Unless you have an in with the Presidential Personnel Office, Office of Personnel Management, (Reply #81)

In the discussion thread: Rachel is really slamming the DOJ under Merrick Garland, everything from not doing anything [View all]

Response to OnDoutside (Reply #79)

Wed Jun 9, 2021, 06:58 AM

StarfishSaver (18,486 posts)

81. Unless you have an in with the Presidential Personnel Office, Office of Personnel Management,

DOJ White House Liaisons, Inspector General, each US Attorney's office and myriad other offices in DOJ, you have absolutely no idea WHAT they have done or are doing to clean house over the past three months.

But if you want to feel miserable, angry and frustrated assuming that unless you've seen what's happening inside that massive agency, nothing's happening there - or even worse, imagining that they're up to all kinds cover-ups and evil-doing because they haven't given a blow-by-blow account of every internal decision they've made in the last 90 days, that's on you.

I just don't understand why anyone would want to torture themselves that way.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

114 replies	Author	Time	Post
Rachel is really slamming the DOJ under Merrick Garland, everything from not doing anything [View all]	JohnSJ	Jun 2021	OP
I am glad someone is calling out this bullshit.	NewHendoLib	Jun 2021	#1
+100	Sneederbunk	Jun 2021	#3
I love her to death, but neither Rachel nor anyone else criticizing DOJ for not "cleaning up" DOJ	StarfishSaver	Jun 2021	#2
That may be	MerryHolidays	Jun 2021	#4
Same here	SheltieLover	Jun 2021	#7
If I am to believe Rachel...	sheshe2	Jun 2021	#15
This	StarfishSaver	Jun 2021	#19
This is what has been keeping me sane	SheltieLover	Jun 2021	#24
I don't even watch tv, She, as I have no stomach for bs	SheltieLover	Jun 2021	#41
I know that, SL.	sheshe2	Jun 2021	#45
I want to agree completely, as it would make me feel good.	SleeplessinSoCal	Jun 2021	#76
Pres Biden promised to be hands off with the DOJ, so	ecstatic	Jun 2021	#89
Well.	sheshe2	Jun 2021	#105
We both have the highest regard for Joe and Barack.	MerryHolidays	Jun 2021	#104
Ditto.	KPN	Jun 2021	#67
The argument by the judge against trump in the Carroll case was that trump was not using his office	JohnSJ	Jun 2021	#10
True, but	H2O Man	Jun 2021	#12
Nailed it.	sheshe2	Jun 2021	#23
I thought that you	H2O Man	Jun 2021	#31
No grasp?	cilla4progress	Jun 2021	#65
Seems to me like Garland made a wrong decision on this one.	Bluepinky	Jun 2021	#70
Not just this one; it's an ominous pattern reminisent of Chamberlain's concessions to Hitler.	triron	Jun 2021	#93
Stop with the FUD.	DiamondShark	Jun 2021	#112
that's what i'm thinking--in the name of bi-partisanship he's over fucking correcting. ugh!	orleans	Jun 2021	#74
Reminds me of Chamberlain's concessions to Hitler.	triron	Jun 2021	#98
For every court battle, remember one thing...	DiamondShark	Jun 2021	#111
You are right.	H2O Man	Jun 2021	#96
Yeah, Rachel isn't infallible.. she knows	Cha	Jun 2021	#43
My thought of what may be going on.....	TheRealNorth	Jun 2021	#44
You are dead on	StarfishSaver	Jun 2021	#49
Based on what IS visible though, they're cleaning nothing. You can put to one side anything that	OnDoutside	Jun 2021	#79
Unless you have an in with the Presidential Personnel Office, Office of Personnel Management,	StarfishSaver	Jun 2021	#81
I said "Based on what is visible" and by that metric it's pretty shit.	OnDoutside	Jun 2021	#85
It's not a matter of me being "content"	StarfishSaver	Jun 2021	#86
It actually is, and on the visible evidence of this thread, you appear overly defensive on the	OnDoutside	Jun 2021	#101
Almost seems like you are bending over backward trying to whitewash what is quite visible. Sorry.	triron	Jun 2021	#94
Not at all. I'm bending over backward trying to explain a complicated area of the law to people who	StarfishSaver	Jun 2021	#95
And you do?? Lol!	USALiberal	Jun 2021	#87
No, I don't nor do I claim otherwise	StarfishSaver	Jun 2021	#88
Perhaps the DOJ could improve their messaging then? nt	PufPuf23	Jun 2021	#102
Perhaps	StarfishSaver	Jun 2021	#103
How does she know what's really going on inside the department?	Ocelot II	Jun 2021	#5
She doesn't	leftieNanner	Jun 2021	#13
Thanks	elleng	Jun 2021	#20
They've publicly announced they're going to fight the E Jean Carroll case, are you ignoring that ?	OnDoutside	Jun 2021	#80
K and R	Ferrets are Cool	Jun 2021	#6
Early on, I liked her.	sheshe2	Jun 2021	#8
+1. Used to love MSNBC and Maddow, but switched to something else.	Hoyt	Jun 2021	#16
I don't know sheshe, but whether they are doing something behind the scenes or not, by the	JohnSJ	Jun 2021	#21
Ranting for ratings...great line. Love her or hate her, ya know this is going on	PortTack	Jun 2021	#77
