Below is my column in the Hill on the campaign to sack Attorney General Merrick Garland over his failure to prosecute former President Donald Trump. Political strategist Cheri Jacobus posted on Twitter that “It’s time for a group of respected, experienced, influential legal eagles to sign a letter to President Biden demanding the firing of Merrick Garland. It has to happen, and this can give Biden some political cover. The status quo cannot stand.”
It is Garland’s Luca Brasi moment delivered by some of the same figures on the left who pushed to Pack the Court.
Here is the column:
Attorney General Merrick Garland just got his fish in the mail. In the mob, there is no clearer message that your days are numbered than a newspaper-wrapped fish left at your doorstep. The message left for Garland in various newspapers this week was equally clear: Either prosecute Trump or sleep with the fishes.
Garland may be legitimately confused. Just last year, commentators like the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin celebrated the confirmation of Garland for his pledge “to keep the department free of political interference.” Now, many of these same figures, including Rubin, are declaring Garland unfit for office and calling for him to be canned.
On CNN Sunday, Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) declared that “Merrick Garland is failing the United States of America” by failing to prosecute Trump. Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.) on Monday evening told Garland to just “do your job” and get on with prosecutions of Trump associates. Luria emphasized “The Department of Justice … needs to move swiftly.”
It appears time — not ethics — is the priority.
As one columnist declared, Democrats are “nearly out of time” before the midterm elections and the possible loss of Congress.
Perhaps the clearest signal came from his boss, President Joe Biden. This week, The New York Times ran a leaked account of how Biden was telling people that he wants Trump prosecuted. The Times reported the president wants “Mr. Garland to act less like a ponderous judge and more like a prosecutor who is willing to take decisive action over the events of Jan. 6.”
Many of these figures, including President Biden, spent four years criticizing Trump for threatening and pressuring his attorneys general, from Jeff Sessions to Bill Barr. I joined in that criticism. To their credit, Sessions and Barr stood firmly against such pressure and protected the independence of the Department.
Of course, by leaking Biden’s comments, Biden did not have to say it to Garland directly; instead, the media delivered the message to Garland: Get moving or get out.
Ironically, some of us have criticized Garland for his inexplicable refusal to appoint a special counsel in the Hunter Biden scandal and his responsiveness to prior White House demands. However, that is not enough for his critics: Trump remains the only measure of his devotion.
It is a familiar pattern. When the Supreme Court failed to rule in the way some liberals demanded, their response was to call for packing a new Court with an instant liberal majority. When Garland was seen as hesitating to prosecute Trump, the response was to replace him with a new attorney general.
As with the “Pack the Court” campaign, there is now a “Sack the AG” campaign. Indeed, activists and others are calling on the same legal experts to offer cover for this unethical effort.
Former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann put it plainly: “Where is the president who will fire this wooden statue we call Merrick Garland? … We need somebody in your chair who realizes that democracy could be dead a year from right now. We want that to be you. But if it isn’t, the rest of us don’t have any more time to wait, or to waste.”
Rubin wrote to remind Biden that he “can replace” Garland for lacking “the necessary qualities to conduct the sort of investigation our fragile democracy requires.” While Rubin just last year heralded Garland as “the right pick” for attorney general, she now denounces the former judge as the “wrong man for the job” because he will not yield to the pressure to prosecute Trump and others.
The logic becomes perfectly Orwellian: Rubin condemns Garland for being unable to “absorb political attacks” from the right — as she and others demand that he yield to attacks from the left. His refusal means Garland “is not up to the challenge before him.”
With Garland, critics cannot argue that he is a Trumper or a stooge — so they have labeled him a wimp or, according to President Biden, just too “ponderous.” Of course, other Democrats have failed this test. Two years ago, D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine seemed to be on every network proclaiming that he was pursuing possible charges against Trump over Jan. 6. No charges were brought. When the ultra-liberal Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg indicated that he was not yet comfortable with the push to prosecute Trump on state offenses, an MSNBC legal analyst declared that he and Garland have “some explaining to do.”
Recently, these critics declared that a district court judge in California supplied the missing link needed to arrest Trump. In a ruling for the disclosure of attorney-client material to Congress related to the Jan. 6 riot, Judge David O. Carter found that “the illegality of the plan was obvious” in opposing the certification of the election. Rubin declared that Garland “will have a hard time ignoring” that ruling, while others said the opinion was “more than enough” for Garland to move against Trump. It is the liberal version of releasing the Kraken.
That opinion offers more rhetorical than legal support for a prosecution, however. The case involves advice given to Trump by lawyer John Eastman, who argued that former Vice President Mike Pence could refuse to certify the election. Many of us disagreed with Eastman’s interpretation as well as the underlying claim that the election was stolen.
However, Judge Carter effectively declares the view to be so wrong as to be criminally culpable. He simply brushes aside the fact that Eastman and Trump might have believed in their factual and legal position by stating that “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” The court is not simply saying that they are wrong in that view but, because they are wrong, legislative challenges amounted to criminal obstruction of Congress.
In the Post column, Rubin reminds readers “this is a federal court, not a pundit or politician.” Yet, at points in the ruling, it was hard to tell the difference. Judge Carter seemed intent on rendering judgment on what he described as a “coup” rather than a riot: “Dr. Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election … Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower — it was a coup in search of a legal theory.”
While I agree with many aspects of Judge Carter’s decision, there is no clear limiting principle of when a legal opinion becomes a criminal conspiracy beyond the court’s predisposition of the meaning of these facts.
