Garland Gets His Fish: Liberal Activists Move From “Pack the Court” to “Sack the AG”

YouTube screengrab

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.

301 thoughts on “Garland Gets His Fish: Liberal Activists Move From “Pack the Court” to “Sack the AG””

  1. There’s also a distinction to be made between Trump’s legal-but-possibly-bordering-on-the-illegal desire to overturn the election and a direct, intentional role in the events of 1/6. The former act (even if actually illegal) does not demonstrate involvement in the latter. And if the former has any legal traction, Mr. Garland is welcome to attempt to prove it. (Indeed, government prosecutors of the leaders of the 1/6 riot claim it was the result of a conspiracy among the defendants. If so, that means the acts were planned well in advance of any time Trump may have encouraged the riot in his speech earlier in the day, and even if he DID encourage the events with his speech, that does not mean he intended to do so, not having a part in the planning of the events and therefor being ignorant of them. A pre-planned event with “conspirators” to its planning belies any claim of a direct link between Trump and the 1/6 riot.)

  2. The Democrats need to get criminal charges against Trump and Republicans because they know they’re in for a bloodbath at the polls in November. The only way they can try to protect themselves is by criminalizing the opposition.

  3. 2020 Presidential Election Results face considerable questions that keep mounting
    The problems cited by Brnovich include:

    election officials having on average less than five seconds to verify early voting ballot signatures;
    “multiple violations” in the handling and delivery to election offices of about 20% of ballots in drop boxes;
    almost $8 million in private grant money used by election officials in the vote count, donations which would now be illegal under a recently enacted law.

  4. I’ve said for decades, that if you want to know what Democrats will do when they get into power just listen to what they falsely accuse others of when they are out of power; politicizing and corrupting the DOJ, the President making the AG a personal attorney, packing the courts, illegal searches, corrupting the law and courts for political purposes just to name a few…so many examples of this throughout modern history.

  5. What more evidence needs to be shown, to prove that the legal system is corrupted and cannot be counted on to dispense any real justice?? WHERE is our guarantee that we will actually GET a fair trial at all times?? We may be said to have a right to a fair and speedy trial, but that’s no different than saying we have the right to live! Where is our guarantee that we will live to see tomorrow??

  6. it’s hard t believe anyone is so willfully ignorant that they stand by the ….”election wasn’t stolen”….it preposterous… clearly was, it’s been proven 12 ways from Sunday.

  7. When did being hated by career criminals become a prosecutable offense? These dems become more detached from reality every single day.

    1. Biden’s DOJ Gestapo Chief Merrick Garland, as much as he hates Pres Trump, knows he can’t prosecute a former president just because he politically hates him, and the fact that President Trump and Trump associates have not committed any crimes, there is no evidence to win any such prosecution case.

      Prosecuting a former US President without clear criminal grounds will ignite unconstitutional abuse of powers against both Biden and Garland warranting criminal investigations on the Biden Admin, DOJ AG Garland.

      But Biden’s puppetmasters, the radical fascist far left are literally waging all out open war against the America, trying to weaponizing the full power and authority of the US Federal govt – DOJ-FBI, against not just Pres Trump, but the American people, effectively nullify the US Constitution’s checks and balances. This is why they are trying to do this before the mid-term elections because they know the GOP controlled Congress would drop the Congressional investigation and impeachment hammer on Biden and Garland.

      Democrats are not just annoying pathological serial lying liberals, they’re radical left socialists-marxists, police state totalitarian power and control fascists, wokist cultists, racialists, etc who despises the American people, parents, working class men and women, who despises the fact that they have to even pretend to feign concern about democracy, about having to even concern themselves with courting the American people’s votes / will.

      The American people must literally take back their country, their freedom and liberty, public schools, moral authority, societal institutions, etc, that means politically electorally destroying the Democrat party, it’s leadership, it’s ideology, it’s agenda, once and for all throw the radical democrat party on the ash heap of history, which is what should have been done after the end of the Civil War.

  8. Professor Turley wrote an article published in NY Post. Democrats are really going to distrust and hate him now

    By the standard the DOJ set for Trump associates, Hunter Biden should be charged
    By Jonathan Turley
    April 8, 2022 7:27pm Updated

    …..In Biden’s laptop, there are hundreds of e-mails detailing work with “foreign principals,” which can include not just foreign governments or foreign agencies, but foreign-based companies, nonprofits and individuals, including Americans living in foreign countries. That would covers companies like CEFC, which had close ties to the Chinese government.

    Biden does not appear to have done much, if any, conventional legal work for these foreign sources, despite his high fees. Indeed, there is no record Hunter did anything to earn the cool $1 million given to him to “represent” CEFC’s Patrick Ho, who was later convicted and sentenced to three years in prison.

    Instead, the record shows Biden advising and facilitating access for foreign clients, including meetings with his father. That includes, like Manafort, dealings with Ukrainian officials and businesses.

