.

And if an SC is such a good idea, where is the SC appointment to investigate the billions Kushner got from the Saudis and other middle eastern oil states...which trump probably got a share off the top? And then there are the many trademarks Ivanka got from China?

Again, such a poor AG.

[getagrip_already]

14. Agreed, garland has failed to bring a single case not involving

Actual attacks an congress on j6 or referrals by congress for contempt.

Jack Smith actually has a very narrow scope. He can't bring charges not directly involving tiny. But there are so many crimes out there, by so many people. Even inside the fbi and doj. But nope. Nothing.

And don't give me that crap we just can't see it. It isn't there. Prove me wrong.

[wnylib]

33. Same ol', same ol'.

[getagrip_already]

45. All ya gotta do is prove me wrong

[Beastly Boy]

86. You don't feel like proving yourself right?

[Beastly Boy]

83. How many of the 13,923 criminal cases filed in 2022 have you examined to reach this conclusion?

[uponit7771]

141. That Garland is way too political? just need one... we have more than that

[Beastly Boy]

150. Can you cite the one that you need?

You have 13,923 cases to choose from.

And please be specific. What is your definition of being "too political", how is it different from your definition of not too political, and how does your definition apply to the circumstances of the case you are citing?

[uponit7771]

151. That setting up a special counsel for a rare stand alone gun charge was unnecessary at best

... tired of the "don't believe your eyes or ears these functionaries aren't hacks.." crowd

[Beastly Boy]

153. Once again, the special counsel was not set up for any particular charges.

He was set up to investigate the matter and bring his own charges, to keep the AG out of the investigation into Biden. And, as per 28 CFR § 600.1, it is up to the AG to determine whether it was necessary or not.

Who should I trust with the judgement of it being necessary or not?

[uponit7771]

154. Which is even worse, there wasn't enough probable cause to convene a SC in the first place

People's suspicions without solid evidence of a crime don't mean crap

The fact that they have a gun charge that they don't really charge as a standalone and tax charges that are rarely prosecuted if the taxes are paid. Tells me all I need to know in regards to the level of hackery involved

[Beastly Boy]

155. There wasn't enough probable cause according to whom?

Certainly not according to the judge who seated the grand jury.

And guess whose opinion counts?

[uponit7771]

157. Precedent is the overt hackery involved with HB

[Beastly Boy]

158. I don't see how this statement has any more standing under the law than the previous one.

[ancianita]

89. It is NOT Garland's job to bring a single case, dude. It's Jack Smith's. Garland DID begin DOJ in-

vestigations.
Garland's FBI made Jan 6 arrests starting Jan 7 2021 and has continued to this very day.
Garland set up grand juries and sent subpoenas and obtained testimony in 2022 that the Jan 6 committee could NOT do.

Where have you been since February, huh?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217635999

1.
The United States Justice Department investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election began in early 2021 with investigations and prosecutions of hundreds of individuals who participated in the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol.


By early 2022, the investigation had expanded to examine Donald Trump's inner circle, with the Justice Department impaneling several federal grand juries to investigate the attempts to overturn the election.

The DOJ initially focused on prosecuting rioters, but by early 2022 it became clear that it was investigating Trump's allies too.

On July 26, 2022, it was first reported that the DOJ was examining Trump's actions as part of a criminal probe, and on August 4, 2022, it was reported that Trump's lawyers were speaking directly to the Justice Department. U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said "everyone, anyone who was criminally responsible" would be held accountable.

2.
Garland subpoenas:
In early September 2022, over 30 people close to Trump were subpoenaed. They included
Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien;
Trump 2020 campaign's chief financial officer Sean Dollman;
Ben Williamson, a deputy of Mark Meadows; and Trump lawyer Boris Epshteyn, whose phone was demanded.
Mike Lindell was subpoenaed for information about Tina Peters, Belinda Knisley, Sandra Brown, Conan Hayes, Sherronna Bishop, and Douglas Frank. Lindell unsuccessfully challenged the seizure of his phone.
On September 8, 2022, William Russell, former White House special assistant and deputy director of presidential advance, was subpoenaed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Justice_Department_investigation_into_attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_presidential_election



3.
https://www.justice.gov/sco-smith/pr/statement-special-counsel-jack-smith

“I intend to conduct the assigned investigations, and any prosecutions that may result from them, independently and in the best traditions of the Department of Justice. The pace of the investigations will not pause or flag under my watch. I will exercise independent judgement and will move the investigations forward expeditiously and thoroughly to whatever outcome the facts and the law dictate.”