The question is whether Garland will now yield to the pressure that his predecessors resisted from another president. Both Sessions and Barr were effectively sacked for standing on principle rather than politics. Just as the “Pack the Court” campaign failed to intimidate the justices, the “Sack the AG” campaign is unlikely to intimidate Garland. Hopefully, like his predecessors, he knows that there are far worse things than losing a job.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
Note: The original column referred to Rep. Luria criticizing Garland for not prosecuting Trump. It was changed to reflect that she was criticizing him for failing to prosecute Trump associates. She has said a criminal referral to charge Trump himself from the Jan. 6th Select Committee (on which she sits) may be coming.
Just In:
Zero guilty verdicts in the Whitmer ‘kidnapping’ case contrived, funded and nurtured by the FBI.
Also a 1/6 defendant acquitted. Perhaps the video of police holding doors open and waving people into the building put a dent in the ‘trespassing’ argument.
It used to be that members of a jury assumed an FBI witness was anointed with honesty and decency and was to be trusted more than other witnesses.
Now they seem to think the FBI is no better than any other lying mafia gangster. Jurors are noticing.
Actually, the mafia is beginning to look a little bit morally superior to the feds these days.
AG Garland scarcely seems better. Democrats seem to want him out because he isn’t marginally corrupt enough to satisfy all their needs. But then he may be in cya mode wondering what might come next after the election.
Most Democrats don’t want Garland out.
If Biden wanted Garland out, he’d fire him.
Biden probably doesn’t know who Garland is at this point.
And I didn’t say ‘most’ Democrats.
You said “Democrats seem to want him out,” and Biden knows who Garland is.
There most be a logical difference between ‘Democrats’ and “most Democrats” or you wouldn’t have changed what I said to something that is easier to refute.
You must have failed logic. If the claim isn’t true for the subset (most Democrats), then the claim isn’t true for the entire set (Democrats).
“You [Young] must have failed logic.”
You’re an ankle-biting, prissy fool — who uses “logic” as a club over peoples’ heads.
If I say: “Students want ice cream” — there is nothing in that statement that implies that *all* students* want ice cream. Who that statement applies to depends on the *context* (something you drop when convenient).
The who in Young’s statement is clear from the context — those democrats noted in JT’s article.
And, as per usual, you dishonestly changed the meaning of a person’s statement. Twice, you altered his perfectly clear statement to “most” — motivated by your desire to make a commenter look foolish.
Sell your snake oil elsewhere.
If you’re only talking about a specific group of students, you’d identify them in some way (e.g., “my students want ice cream,” or “Mr. Smith’s students want ice cream”), so as to make clear who you’re talking about. Absent any kind of restriction on the group, the word “Democrats” refers to Democrats as a group.
“The who in Young’s statement is clear from the context — those democrats noted in JT’s article.”
If that’s your interpretation of his meaning, then Young’s claim is STILL false, as several of the Democrats named in the article have not said or implied that they “want [Garland] out.”
In fact, of the Democrats named in the article — Cheri Jacobus, Jennifer Rubin, Joaquin Castro, Elaine Luria, Keith Olbermann, Karl Racine, Alvin Bragg, David Carter, Joe Biden (did I miss anyone?) — less than half have said that they “want [Garland] out,” and Biden could fire Garland if he wanted to.
If you say all students. That’s what it means.
If you say students. It becomes ambiguous. Open to interpretation. But your opinion is just a wrong as the person you disagree with. Or just as correct.
Then we have Clinton’s wife’s statement that said half of Trump supporters you could put in a basket of irredeemable imponderables.
That phraseology allows all Trump supporters to claim they are in the basket. Or to claim they are not. It is just as ambiguous.
Hillary Clinton’s statement wasn’t ambiguous. She said:
“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? [Laughter/applause]. The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric. Now some of those folks, they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.
“But the other basket, the other basket -, and I know because I see friends from all over America here. I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas, as well as you know New York and California. But that other basket of people who are people who feel that government has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they are just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroine, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.”
It’s up to each of Trump’s supporters to decide whether he or she is “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic” or is instead among the “people who feel that government has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they are just desperate for change.”
You seem to think that all Trump supporters would self-identify as being in the first group rather than the second. I don’t think that.
” and Biden could fire Garland if he wanted to.
No he cant. Trump got impeached for firing Comey. It is proof of obstruction of justice.
No, Trump didn’t get impeached for firing Comey or for obstruction of justice.
The actual articles of impeachment, which you should read:
First impeachment: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/755/text
Second impeachment: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/24/text
Anonymous–
Can both statements be true?
“Most Democrats don’t want Garland out.”
“Democrats want Garland out.”
You seem incapable of understanding that both statements can be true.
Also consider that if just two Democrats in the entire set of Democrats, Pelosi and Schumer, want Garland out, that is more significant than if all the rest want to keep him.
Sam makes a good point about your being an “ankle-biter” commenter. Many wonder why you bother.
He gets paid by the keystroke by George Soros’ Act Blue troll farm. That is why he bothers. That, and he is a groomer
#FreeMickey
🤡
If Pelosi and Schumer want Garland out, but no other Democrats feel that way, then Garland remains in office.
“Most Democrats don’t want Garland out” and “Some Democrats want Garland out” can both be true.
Your pal Meyer is the king of ankle biters. He runs around like a little chihuahua, barking his impotent little bark at all the liberal commenters.
“Biden knows who Garland is.”
+++
You aren’t paying attention. At times Biden doesn’t know who his wife is or even who he is. I don’t know what they are going to do about him. His decline is harder to conceal every day. Then, of course, there are the ‘big guy’ problems.
I’m paying attention. Biden knows who Garland is, no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise.
Biden sometimes misspeaks, just like Trump does. If we were to compare the number of verbal gaffes from both of them, I doubt that there would be much difference.
