The Incredible Shrinking Merrick Garland




Below is my column in USA Today on the diminishing role of Attorney General Merrick Garland at the Justice Department after a series of controversies. As a well-known moderate, many of us had hoped that Garland could be a unifying presence at the Department; assuring a divided nation that justice would be pursued in an even-handed and apolitical fashion. Yet, in controversy after controversy, Garland has failed to take modest steps to make such assurances. After well documented cases of bias and false statements by FBI and DOJ officials in past investigations, there was a clear need for greater transparency and independence in investigations. Garland has consistently swatted away such options. This week, Garland stayed on that path and refused to release any part of the affidavit used as the basis for the search of Mar-a-Lago. This included the possible issuance of a redacted copy or even responses to specific concerns over the timing or basis for the search. While Trump has called for the release of the affidavit, Garland will not even release those sections dealing with the account of the prior discussions and agreements with the Team Trump. There is little proactive effort to anticipate or address such concerns as vividly shown in the last week.

Here is the column:

In the cult classic, “The Incredible Shrinking Man,” the character Scott Stuart is caught in a thick fog that causes him to gradually shrink to the point that he lives in a doll house and fights off the house cat. At one point, Stuart delivers a strikingly profound line: “The unbelievably small and the unbelievably vast eventually meet — like the closing of a gigantic circle.”

If one image sums up the incredibly shrinking stature of Attorney General Merrick Garland, it is that line in the aftermath of the Mar-a-Lago search.

Two years ago, I was one of many who supported Garland when he was nominated for attorney general. While his personality seemed a better fit for the courts than the Cabinet, he is a person with unimpeachable integrity and ethics.

If there are now doubts, it is not about his character but his personality in dealing with political controversies. Those concerns have grown in the past week.

In the aftermath of the FBI’s search of former President Donald Trump’s home in Florida, much remains unclear. The inventory list confirms that there were documents marked TS (Top Secret) and SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information) —two of the highest classification levels for materials. The former president’s retention of such documents would appear to be a very serious violation.

However, the status of the documents is uncertain after Trump insisted that he declassified the material and was handling the records in accordance with prior discussions with the FBI. While the declassified status of these documents would not bar charges under the cited criminal provisions, it could have a significant impact on the viability of any prosecution.

I have not assumed that the search of Mar-a-Lago was unwarranted given that we have not seen the underlying affidavit. Yet in another controversy, Garland seemed largely reactive and rote in dealing with questions over bias or abuse in his department.

In his confirmation hearing, Garland repeatedly pledged that political considerations would hold no sway with him as attorney general. Yet, in just two years, the Justice Department has careened from one political controversy to another without any sign that Garland is firmly in control of the department. Last year, for example, Garland was heavily criticized for his rapid deployment of a task force to investigate parents and others challenging school boards.

When Garland has faced clear demands for independent action, he has folded. For example, Garland has refused to appoint a special counsel in the investigation of Hunter Biden. But there is no way to investigate Hunter Biden without running over continual references to President Biden.

By refusing a special counsel, Garland has removed the president’s greatest threat. Unlike the U.S. Attorney investigating Hunter Biden, a special counsel would be expected to publish a report that would detail the scope of the Biden family’s alleged influence peddling and foreign contacts.

Likewise, the Justice Department is conducting a grand jury investigation that is aggressively pursuing Trump associates and Republican figures, including seizing the telephones of members of Congress. That investigation has bearing on the integrity and the status of Biden’s potential opponent in 2024.

The investigation also has triggered concerns over the party in power investigating the opposing political party. It is breathtaking that Garland would see no need for an independent or special counsel given this country’s continued deep divisions and mistrust.

Democrats often compare the January 6 investigation to Watergate but fail to note that the Watergate investigation was led by an independent counsel precisely because of these inherent political conflicts.

Then came the raid. While Garland said he personally approved the operation, he did little to help mitigate the inevitable political explosion. This country is a powder keg and the FBI has a documented history of false statements to courts and falsified evidence in support of a previous Trump investigation.

Yet, there was no prepared statement or response for days, which allowed speculation and rage to grow. When Garland did respond, he offered a boilerplate defense of the department and sought only the release of the warrant and inventory list.

If there was one occasion for total transparency, including the release of the FBI affidavit, this was that moment. Yet, Garland refused to act further. He declined to seek the release even as news media reported an array of leaks from the Justice Department, including the allegation that Trump took nuclear weapon secrets to Mar-a-Lago. As his department leaked like a sieve, Garland withheld the document that would set the record straight. 