    There was nothing subtle about the alleged influence-peddling effort of Hunter Biden or his uncle James. In Washington, influence peddling is a virtual cottage industry. However, there was a little sophistication in these e-mails to hide the corruption. The Hunter dealings were more like influence peddling by eBay in terms of the raw pitches and open admissions.

    On May 1, 2017, Hunter Biden recognized how his work with CEFC at a minimum could trigger FARA and acknowledged that his uncle was also aware of the danger:

    “No matter what it will need to be a US company at some level in order for us to make bids on federal and state funded projects. Also We [sic] don’t want to have to register as foreign agents under the FCPA which is much more expansive than people who should know choose not to know. James has very particular opinions about this so I would ask him about the foreign entity.”

    The e-mail is a prosecutor’s dream. FARA violations, like tax violations, can be viewed as cut-and-dried charges for jurors. In this case, the potential defendant not only incriminated himself under the law, but his associates and family, as well.

    That is why, if the Justice Department applies the same standard applied to figures like Manafort, Biden would likely be indicted.

    The question is whether the same standard will apply. I have long criticized the sweeping language of FARA. However, the Justice Department has shifted from prior administrative enforcement to criminal prosecutions. The Justice Department in recent years has convicted various individuals for engaging in public relations and lobbying efforts for foreign countries, including China and Ukraine.

    A sudden shift away from such criminal enforcement would raise questions of favored treatment — and magnify the concern over Attorney General Merrick Garland refusing to appoint a special counsel in the scandal.

    In The Washington Post, the Manafort and other FARA cases were heralded as essential to protecting democracy. A columnist concluded, “FARA can be a powerful tool for detecting those foreign instruments. We should use it. No matter whom it ensnares.”

    It has now ensnared the son of President Biden. The question is whether the Justice Department and the media still have the same appetite for FARA prosecutions.

    1. No one should be above the law. Not Donald Trump and his family, and not Joe Biden and his family.

      1. the DOJ and FBI are corrupt and have become an arm of the Democrat Party. Trying to explain the rule of law is meaningless when governmental institutions are willing to constantly lie.

        Your trolling for George Soros is a crime against humanity

  9. The differences between the left and the right has been skewed. Liberals try to associate those on the right with The Third Reich. The Third Reich had much more in common with those on the left than those who believe in a government for the people and by the people. One side believes in an ever expanding government an the other side believes in limited government. In has been consistent in history that centralized governments become more and more authoritarian as time goes by. The extremist on the right want a government that is in total control and the extremist on the left want a government that is in total control. The question that must then follow is what extremist group has more influence in our nation today? We have Socialists sitting in our statehouses today but I haven’t seen any evidence of a Proud Boy occupying a seat in government. During the last world war it was the socialist and the Nazis who joined together against the free world because they had more in common with one another. Take the left and right names away and the far left and the far right stand for exactly the same things. They both employ the use of the boogeyman as the same tactic to gain control. Therefore, just the word totalitarian is sufficient to describe both the viewpoints. The far left and the far right stand on common ground. So again I ask, which extremist group is represented more in our government today.

    1. “Liberals try to associate those on the right with The Third Reich.”

      The Nazi Party identified itself as being a right-wing party. In the Weimar Republic, the left-wing parties were the Communists (KPD) and the Social Democrats (SPD), the right-wing parties were the German Nationalist Party (DNVP) and the National Socialist Party (NSDAP-Nazi), and the center parties were the Democratic party (DDP), the Catholic Center Party (Z) and the People’s Party (DVP).

      “One side believes in an ever expanding government an the other side believes in limited government.”

      BS. Both sides sometimes believe in government control and other times believe in limited government. They simply differ in what they place in each category. If you want an example of Republicans pushing for expanded government control, just look at the anti-abortion legislation and anti-CRT legislation being passed by Republican legislatures.

      1. Anonymous:

        At the time of the Nazi party, “Liberal” meant a belief in limited government and strong individual rights. Modern Liberals believe none of that, which is why this belief is called “Classical Liberalism” today.

        This is why the Nazi Party opposed Liberalism. Obviously, if someone wants total control over the country, and the eradication of individual rights, necessary to commit the Holocaust, then they would oppose Classical Liberalism.

        The Nazi Party, as you pointed out, was the National Socialist German Worker’s Party. Much of Hitler’s writings would be right at home at any Democrat strategy meeting, including the idea that children belonged to the state. This is why he had Nazi Youth Camps, to indoctrinate children, much like Democrats feel entitled to use the public education system to indoctrinate youth on transgenderism, and other far Left pet projects.