“Biden sometimes misspeaks, just like Trump does. If we were to compare the number of verbal gaffes from both of them, I doubt that there would be much difference.”
This response is the type of response one expects from a Stupid person like Anonymous the Stupid. Does the comment make sense? No. Trump speaks extemporaneously at rallies for 1-2 hours and appears in extended interviews without knowing the questions that are to be asked. Occasionally he misspeaks, but what is often called erroneous by the press is later found true.
On the other hand, Biden replies to questions that have been chiefly vetted and frequently speaks from a written script. The total number of words he uses in a month might not equal the number of words spoken by Trump in one short speech.
We can all see that anonymous the Stupid is unable to compare things. ATS gets confused, tangles things up, twists other things around and lies. He flushed his reputation down the toilet a long time ago. He is a hypocrite who stands for nothing.
You are Meyer the Troll Liar, aka Anonymous the Stupid.
This is the type of response one expects from a species lower down in the animal kingdom. Of course, maybe you are a plant, based on some of your responses.
You apparently didn’t see my response because you didn’t comment on it. Was it because you now recognize how Stupid you sound, or the dog ate my homework. Here it is again for a second try.
—
This response is the type of response one expects from a Stupid person like Anonymous the Stupid. Does the comment make sense? No. Trump speaks extemporaneously at rallies for 1-2 hours and appears in extended interviews without knowing the questions that are to be asked. Occasionally he misspeaks, but what is often called erroneous by the press is later found true.
On the other hand, Biden replies to questions that have been chiefly vetted and frequently speaks from a written script. The total number of words he uses in a month might not equal the number of words spoken by Trump in one short speech.
We can all see that anonymous the Stupid is unable to compare things. ATS gets confused, tangles things up, twists other things around and lies. He flushed his reputation down the toilet a long time ago. He is a hypocrite who stands for nothing.
Whether or not Garland is fired depends on those that hold the puppet strings.
That likely is true. I wonder who holds the puppet strings? Nobody we want, I’m sure.
The President is compromised legally, mentally and morally. That broadens the field. Many people he might listen to are involved in the corruption and would not have any knowledge of how to run the government. They would have to rely on third persons that understand their precarious positions. It would be similar for those close to him. What would Jill know? Then we have many of his appointees that are second-rate at best. Finally, we have Obama, who also has some puppet strings.
What a mess.
Yes, a tragic and dangerous mess and we and the country and the world are caught up in it.
Few people thought things could go to hell so quickly.
And Americans cannot be racist…
On a law blog, one may seek to discover which law requires national self-destruction – only in America – is it mass psychosis desirous of national suicide?
China wants the Shoshone Tribe et al. to destroy America and Americans, what???
Who knew that, while China is full of nothing but Chinese, the U.S. Constitution requires Americans to hate Americans, and give away their nation and national treasure to foreign hyphenates?
Next, they’ll tell us all to leave and ship us to Liberia, what???
Lincoln was legally and criminally wrong; Patton and Joe McCarthy were absolutely right.
How many foreign hyphenates are pursuing conquest in China, Russia, Cuba, North Korea, Japan, Indonesia, East Timor, etc. – that wouldn’t go over well?
What the —- are Americans doing?
____________________________
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
– Barack Hussein Obama
____________________
Oh, he’s much closer than that.
Americans propagandized and indoctrinated to hate Americans and effect national suicide in public school?
Pete Buttgauge says Americans are killing kids? What???
______________________________________________
“Pete Buttigieg Says Prohibiting Classroom Instruction of Sex and Gender Identity in Kindergarten Classes Will ‘Kill Kids'”
– Cristina Laila
____________
“Critical Race Theory, the New Intolerance, and Its Grip on America”
“Critical Race Theory (CRT) makes race the prism through which its proponents analyze all aspects of American life—and do so with a degree of persistence that has helped CRT impact all of American life. CRT underpins identity politics, an ongoing effort to reimagine the United States as a nation riven by groups, each with specific claims on victimization. In entertainment, as well as the education and workforce sectors of society, CRT is well-established, driving decision-making according to skin color—not individual value and talent. As Critical Theory ideas become more familiar to the viewing public in everyday life, CRT’s intolerance becomes ‘normalized,’ along with the idea of systemic racism for Americans, weakening public and private bonds that create trust and allow for civic engagement.”
– Heritage Foundation
AMERICANS ARE THE THREAT IN AMERICA
THE MEXICAN, DRUG/SEX TRAFFIC, TERRORIST ET AL. CROSS-BORDER INVASION INCREASES SAFETY AND PROTECTION FOR AMERICA
What???
“‘Domestic Extremism’ Is Greatest Terror Threat Facing US, Says DHS Secretary Mayorkas”
________________________________________________________________________
“Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Alejandro Mayorkas said Monday the most significant terror threat the United States faces currently is from within the nation’s own borders.”
“Domestic violent extremism is the greatest terrorist-related threat we face on the homeland.
“Mayorkas went on to identify DHS’s creation of the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnership (CP3) as a major step in fighting domestic terrorism, citing more than $77 billion in grant funding given over to ‘address this really great threat.’
– Cammy Pedroja
Let’s get back to the subject at hand. The Democrats screamed to the high heavens when they thought that Trump was trying to influence the Attorney General. Now they seem to think it’s alright for Biden to influence the Attorney General. Barr didn’t cave to the pressure. It will be interesting to see if Garland displays the same integrity. What’s the over and under on Garland caving in. Call your bookie ASAP.
Judge Carter’s idea that misinterpreting the Constitution is a crime opens Pandora’s Box. What would have happened to Thurgood Marshall? He was of course advocating an interpretation which was at that time blatantly contrary to the established interpretation. An awful lot of advocacy organizations would be prosecutable.