The Justice Department also reportedly refused to allow a special master to review the seized material after alleged attorney-client material was taken — a move that would have addressed concerns that the search was “pretextual” to seize January 6th evidence.

Despite this record, I do not view Garland as inherently political in contrast to predecessors like Eric Holder. Garland’s judicial temperament may be ill-suited to the demands of this office.

Garland sometimes looks more like a pedestrian than a driver on decisions in his own department. Top positions were given to figures denounced as far-left advocates on issues from defunding the police to racial justice. For the moderate Garland, these did not seem like natural choices. Neither did the department’s recent controversial move to effectively circumvent a Trump pardon to prosecute a Florida nursing home operator.

And Garland has not responded to new allegations of bias at the FBI and Justice involving the downplaying of evidence involving the Hunter Biden laptop controversy.

Concerns also have been raised about the decision to appoint the special agent in charge of the FBI’s Detroit office to lead the Washington, D.C., office. The agent, Steven M. D’Antuono, led the disastrous investigation of the alleged plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. Many observers viewed that case as clear entrapment and abuse by the FBI. Given the importance of the January 6 investigation, it is baffling that the Department of Justice would make this controversial transfer at this time.

An attorney general should not be motivated by optics in his decisions, but he also cannot ignore optics when they undermine the integrity of his department. The search of Mar-a-Lago was a historic raid with sweeping political implications, including on the approaching midterm elections. Garland must have known that it would be viewed by many as an “insurance policy” taken out against a Trump presidential run.

Yet, with leaks coming out of his department undermining Trump’s claims, Garland merely offered “trust us we’re the government” assurances while resisting the release of the affidavit.

When Scott Stuart faced his diminished stature, he asked, “I was continuing to shrink, to become… what? The infinitesimal? What was I?” That is a debilitating question for any person, but it is disastrous in an attorney general.

It is not that Merrick Garland is absent but that his presence often seems immaterial.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley

484 thoughts on “The Incredible Shrinking Merrick Garland”

  1. Turley’s hypocrisy is nothing short of stunning. Turley still has nothing to say about his pal, Bill Barr, using the office of the AG for pro-Trump political reasons. Just two examples: getting a jump on the release of the Mueller Report by misrepresenting the findings; marching with Trump to the Episcopal church so Trump could pose with the Bible after protesters were gassed to clear them away. But, according to Turley, due to past controversies involving the DOJ and FBI, Garland should release the Affidavit to “set the record straight”.

    Turley: the “record” IS straight: Trump stole classified and top secret documents; when asked to return them, he handed over only a few, triggering the need for a subpoena; in response to the subpoena, 15 boxes were produced, and Trump’s attorneys signed a declaration that all had been returned; a tipster informed the NARA that there were still missing documents, so a search warrant was obtained; before the results of the warrant were released, Trump declared that if classified documents were found, it would be because the FBI planted them; turns out, classified documents WERE found, so a new lie was created: Trump claims that by virtue of putting his tiny hands on the document, that anointed it to the status of “declassified” due to a standing order (BTW: John Bolton, Trump’s head of national security, said there was NO such “standing order”, none has been produced; and whether the documents were “classified” makes no difference–Trump can still be prosecuted). Trump publicized the search as an outrageous invasion of his “beautiful home” to stir up the disciples, one of whom is dead after a standoff with police following his attempt to shoot out the windows of the Cincinnati FBI office. Trump still won’t shut up about it, and instead of admitting his retention of these documents was wrongful, that he lied about it and forced the government to seek a search warrant to seize the documents after a subpoena failed, goes on Turley’s employer’s network and complains about how “angry” the country is over the DOJ and FBI. Turley is contributing to this misdirected anger. If anyone deserves the wrath of the public, it’s Trump. If anyone can properly be the object of mistrust, it’s Trump, who is a proven thief and liar. And, he stole documents that could disclose some of our nation’s most-precious secrets.

    The summary of all of this is: as of noon on Jan 20, 2021, Trump had NO right to possess classified documents. He took them anyway. He only voluntarily returned a few of them in response to an informal effort to claw them back. He forced the NARA to get a subpoena, and his lawyer filed a false declaration that all were returned, whcih was a lie. A tipster told the FBI where to find more of them, and even more turned up. Now, he’s blaming the DOJ and FBI for “invading” his “beautiful home”, and for causing dissention in our country, when he is the sole cause.

