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. I read a fair number of Prof Turley’s commentaries because of his thoughtful and mostly even handed treatment of the issues he writes of. In this case, I strongly disagree with his assessment of Garland. At one time, Garland may have possessed unimpeachable character and integrity. Perhaps it was a carefully constructed facade, because he certainly does not possess those things now. His tenure as AG has demonstrated nothing other than partisan malevolence, moral and ethical corruption, and perfidy. Sadly, that sums up every democrat administration post Carter.

    1. Agreed. And the supposed separation of character and personality seems a bit much. Personality is a reflection of character, at least that’s what they’ve always said about Trump. And with Clinton, character didn’t matter.

    2. His glowing review of Garland is just one example of the idiotic politeness that keeps the left getting everything they want and the rest of us getting nothing.

      1. True… his excusing an obviously totally CORRUPT Garland proves that most liberals cannot change their stripes.

  2. RNC Leadership & Nine Men’s Morris

    Playing this strategic board game, the player who can shuttle one piece back and forth between two mills, will win. Former President Trumps hold this position but it’s not his time to shuffle: In the meantime, he trolls by indorsing Daniel Goldman (D, NY-12) and (D-NY-10) coming back into the spotlight, cash pouring “as never seen before”

    In the bottom of the heart the vast majority of RNC Leadership label Mr. Trump a pleb using improper rhetoric, delevers his absolutes in short sentences, garnished with easy taglines. They also don’t like to see that His name calling (“[…] is a low energy person. For him: To get things done is hard”). comes also as reply (“I am a proven Republican. This is a guy who was a Democrat for most of the last decade. You can’t win when you campaign like this”) Why can this guy still be around also axted two years ago?

    Although two months before the midterms, RNC leadership knows that opposing Trump, the pass to losing election. They still hope that a muddling though (hypotheticly: Mike Pence’s could have said: AG Garland unconstiutal move to let a biased judge approve the search warrent divides American’s more and more. It also brings FBI field staff in the possition to executed law reason what many see an action to damage an opponent) will flip the Congress (which is a delusion).

    While I have no idea, why Professor Turley linked his name to left biased media outlets like USA Today and The Hill, I am positive to find common ground about the reason why American’s are so divided: Winning 2008 presidential election in a landsilde, then President Obama (Joe Biden was selected to attract the more center leaning electorate) shifted our core policy in a direction, that a growing number of Americans see their preferred way of life in jeopardy.

    One of the most powerful Departments within the cabinet is Justice. AG represents all Americans It goes without saying that this should be filled with a person with “unimpeachable integrity and ethics”.Erich Holder (later cleared by AIG Michael Horowitz) succeeded by his advisory committee chair Loretta Lynch who believes that voter ID laws are part of a racist effort to suppress minority turnout at the polls. Judge yourself, if these appointees help to unite or devide our country.

    While DNC followed this pass and with him mainstream media, got RNC more and more divided. While the tea party movement influenced, it was short lived. A new chapter opened after TV personality Donald J. Trump announced his presidential bid on 6/16/15 Thereafter, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, John Kasich, etc where past, but Trump still an outsider

    Former President Trump, shares still support of a significant amount of voters and consequently countles invitations to hold the Key Note at the finest right wing conventions and the desire from candidates to get his endorcement. Unfortunately some center her campagne more on the endorcement of # 45 than on issues of the district.they like to represent.

    When looking at an broader issue, I like to watch at a colorful picture. Sometimes it helps to take a closer view on a tiny puzzle-piece, If you interested in my yesterday takes, here are two stamps: August 17, 2022 at 9:17 AM and 6:06 AM.

    BTW.: I don’t expect that Magistrate Reinhart will give a green light this afternoon. Professor Turley tweeted about the leaks:

    1. The ruling was in 2012, not 2009, and the tapes were made by Taylor Branch, not by Clinton, so there’s a legal question of whether they are/aren’t presidential records. Regardless, the judge stated that “The [PRA] statute does not mandate that NARA invoke this enforcement scheme but rather vests complete discretion with the agency to utilize that mechanism.” NARA did seek enforcement with the presidential records taken by Trump, presumably because of the nature of the records.

      Trump’s lawyers are free to cite the 2012 case in their arguments.