Judge Carter didn’t suggest “that misinterpreting the Constitution is a crime.” Read his entire ruling.
It is Anonymous the Stupid who has to reread the ruling and figure out the principle and where the line is drawn. Carter did none of that because he couldn’t, so he made a political ruling which only leads to tit for tat when a new administration comes in. That eventually leads to America’s demise, which Anonymous the Stupid is striving for. (Please take note, I didn’t say that is what ATS wants. He is too Stupid to know where his desired actions lead.)
You are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid, also known as Meyer the Troll Liar.
How about going after Bush torture attorneys instead of Trump? There is 20 years of hard evidence and we could only pursue the top Bush torturers, offering conditional immunity to the CIA, FBI, DHS underlings that followed the legal advice of DOJ torture attorneys. We can also financially compensate all of the Bush war crime victims.
This is a win-win for voters of both parties. It creates a deterrent-effect for future DOJ attorneys of either party. America could repair the damage done by the post-9/11 torturers that violated Ronald Reagan’s Treaty. Let’s trade Trump for Bush.
This may all come to end very quickly
Nancy Pelosi, age 82, has contracted COVID which means she gave it to the current occupant of the White House, age 80. So when/if Biden kicks the bucket, when/if Pelosi kicks the bucket, and Kamala Harris has no staff to carry her humongous experience in managing pressure, who gets to manage our Disunited States?
China…who else?
“Nancy Pelosi, age 82, has contracted COVID”
True. But so far, she’s said “I tested positive for COVID and am asymptomatic. Thank you for your many kind wishes. I am grateful for them and to be vaccinated.”
“which means she gave it to the current occupant of the White House, age 80”
False. It’s *possible*, but so far, Biden has not tested positive.
“Kamala Harris has no staff …”
Also false.
Nancy needs to thank Trump for getting the vaccine created, so that she didn’t die.
Aschcroft, you are just as tedious and small minded as JS.
Stop stealing band width from the good Professor. Because you can, dosen’t make it right, moral, or nutritional.
It’s time for a delicious meal on an airplane flight to Wash DC. Progressive Democrat brains & Cabernet Sauvignon wine…. Early vintage. With crackers & cheese.
Related to Trump’s attempt to prevent Congress from certifying the Electoral College vote for Biden on Jan. 6:
DOJ statement today:
“A leader of the Proud Boys pleaded guilty today to felony charges for his actions before and during the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. His and others’ actions disrupted a joint session of the U.S. Congress convened to ascertain and count the electoral votes related to the presidential election. Charles Donohoe, 34, of Kernersville, North Carolina, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and assaulting, resisting or impeding officers. As part of the plea agreement, Donohoe has agreed to cooperate with the government’s ongoing investigation.”
Donohoe Statement of the Offense:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21580937-220408-donohoe-statement-of-offense
Conspiracy charges are proceeding against others with whom Donohoe conspired: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1481001/download
REGARDING ABOVE:
Total Groomer. Disney likely sent him/her/xim/xer
strong arming pleas is, what? 95% of the DoJ prosecutions?
Those that chose to go to trial would end up better.
The FBI planned and led Kidnapping of Michagan’s Governor, trial, has ended with zero convictions, 2 full acquittals. 13 days of prosecutions evidence and 1 day of defense.
Talking heads on MSNBC are confused as to how this could happen. Since they work in the news division of Comcast, they are not aware that more than half of the crew were FBI agents and paid informants. Facts are tricky things over at MSNBC.
“Those that chose to go to trial would end up better.”
The first person to go to trial for J6 crimes was Guy Reffitt, who was convicted by a jury on all counts.
Some deserve jail and a lot more who are from the left deserve jail as well. However, as demonstrated by the innocent decision we have seen a lot of people arrested and harassed that were innocent. Fascists like ATS don’t understand these things.
CDC: People With Dirt On Clintons Have 843% Greater Risk Of Suicide
https://babylonbee.com/news/cdc-people-dirt-clintons-843-greater-risk-suicide/
AG GARLAND SHOULD ACT INDEPENDENTLY AND NOT LISTEN TO WHAT PRES JOE BIDEN OR ANYONE ELSE HAS TO SAY ABOUT HIS JOB OR HOW HE SHOULF DO HIS JOB
He will be Arkansided. Count on it
List of 71 Clinton Associates Who Died Mysteriously or Committed Suicide Before Testimony ~ August 26, 2019
https://roserambles.org/2019/08/26/list-of-71-clinton-associates-who-died-mysteriously-or-committed-suicide-before-testimony-august-26-2019/
Jonathan: There is so much disinformation in this post it is hard to decide where to begin. So let’s begin with your attempt to rehabilitate the sorry image of your close friend Bill Barr.
You falsely claim “Sessions and Barr stood firmly against such pressure [from Trump] and protected the independence of the Department”. Barr spent 4 years lying for his boss–sanitizing the Mueller report, protecting Trump from Congressional investigations and doing personal favors for Trump’s close allies like Mike Flynn and Roger Stone. The DOJ was Trump’s hand maiden under Barr. It was only at the end did Barr lose favor with Trump by telling his boss there was no credible evidence of “massive fraud” in the election. Barr really had no choice because had he acceded to Trump’s demands he would have faced opened rebellion within his Department. I don’t give Barr credit for doing the right thing. Neither this column nor Barr’s new book and his attempt at rehabilitation will change Barr’s legacy as the one person who single handedly undermined the independence of the DOJ. Your own attempt at Barr’s rehabilitation will also fail.
Then you accuse Pres. Biden and some in the “liberal” media of putting pressure on Garland to prosecute Trump. You call this an “unethical effort”. But with a straight face you and the conservative echo chamber at Fox and elsewhere have demanded Garland appoint a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden. Why the double standard?