    The validity of the Affidavit is proven by the results it produced: 20 or so more boxes of classified documents that he still retained after his lawyer certified that there were no more to be found. Turls: you know that no matter what the Affidavit says, this will just be more fodder for the alt-right news, plus people could get killed or injured. There is no valid basis to question the veracity of the Affidavit because it did show that Trump was still holding onto documents he had no right to possess.

    Turls: you previously criticized Garland for not acting more swiftly in seeking a search warrant. According to reliable sources, this was because he knew that if he obtained a warrant, there would be the exact sort of firestorm we are experiencing and he had to weigh a malignant narcissist in wrongful possession of our most-secret documents who is sympathetic to murderous dictators with the political fallout of forcing him to disgorge the documents. In the end, democracy won. You also know, Turls, that the fury over Trump’s wrongful possession of classified documents is misdirected, and that your employer has helped fuel the anger of the disciples by implying that it was somehow wrong of the NARA to compel Trump to return documents he stole–which would only be true if he had some right to possess them. The string of lies belies any such validity. You really ought to be ashamed of yourself. Oh, and you just had to throw in another reference to the “Hunter Biden Scandal”.

    1. ^^^^

      759 Words
      4,435 Characters
      3,668 Characters without space
      1,150 Syllables

      Plagiarism found

    2. Barr acted within his powers as AG. There was nothing political.

      The Mueller team was stalling. My guess is that Mueller’s mental decline was becoming increasingly obvious and his subordinates did not know what to do.

      I also suspect that Barr was throwing Mueller a lifeline – Trump was not Robert Mueller’s friend. His performance in congress was abysmal. He clearly was no longer competent.

      Barr needed the Mueller report done ASAP – before his Freind Mueller ending up drooling while testifying.

      Regardless the core of the Mueller report was obvious – the day Mueller was appointed.

      This nonsense rests on a couple of Hoax’s and there is no basis for further investigation.

      I have major problems with Barr – the most important of which is that he went to DOJ to restore its reputation – and he failed.
      Not because he did a poor or partisan job – but because every acomplishment vaporized when he left.

      1. I remember the day all too well. On April 22, 2000, Good Friday evening, the holiest day for Hispanics due to Catholicism, Attorney General Janet Reno gave the order for US Federal Border agent to raid the home of a Cuban family in Miami carrying assault rifles. Reno sent 130 Federal agents to descend on a family home in Little Havana, Miami, on a deeply religious evening. The photo of a US Federal agent pointing an assault rifle at a Cuban boy, Elian Gonzalez, hiding in a closet held in the arms of an adult, made the Miami Cuban community lose it. I was there in the streets protesting in Little Havana the next day. Easter weekend was marred by the Feds.

        This is what the US Federal government does to people in America: raid their homes, when they are least suspecting it, on the holiest of holy days for religious folk, to use their brut power to destroy institutions like the family. The Elian Gonzalez raid was reminiscent of Nazis invading homes of innocent religious women and children

        Elian Gonzalez came from Cuba in a boat with his mother, his step-father, and several others. They left Cuba because Cuba was drowning in political persecution. Elian’s biological father abandoned his son at birth. He lived in a different part of Cuba than his son with no involvement. The mother raised him alone, eventually remarrying. In an act of desperation that Americans will never understand, she fled Cuba and drowned in the Florida straits. Everyone in the boat drowned except for the boy, found floating on an inner-tube. A boat with 2 fishermen rescued the boy at sea, the very man who was holding the little boy when the US Federales pointed their rifles at them. Bill Clinton wanted the boy returned to Fidel Castro so that the father could have him, the father who wanted nothing to do with him prior to Clinton’s political theater. “Telephone records show that his father had called his family in Miami, asking them to take care of the boy”, according to one source. His mother died for freedom for her son. An Attorney General returned him to tyranny. It is happening here in America.

        1. Estovir, that story was a tragic one that should have told Americans our political order was slipping out of control and that the state sought control over the individual.

    3. Stole has an actual meaning.

      It does not mean that Trump posses’s documents that some partisan hack in the FBI thinks are the governments and thinks are classified.

      Actual facts matter.

      One would have thought you understood the difference between FACTS and partisan allegations by the FBI from the collusion delusion.

      Regardless, we have no reason at this tim to beleive anything Trump has was classifed.
      Nor any reason to beleive it was stolen.

      This is radically different from the Clinton mess – where there was no possible lawful explanation for classifed documents on her email server.