      1. ATS also known as Anonymous the Nitpicker (ATN) likes to deflect arguments and deal with issues unimportant to the debate.

        Here is an article on the subject that provides a much better analysis than the nitpicker.

        Old case over audio tapes in Bill Clinton’s sock drawer could impact Mar-a-Lago search dispute

        “Judge ruled in 2012 that a president’s discretion to declare records “personal” is far-reaching and mostly unchallengeable.

        When it comes to the National Archives, history has a funny way of repeating itself. And legal experts say a decade-old case over audio tapes that Bill Clinton once kept in his sock drawer may have significant impact over the FBI search of Melania Trump’s closet and Donald Trump’s personal office.

        The case in question is titled Judicial Watch v. National Archives and Records Administration and it involved an effort by the conservative watchdog to compel the Archives to forcibly seize hours of audio recordings that Clinton made during his presidency with historian Taylor Branch.”

        Of note, the defendant was “the same Justice Department that authorized the raid on Trump’s estate.”

        continue at

    2. So we either have an AG with a personality disorder driven by a weak character or a smart and cunning AG that manipulates. The constant of his action and inaction never seem to favor justice as the article points to. So no points for intregity without some data to support.

  3. I have never felt the desire to comment on a Zero Hedge article. Until today. I try to maintain a level of non-judgement based on my Judeo-Christian beliefs.

    Mr. Turley – how much did the DOJ pay you to write this Op/Ed?

    Merrick Garland has been, and for as long he is AG, will be Public Enemy #1 of the USA and everything it stands for. His job is to finish what what was started under the Obama administration with Holder, Rice, etc al. A complete destruction of our Constitution, the God given freedoms that go with it and the absolute silencing of any one who opposes the Marxist agenda he has taken an oath to implement.

    Your take on his response to the Mar-a-Lago communist raid is absolutely incorrect and appalling. His response was a middle finger to America and the freedoms she stands for.

    God Bless You and may God silence and remove any fool and/or leader who’s heart and eyes are not focused on the Lord. Merrick Garland absolutely fits that category.

    In this article, You wrote: “If there are now doubts, it is not about his character but his personality in dealing with political controversies.”.
    Assuming that one’s character is dictating and directing a personality action, one is scandalously puzzle by this assertion !!!
    Where does one cleave the character from one’s personality ?
    Inquiring minds want to know! !!

  5. Last evening, it was reported that the reason Trump didn’t return the TS/SCI documents is that he is claiming “they are mine, not theirs”. This allegedly came from eyewitnesses, and if correct, proves that the taking was intentional and the lying about turning all of them over was intentional. This wasn’t some mistake by someone who clumsily threw things in boxes–it was deliberate. If these facts bear out, Trump should get charged and convicted. If we take seriously our national defense and top secret information, such conduct cannot be allowed. Merrick Garland clearly took the only action he could–Trump was NEVER going to voluntarily return the papers. Former Presidents do NOT own TS/SCI documents–the United States Government does. Trump had no right to take or to keep them. These documents contain our most-sensitive secrets. Trump has a history of disclosing classified information–he tweeted out a sattelite photo of an air strike iin N. Korea, over the strenuous objection of our national security agency. They begged him to at least fuzzy up the image because it was proof of just how powerful our sattelites are and how effectively we use them, which would cause future actions to be better concealed. He ignored them because he wanted to show off. He also took a call about some military action while at dinner at Mar A Lago, and refused to go to a private location. Strangers recorded this event. This is more than just bad judgment–it’s intentional conduct–showing off to prove what a big shot he is. Knowing this, can there be any doubt that he’d pull out TS/SCI documents and display them to people just to show off? Or worse–would he sell them because, after all, he thinks they belong to him.

    I saw an interview this morning with George Conway, and he was asked his opinion about this. He replied that Trump functions like a 5 year old because of his malignant narcissism. He’s selfish and petty and views himself as the center of the universe. He thought that our generals were “his generals”, just like he thinks our TS/SCI documents are “his documents”. He had the benefit of very competent counsel at the time to explain otherwise, so this is NO mistake. Trump’s mental illness makes him dangerous. He deserves to be prosecuted.

      1. Natacha, your entire reply has been obliterated just by the mention of George Conway. You keep strange company.

    1. Unsubstantiated claims that Trump said “something” are ridiculous. You should know better than to believe such nonsense. We have seen a steady stream of such claims for 6 years straight. And George Conway? One of the OG Never-Trumpers? Please.