Lastly, relating to Judge Carter’s decision in the Eastman case, you bizarrely argue “Eastman and Trump might have believed in their factual and legal position…”. That’s bunk! Neither of those two co-conspirators really believed there was a legal or factual basis to challenge the election. Eastman was told over and over again by WH aides, legal counsel for VP Pence and numerous outside constitutional experts that their plot was a clear violation of the ECA. And Trump also knew. He lost over 60 legal challenges to the election. As Judge Carter relates in his decision the Georgia case revealed Trump knew he had lost that election so he demanded that Raffensperger “find” 11,000 plus votes to change the result. Raffensperger refused. Then when Pence refused to stop the electoral college vote Trump and Eastman realized their only alternative was to unleash the “Kraken” (at Ginni Thomas’ urging) on the Capitol. As Judge Carter rightly points out it was a “coup in search of a theory”. The problem is none of the conspirators could come up with a plausible theory.
I totally disagreed with McConnell not giving Garland a hearing at the end of the Obama administration. But in hindsight, it was the right thing for the wrong reason. Garland caving to the teachers union to have the Justice Department investigate parents who voiced dissenting opinions at school board meetings as ” domestic terrorists” was a vast abuse of power. At least as A.G. he doesn’t have a lifetime appointment. His appearance in front of Congress was almost Muelleresque.
And Jennifer Rubin makes a fool out of herself constantly. She was never a conservative. Like Ana Navarro, at total joke as a ” conservative”. At least Rubin finally owned up to the obvious masquerade.
Like all of the other falsehoods Dementia Joe pledged not to ” politicize”: the Justice Department.
If there is enough evidence to bring charges against Trump that should certainly be done. But not a political stunt in order to try to avert the coming wipeout of the Dems in November.
And the fact that Wapo, NYT and cnn are now giving credence to the validity of Hunter’s laptop, ( conveniently a year and a half too late), leads me to believe a Special Council should be appointed. But I am not holding my breath. When the Republican’s take back the House and possibly the Senate, the Congressional investigations will come. Of course to be called partisan.
Loved the Luca Brasi innuendo.
Paul, can you name a single parent who was investigated by the DOJ for “voicing dissenting opinions”?
Do you understand that some Americans have threatened school board members with violence? Here’s Garland’s actual memo about it: https://www.justice.gov/ag/page/file/1438986/download
What part of Garland’s actual statement do you object to?
You are an idiot. Don’t you recognize what violence is? Let me provide an example. 14, mostly children, dead in Parkland, Florida, because of policies created by leftists. I have never heard one person talk so much while saying so little. You must be Anonymous the Stupid, who roams this blog day and night and mostly puts no effort into his content. When did you become brain dead?
You are not Paul, and I have no interest in your attempt to interject.
I wasn’t looking for a reply from such a brazen liar. I was making a point and apparently it got across.
Just remember whether it is the death of children at Parkland, adults during the riots or Ashli Babbitt, it is your personal philosophy that was in part responsible. I don’t want to talk to you. You add nothing, but what you say should not be permitted to stand. You are a liar and too low to care.
You are the original Anonymous the Stupid, also known as Meyer the Troll Liar.
Just remember whether it is the death of children at Parkland, adults during the riots or Ashli Babbitt, it is your personal philosophy that was in part responsible.
Here, you demonstrate why you’re known as Meyer the Troll Liar. One of your favorite means of Trolling is lying about what others believe.
FOTroll.
Groomer
My father was investigated. It didnt end well
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2019/08/11/here-it-is-complete-list-of-clinton-associates-who-allegedly-died-mysteriously-or-committed-suicide-before-testimony-including-jeffrey-epstein/
ROFLOL
+1
Anonymous, there is absolutely no doubt that a threat to prosecute was employed by Garland. Can you name one act of violence against the school board by the parents. Garland’s intent was to tell the parents to sit down and shut up or else their lives will be ruined. As a totalitarian you accept such threats as part of your overall design.
I have no burden of proof for claims I haven’t made.
I said “some Americans have threatened school board members with violence.” Here are examples: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-education-threats/
https://www.wptv.com/news/local-news/investigations/school-board-members-believe-ongoing-threats-harassment-part-of-organized-effort
If you want the name of someone charged under VA law for *threatening* school board members with violence, here’s a name: Amelia King
What a liar. People get angry and send nasty letters, especially after a young girl is raped and a school board makes it possible for another rape to occur. ATS, you are an outcast. You have no concern for little girls being raped. We have seen more violence against parents trying to protect their children than school board members have seen against themselves.
ATS, you are one sick puppy.
You are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid, and indeed you are one sick puppy.
Do you understand that some Americans have threatened school board members with violence?
If it happened
A local matter outside the jurisdiction of the Attorney General.
Whether it’s a local matter depends on the nature of the threat, and what Garland actually directed the DOJ to do is *not* “outside the jurisdiction of the Attorney General.”
Anonymous, the impetus for this memo was the teachers union. As for who was investigated, I don’t have access to Justice Dept. files do you? Can you name me one school board member who was threatened with actual violence? Public forums often become contentious. Harassment is a very weak prerequisite to an investigation.
The most prominent case of school board outrage was in Loudoun County. When Scott Smith was removed after voicing outrage that his daughter was raped by a ” gender fluid” MALE in a restroom. Who’s action was denied by the school board and then was transferred to another school in the district only to offend again. What that father did was mild compared to what my actions would have been had that been my daughter. Not the Luca Brasi end game, but close.
I object to the fact that he took the talking points from a corrupt teachers union, that doesn’t give a sh*t about a child being raped, to involve the Federal Government in a situation where even if there was merit, is a job for local law enforcement.