        Conservatives today believe in limited government and robust individual rights, which are aspects of Libertarianism. That’s combined, however, with a moral belief in right and wrong. We believe that someone has the right to live a hedonistic lifestyle, for instance, having a one night stand every night, but we think there are negative consequences psychologically and spiritually to living that way. We won’t interfere with someone’s freedom, but we’ll think it’s wrong. Nazis believed it was the civic duty of young German women to have as many children as possible, including out of wedlock, to advance the Arian Race. That’s not moral on numerous levels, nor was it conservative. Left wing academics have tried to distance the Nazis from Socialism, and chose their nationalism as an indicator of the movement being right wing. The USSR was nationalistic. Communist China is nationalistic. Simple nationalism is not limited to the right wing.

        That’s the antithesis of Nazism and Fascism, both of which require a strong centralized government, the erosion of individual rights, for the “common good”, as defined by that government. That is the hallmark of the Left.

        I noticed you use abortion limits as an example of expanding government control. For a conservative, abortion is a matter of murder of an innocent person. They seek to include innocent people under the protection of law. You make a good point that it can be perceived as an expansion of government. For those who see it as government intrusion, do you find it intrusive for there to be a law that a woman cannot give birth to an infant, put her crying into a plastic bag, and then dump her in the woods for wild animals to tear apart? Is it intrusive that a man cannot murder his wife when she makes him angry? Most Americans believe there should be at least some limits on abortion. The disagreement is where that limit should be. That’s why I think abortion should be up to the states. That way, laws can reflect the will of those who live in those states. If people don’t like existing laws, they can get them changed. If I understood her correctly, Ruth Bader Ginsberg also thought Roe v Wade was a mistake, in that the issue should have been left to the states, to evolve with public sentiment.

        1. Again, Karen, the Nazis identified themselves as a right-wing party, as did the rest of Germany. No matter how much you wish to associate Nazis with the left, they were right-wing extremists, as are current NeoNazis. You may wish to conflate socialism (on the left) with national socialism (on the right), but doing so is either ignorant (if you don’t understand the difference) or dishonest (if you understand the difference but continue to equate them). If you do not understand that Nazis were right-wing, then educate yourself about it.

          Both left-wing and right-wing extremists exist, and no truthful person has a problem saying so.

          Extremists on the right AND the left indoctrinate children. Again, no truthful person has a problem saying so.

          Both conservatives AND liberals today believe in a limited government for some things and robust individual rights for some things while also wanting government control for other things. They disagree about which things belong in which category.

          You are free to have the opinion that an embryo is a person. But the Founders did not believe that an embryo or a fetus is a person. How do we know? Because the Constitution requires an “actual enumeration” of ALL persons every 10 years in the decennial census, and the Founders never made any attempt to count embryos or fetuses in the census.

          You will have to amend the Constitution if you want embryos to have legal personhood, and then a frozen embryo bank with hundreds of thousands of embryos can count as the population of half a Congressional district, and every miscarriage will have to be investigated to find out if the woman committed murder, and it will be illegal to discard an IVF embryo.

          The government should not be allowed to force women to donate the use of their bodies for 9 months for the sake of an embryo or fetus, when the government cannot even force someone to donate a pint of blood to save an actual person’s life. Yes, most people — including me — think that there should be a limit after which a woman should not be allowed an elective abortion unless it’s necessary to save her life or health, but people have very different beliefs about where to draw the line. One doesn’t have to believe that a fetus is a person to draw a line at viability.

          1. “the Nazis identified themselves as a right-wing party, as did the rest of Germany.”

            Anonymous wishes to identify himself as intelligent. Does that make him intelligent? How can he make such a claim when he acts so ignorantly?

            What does the DOI say? Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Take the examples of socialism and nazism, Stalin and Hitler. Who was happy when they decided to kill or enslave their own people? Stalin and Hitler.

            When we talk about property, in Russia and Germany, whose property was it? Stalin and Hitler’s?

            Many in this country believe their natural rights come from God or some creator. Stalin and Hitler think they give and take away those rights. Anonymous the Stupid is stuck in a bipolar world where he has Stalin on one side with Hitler on the other.

            The error Anonymous the Stupid makes is that on a coin, Stalin and Hitler are facing opposite each other while freedom is on the other side.

          2. You have a very limited European scale of poli- economics. You need to think of it as a scale of 0 to 100 for monopoly of power broke down in 10 different areas on the timeline.

            Then you can truly gauge a state as to its monopoly of power in these areas.

            As for me, i am anti Nazi- anti-communist, and as Shire wrote in his book, the rise and fall of the Third Reich, The Nazis in the commies battled daily over membership and thousands of party members switched back-and-forth when they got a little better deal through the different unions, fraternities, workers party etc. You do not have an objective scale to measure anything by… Just the biased European scale the socialist to use.

          3. The constitution doesn’t mention embryos. You are funny even if you didn’t mean to be. I guess killing them is okay then not that they ever grow up to be people like you and me.

            1. I never said that the Constitution mentions embryos. I pointed out that the Constitution does mention people and requires that ALL people be counted in the census, but embryos have NEVER been counted as people.

              Are you capable of following the actual argument? Can you agree that embryos aren’t people?