      1. The only thing Conway addressed was Trump’s narcissistic and childish behavior–not whether he witnessed Trump claiming ownership of the TS/SCI documents. John Bolton echoed similar sentiments, and he was Trump’s National Security Advisor.

        1. You specifically said that Bolton said no such order existed.

          Either Bolton did not say that, a Bolton and you are lying.
          Or Bolton did and he is claiming to know more than he did.
          Several people have claimed that Trump had a standing order.

          Given that nearly 4M government employees likely never heard anything about such and order – real or not.
          And only a handfull would have.

          A single person recalling the order, depending on their role or the source of their knowledge is sufficient to establish it as a fact.

          Further it would be DOJ’s task to disprove the statement – and even that is not enough.

          Ultimately they must prove Trump took the documents – AFTER his presidency ended.

    2. Thanks. It’s good to know that when the President and Commander in Chief and a passive aggressive, partisan nerd at the National Archives get into an argument about whether he said the magic words in exactly the right order to Declassify materials, the DOJ will take the Archivist’s position and criminalize the President’s. This is how Republics work, I am told.

      Also, you are spot on with the George Conway references. If there’s anybody who knows what is in Trump’s mind, it is the estranged husband of his former campaign manager who left the White House before the end of his 2016 term. Great comment, highly recommended, Natacha.

    3. Natacha — You know what else was “reported” on Aug. 15?

      From Nora O’Donnell, CBS News:

      “According to a DOJ official, the FBI is NOT in possession of former president Trump’s passports. Trump had accused the FBI of stealing the three passports during the search of his Mar a Lago home.”

      Except, it turns out that Trump was right. Again.

      Nora O’Donnell was wrong. Again.

      Report THAT.

        1. The POINT being CBS News’ Nora O’Donnell just took the word of a “DOJ official” and “reported it out as fact” without even bothering to verify it. And it turned out to be false.

          And this happens all day long every day in the media in case you have not been paying attention.

          Trump was right about the Fake News, too.

        2. They took his passports that they “inadvertently” swept up in a raid. Trump was right. O’Donnell used cagey, intentionally deceptive wording.

        3. No, they didn’t. They notified Trump or his lawyers that they were in their possession and Trump could come and pick them up.

          1. The passports were not among the items subject to the search warrant. If they were put into boxes with materials subject to the search warrant, that’s Trump’s fault. The warrant allows entire boxes of documents to be taken if any of the contents of the box is described in the warrant. Afterwards, a team of different agents catalogues the items and segregates irrelevant itmes, which are returned. Return of the passports was done in this manner. None of this would have been necessary if Trump had done what predecessors had done: appoint attorneys to work with the NARA to go through papers and segregate those which must go back to the National Archives, and those which can go to the presidential library. Trump didn’t do that–he just took everything and then claimed it belonged to him. Then, he fought returning the items, including lying about having returned everything, which forced Merrick Garland to seek an order seizing the TS/SCI documents which Trump was never going to return voluntarily. Then Trump did what he always does: play the victim and leverage his own misconduct for monetary gain. This morning, it was reported he got $1 million from stirring up outrage over the search warrant. I am dumbfounded over the fact that the disciples do not see this for what it is, and see the DOJ and FBI as the bad guys when it was Trump who stole classified documents and lied about returning them.

  6. The FBI’s History of Lying To Secure a Warrant Against Its Political Enemies

    “Horowitz’s report exposes 17 flagrant errors, omissions, and misstatements in the four FISA applications related to Page, any one of which is inexcusable.” (

    From the then-presiding Judge of the “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court:”

    “This order responds to reports that personnel of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
    provided *false information* to the National Security Division (NSD) of the Department of Justice,
    and *withheld material information* from NSD which was detrimental to the FBI’s case, in
    connection with four applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) for
    authority to conduct electronic surveillance of a U.S. citizen named Carter W. Page. When *FBI
    personnel mislead NSD* in the ways described above, they equally mislead the FISC.” ( (Emphases added.)

    Unless you have evidence of a sea change at the FBI (good luck with that), I would not believe the FBI if they told me that the sun rises in the east.