And gratefully, this School board vs. parents issue helped Youngkin get elected.
First time I ever contributed to a political campaign in my life. And I live in Illionois.
Paul, I replied, but it hasn’t shown up, so I’ll try again.
You claimed “Garland caving to the teachers union to have the Justice Department investigate parents who voiced dissenting opinions at school board meetings as ” domestic terrorists” was a vast abuse of power,” but now you admit that you don’t have any evidence that Garland investigated even one parent who simply “voiced dissenting opinions at school board meetings” as a domestic terrorist.
Garland has stated the following under oath (in his October 21, 2021, testimony to the House Judiciary Committee):
“I do not believe that parents who testify, speak, argue with, complain about school boards and schools should be classified as domestic terrorists or any kind of criminals. Parents have been complaining about the education of their children and about school boards since there were such things as school boards and public education. This is totally protected by the First Amendment. … True threats of violence are not protected by the First Amendment. Those are the things we’re worried about here. Those are the only things we’re worried about here. … We are not investigating peaceful protests or parent involvement in school board meetings. There is no precedent for doing that, and we would never do that. We are only concerned about violence and threats of violence against school administrators, teachers, staff…”
If you believe that the DOJ was investigating parents who voiced dissenting opinions at school board meetings as ”domestic terrorists,” then you’d have to conclude that Garland was lying and committed perjury. Is that what you believe? Are you willing to consider that you were mistaken?
No, I don’t have access to DOJ files. I also didn’t make any claims that require me to have access to DOJ files.
Re: “Can you name me one school board member who was threatened with actual violence?,” several are named in the Reuters article I linked to in my 6:01 PM comment.
Re: “even if there was merit, is a job for local law enforcement,” it depends on the nature of the threat (some threats break federal laws, not just local ones), and more to the point: federal law enforcement meets with local and state law enforcement on a variety of legal issues, and I don’t see anything inappropriate in Garland’s memo. If *you* see something inappropriate in that memo, please quote it.
I have no reason to believe that the teachers union “doesn’t give a sh*t about a child being raped.”
Anonymous. I do not see your Reuters article link. And if it proves me mistaken I will certainly say so. Can you please send it again?
I will comment further on a couple of issues in this post after reading it. I must give you credit. At least you are not citing from Salon or Slate.
And I might have misspoke. I should have said that the Loudoun County School Board doesn’t give a sh*t about a child being raped.
But after what the teachers unions did to kids during the pandemic, and we will not know the psychological trauma inflicted for years, in my opinion the level of concern is similar. Not attacking the teachers per se, But Weingarden is a P.O.S.
Paul, I’d still appreciate your saying whether you think Garland was lying under oath in the statement of his that I quoted, or if you retract your claim about Garland “caving to the teachers union to have the Justice Department investigate parents who voiced dissenting opinions at school board meetings as ” domestic terrorists””
Here are the two articles I linked to in my 6:01pm comment, with the names of school board members who’ve been threatened:
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-education-threats/
https://www.wptv.com/news/local-news/investigations/school-board-members-believe-ongoing-threats-harassment-part-of-organized-effort
You equate run-of-the-mill nasty letters that almost always are meaningless to the rape of a young girl where school board members place other girls in the same circumstances. What is wrong with your head ATS? Are you a supporter of abusing children while in school? I don’t think so, and I hope not, even though you make foolish arguments.
You are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid, aka S. Meyer the Troll Liar.
More ignorance here while you let Sammy talk elsewhere. One can note how Sammy’s verbiage radically changes from the abysmally Stupid and shocking to a word-game player. Why not give Molly G. or Edison a chance to speak again. It would make things more interesting.
FOTroll
Curse words is the only thing you are left with, Anonymous the Stupid. You confirm what I said.
More ignorance here while you let Sammy talk elsewhere. One can note how Sammy’s verbiage radically changes from the abysmally Stupid and shocking to a word-game player. Why not give Molly G. or Edison a chance to speak again. It would make things more interesting.
Anon, I have to leave the house now . But I promise I will get back to you. I want to give you the response you deserve.
Thank you again for being respectful. I will try to be the same.
Paul says:
“When the Republican’s take back the House and possibly the Senate, the Congressional investigations will come. Of course to be called partisan.”
However, unlike lying Trumpists, I, for one, will NOT call such investigations “witch-hunts” just as Turley NEVER dismissed the Mueller investigation as such though his Fox colleagues DID.
Jeff, YOU might not call them ” witch -hunts” but others certainly will. Or at least a derivative. Mueller was not a witch hunt. Although I think that some aspects were politically driven.
I expect many investigations. Fauci’s involvement in Wuhan. Determining if Covid 19 derived from gain of function at that lab.( In my opinion it did) Hunter Biden laptop investigation is a sure thing. Unless things move on quickly and Joe pardons him.
In the wake of the Not Guilty/ hung jury verdict in the Whitmore case maybe an investigation into FBI entrapment. Just to name a few.
Again, I am not a Trump fan. But after two bull**it impeachments, expect response in kind. But I guess after Dementia Joe’s comments about chemical weapons we have to
re-define what ” in kind ” means.
Yet another Biden Gaffe to add to a growing and becoming-infinitely lengthy list of, let’s be kind an call them ‘unforced errors’ by Joseph Robinette Biden. Of course, if the White House press corps asks him to explain his ‘attack’ on his Attorney General, he may just say ‘it never happened.’ Joe has so many ‘minders’ and ‘handlers’ it will be difficult to say one or ones ‘leaked’ the comment attributed to Biden which may not have been uttered by Biden at all.