Updated June 23, 2023

The latest indictment summary -- and it WILL be updated when Smith makes more indictments beyond the current two, with Garland's absolute and unrestricted support.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218228229


Give you "that crap"? You've been serving up the crap more than anyone here.

"Prove me wrong"? How could ANYONE be proven wrong who even REFUSES to read or acknowledge all that's been presented on DU by countless DU'ers. Huh?

You can find all things related to the Garland-Smith DOJ in the DU archives from the last two years.
Go read something.

[True Blue American]

131. Thank you!

[MarineCombatEngineer]

7. Ah Jeez. not this shit again.

?resize=550%2C440&ssl=1

[Bev54]

13. It seems it will never end.........

[CaptainTruth]

41. Agreed. I grew tired of Eli a long time ago.

[GoCubsGo]

127. Same here.

The only time I ever have to mute Stephanie Miller's show is when he comes on. I can't take his histrionics. That, and he's usually wrong.

[Lulu KC]

87. Thank you

Comic relief

[ecstatic]

12. It's the timing for me

rethugs launch a fake impeachment inquiry and the next day Hunter is indicted on 3 charges. It's all good, he'll beat them, but still. This really is an example of persecution of someone out of revenge, in my opinion.

[triron]

20. Aw gee, it's just a coincidence. (Sarcasm)

[AZSkiffyGeek]

22. You DO know that these indictments have been coming for a couple weeks?

It was all over the news. Did you just not see the multiple stories that he would be indicted this month, or just conveniently forget them in order to peddle conspiracy theories?

[edisdead]

26. Right. So why today?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

74. So people like you can pretend there is some seekrit conspiracy with Garland going after Biden?

[ecstatic]

108. I don't think nefarious intent is behind it, but the doj as an institution is biased

I think the doj is mostly a right-leaning organization due to the people it's comprised of. So when rethugs say jump, the Doj says how high. It might even be a subconscious reaction. All you have to do is look at history and the speed at which they move against Democrats while rarely holding republicans accountable.

[Lonestarblue]

16. I admit to not being a Garland fan for AG.

He seemed like milquetoast at the time and still does. Appointing a Special Council for the Hunter Biden investigation was a gift to Republicans, all to avoid looking partisan. Does anyone on the planet think Republicans care about looking partisan when they’re in charge? Hell, no.

And, yes, we can claim to be better than they are, but when you’re being trampled in the dust it’s hard to remember that we’re above the fray.

[rubbersole]

28. I do remember AG Garland being recommended (for SCOTUS) to President Obama by Orrin Hatch.

It seemed hinkey at the time. The appointment of SC Jack Smith appears brilliant. The fact tfg is floundering around like the ignorant clown that he is at the mention of Jack Smith's name is manna from heaven to me.

[BigmanPigman]

30. Ditto!

[Sky Jewels]

69. Yep. There's a reason Obama picked him as his SCOTUS nominee.

He was seen as palatable to the right, and thus was thought to have a better chance of getting confirmed. (Of course McTurtle wound up stealing the seat, but that's another story.)

[uponit7771]

144. "...all to avoid looking partisan..." and failing at both

[MarineCombatEngineer]

17. Hey, here's an opinion,

if you think that AG Garland is doing such a bad job and you can do a better job, then my opinion is that YOU should be applying for the job of Attorney General of the United States.
I await your confirmation.

[wnylib]

35. Lotta armchair AGs here.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

43. Ain't that the truth.

If some DU Members think that AG Garland is doing such a bad job, then they should put their money where their pie hole is and apply for the position of USAG and let's see if they can do a better job.