    1. That you “would not believe the FBI if they told me that the sun rises in the east” tells us that you will not believe a true statement based on the source.

      1. “That you . . .”

        That you would make such a statement, tells “us” two things: 1) That you’re hyperbole challenged (or dishonest), and 2) That you’re apologist.

        1. Indeed, it is so common for people to miss written hyperbole and other sarcasm that it has a name: Poe’s Law.

          As for your claim #2, if you assert that it’s true (rather than a non-T/F opinion), you’re mistaken, and this isn’t the first time that you’ve made such a mistake.

      2. “that you will not believe a true statement based on the source.”

        Your comment demonstrates your lack of intellect. Sam said he would not believe the FBI, not where the sun rises. ATS, you troll so much that trolling has become your job. Your intellect suffers from that.

        1. “Sam said . . .” TY.

          Its reply is a typical attempt to deflect away from the topic:

          The FBI’s documented history of fabricating “evidence,” to rationalize harassing its political enemies.

  7. If Garland ever was a person of “unimpeachable integrity and ethics,” those words have deserved only to be uttered in the past tense. The so-called Justice Department and the high level toadies who run it have been tools of the far, far lefties. And, on a personal level, I am compelled to think he is out to punish any and all affiliated with those who caused him to be called General – rather than Justice.

    1. Down but not out: How Liz Cheney plans to be a thorn in Trump’s side after defeat [1]:

      Cheney reorganize her $7 million war chest to form a new political action committee called “the Great Task.” she is talking for a long time (see You Tube Video) in order to oppose …

      And she will be a vocal member of J6.


        1. Chenney is free to do what she pleases.
          She is free to beleive what she pleases.

          Regardless, she is a neocon, and her values are at odds with those of most democrats and republicans today.

          She has a small following amoung republicans – because all neocons have not left the party.

          And a larger following amoung democrats – because the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

          Regardless, we can not push Chenny into obscurity fast enough.

          But for her the patriot act would not have been renewed.

          Chenney was a problem before Trump descended the escalator.

        2. El Cid says: August 17, 2022 at 5:46 PM

          Great pic of James Traficant. He was a hero of mine back in the 1990s. He was in part why I registered as a Democrat.

    1. Be careful what you wish for. In exchange for principled, country over party Liz Cheney WY may get a QAnon cindpriravy theory crazy who still believes in the thoroughly debunked “deep state pedophike ring”. Get your tin hats out. The crazies are coming to town.

  8. This is interesting. A story in Newsweek quotes DoJ officials that Garland was not informed about The Raid.

    “[a] senior Justice Department source says that Garland was regularly briefed on the Records Act investigation, and that he knew about the grand jury and what material federal prosecutors were seeking. He insists, though, that Garland had no prior knowledge of the date and time of the specific raid, nor was he asked to approve it.”

    “I know it’s hard for people to believe,” the official told Newsweek, “but this was a matter for the U.S. Attorney and the FBI.”

    The official claims that FBI Director Christopher Wray is the one who gave the go-ahead.

    But when I follow the link to the Newsweek article, I find two changes noted at the very end. Removing the direct quotes above.

    Took Garland a while to figure out, unless he took the fall for this, the reality that he has no respect inside the DoJ, would be to great to hide.

    I’m sure the quote is accurate, but then Dems ran it through their leftist dictionary, with all the meanings of simple words changed to fit the circumstances (woman is a good example of leftist language dithering) and the whole meaning changed from “not informed about the raid,” to “of coarse he led that raid from his DC desk and approved each documnet before it was boxed”

    1. The article “Exclusive: An Informer Told the FBI What Docs Trump Was Hiding, and Where” [1] was published on Wednesday (8/10), two days after the search warrent (approved on Friday 8/5) was executed. The story was based on information leaked by ttwo unnamed FBI officials, claiming that his son-in-law Jared Kushner, a spy/mole – you name it – told the FBI what Docs Trump was hiding, and where. “Preparations to conduct such an operation began weeks ago, but in planning the date and time, the FBI Miami Field Office and Washington headquarters were focused on the former president’s scheduled return to Florida from his residences in New York and New Jersey.” They missed they point that FBI executed a grand jury subpoena on 6/3, issued two month earlier [2] As there where follow up interactions with Trump representative, until end 6/8 the time frame for the preparations shrinks to five or six weeks [3]