If both houses of Congress switch to the GOP in November’s election, by early January 2023, there may be several launches including the Hunter Biden/Joe Biden/James Biden alleged corruption, Impeachment of Joe Biden (if he’s still the POTUS by then), moves to remove Mrs. Emhoff from ascending to the POTUS position once Joe is gone, massive movements against Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Schiff, and others.
2023 may well be a most ‘interesting’ political year, assuming the Dems lose both the house and the senate.
I think so too, and only the most woke will hold out. They will sound absolutely insane compared to the prevailing opinion, and we will finally move on from their nonsense. They are learning the hard lesson that no, feelings and money aren’t all that matters, and I don’t know if the folks in question will ever pick up and truly integrate the lesson. I assure you corporate culture will shamelessly go wherever the wind blows to preserve their bottom lines, and it is not blowing in the woke direction anymore. Prepare yourselves for gaslighting and backtracking the likes of which we have never seen. C’est la vie. Looking forward to the marginalization of these fools. Kaepernick, who???
I used to think most talking heads liberals in hte meida really didn’t believe all the lies they preach, that they were just had an agenda. I’ve changed my mind. I now think most are just dimwitted and easily manipulated.
Professor Turley, are you seriously comparing the Democrats to gangsters with your sleepin with the fishes analogy. How dare you be so truthful in the use of your metaphoric synonym. I am surprised that you didn’t further illustrate your point through the use of the well known phrase “The fish rots from the head down.” The stink will continue until the rotting fishes are thrown into the trash bin of history along with the other totalitarians of the past.
My oh my. It was just a few years ago when the Democrats said that Garland was amazingly qualified to be a member of The
the Supreme Court. Now the Democrats are telling us that he is not qualified to be the Attorney General if he will not do their bidding. They declared that he would be a fair and just adjudicator on the court but now they say he must prosecute a case without evidence. If he doesn’t do what they want at the first chance they will throw him under the bus. From a hero to a goat somehow makes sense in their cranial cavities. I’m alright with it because they tell us who they are. We should listen.
Only in Biden’s administration. And then they question the possibility that the US Capitol police allowed Jan 6 peaceful protestors to enter through the doors. Biden is compromised and Americans are in danger.
~~~~
“Biden Detailee Entangled in Secret Service Bribery Scheme”
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/04/08/biden_detailee_entangled_in_secret_service_bribery_scheme_.html
“The agency’s “Insider Threat Division” is leading the investigation into whether the employees allowed themselves to be bribed, whether they knowingly took part in the possible scheme, and whether espionage was involved.
One of the men impersonating DHS agents allegedly told witnesses in the case that he had connections to ISI, the Pakistani intelligence agency, a prosecutor said during a court hearing Thursday. Both U.S. citizens accused of the bribery hold passports with visas to Iran and Pakistan. They were allegedly impersonating DHS officials and attempted to bribe four members of the elite force that protects the president, vice president, and their families.“
Berkel, if I could hang this SS fiasco on Biden, I would lead the parade.
But the DC rot preceded Biden now or his 8 years as
The Secret Service has been the Key Stone Kops for decades, maybe longer. The way DC works, the press is very receptive to burying stories that would embarrass the top movers and shakers.
The bottom line. DC has been filling up with Peter Principle Graduates. Like our current VP. Cackles/word salad Harris.
The political appointees are one thing, but the worker bees career staff are just as incompetent.
Supposedly the best of the best, our Secret Service, got scammed by a couple of fast talkers handing out swag. Imagine who’s safety they would compromise if real money was flashed before them. Oh. lets also figure in, we are hearing an extremely sanitized version of events, and the compliant media is rolling over for a vigorous belly scratch as we speak.
This collapse of meritocracy, and competence, is a rot in DC that cannot be fixed by tweaking the processes, or writing some more regulations.
Why is Garland not criminally charging witnesses?
Just a thought here.
1). Maybe Garland has no stomach trying to defend the legality of the subpoena’s.
2). The committee is veering far from their lane, of gathering information for the purpose of drafting legislation.
3). Buy charging witnesses criminally, It will be impossible not to enforce subpoenas issued for Pelosi, and ALL of her staff in 9 short months.
Garland has criminally charged Bannon.
Garland so far has not criminally charged Meadows, and the referrals for Scavino and Navarro just occurred two days ago.
As for why, Marcy Wheeler has argued that there is good reason for Garland to postpone indicting Meadows (and now Scavino, and Navarro) for contempt of Congress: “the contempt prosecution of Bannon is far more useful to Bannon as a means to monitor the ongoing investigation into him and his co-conspirators than it is for DOJ. … charging Meadows with contempt now would further limit [the DOJ’s] ability to shield parts of their investigation from the suspected co-conspirators.”
If the DOJ wishes to wait on bringing contempt charges, it can wait, as the statute of limitations isn’t anywhere close to expired.
As Wheeler also notes, the “DOJ would be smarter to charge Mark Meadows with obstruction for his destruction of records relevant to an ongoing investigation than to charge him for misdemeanor criminal contempt of Congress. That’s because obstruction, a felony, would pose the risk of real jail time, which would be more likely to convince Meadows to cooperate with investigators and explain what he did as part of an attempt to steal the election.”
https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/02/07/why-to-delay-a-mark-meadows-indictment-bannon-is-using-his-contempt-prosecution-to-monitor-the-ongoing-january-6-investigation/
“Garland has criminally charged Bannon. ”
That is how fascist regimes intimidate their people. It gets worse, not better.
Vote Republican no matter how low the office. The fascist Democrat Party of today has to be destroyed so that the party of JFK can be revived. We don’t need a fascist government like we have today. Tit for Tat won’t work, as that only benefits politicians. We need to entirely shut down today’s Democrat Party and everyone that has stood up for it.
