Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Fiendish Thingy

(15,946 posts)
94. The OP never mentioned anything about "The Democratic Party's DOJ"
Sat Mar 23, 2024, 11:17 AM
Mar 2024

From your original post (false statements in bold)allegedly quoting the OP and Biden:

"...and then complaining because your own party's DOJ didn't do the exact same?"

The Democratic party doesn't have a DOJ.


Actual quote form the OP:

and then complaining because your own party's president's DOJ didn't do the exact same?


Big difference including one the additional possessive noun. Just as every department in the Executive Branch is “Biden’s”, so is the DOJ, even if Biden is taking the traditional hands off, no meddling or micro managing approach.

So, it was you who responded with a false premise.

As President Biden has said multiple times, and has proven even more times, the DOJ under this Democratic administration is run independently from the Executive branch and under the sole administration of Federalist Society connected Merrick garland.


Biden never said those words in bold- he did assert that DOJ would operate independently from the White House, which is part of, but not the same as, the entire executive branch. DOJ cannot be removed from the Executive Branch.

Biden also never referred to Garland as being associated with the Federalist society. Garland’s association was limited to participating in some legal discussion panels sponsored by the society, whose participants also included the former chair of the Democratic Party of Illinois, former Deputy AG under Bill Clinton, one of Biden’s current undersecretaries of Homeland Security, and of course, many conservative legal figures.

https://fedsoc.org/contributors/merrick-garland

From that page:

A person listed as a contributor has spoken or otherwise participated in Federalist Society events, publications, or multimedia presentations. A person's appearance on this list does not imply any other endorsement or relationship between the person and the Federalist Society. In most cases, the biographical information on a person's "contributor" page is provided directly by the person, and the Federalist Society does not edit or otherwise endorse that information. The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues. All expressions of opinion by a contributor are those of the contributor.