[msfiddlestix]

116. Seems like a lot of AG assistants here, LOL!

[wnylib]

118. Assistants? No, just informed people who respect

the good job that Garland has done from the beginning. Check out ancianita's post up thread for the details on Garland's work that so many armchair AGs choose to ignore because......? Who knows what motivates them to continually trash him?

[Bongo Prophet]

51. So is that how it works? Just go apply for the job?

I'm generally a Garland supporter, and quite sure he's better qualified than I, but it's weird to hear people say that the person should just go apply, lol.

"If you think you can do better, run for an office yourself" can work in the context of elections, but for a judge or AG, it would go more like "So why don't you just travel back in time, get tremendous grades and a law degree, become a judge for several years or in a DAs office, etc, etc, then get confirmed, and so on.

(I know it's shorthand, just typing out in frustration because of another thread that a poster just self-deleted after stirring up some shit with a childish taunt. Hit and run.)

It's amazing how many people on DU are such experts on everything. What a brain trust we have here!
Yet why do so many argue like petty children?

It's a mystery, but some expert might see fit to explain it to us all. That'd be nice.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

52. My whole point here is that there are certain DU members who are

slamming AG Garland for his tenure as the USAG, if they think that he's doing such a bad job, then they should apply for the position of USAG and see if they can do a better job than him.

[Bongo Prophet]

64. I get the point of your post, and just pointed out the humor of it.

I know jumping into the pro/anti-Garland post moshpit will get you hit or bit, so I tried to keep it simple to avoid misunderstanding.

Didn't work. Oh well.
On to my point, then, which you might have missed from being so sure that I missed yours...

I'm on your side fellow DUer, but it doesn't matter to my points about civility, to not descend into yet another damaging fight within the DU community, to allow disrupters (new or recycled) to rile folks up again and again, to keep those wounds open, and to degrade themselves into childish taunts thrown between camps.

I tried to do it with humor, but...humor is often missed in the moshpit.
It is, after all, one of the rules of moshpit.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

66. Sometimes I'm humor deficit,

and on that note, i apologize for missing your humor.

[Bongo Prophet]

94. Post-moshpit beer? Cheers! n/t

"In the 'pit, it's hard to know who's friend or foe."

"And IN this pit, within the welcome arms of the Underground, we are all, or well, at least most of us, on the same team. I want us to be fired up, but also clear on our joint goals, and our individual tasks that support the bigger goals. What I don't want, are soldiers too beat up on each other to fully support each other."

--some commanding officer in some movie, sometime...

=Clink=

[onenote]

117. Garland is fighting in the fifth circuit to have 18 USC 922 (g ) (3 ) upheld

It would be a bad look to ignore a case in which that provision appears to have been violated.

[ancianita]

98. Ditto.

[republianmushroom]

19. I like it

[onenote]

34. The DOJ is strenuously arguing in the fifth circuit that this law is constitutional

I suspect that fact may have influenced the decision to apply the law in this case.

[msfiddlestix]

114. Makes me think Hunter agreed to fall on his sword in support of the DOJ's efforts in that regard.

If I'm understanding what you're saying the DOJ is arguing accurately?

[3825-87867]

36. Garland is a Moderate-Conservative

which is why Obama nominated him. He knew at the time that the turtle would never confirm any Democrat, especially a progressive.

That said, I feel, and this is just a feeling, that even though he is a professional, there may be some hidden resentment, however buried on his part, that Obama didn't fight for him or that many Democrats offered little to no support.

While I feel that Garland has done what may be required of an AG, I'm simply happy he didn't wait another 6 to 9 months before taking action. We could be well after the November elections right now and with what has transpired so far and that in itself could have been (and may be) devastating giving the propensity for the MSM to concern itself with profit rather than fact.

Sometimes better late than never works out. Hopefully that is the case now.

[Recycle_Guru]

39. thank you for that rousing endorsement

[CaptainTruth]

38. Amazing how Eli can read the minds of others & divine their inner motivations...

...things that mere mortal humans are incapable of doing.

He should do something useful with his superhuman powers.

Or maybe he just assumes things without firsthand knowledge & jumps to unfounded conclusions.

[Recycle_Guru]

42. The uear is 2025; Trymp has been convicted in 3 of the 4 cases

some will still whine that AG allowed a gun crime to be charged against a president's son.