Bannon is in contempt of Congress. Only an idiot thinks that it’s “fascist” to indict Bannon for refusing to abide by a legal subpoena. Bannon could have shown up and pled the 5th like Stone did.
Nancy Pelosi is in contempt with all of that plastic surgery and faux hair, truly fascist.
The Democrats in control are acting in a fascist manner. You wouldn’t realize that because, as proven a long time ago, you don’t know what fascism is. Political science isn’t something you understand, but you did learn how to wordplay and got so good at it that you mistakenly forgot that you need facts and logic to back up such games.
Anyone that reads your replies can see you are not the brightest bulb the left can provide.
I am not sure how the law works in this situation, but I wonder if Bannon is setting up some type of deposition to force Democrats to reveal the real facts.
Maybe the lawyers here can explain what Schiff is saying here.
To me, he is seeking accountability for President Trump. Demanding Garland enforce subpoenas in order to hold President Trump accountable.
That is a power Congressman Schiff does not have. Congress does not have the Jurisdiction to investigate crimes. Separation of powers, assigns that power to the Executive Branch. Schiff can only impeach the President, which he has already done. Strange that Schiff did not include any crimes in the articles of impeachm6 ent.
Do a search, and you will find zero evidence of anything, the Democrat selected Jan 6 committee, making any effort to write legislation. The ONLY constitutional power the Committee can exercise.
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. “Without enforcement of congressional subpoenas, there is no oversight, and without oversight, no accountability – for the former president, or any other president, past, present, or future. Without enforcement of its lawful process, Congress ceases to be a co-equal branch of government.”
No matter how many times you lie about this, Congress can legally investigate anything related to existing or prospective legislation (e.g., the Electoral Count Act, legislation about the Capitol Complex) and anything related to their executive oversight.
Congress lacks the authority to initiate a criminal prosecution or file criminal charges. But Congress can absolutely investigate conduct that may be criminal.
Stop lying about this. Educate yourself, and choose to be truthful.
Your trolling for Act Blue is criminal. Are you a groomer too?
FOTroll.
Why are you so nasty, mean spirited and hateful? Trolls are our people!!
Xoxo
The real Svelaz / Sammy / Seth Warner
Trolls like you are psychologically ill.
Projection and Hypocrisy are your two identifying trademarks. Carry on.
We are legion
You must be looking in a cracked mirror that shows you multiple copies of yourself.
Congress can absolutely investigate conduct that may be criminal.
Congress can only hold hearing that pertain to information gathering to aide in drafting legislation, or oversight. Congress has as much oversight over the White House as the White house as investigative power over Congress.
“Congress can only hold hearing that pertain to information gathering to aide in drafting legislation, or oversight.”
And the J6 Committee’s investigation is relevant to both legislation and oversight.
“Congress has as much oversight over the White House as the White house as investigative power over Congress.”
My comment about “executive oversight” isn’t limited to the WH, and the executive branch absolutely investigates crimes by members of Congress. Just 2 weeks ago, Rep. Jeff Fortenberry was found guilty of federal crimes.
“And the J6 Committee’s investigation is relevant to both legislation and oversight.”
Everything is political and that is what the left thrives on. ATS failed to make his case. The American people are catching on. That scares the fascists on the left so they will keep applying more strong-arm tactics until they are thrown out..
Oh my, they wrapped Fishwings up in the NYT and placed the package on Garland’s pillow. Three vacuous things, Garland, the NYT and Fishwings, all together on a fluffy pillow.
The Times reported the president wants “Mr. Garland to act less like a ponderous judge and more like a prosecutor who is willing to take decisive action over the events of Jan. 6.”
In other words, be emotional, not intellectual. “Take decisive action”, like condemning Border Patrol agents for the strapping incident without a second of investigation.
Olly says:
“In other words, be emotional, not intellectual. “Take decisive action”, like condemning Border Patrol agents for the strapping incident without a second of investigation.”
You mean like when Turley criticized Trump’s emotional outburst about Judge Curiel:
“During the campaign, President Donald Trump was roundly criticized for his comments about the ethnicity of a judge who was presiding in a case involving his now defunct Trump University. He argued that, because of the Mexican heritage of U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel (who was actually born in Indiana), the judge was biased against him and referred to him as a “hater.” … “Trump made repeated disparaging comments about Judge Curiel. He told Fox News that Curiel had been “extremely hostile” toward him due to his position on immigration: “I think it has to do with, perhaps, the fact that I’m very, very strong on the border — very, very strong on the border,. He has been extremely hostile to me. Now, he is Hispanic, I believe.” He then repeated those comments on CNN in noting that “He’s a Mexican. We’re building a wall between here and Mexico.” Then at a political rally in San Diego where Curiel sits, Trump said “I have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump, a hater. His name is Gonzalo Curiel and he is not doing the right thing.” He added that Curiel “happens to be, we believe, Mexican.” At the time of Trump’s comments, I was one of many voicing strong objections to the personal attack.”
———-
Got you.
“He argued that, because of the Mexican heritage of U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel…”
Justice Sotomayor made that same argument to her audience to better understand why she would make a good judge.
Sotomayor is a Supreme Court Judge who deals with the Constitution, not her ancestry, which should have nothing to do with her actions on the Supreme Court. After Sotomayor made that comment, I realized that what Trump said was legitimate. That is the problem with Democrats (and some Republicans). They place their personal histories and ideologies ahead of the law.
Jeff, you are ignorant of these things, so it would behoove you to learn about them before commenting.
https://jonathanturley.org/2018/02/28/judge-once-maligned-by-trump-as-a-hater-rules-in-favor-of-border-wall/