      On Tuesday, (8/9),Andrew C. McCarthy wrote in NYP: “The Justice Department obviously used the potential classified information as a pretext to obtain a warrant so it could search for what it is really looking for: evidence that would tie Trump to a Capitol riot offense – either a violent crime, such as seditious conspiracy to forcibly attack a government installation (which is highly unlikely), or a non-violent crime, such as conspiracy to obstruct the January 6 joint session of Congress to count electoral votes, or conspiracy to defraud the government.[4]

      On Thursday (8/11) AG Merrick Garland said that he “not lighthearted” gave green light. Four hours later “A quote that mischaracterized Garland’s role was deleted. Newsweek regrets the error”.

      After the search warrant was unsealed and the inventory list was checked, the consensus of those who are in the know, confirmed Andrew C. McCarthy’s conclusion. There is no need for any expertise that Government wait 19 months after the former president left office on 1/20/21, to search for nuclear documents is bogus as to point to the mole. It’s irrevant.

      [3] On Friday (8/12), Trumps niece Mary spoke on “The Dean Obeidallah Show” and pointed on son in law Jared Kushner
      [4] “Trump raid not about classified documents — it’s about Jan. 6” (consumed two hyperlinks already)

  9. Justice, like “beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder” (Athen Historian Thucydides and later quoted from Irish novelist Margaret Wolfe Hungerford without comparing Justice)

    In short, your take about the AG: The concerns about moderate Merrick Garland (70), a person with unimpeachable integrity and ethics. are not about his character but his personality in dealing with political controversies.

    Professor, I know I enjoy the priviledge to be your guest. As such, I would not disput the picture you painted about one of the most experienced judges we have.

    I trust that his constitutional positions are considered as moderate within the scientific communitiy, but now he switched the ship and is one of the most prominent members of President’s Bidens Cabinett. In short: A top politian with zero experience, but as Presidents Clinton and Obama considered him as SCOTUS associate, he has ample knowledge how politics will be played out.

    As circuit judge at DC Court of appeal for 19 years, I am positive that he crossed ways with one of Latham & Watkins lawyers (Christopher Clark, represented Hunter Biden in a grand jury investigation regarding tax issues). And as accurate and meticoulos he is, he lcheck CV of Nicholas McQuaid, appointed from President Joe Biden, to lead the DoJ’s Criminal Division.

    AG has practical experiences about the importance of unbiased judgement. As he took his decission to apply for the search warrant in question “not lighthearted”, although nations security could be at risk, he consulted extensively with his senior assotiates for weeks before he gave the green light..I deeply regret that also the honorable is circled by faithless staff: Knowing about the sentiments Bruce E Reinhart shared, about Mr Trum, he would recused the Magistrate for sure.

    Looking at the average duration the legal system needs to judge, I doubted that Mr. Garland, apolitical as he is, guides his decission by the time. In politics the time-frame between Labour Day and election day is the breaker. I am positive that a substantal part of 81,3 Mio Biden voters dripping with sweat that President Trump who left office on 1/20/21, might sit on nuclear documents.for 19 long months. All clear now?

    To get the global picture, AG certainly reads WaPo NYT and other look-a-likes, and follows “The most trusted name in news” network. Although leaked info out DoJ are composed to Trump criminal investigations, and not to Hunter Bidens probe. As nonpolitical as he his, he isn’t aware of the context..

    However: Such a personality doesn`fit in DoJ shoes, whatever his character, integrity and ethics might be.

  10. Interesting numbers. Biden wants 87,000 new IRS agents armed and trained in the use of modern weapons.

    On D-Day only about 56,000 American soldiers attacked the Nazi defended beaches of Normandy.

    Why does he want 31,000 more agents in America than soldiers needed on D-Day?

      1. No, I didn’t fail to mention the British. Biden isn’t hiring any Brits to be IRS agents. I was comparing American to American.

        I know full well that both the Brits and the Canadians were also present. In fact, I believe the UK and Empire contributions on D-Day considerably exceeded the American presence. However, the fact remains that the number of Americans in the two American sectors, Omaha and Utah, was lower than the number of agents Biden wants to add to the existing total. In short, you could replace all of the American troops, every one, with Biden’s IRS agents and still have more than 30,000 left over to collect taxes or invade some other beach–just about enough left over to attack heavily defended Tarawa too, in fact.