              Some embryos develop into people. The majority of embryos do not develop into people. The majority of embryos have have such error-ridden DNA that they don’t have the biological capacity to develop into people.

              1. This is another one of ATS’s long stories that twist the fact. They did abortion in colonial times. The states controlled it, and the Constitution did not involve itself in the question.

                Learn the Amendment process.

                1. As I said: You will have to amend the Constitution if you want embryos to have legal personhood.

                  1. Another Stupid comment. The Constitution doesn’t deal with personhood or abortion. The framers left it out, and that left it to the states. We can see the results of nine people creating a law in an undemocratic fashion. The results of that decision have caused strife since the day the decision was made.

                    There were better ways of handling the problem, but the left doesn’t believe in Democracy. They believe in undemocratic force. That is why they are the followers of people like Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

      2. The name ‘Nazi’ is an acronym for the german term that translates as ‘National Socialists’. In Mein Kampf Hitler waxes rhapsodic about every pet progressive, left wing cause in the book and dreams of the overthrow of the established order to make changes to society to would give effect to those causes, And in power he had great success economically – so that his dictatorial acquisition of power was a minor issue. Did he use left wing causes as a means of ingratiating himself with the working class? Of course, Does every leftie do the same thing? Of course. And like Hitler once they get power they always abuse it. And that is true of far right leaders like Mussolini as well. The point is that far left ideology and far right ideology are almost interchangeable when it comes to outcomes and the inevitable elimination of the checks and balances of a free and democratic society. They both believe in political and cultural centralization. Neither believe in the rule of law – they believe rules and laws should be made by and for the elite. They favor elitist rule by decree over anything that looks transparent and/or democratic. They crave secretive and opaque processes and justice that can be abused behind closed doors to achieve their desired results. The loath anything that smacks of ‘for the people, by the people’ – to them people are idiots and only decisions made by the elite are worthwhile – for the greater good (ie for their good and no one elses) In his day Adolph idolised the Polish Head of State Józef Piłsudski who had died in 1935 and was leader of the Polish Socialist Party and an out spoken lefty after the devastation of the first world war. Whatever Adloph was at the time he offed himself in his bunker he started out as a left wing radical and got into power promising the usual left wing bromides to ordinary working Germans who were suffering hyper inflation and massive unemployment in the early 30s.

      3. Anti-abortion legislation is human-rights legislation and not wanting government employees grooming your kids certainly is not a desire for expansion of government.

      4. “The Nazi Party identified itself as being a right-wing party.”

        The communists in Weimar Germany identified themselves as “left-wing.” Using your smear classification, the Left in America is communist.

        1. Communists *are* left-wing. That doesn’t not logically imply that all on the left are communists, just like Nazis being right-wing does not logically imply that all on the right are Nazis.

          You must have been a sh*tty logic teacher.

          1. ATS, You keep shifting your positions and making nasty comments.

            Nazism comes from the left. Didn’t you learn that in school?

            1. You are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid.

              You can deny the fact that the Nazis were right-wing, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Nazis were right-wing.

              The German Bundestag’s Research Section understands “the right-wing extremist NSDAP” (the Nazis) better than you do:

              The US Holocaust Memorial Museum understands that “The National Socialist German Workers’ Party—also known as the Nazi Party—was the far-right racist and antisemitic political party led by Adolf Hitler,” no matter how many times you deny it.

              You, Meyer the Troll Liar, want so badly for the Nazis to be left-wing that you will lie about it rather than accept the historic facts. You claimed to have lost family in the Holocaust, but you cannot bring yourself to admit the truth that the Nazis were right-wing extremists. Go to shul and maybe someone there can talk some historic sense into you.

              1. The terms right and left can be variously used and, at times, have become meaningless, so one has to be more specific. I provided you with a similar lesson a while back.

                Nazi, Stalin, Mao and the left = big government
                Conservatives / libertarian = small government

                Nazi, Stalin, Mao and the left = No private property
                Conservative / libertarian = Private property

                Nazi, Stalin, Mao and the left = abridge freedom
                Conservative / Libertarian = promote freedom

                These are big concepts, and there are more. Take note of how you and the left are always with the Nazis, whether you wish to call them right or left. In other words, you agree with their way of thinking.

                This is a good starting point for an honest debate, so prove your case based on birds of a feather stick together. I have provided three major policy decisions. Maybe you can provide major policy decisions showing something completely different. In a show of an attempt to discuss this openly and honestly, I will use my name and unique alias. You can affix the word, anonymous, at the end of what you say, so I can hopefully distinguish your replies from any other unknown.

                1. “The terms right and left can be variously used and, at times, have become meaningless . . .”

                  Ant *that* is the key issue. The only thing that matters is the political principles of the parties. And the fact is that both the Right and the Left in Weimar/Nazi Germany were full-blown statists. They were dictatorial parties fighting over who gets to control the country.

                  “ATS, You keep shifting your positions and making nasty comments.”

                  This former is its dishonesty. The latter, its mask falling off.