      It is also radically different in scale,
      And radically different in that the Sec State has different responsibilities and duties.

      Given that we already know that the FBI has been wrong about some of what the collected, and given their constant lies over the past 6 years – there is no reason to beleive or trust the FBI.

      The same criteria apply to you

    4. Nutacha – it would be wise for you to work towards rebuilding your own credibility.

      Some suggestions:

      If it is politically biased against the right and it is printed in the NYT or WaPo or you hear it on MSNBC or CNN or …
      It is likely false.

      If it is offered by a government expert – a Fauci, the CDC, the NIH, the FDA – it is likely false.

      If it is an an anonymous sourced story from someone purportedly well connected – it is likely false.

      The left is celebrating the verdict in the Alex Jones defamation lawsuit.

      I am not sure why. Trump’s Defamation lawsuit against the Media rests on much the same basis and is far stronger.
      If some inconsequential rightwing hack of a journalist looses an 8 figure judgment to two parents – fo remarks few of us would have ever heard of but for the left reportion them over and over, how much should tbhe MSM have to pay for falsely calling people liars ?

      Regardless – if you can not learn critical thinking, you can atleast learn to not trust those who have lied to you over and over.

    1. They have already started on DeSantis. But have you noted that they stopped with the ‘Kill Bush’.

  2. If the actions of this administration’s Justice department and FBI aren’t proof the Democrats have gone all in to weaponize the federal agencies against their political opponents, including the American people, then why aren’t the Democrats and their base as outraged about the abuse of federal police powers as they have been about the alleged abuse of police power at the state and local level?

    1. Olly: all of this is TRUMP’S fault. HE is the one who stole documents and created a string of lies. HE is the one who publicized the search. HE is the one who is stirring the wrath of his fans by trying to clam that he is somehow the victim of a situation that HE caused.

      I want you to defend his possession of classified documents, if you can. If you can’t, then admit that Trump caused all of this, which he is trying to leverage politicially and for fundraising. Why doesn’t that upset you? Even Turls admits Trump’s possession of these documents is wrongful. Defend also, if you can, his failure to comply with a subpoena, the false declaration that all were returned, and his attempts to fund raise over forcing the NARA to get a search warrant to get back what he shouldn’t have stolen in the first place and what he refused to return voluntarily. NO ONE is “abusing” power. Citizens expect our government to protect our top secret information.

  3. Perhaps Merrick Garland is shrinking just like his marionette handlers are shrinking.

    Breaking: Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla has been infected with COVID, as has Jill Biden (last seen wearing Carol “Gone with the Wind” Burnett drapes on a $20 Million vacation in South Carolina). She likely got it from Joe Biden who may have gotten it from Nancy Pelosi who have all been quadrupled vaccinated.

    Why would anyone not believe Biden’s government?

    Albert Bourla
    I would like to let you know that I have tested positive for #COVID19. I am thankful to have received four doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, and I am feeling well while experiencing very mild symptoms. I am isolating and have started a course of Paxlovid.
    7:52 AM · Aug 15, 2022

    Albert Bourla
    Excited to share that updated analysis from our Phase 3 study with BioNTech also showed that our COVID-19 vaccine was 100% effective in preventing #COVID19 cases in South Africa. 100%!
    9:46 AM · Apr 1, 2021

    The CDC is saying they have concluded that fully vaccinated people are at a very very low risk of getting
    COVID 19. therefore if you’ve been fully vaccinated, you no longer need to wear a mask. Let me repeat if you are fully vaccinated you no longer need to wear a mask

    1. Estovir: “Jill Biden, last seen wearing Carol “Gone with the Wind” Burnett drapes…”

      LOL…Oh lord, yes! I knew I’d seen that frock before.

      1. 😉

        Carol Burnett humor c. 1970s was understood by anyone even if they lacked English language comprehension like my parents. It was my mother’s favorite episode. Legendary !

    2. Perhaps you missed the importance of Bourla’s “100%!” being releaed on April Fool’s Day…

  4. Prof Turley seems almost obsessed with Garland’s state of mind. I think that is a matter that is now unknowable, and irrelevantin any case. Leave that to his biographers.

    As for what he is doing as AG, I can do no better than paraphrase Forrest Gump’s mother; Evil is as evil does.

    In a person’s social role, it does not matter what they think, only what they do. And I may be wrong but it seems to me that Prof Turley is trying very hard not to say what he knows needs to be said about Garland–that Garland is doing evil and has politicized the Justice Department beyond any of his predecessors, even Eric Holder.