[ancianita]

99. Ditto.

[CaptainTruth]

109. It's like the whiners don't believe "no one is above the law."

[Recycle_Guru]

110. truth

but wouldn't I expect that from you?

[LiberalFighter]

40. What is the DOJ doing about people threatening investigators?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

44. Ummm,

going after them.

[ancianita]

100. Since 20 months ago.

https://www.fedagent.com/news/doj-establishes-specialized-domestic-terrorism-unit


https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-justice-department-forming-unit-counter-domestic-terrorism-2022-01-11/


https://www.npr.org/2022/01/11/1072123333/justice-department-domestic-terrorism-unit

[Mr.Bill]

46. Biden should just pardon Hunter and get it over with.

And if any one criticizes him, he can just start comparing his list of pardons to Trump's.

[Emile]

49. +1

[AZSkiffyGeek]

60. So you believe that P01135809 was correct in his pardons

Since you want Biden to do the same thing. Gotta love all these people here who are soooo opposed to P01135809 but want Democrats to act just like him.

[Mr.Bill]

62. I said no such thing.

Stop fabricating things and saying I said them.

And welcome to my ignore list.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

72. You said you want Biden to use P01135809 as an excuse for abusing power

Of course since you're ignoring me, I guess you'll never explain that disconnect.

[True Blue American]

128. Biden will not lower

Himself to act like Trump, nor should he. It a minor charge so wait and se how it turns out.

[usonian]

75. You make too much sense.

In a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" world, just do the right and compassionate thing.

I seem to remember that a Joe Biden guy does exactly this.

It's not a coincidence.

He's actually a lot wiser than the Sharks and Jets on this thread. 🪷

[sheshe2]

97. No, he should not and he won't.

The rabid supporters of 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS!!! look like fools wanting a harsh sentence for Hunter would be screaming if it happened to them. The charges brought by a trumper is all about politics.

See below:

Drug User Can’t Be Barred From Owing Firearms, US Court Rules

A federal appeals court has declared the application of a long-standing law banning firearm ownership for illegal drug users unconstitutional as it violates the Second Amendment.

This ruling, announced on Wednesday, August 9, involved the case of Patrick Daniels, a marijuana user. He had been found guilty under that law when police discovered a handgun, a semi-automatic rifle, and marijuana cigarette butts in his car during a traffic stop in Hancock County, Mississippi, in April 2022. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration didn't conduct a drug test, but Daniels admitted to using marijuana, which goes against federal law.

snip
The court's decision stems from a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that broadened gun rights.

In June 2022, the Supreme Court delivered its verdict in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen.

Read More: https://www.forbes.com/sites/dariosabaghi/2023/08/10/drug-user-cant-be-barred-from-owing-firearms-us-court-rules/?sh=689bb2ef4e7e

[True Blue American]

124. No, wrong thing to do.

Weak case. Hunter never used the gun, never even had bullets. Let the case play out. The Judge already violated an agreement.u7

[Mr.Bill]

129. The problem is

it will be "playing out" right up until election day.

[Fiendish Thingy]

47. Garland doesn't GAF what Mystal thinks and neither do I

But just for integrity and consistency’s sake, I hope you and everyone who rec’d this thread have already contacted the White House and urged Biden to fire Garland, because, if you believe and agree with Mystal (I don’t), it’s clearly the only right thing to do.

[Recycle_Guru]

55. +1 -- if I was on DU4 I'd rec tour comment

[brush]

68. The case was near completion just a few weeks ago with the gun charge agreement...

only to be worked out. The judge raised questions but a resolution for this five-year-long drag out by republicans for a minor tax and a gun charge seemed near to agreement. But now an SC appointment and indictments seem to be extreme overkill to satisfy republicans.

A special counsel status for a trump-appointed investigator? Come on, while Kushner with billions from the Saudis goes about his merry way without a question raised about what he did to get those billions from MBS (maybe a catalog on bone saws)?

Such a poor, republican-appeasing AG.

[Fiendish Thingy]

73. Have you called the WH to demand Garland be fired?

If you truly believe he is such a poor AG (I don’t), that would be the only action in sync with your beliefs.