      5. The left-right construct itself (as it applies to XX and XXI century ideologies)is an invention by the left to 0aint themselves as the opposite of the Nazis, when in reality fascism and communism are Siamese twins joined at the hip. The Nazis called themselves The National Socialist Workers Party.
        And if you search history for a precedent of the events of January 6, 2021, look no further than the Reichstag Fire, where the Nazis blamed the Communists for it and used them to drive them from the political arena.

          1. You are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid (ATS), and you’re a troll who gladly lies about others.

            1. Some will remember the continuous comments since you first made your statement that fascists are good for the little guy. But that is not important because you act like a fascist and talk like a Stalinist.

      6. Those are both issues where defenseless babies and children need protection from the left and their continued push to take away their innocence and harm or kill them. The right only wants control when you attempt to harm our kids. Nice try there.

        1. Susan, I’ll believe that you think all embryos are “defenseless babies” when you try to make it illegal to discard IVF embryos and you protest outside IVF clinics, which probably kills as many fertilized eggs as abortion does.

          1. ” I’ll believe that you think all embryos are “defenseless babies” when”

            Is Anonymous the Stupid of the belief that embryos are dangerous and carry an AR-15?

    2. You seem to think fascism is far right. Stalin thought it was because it was to the right of communism but fascism is way to the left of conservatism. The far right is libertarian. The farther right you go the less government you want.
      Did you ever wonder why the Nazis were called National SOCIALISTs? They wanted socialism just with it controlled from in that nation. Communism wants socialism but controlled by one commune. Originally meant to be in Paris but to the horror of many socialist it ended up in Moscow.
      I liken Facism and Communism to Pepsi and Coke – each cry to high heaven that they are vastly different but really are they?

  10. An interesting discussion of the public record on the DOJ’s Jan. 6 investigation, with a focus on cases involving obstruction of the vote count:


      I had surgery recently to complete my transition from miserable, lonely male troll to vibrant, feisty female troll. Still lonely but I look fabulous, due to all of the grooming I received from Marcy Wheel who runs the premiere Marxist troll farm known as Empty Wheel. Im ready to groom all of you!


  11. Someone commenting here made a statement which is worthy of questioning: “Turley is in the pocket of Republicans” or words to that effect.
    I’m recalling a similar statement made about Barack Hussein Obama early in his first administration that he was a marionette and Robert Rubin was pulling the strings. These are easy statements for someone to make, in particular when he or she is not required to provide irrefutable and objective proof.

  12. Looking down the Road, [IF] the Laptop evidence, the Michael Sussmann case, the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Fusion GPS, and Perkins Coie … etc.
    bear fruit and the evidence goes ‘All the way to the Top’ in a Nixon-esk manner.

    And Merrick Garland see’s the light, I bet·cha Garland will bail before he becomes another John N. Mitchell (Nixon’s AG).

    Durham (i.e.: Mark Felt a.k.a. Deep Throat) is doing his part overtly (or Overt Throat if you please).

    Boys, Now is the time for Us to figure out; ‘All the Presidents Men’ and ‘All the Ms. Clinton’s Men’.

    In fact, in a parallel, I think you could see the same Officers bailing as were caught up in the Nixion Administration.
    [A.G. | WH Counsel | Counsel for Domestic Affairs | White House Chief of Staff]

    Re: (a reminder you old Farts)

    John Mitchell – 67th Attorney General of the United States
    John Newton Mitchell (September 15, 1913 – November 9, 1988) was an American convicted criminal, lawyer, the 67th Attorney General of the United States under President Richard Nixon and chairman of Nixon’s 1968 and 1972 presidential campaigns.

    John Dean – White House Counsel
    John Wesley Dean III is a former attorney who served as White House Counsel for United States President Richard Nixon from July 1970 until April 1973.

    John Ehrlichman – Counsel and Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs
    John Daniel Ehrlichman was Counsel and Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Richard Nixon.

    H. R. Haldeman – White House Chief of Staff
    Harry Robbins “Bob” Haldeman was an American political aide and businessman, best known for his service as White House Chief of Staff to President Richard Nixon.

    All right – Now you Guys can let me have it!
    I’m just Say’in Ya’ll

    1. Whereas the corresponding positions are: [Laptopgate | Watergate]

      Merrick Garland [e.g., John Mitchell]
      Attorney General Merrick B. Garland was sworn in as the 86th Attorney General of the United States on March 11, 2021.

      Dana Remus [e.g., John Dean]
      Dana Ann Remus is an American lawyer who has served as White House counsel for U.S. President Joe Biden since January 2021.

      Susan Rice [e.g., John Ehrlichman]
      Susan Elizabeth Rice is an American diplomat, policy advisor, and public official serving as Director of the United States Domestic Policy Council since 2021.