  5. Not once has Turley used the words “ongoing criminal investigation.” Turley tries to set the narrative by claiming public interest (does that override ongoing criminal investigation?). I want to see the affidavit, I’m curious about the leakers and what the probable cause was for the search warrant. But I’m willing to wait if releasing the affidavit immediately will disrupt the ONGOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, but perhaps that’s Turley’s goal?

        1. Since the FISA requests were only the tip of the iceberg regarding lies from the FBI why shouldn’t the affidavit be made available when names can be redacted.

          The reason is that the affidavit will demonstrate the moral and ethical deficiencies of our justice department.

          1. What drivel are you posting S. Meyer. FISA issues from the past have nothing to do with the current search warrant which was legal, and applied correctly.

            The affidavit cannot be made public when the criminal investigation on Trump is ongoing.

            When charges are filed and Trump is indicted THEN we will get to see the contents of the affidavit. The affidavit could also demonstrate that Trump DID commit a crime or crimes.

            1. Dummy, the FISA applications prove the FBI will lie. That is why there will be a clamor for the affidavit. If the affidavit is made public it can have redactions. The damage done to the integrity of the DOJ and FBI will be tremendous if this affidavit is kept hidden. The people aren’t all as stupid as you and will start to assume the worst that the DOJ and FBI are more corrupt than presently suspected. That belief might become irreversible.

        2. Garland is a political activist as was Holder. This MUST stop or this country will fail

      1. They will in time but not as the investigation is on going. This is well established law.

      OMG– you are so gullible!! But of course, that’s why the Dems love green horns like you.

      Ok, let’s review, again: There is no Santa Claus, no Easter Bunny, no Tinkerbell, no monsters under your bed. ………..

    2. Unless there is very clear evidence of a serious crime that would do demonstrable and significant actual harm to the US, it was folly to search and would be folly to indict a former President who is also a leading contender in the next presidential election. The mere possession of documents, classified or not, even if arguably unlawful, is not a sufficient reason. The initiation of the prosecutorial pursuit of former presidents or leading presidential candidates for trivial crimes will spark a cycle of destruction that will be difficult to end.

      I think the affidavit should be released, with only such limited redactions as are necessary to protect the identities of any informants. If the release of the affidavit reveals prosecutorial strategy in a way that makes defence easier that is a risk that should be accepted in this case. The far greater risk is the suspicion, widespread among at least half the country, based on the experience of the past six years, that neither the DOJ nor the FBI can be trusted where Trump is concerned. The basis for this unprecedented search should be disclosed, so all can assess whether the damage this may cause to the nation’s political culture is outweighed by the seriousness of the allegations and the evidence for them.

      1. It clearly wasn’t folly to search, as they found boxes of items responsive to the warrant — items that should not have been in Trump’s possession, and that he refused to return despite having been asked for them and having been subpoenaed for them. None of the alleged crimes that were probably cause for the warrant are “trivial.”

        1. You don’t seem to learn. NARA and the FBI were at MAL multiple times and should have taken whatever it is that didn’t belong. Trump didn’t bring boxes of material. That is done by staff at the White House who log the data.

          I know you just wanted a look at Melania’s sexy underwear, but you don’t look very good in it.

          1. That’s NOT how a subpoena works, Read Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The duty to organize and label documents responsive to a subpoena falls on the person to whom it is directed–not the party seeking the documents. Trump not only took the documents, he lied about it, has fought to keep them, including documents related to national security, and he has stirred up a firestorm all because he refuses to return TS/SCI documents he has no right to possess. THOSE ARE FACTS.

        2. “. . . items responsive to the warrant . . .”

          A pair of socks is “responsive to the warrant.”

          “Anything you find” is responsive to “General Warrants.” That’s why a government of laws does not use them.

          1. “A pair of socks is “responsive to the warrant.””

            It isn’t, and your belief that it is suggest that either you haven’t actually read the warrant or that you do not understand it.

            1. ATS, though not included in the warrant passports are “responsive to the warrant.”

              ATS, often you wish to talk about others being on their computers all day. Take note of your actions. You were an employee that retired. Some of us, though retired self-employed persons, still have active working lives because of what they built. They are on their computers fulfilling tasks in advisory positions. You are here day and night to troll the Internet, here and elsewhere.