Clearly, you don’t understand the rationale or triggering events for appointing a Special Counsel.

Kushner doesn’t require an SC because he is no longer a member/relative of a sitting administration, and he’s not running for office.

DOJ could be investigating him, and we wouldn’t know. I hope at the very least intelligence agencies are monitoring his financial activities.

[brush]

79. Ridiculous. Hunter Biden has never been a part of the Biden admin. Who doesn't understand?

Last edited Thu Sep 14, 2023, 07:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Why mention Kushner no longer being a part of a sitting admin, and adding "relative" to include Hunter Biden,as if that means anything? Joe Biden is not being charged. That case has dragged on for five years, now suddenly a special counsel is required, a trump-appointed one at that who requested SC status for himself? He has now charged Hunter Biden with 3 repetitious, felony charges that have rarely ever been bought.

I sense an agenda.

You clearly don't understand republican appeasement and what can result when you see it.

And as far as calling the WH, again, don't be ridiculous. This is a discussion board where we express out views. Have you called Garland to express your support?

And see post 77.

[Mr.Bill]

77. Garland is trying hard to not look political.

And yet what he's done with Hunter Biden is the most political thing I've seen him do.

[brush]

80. Absolutely, and entirely unnecessary.

[happy feet]

132. Bingo!

[Beastly Boy]

135. He appointed a special counsel, as per Code of Federal Regulation and his job description.

If this is the most political thing Garland has ever done, you must admit: he is not much of a political hack.

[Mr.Bill]

136. How many times has a Special Counsel

been appointed to investigate a firearms application?

He did it for one reason. To try and not look political, and it backfired.

And for the record, the use of the term "political hack" were your words, not mine.

[Beastly Boy]

137. How many firearm related suspects had been related to the currently serving POTUS?

Let me quote 28 CFR § 600.1 - Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel:

§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and—

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

Ti argue that Garland was driven entirely or mostly by politics, you will need to show how this criminal investigation is not warranted AND how it does not present a conflict of interests for DOJ to investigate the son of the currently serving President. If you can't, garland's decision is entirely legitimate and fully warranted, regardless of politics.

I am still not clear in which ways appointing a special counsel backfired in this case, and I must note that I used the term "political hack" in a specific context. As in "not much of a political hack".

[Mr.Bill]

138. So the president's family gets different treatment than everyone else?

Just wow. Just fucking wow. I'm done here.

[Beastly Boy]

139. You didn't read 28 CFR § 600.1, did you?

It is not the President's family that gets the different treatment under the law, it is the AG who gets a different treatment under the law.

It is the AG who is compelled by law to lay off a case and appoint a special counsel when it comes to the conflict of interests between his responsibility to act for the benefit of the Presidency and his responsibility to investigate the acting President's son.

But I get a feeling that this little fact will do nothing to fucking wow you.

[Mr.Bill]

140. Yes, I did.

And I'm still done here.

[Beastly Boy]

142. So what keeps you from acknowledging what it actually says?

[Mr.Bill]

143. It leaves a lot of determination and discression up to the AG.

And you have a nice day.

[Beastly Boy]

147. It does not. The AG only determines what charges the Grand Jury is to consider.

The decisions belong entirely to the members of the Grand Jury.

But you have a nice day too.

[uponit7771]

146. This is textbook political hackery and uncalled for procedures

[uponit7771]

145. THIS !!!! ☝🏾☝🏾☝🏾

[Cha]

103. Mahalo, Fiendish Thingy.. Excellent Suggestion!

[ancianita]

104. DITTO.

[True Blue American]

130. I do not agree with Mystal!

Went on Google and read several of his columns. They are full of petty complaints.! The few times I have watched him he seemed more about him than the President, tuned him out!

[MyNameIsJonas]

65. Elie Mystal is a clown.

He was the one who ripped Garland for appointing Jack Smith and he looked like a damn fool for it.

But hey, he does a good job looking the part of a clown to boot.

[Mr.Bill]

84. His act would not play well anywhere

but on TV. He is entertaining, but I've never taken him seriously.