      Ron Klain [e.g., H. R. Haldeman]
      Ronald Alan Klain is an American attorney, political consultant, and former lobbyist serving as White House Chief of Staff under President Joe Biden

      ✯✯✯✯✯ ✯✯✯✯✯ ✯✯✯✯✯ ✯✯✯✯✯ ✯✯✯✯✯

      Could be anyone/number of the People working in the Admin:
      White House Office(s)

      They’ll be heading for the Exits ➦

  13. Anonymous says:
    Absolutely. Biden is mediocre, but Trump is a danger.

    Margot says: You’re correct, the Marxist, socialist, commi’s, Progressives who make up the New Democrat party do see President Trump as a danger. Incapable of pointing to how good the nation is under this administration’s hands, they speak of Trump, Trump, Trump. Think of it, the man is out of office nearly 2 years and they still constantly talk about him, he’s their Boogeyman, Krampus, Wewe Gombel, El Coco, Babarogo, Tata Duende, Baba Yaga, Hilara Clintona.

    1. Stooge, Trump keeps himself in the news by talking sh!t every day.

  14. Proud Boy Leader Pleads Guilty Today

    Conspiracy To Storm Capitol Well-Established

    Charles Donohoe of North Carolina, one of the Proud Boys leaders as they assaulted the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, pleaded guilty Friday to two felony counts with a minimum sentence of nearly six years in prison, but agreed to cooperate against his co-defendants in hopes of getting a lighter sentence.

    Court records filed Friday show he has already provided numerous insights into the group’s plans and their intention to disrupt the congressional electoral vote confirmation.

    Prosecutors have now secured convictions and the cooperation of defendants in probes into two right-wing groups accused of planning violence on January 6, the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys.

    Donohoe, 34, of Kernersville, N.C., admitted to conspiring to help organize an attack on Congress by angry supporters of Donald Trump and to assaulting law enforcement officers.

    In a newly filed statement of offense, prosecutors said that “Donohoe understood that the purpose of the rally in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021, was to stop the certification of the Electoral College vote.”

    As early as Jan. 4, prosecutors said, “Donohoe was aware that members of MOSD leadership were discussing the possibility of storming the Capitol.

    Edited From:

    In the immediate aftermath of January 6th, Professor Turley promoted the spin that said riots were simply a spontaneous event. But testimonies and plea bargains since have revealed that a very real conspiracy existed to stop Joe Biden’s certification as President.

      1. It doesn’t take any extrapolation to recognize that Donohoe was indicted as part of a conspiracy with multiple other Proud Boys, and he’s cooperating, so the DOJ is learning more about the Proud Boys’ conspiracy to use violence to obstruct the certification of the Electoral College vote, which also involved considerable damage to the Capitol.

        The interesting question is whether there are any so-far-unindicted co-conspirators.

        Donohoe’s Statement of Offense notes “On December 19, 2020, plans were announced for a protest event in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021, which protest would coincide with Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote.” That announcement came from one Donald J. Trump, who tweeted “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!” Another Proud Boy co-conspirator, Kelly Meggs, read Trump’s invitation and responded in a Facebook post that “Trump said It’s gonna be wild!!!!!!! It’s gonna be wild!!!!!!! He wants us to make it WILD that’s what he’s saying. He called us all to the Capitol and wants us to make it wild!!! Sir Yes Sir!!! Gentlemen we are heading to DC pack your s***!!”

        1. The interesting question is whether there are any so-far-unindicted co-conspirators.

          And there is the extrapolation.

          With the FBI forced to entrap groups to support the Govt’s phony claim that patriotic groups are the greatest threat to the nations security. The shoe yet to drop is defendants in the Jan 6 scam, demand exculpatory evidence be released by the govt. The charges to this point don’t need to see all the video, so judges are disallowing

            1. ATS wishes to remain ignorant of what happened with the FBI in the past and the present. Reminder to get ATS up to speed. The recent incense of a Jan 6 individual (more to come) and the same for the Whitman, the governor of Michigan. Innocence, both due to law enforcement failures by the Capitol Police and the FBI. The FBI has become a part of the political scene. We recognize the KGB was wrong because of what they did. Now we have to deal with our own FBI, which has acted similarly.

              1. You are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid (ATS), aka Meyer the Troll Liar.

                1. Anonymous the Stupid, you are demonstrating your ignorance.

                  ” The recent incense of a Jan 6 individual (more to come) and the same for the Whitman, the governor of Michigan. Innocence, both due to law enforcement failures by the Capitol Police and the FBI. The FBI has become a part of the political scene. We recognize the KGB was wrong because of what they did. Now we have to deal with our own FBI, which has acted similarly.”

                  You are admitting to your ignorance and inability to handle the truth. Please continue to show the world your type of raw ignorance.

                    1. You don’t know one way or the other, and based on the comments you make that contradict one another, only a fool would believe you. Anonymous the Stupid, your name fits your profile. Live with it.

            2. Half of the group were being paid by the FBI
              When the leader said it was stupid and walked away, an FBI agent took the leadership role and attempted to execute the plan.