  6. Two questions yet to be answered are, who ordered the Code Red and why was it even necessary?

    Didn’t we learn anything from A Few Good Men?
    If you gave an order that Santiago wasn’t to be touched, and your orders are always followed, then why would Santiago be in danger? Why would it be necessary to transfer him off the base?

    If as witnesses have stated, that the FBI had all the access they wanted in June to search his MAL estate and storage locker, did they not immediately take possession of the “ultra” classified documents, instead of telling them to put a different lock on the storage room?

  7. Turkey and Trump…
    Sitting in a tree.
    K I s s I n g.
    First came money.. then came hate.
    Both these dudes have no faith.

  8. Of course Garland has kicked off a crusade to identify the leakers of information HE cannot discuss because of DOJ Ethical and Legal Standards……yeah right!

    Garland may. have had the valued traits the good Professor grants him….but he has long since been compromised and sidelined….either under duress or by his own doing.

    Either way he is just as culpable as the DOJ, FBI, and Media A-Holes that are conspiring to take down Trump in yet another corrupt and criminal manner.

    I an of the opinion that the best way to stick a sharp thumb nail into the Democrat’s collective eye is by voting Trump back into the White House in 2024….and let him start cleaning house by firing every single political appointee on day one…hour one…minute one of his Term in Office. Then he can start cutting budgets…moving government offices…and wreaking havoc on the remaining bureaucrats. Firing the Joint Chiefs, and heads of each of the military services and dipping down to Colonel Ranks to find War Fighters to head up the Military should be his follow on move.

    1. Yes to all of that. Great plan. But we know TPTB would sooner rig the elections and pull a ‘JFK’ on Trump than ever allow him to weild power from the WH again.

    2. I an of the opinion that the best way to stick a sharp thumb nail into the Democrat’s collective eye is by voting Trump back into the White House in 2024.

      Trump is obviously the natural choice to implement the America First agenda. That would include (texasjimbrock) Schedule F. That being said, I will be supporting any candidate committed to that agenda.

    3. Ralph Chappell, looks like you’re advocating for Trump to be a dictator. That’s not surprising.

  9. Turkey is sucking up to Trump so as to be nominated for a Supreme Court seat if Trump is reelected.

  10. Even if you grant him intregrity and character…..his demonstrated judgement destroys any such valued traits.

  11. “he is a person with unimpeachable integrity and ethics.”

    Au contraire he IS impeachable and will BE impeached for his lawlessness and bias.

    1. Maybe for the establishment, three times would be a charm. Or maybe 3 strikes and you’re out.

  12. “If there are now doubts, it is not about his character but his personality in dealing with political controversies.” Not sure I’m following the professor…looks like his character, or perhaps the suspension of it for political purposes is indeed, the bigger part of his personality to doubt.

  13. Hasn’t anyone noticed that the media – and Garland! – ONLY requested the unsealing of the warrant, but was mum on the affidavits? Once unsealed, they made perfect political use of it. The warrant could only show that Trump was a “potential” criminal, but avoid the reasons why the judge found probable cause. Now, suddenly, the DOJ feels the American public isn’t ready for that. It would “compromise” an ongoing “investigation”!

    But clearly the liberal media and Garland wanted that outcome. That way, they could continue its campaign to destroy Trump, but wouldn’t have to blunt their attack with the abuse of power issue of the DOJ and the FBI. But if Garland was truly non-political, he would have requested to unseal the affidavits as well. Turley is very clear about that, but still wants to give Garland the “benefit of the doubt” about his motive. Not me.

  14. “Garland’s judicial temperament may be ill-suited to the demands of this office. This is why he was chosen, just like Biden. He is a purported moderate, but instead, he is a weak leader that is being manipulated by others…just like Biden.

  15. When we talk about The Incredible Shrinking Merrick Garland we might also laugh and think about The Incredible Shrinking Anonymous the Stupid.

      1. One day someone is going to put Anonymous the Stupid into shrink wrap. It seems his restraint vest doesn’t work.

  16. If garland had any sense AND your analysis is right – he would be a fool to stay. Since he chooses to stay, either he is a moron or corrupt like the fbi.

    1. .The FBI has become the modern day Stasi.

      The FBI is only corrupt because they are supported and encouraged by the DoJ Democrat, and White House.Democrat. One term of an honorable patriot is not enough time to clean house. The House may need to be razed.

  17. Merrick Garland may be more than the Incredible Shrinking Man. Merrick Garland could be the new “Tidy Bowl Man” hiding in your toilet with a warrant & FBI ready to search……Starting from the bottom of course.

Leave a Reply