[MyNameIsJonas]

91. Agreed. It's legal popcorn.

[Raine]

119. Totally agree. nt

[Beastly Boy]

78. What is so rightful about throwing juvenile insults around that have no regard for the law?

[ancianita]

102. Exactly.

[Sky Jewels]

81. In my opinion,

the Democratic Party has GOT to stop fighting with one arm tied voluntarily behind its back.

[Mad_Machine76]

120. Meaning what

Exactly?

[PortTack]

90. Dare I say....Hunter B's attorney is arguing that this law is unconstitutional, other as well

If that turns out to be the case, and charges are dropped. All the better.

Is it a f..king shame it came to this ABSOLUTELY!

[uponit7771]

148. YEP !!

[PatrickforB]

111. I have not been impressed with Garland. I believe, from what I have seen,

that he bends way too far backwards to keep from appearing political and it plays into the hands of the GOP - they have no ethics, absolutely none. We do. But Garland has done nothing that I have been able to ascertain in bringing well-deserved charges against Don Jr., Eric, Jared Kushner or Ivanka. These grifters committed massive crimes against this republic, likely sold secrets to our enemies and made millions. Where are the charges against them? Where are the special prosecutors to investigate their crimes.

Yet this man Garland, who is supposedly SO neutral, SO apolitical, seems to be playing politics.

I am not impressed with Garland because I believe he is spineless. The appointment of Jack Smith aside, he hasn't done all that much to serve real justice.

Honestly, I believe that far too much partisan corruption still exists in federal law enforcement.

[jaxexpat]

126. Agree with everything you say.

The partisan corruption extends, I believe, from the city/county cop on the beat to the disingenuous political calculations made by federal prosecutors. How else could it be when the USSC is the highest and last deciding body, a body composed of political appointees confirmed by politicians.

Complexities in our system, those hurdles and grandstands which ensure the value of a "good" attorney's summer home, spring from this rich field of contradictive motivation. It is "the envy of the world", our judicial system.

When I was farming, I had a certain area in a particular field which produced the highest yields of any acreage we had. The corn plants grew ridiculously high, the leaves and ears incomparably long and thick. However, if a late summer thunderstorm blew just right, the weight of the corn ears and the height of the foliage would cause the plants to lean and remain leaning and broken or bent through harvest. Though the yield per acre on this area remained extraordinary the fact was that about half the corn was laid flat on the ground, unharvested because it had grown too high for the stalks to support the stress.

Let the beating and eye gouging begin!

[uponit7771]

149. "...seems to be playing politics..." and is horrible at it, Garlands defenders miss this very point

[Beastly Boy]

159. Most of Garland's defenders don't play guessing games.

So yes, speaking for myself, I see no point in responding to this very point yet again.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

112. Maybe

President Biden can call up Billy Barr, and/or that toilet inventor, see about appointing an unbiased, unpolitical, honest AG like one of them.

[hadEnuf]

113. Garland seems to have to be pushed into doing things.

Appointing Jack Smith to actually do something is his biggest accomplishment.

[bigtree]

115. Eli Mystal would chew the legs right off of the Democratic party to promote himself

...celebrating his provably ignorant bullshit here is foolhardy.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

134. +1

[BWdem4life]

121. It's a moot point.

We're stuck with Garland, for better or worse. (Some ppl are more ok with that than others, but so what?)

[Mr. Sparkle]

125. I have said it for years that the right wing lives rent free in his head

He should have been sacked long ago.

[muriel_volestrangler]

133. Seems worth noting that the crimes of Hunter have solid evidence

Evasion of taxes, and getting a gun when a drug addict (which many also think is a good law, and constitutional - those who don't tend towards the right wing nut job end of the spectrum). The federal crimes of Dumb and Dumber are not so definite - they have not appeared to have been leading parts of the conspiracy to overthrow the election (perhaps because, being Dumb and Dumber, no one trusted them, like the Russians didn't trust them to directly handle their anti-Clinton stuff in 2016). Perhaps Kushner and Ivanka did a deal with the Saudis while they were still serving in the government, but, being a bit cleverer, seem to have hidden direct evidence of it.

[Celerity]

156. Elie Mystal