              If the govt has identified the largest threat to the United States is Patriotic groups, they wouldn’t have to spend over $100K trying to set up a simple kidnapping. All they had to do is monitor. But Monitoring doesn’t commit any crimes does it?. The FBI has to fund and lead the group.
              Without the FBI, there was no plan.

              Again the Govt says these patriotic groups are the single largest threat. Yet they have no money and a small handfull of people.

              Not my opinion. Facts as revealed in Michigan.

              1. Again: this subthread is about the conviction of Charles Donohoe under the conspiracy indictment of Donohoe, Ethan Nordean, Joe Biggs, Zach Rehl, Enrique Tarrio, and Dominic Pezzola:
                The government didn’t entrap anyone here, and Donohoe has chosen to cooperate against his co-conspirators.

                You wish to change the topic. I will not join you in that. Every time that you respond to *me* about something else in this subthread, I will return to the topic of this subthread: the conviction of Charles Donohoe under the conspiracy indictment of Donohoe, Ethan Nordean, Joe Biggs, Zach Rehl, Enrique Tarrio, and Dominic Pezzola — and Donohoe’s choice to cooperate with the government. If you want to discuss something else, find *someone else* to discuss it with.

                1. So Trump did not incite Jan 6.? Your conspiracy proves there is no incitement.

  15. Anonymous says:

    “FWIW, I emailed Turley about the claim about Luria, and he has changed the sentence to “Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.) on Monday evening told Garland to just “do your job” and get on with prosecutions of Trump associates.”

    “For what it is worth.” Astute qualification. For how many Trumpists here will credit me for pointing out an error of which Turley not only took notice but went to the trouble of making a correction? This incident demonstrates that I can make a good faith criticism which Turley accepts.

    Will any Republican here acknowledge that? Perhaps, Paul.

    I take your point, however, that Turley is still trying to malign the motives of “liberal activists” by insinuating that ethics is not their priority.

    We have to acknowledge that Turley is in the pocket of Congressional Republicans. They are his client. He does not testify as their witness at Congressional hearings for peanuts. Accordingly, he is biased as any advocate should be for his clientele. He would not deny that. Consequently, it stands to reason that he would question the motivations of some on the Left in order to virtue signal to his employers on the Right.

    BUT so long as as he does not blatantly lie on behalf of his employers (Fox and the Congressional Republicans), I can tolerate his being disingenuous making the best case he can in their favor given that he has malicious clients.

    1. So how did the plunge off of the Golden Gate go?

      Get to know Kevin Hanes. It gets better Jeff

      1. Darren,

        Will you or won’t you be removing these pleas for my suicide?

    2. Jeff,

      You have quoted Anomaly as sending an email to Turley to suggest a correction to his article but then you have asked; “ how many Trumpists here will credit **me** for pointing out an error of which Turley not only took notice but went to the trouble of making a correction?”

      Are you admitting to being Anomaly or, at least, admitting to being one of the various Anomalies? Or…are you simply stealing the credit for what Anomaly did because he is, of course, anonymous and therefore can’t reliably dispute your claim to credit and because, of course, you are so desperate for credibility that you cannot help yourself?

      1. Ray,

        You are truly grasping at straw. I was the one who noted the mistake Turley made! The fact that it was Anonymous who decided on his own to report it to Turley does not invalidate the credit due me. I’m sure that Anonymous is not seeking any credit for simply emailing my criticism to Turley nor feels that I am stealing any credit from him!

        You are a funny guy, Ray.

        1. Jeff,

          I give credit to Anomaly for suggesting a correction that was accepted. As for you, you are a sad little man to seek credit for that which was done by Anomaly.

          1. Hey Ray,

            This is what Anonymous posted about you said about me:

            “Jeff, yes, your complaint was valid. I have no respect for Ray, who can’t even bring himself to talk about me without name-calling, and I do not care what he thinks.

            Nice try, but no dice.

  16. “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”

    3 letter agencies have already been weaponized against conservatives, from the IRS targeting conservative organizations, to the FBI promoting the Russia hoax, even lying to the FISA Court.

    From this move, it appears that this is getting worse. This is the hallmark of unjust totalitarianism. Sure, we have more than one party, but the Democrats control the public education system, academia, Hollywood, Google, Facebook, Youtube, Instagram. The Left controls what you learn in school, watch on TV, and can find on the internet. Leftist activists now abuse their positions of authority and power in government to target conservatives or political opponents.

    Justice doesn’t mean using the power of government to sift through a private citizen’s entire life to find a crime, any crime. There needs to be evidence of a crime for there to be an investigation.

    We are watching the massive machine owned by the Left basically ignore Hunter Biden selling access to Joe Biden to foreign governments and corporations, and focus on Trump. They want to nail something, anything, on him. Eventually, they’ll catch something. The average person breaks the law in ways they don’t even notice every day. With tax returns that complicated, someone will make the case that they disagree with his tax attorneys, and try to criminally charge him.