…and another myth bites the dust.
Unfortunately, this OP starts off with a false premise when it says... Think. Again. Mar 2024 #1
lol bigtree Mar 2024 #4
Perhaps I missed some nuance, but it is exactly what you said... Think. Again. Mar 2024 #8
not arguing your parsing bigtree Mar 2024 #9
Don't think that was the intention. cachukis Mar 2024 #6
This is one valid point - eom FHRRK Mar 2024 #25
Good call. Goodheart Mar 2024 #30
You are the one spreading falsehoods Fiendish Thingy Mar 2024 #42
Say wut?... Think. Again. Mar 2024 #72
The OP never mentioned anything about "The Democratic Party's DOJ" Fiendish Thingy Mar 2024 #94
to be fair to the poster bigtree Mar 2024 #95
If we cannot exist within a shared reality, how can we hope to defeat fascism? Fiendish Thingy Mar 2024 #96
Wow, you're really bad at this. Think. Again. Mar 2024 #97
Substance free reply. Fiendish Thingy Mar 2024 #99
regardless of when the DOJ pursued Trump, agingdem Mar 2024 #2
I'd like to believe this Nasruddin Mar 2024 #40
Trump knows he going to lose the election.. agingdem Mar 2024 #66
YES, I agree MorbidButterflyTat Mar 2024 #116
Celebrity lawyers are paid to fill a role and support an agenda. TwilightZone Mar 2024 #3
Pretty awesome accounting. cachukis Mar 2024 #5
There's not politicizing the DoJ, and then there's being so afraid of the appearance of being political... Silent3 Mar 2024 #7
I think the NYT article's mind reading is as bogus as a carnival medium bigtree Mar 2024 #10
"Salacious editorializing" is not a minor thing Silent3 Mar 2024 #14
funny that the exoneration isn't your talking point bigtree Mar 2024 #19
Now there's an intellectually dishonest debate tactic! Silent3 Mar 2024 #26
I'll make it simple bigtree Mar 2024 #32
I'm talking about my opinion of Garland and the DoJ Silent3 Mar 2024 #70
you've posted nothing to back that up bigtree Mar 2024 #75
No, my opinion is only contradicted by your opinion Silent3 Mar 2024 #76
I actually posted facts that you didn't address at all bigtree Mar 2024 #81
I've seen many lists before of all the things the DoJ has supposedly done... Silent3 Mar 2024 #119
"Taking the win and moving on"? Takket Mar 2024 #24
they spent ONE day on that and moved on. bigtree Mar 2024 #34
Milquetoast Merrick needs to go. Sky Jewels Mar 2024 #80
I can think of some other folks who are also pining for him to leave bigtree Mar 2024 #82
Yep MorbidButterflyTat Mar 2024 #118
Let's be clear, Hur testified he "did not exonerate" the president. sop Mar 2024 #79
the fuck bigtree Mar 2024 #83
You keep on using the term "exoneration," yet Hur specifically testified he did not exonerate Biden. sop Mar 2024 #88
you're using Hur's language to make that point bigtree Mar 2024 #89
Let's cut through all the pointless semantics: sop Mar 2024 #90
but we're not the media bigtree Mar 2024 #91
Thank you. dchill Mar 2024 #11
We have all been part of the show. cachukis Mar 2024 #12
Man, I have reread this twice. cachukis Mar 2024 #16
Posting on the earlier article I said the cheer leaders would be staying up republianmushroom Mar 2024 #13
I stopped responding to edhopper Mar 2024 #17
Thankfully their numbers are now small. Celerity Mar 2024 #22
But vocal edhopper Mar 2024 #29
Well, that is unfortunately usually a given here. Celerity Mar 2024 #33
you have a lot of nerve talking about me like that bigtree Mar 2024 #23
I have the nauseating feeling that we are all... dchill Mar 2024 #15
I don't know what this post is trying to prove... appmanga Mar 2024 #18
I rest my case. cachukis Mar 2024 #20
so you read nothing bigtree Mar 2024 #21
You clearly did not read the NYT article Fiendish Thingy Mar 2024 #45
Fucking "Rule of Law" thing pisses me off OAITW r.2.0 Mar 2024 #27
Can you fit any more strawmen into one post? Goodheart Mar 2024 #28
Thank you. ancianita Mar 2024 #31
I can't be the only one that thinks the slower the better. rubbersole Mar 2024 #35
Still at it writing tomes defending Garland, huh? brush Mar 2024 #36
As I've said... the proof is in the pudding, and here's the pudding Goodheart Mar 2024 #37
You are exactly right. Garland has been a poor AG. The OP poster keeps posting the same crap... brush Mar 2024 #39
Family member? Goodheart Mar 2024 #41
Really? brush Mar 2024 #43
I have no idea. Wouldn't surprise me because of the over-the-top defensiveness. Goodheart Mar 2024 #44
Your timeline is incomplete Fiendish Thingy Mar 2024 #50
If you think his job was to win the election, you're making the same mistake Trump made about his DOJ bigtree Mar 2024 #46
Win the election? No. His job was to prosecute the orange toad and his cabal who lead... brush Mar 2024 #49
he is prosecuting him bigtree Mar 2024 #55
Keep on your crusade. He's still been a poor AG. brush Mar 2024 #56
you listen here bigtree Mar 2024 #59
Ok, ok, ok. I give up. Have at it. brush Mar 2024 #61
I don't need your permission bigtree Mar 2024 #63
Ok. Ok. You're taking this too seriously. brush Mar 2024 #64
there's always someone jumping on my threads to tell me all about myself bigtree Mar 2024 #65
It's just a discussion board. Not that big a deal. brush Mar 2024 #67
baiting and bullying on these pages is a big deal bigtree Mar 2024 #68
AGAIN with the strawmen? Goodheart Mar 2024 #51
As bad as the NYT article is, it still destroys nearly all of the myths about Garland Fiendish Thingy Mar 2024 #38
Yet we're 3 years+ since J6 and trump has yet to be tried. brush Mar 2024 #47
Your impatience does not mean a ball was dropped Fiendish Thingy Mar 2024 #53
3 year plus is not impatience. Blind to reality is unfortunate though. He's been a poor AG. brush Mar 2024 #54
Garland has not been working on the Trump prosecution for 3 years bigtree Mar 2024 #57
No more pls. Keep tilting at windmills. brush Mar 2024 #58
jesus bigtree Mar 2024 #62
there's that bigtree Mar 2024 #48
+1. and thanks. you are not the only person I have read today stopdiggin Mar 2024 #60
Perfect example of a straw man: "Garland did nothing to investigate Trump until Smith was appointed" Silent3 Mar 2024 #71
talk about a straw man bigtree Mar 2024 #86
I don't think you understand what a "straw man" argument is Silent3 Mar 2024 #107
unless 'core questions' come with more than angst over time passed bigtree Mar 2024 #111
"and with actual receipts to back all of that up" Silent3 Mar 2024 #117
you're making a simple argument bigtree Mar 2024 #120
the thread is packed full of responses to your fallacy bigtree Mar 2024 #121
That is/was a common complaint amongst Garland bashers Fiendish Thingy Mar 2024 #92
it was really galling to hear the committee members like Schiff to complain about delays bigtree Mar 2024 #93
Thank you. I need to read this again, twice. Joinfortmill Mar 2024 #52
Anonymous internet poster says renowned Constitutional scholar Lawrence Tribe is full of shit. All righty then. jalan48 Mar 2024 #69
this discussion board isn't a clearance house for Tribe and Weissmann bigtree Mar 2024 #77
I'm reminded of that famous Apollo 13 quote, "Success IS an OPTION" lostnfound Mar 2024 #73
If the lives of billions of people depended on getting to the moon in a hurry... Silent3 Mar 2024 #78
I 100% agree. And in the case of Apollo 13, rushing rocket science is exactly what they had to do lostnfound Mar 2024 #122
IOW NanaCat Mar 2024 #74
Let's be clear. Garland failed us. Sky Jewels Mar 2024 #84
I believe Tribe and Weissman have valid points. ms liberty Mar 2024 #85
since you've been here a while, you should know about hit and run posting bigtree Mar 2024 #87
bigtree, you must be getting lonely, being a diehard Garland supporter. Paladin Mar 2024 #98
His OP has 36 recs at last count. Moosepoop Mar 2024 #100
Actually, if you look at the number of recs divided by the number of views, the quotient is remarkably low. Earth-shine Mar 2024 #103
Recs divided by views means exactly what? Moosepoop Mar 2024 #105
I assume that "number of views" represents people on "both sides" of this argument. Earth-shine Mar 2024 #106
Of course the views are from "both sides." Moosepoop Mar 2024 #108
Frankly, that's a load of Moosepoop. People can do the math for themselves. Earth-shine Mar 2024 #110
Yes, they can. Moosepoop Mar 2024 #113
Exactly. The number of recs doesn't go up at all, does it? Earth-shine Mar 2024 #115
Duplicate post n/t Moosepoop Mar 2024 #114
Bingo! nt Quixote1818 Mar 2024 #112
most of us have come to grips with the fact that the AG hasn't been investigating or prosecuting Trump and Co. bigtree Mar 2024 #104
This is becoming sad. Scrivener7 Mar 2024 #101
have some tea and a cookie bigtree Mar 2024 #102
Yes, it really is. n/t demmiblue Mar 2024 #109
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Let's be clear. Tribe and...»Reply #94