She did the same thing during Obama's first two years	ChrisF1961	Jun 2021	#82
I'm with her - every public action and lack of action since Garland took the helm	RainCaster	Jun 2021	#9
SheShe2 has a good point, Garland is supposed to get all that done in less than 3 months? We're not	uponit7771	Jun 2021	#11
True, however	H2O Man	Jun 2021	#14
That made me laugh out loud.	Hoyt	Jun 2021	#18
The demand for	H2O Man	Jun 2021	#22
+1	uponit7771	Jun 2021	#27
Lol!	StarfishSaver	Jun 2021	#30
This	sheshe2	Jun 2021	#32
StarfishSaver is a DU Treasure!	H2O Man	Jun 2021	#35
Thanks, friend	StarfishSaver	Jun 2021	#38
Great quote, but it was from Jim Palmer, not me	StarfishSaver	Jun 2021	#37
Thanks for that. Reminds me why I have her on ignore.	Crunchy Frog	Jun 2021	#46
Rachel Maddow is neither immature nor uninformed on political issues.	Dark n Stormy Knight	Jun 2021	#99
?	H2O Man	Jun 2021	#114
She has the right to her opinion...	brooklynite	Jun 2021	#17
Yes there was opinion, but there was also observations of actions, or lack of actions being done by	JohnSJ	Jun 2021	#26
Her assumption that all actions must be observed and if she can't see them nothing's happening	StarfishSaver	Jun 2021	#33
True, but the argument can also be made if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it is	JohnSJ	Jun 2021	#39
Gotta keep the ol' powder dry, people!	Hugh_Lebowski	Jun 2021	#25
Yes, we DO know the drill	StarfishSaver	Jun 2021	#29
I'm not a legal expert as you seem to be but it is evident to me that Garland...	jcgoldie	Jun 2021	#36
It may not be a popular political call, but it is a sound legal one	StarfishSaver	Jun 2021	#40
sure except that the argument is in defense of Donald Trump defaming a person he raped.	jcgoldie	Jun 2021	#42
The argument is NOT in defense of Trump defaming anyone	StarfishSaver	Jun 2021	#47
Was Donald Trump acting in his role as President when he defamed the woman he raped?	jcgoldie	Jun 2021	#50
It's very different	StarfishSaver	Jun 2021	#51
Of course he wasn't acting in an official capacity	jcgoldie	Jun 2021	#54
Because they need the court to rule on it	StarfishSaver	Jun 2021	#56
The purpose may be to get a court ruling....	TheRealNorth	Jun 2021	#48
Actually it isn't. It's an argument that the president was acting	Ocelot II	Jun 2021	#55
thanks for the explanation... and based on that the question I have remains	jcgoldie	Jun 2021	#60
They didn't "take up the case"	StarfishSaver	Jun 2021	#84
Garland has been awful so far	budkin	Jun 2021	#28
The argument is that he isn't defending trump, but the executive branch to say what he wants without	JohnSJ	Jun 2021	#34
My god, he has been there for less than 100 days	bottomofthehill	Jun 2021	#72
It almost seems like Garland has been threatened by Trump or Repubs to not stir the pot.	Bluepinky	Jun 2021	#73
It's not right, and it's not ok	budkin	Jun 2021	#75
You are stating that Garland is being blackmailed?	sheshe2	Jun 2021	#107
Thanks for pointing this out.	triron	Jun 2021	#110
Nothing in his background gave me high hopes. One of the few disappointments Biden chose.	LizBeth	Jun 2021	#92
Turns out GaRland is a HUGE deception (if he doesn't start doing his job soon).	Justice matters.	Jun 2021	#52
Who are you giving this instruction to?	StarfishSaver	Jun 2021	#57
I'm giving my personal opinion on a forum.	Justice matters.	Jun 2021	#58
I see	StarfishSaver	Jun 2021	#63
Ok. I have not been elected President of the United States.	Justice matters.	Jun 2021	#64
You think if he hasn't "cleaned up the house of the dRumpf left overs" in 90 days	StarfishSaver	Jun 2021	#66
Yes. Find another "Doctor" who is able to do the job completely.	Justice matters.	Jun 2021	#68
What's with the random dollar signs and capital Rs?	StarfishSaver	Jun 2021	#69
This message was self-deleted by its author	vapor2	Jun 2021	#53
what can the DOJ do about the voter suppression laws	jg10003	Jun 2021	#59
I think the criticism is that they could have interjected themselves somehow in the Arizona circus	jcgoldie	Jun 2021	#61
The canceR is spReading fast.	Justice matters.	Jun 2021	#62
Pressure from the media to take real action to secure democracy is a good thing. Pressure from the	KPN	Jun 2021	#71
Here's the video for those who missed it:	Rhiannon12866	Jun 2021	#78
Thanks	JohnSJ	Jun 2021	#83
100% Agree. There must be a few Trump left overs from Trump's DOJ.	UCmeNdc	Jun 2021	#90
That's why I watch these people only during Republican Presidencies	treestar	Jun 2021	#91
Meh.	Elessar Zappa	Jun 2021	#97
Go Rachel	budkin	Jun 2021	#100
She is asking tonite whether Garland's DOJ will have the guts to open an investigation into Trump.	triron	Jun 2021	#106
knr	triron	Jun 2021	#108
Kick	burrowowl	Jun 2021	#109
knr	triron	Jun 2021	#113

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.