    The Left had no interest in foreign governments and oligarchs paying inflated prices to hear Bill Clinton speak, until she lost the presidential election. All of a sudden, donations to her Foundation and bookings dried up. She was the same person before and after that day. What changed was her marketability in the industry of selling political favors.

    Democrats will stop at nothing to destroy Trump. They can’t run on their catastrophic record. They’ve got to have something to distract from Ukraine, Afghanistan, rampant inflation, unaffordable gas prices, rising taxes. The only way to beat conservatives isn’t on policy; it’s got to be character assassination. They are still desperate to pin something on Trump so they can taint Republicans by association. If Biden had accomplished a fraction of what Trump did, he’d have the Nobel Prize and be their hero for generations.

    1. If Biden did what Trump did, I’d want Biden impeached just as Trump was impeached.

      1. If Biden did what Trump did we wouldnt have inflation, we would be energy independent, the Left would have committed suicide and peace would flow like a river.

        You and CNN would not exist if it were not for Trump. Now youre both left to groom children into LGBTQIAEIEIO…XYZ

        Groomers gonna groom

        1. Did you see Biden in the white house with Obama. He looked lost. He looked like an old man in an assisted living facility who needed his diaper changed.

        1. mistress, if Congress had had the evidence that they now have against Trump, I expect that they’d have also included a count of conspiracy to obstruct the vote count.

      2. Joe Biden actually did engage in a quid pro quo, and bragged about it on camera. He got the prosecutor fired who was investigating Burisma, where his drug addict son worked for millions of dollars, without any oil and gas experience. He threatened to withhold US financial aid until and unless he was fired.

        Democrats accused Trump of violating the Emoluments Clause because foreigners paid the going rate to stay in his hotels. Absurd claim. Hunter and Joe Biden actually did sell government favors to foreign countries, oligarchs, and foreign corporations.

        Democrats accused Trump of colluding with Russia to meddle with the election, when it was actually Hillary Clinton and the DNC who did so.

        Democrats claimed Trump incited people to kidnap Michigan Governor Whitmer. 2 of them were found not guilty because the Democrat infested FBI actually set them up.

        So far, it’s Democrats who did what they accused Republicans of doing.

        Where’s your impeachment sign?

        1. Karen, your comment shows that you believe some things that are false.

          As a start, do you understand the difference between legal quid pro quo and illegal quid pro quo?

          1. “do you understand the difference between legal quid pro quo and illegal quid pro quo?”

            Legal or illegal isn’t the point. Joe Biden was selling America. Anonymous are you too Stupid to recognize that simple fact?

    2. Karen,

      Show us a court ruling against the IRS for ‘harassing’ conservatives.

  17. Joe Biden must be impeached and convicted for treason.

    Joe Biden directly and materially adhered to the enemy, and gave the enemy Aid and Comfort by willfully and deliberately causing the oil price to rise to $116 per barrel and favor the enemy, Russia.

    Joe Biden deliberately increased the energy revenue of Russia as Russia commenced a “hot” war which threatens NATO and America.

    Russian and American weapons are engaged against each other in actual wartime activities.

    Russia is the direct and mortal enemy of America.

    “EU Has Spent $24 Billion on Russian Gas Since War Began”

    “The European Union has paid Russia $24 billion for energy supplies since President Vladimir Putin began his unprovoked attack on Ukraine Feb. 24, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) said.”

    – Charlie McCarthy

    “Russia Sidesteps Sanctions to Supply Energy to Willing World”

    Bloomberg Economics expects Russia will earn about $320 billion from energy exports this year, up by more than a third from 2021.

    – Bloomberg

    Article 3, Section 3

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    1. “Russia is the direct and mortal enemy of America.”

      Why? Why is Russia considered as an enemy of the US? Proof?

      One thing is all those US’s illegal Bio/chem weapons labs in Ukraine are up against Russia & the Russians believe those US labs are targeting them.

      Our leaders here need to be charged for the illegal labs they are still running. Much of it appears to being funded right through the US’s university system.

      Regardless, it’s likely just a matter of time some lunatic leader/bureaucracy here or there pushes the button & 30:00/60:00 minutes & the the end of humans on the planet.

  18. Attorney General Merrick Garlan can resign and walk away by stating in a letter to the President (basically):
    I no longer want to be part of this convoluted hypocrisy and hereby reign my post. …

    Of course He will be a bit more tactful than that, but I would expect to see it very soon.
    He turns 70 this year, I think he has earned his CSRS/FERS Benefits.

    As for the Others in this mishegoss, here is Their Retirement table:×1024.png.webp

    1. I think you will be disappointed. He became AG rather than remaining a judge because he wanted to be AG. There is no reason for him to resign.

      1. I agree there’s no reason for him to resign. His presence is a daily reminder to thank God Almighty he is not a Supreme Court Justice.

Comments are closed.