        Makes you wonder what these lunatics are up to.

  11. According to this originally from Project Veritas

    Just writing this article can get Professor Turley labeled as a Potential Domestic Violent Extremist.

    We are getting closer to the Law of Suspects that was one of the grotesqueries to grow from the evil gardens of the French Revolution.

    1. We are getting closer to the Law of Suspects that was one of the grotesqueries to grow from the evil gardens of the French Revolution.
      The Law of the Suspects required certain classes of defendants — clergy, aristocrats etc — to prove their innocence rather than forcing the government to bear that burden. An ad hoc form of the law was used against the creator of the Revolutionary Tribunals, lawyer Georges Danton. Large, gregarious and a lover of wine and parties, Danton stood in stark contarst to his friend and rival, the dark, sullen Robespierre. His withdrawal from the harsh measures of the Reign of Terror, caused a rift between he and Robeispierre. Fearful of Danton’s oratory skills, the judges prevented Danton from addressing the jury or calling witnesses at his trial and even went so far as to remove Danton and other defendants from the courtroom.

      My favorite character from the French Revolution wasn’t that lethal legal nerd Robespierre but the voice of the Revolution, Georges Danton. Eventually being thrown on the rocks he himself carved for others, Danton was the dejected dreamer who was the Revolution’s true beleiver. Imagine his shock to find that men were not as noble or self-sacrificing as he was in service to their own freedom. Here is the fateful trial of one of the leaders of the Revolution done in by jealousy, fear and avarice of one of his friends. Evil ideology always requires the sacrifice of friendship. In one his last sentences in life Danton said : “My only regret is that I am going before that rat Robespierre.” Some months later at his own trial, Robespierre would mock the deputies sarcastically demanding to know ” “Is it Danton you regret? … Cowards! Why didn’t you defend him?”

      A true tragedy of reality over ideals — but a just one:

      1. I find it difficult to find heroes in the French Revolution. Danton was blood drenched too. If I were to choose I likely would settle on Malesherbes, a truly decent and courageous man who knew he was risking his life and the lives of his family when he represented the king at his trial. Malesherbes and his family all died on the guillotine. Next I favor General Bouille, the only person named with damnation in the national anthem of France. Bouille seems always to have acted with courage and honor in difficult circumstances. As a third I think I favor Bailley, a mathematician and astronomer who hoped to improve France. He is seen standing on a table with arm raised while administering the Tennis Court Oath in David’s famous sketch. He was a scholar who found himself wrestling with demons. He, too, died on the guillotine.

        All were better men than Danton, Robespierre, and St Just who also died on the guillotine and deserved it many times over. Desmouline earned the chop too.

        I forgot to add the king’s sister, Madam Elizabeth, who seemed never to fail to act with the grace, courage and compassion worthy of an angel. Guillotine of course.

        1. Young:
          The Nobility were equally blood thirsty. It was two ruthless gangs settling scores. And each deserved their fate. Somehow democracy came through in mysterious ways..

          1. Mespo,
            No, the aristocracy was mostly not equally bloodthirsty and it was not two ruthless gangs settling scores. It was far more complex than that. For one thing the Revolution was more top down than bottom up. The ideals that helped set it on fire came from above. Even the king favored some of them, his wife not so much. It likely would not have happened under Louis XIV. Lawyers, like Robespierre and Danton, played important roles. Money for street mobs came from high above, duc d’Orleans for example. We have a modern parallel in BLM–who is financing them? Why does Antifa so often get a pass? You can’t reduce it to another episode of West Side Story. If it were that boring I would have stopped reading about it long ago.

            1. ” For one thing the Revolution was more top down than bottom up. The ideals that helped set it on fire came from above.”

              Not being a student of this era, the question that always bothered me was why did America succeed, and France fail? I don’t know the players well enough, but it seems that the American founders had a better idea of classical thinking and leadership with experience in related areas. They were on a new continent, and their experience came from building a new land, along with all the occupants. I don’t think their initial ideas were as revolutionary as the French.

              You have studied this, so comment away. My knowledge mostly rests with Edmund Burke who talks about the failure of the French from the beginning yet supported the American revolution.

              1. “[T]he question that always bothered me was why did America succeed, and France fail?”

                In a word:

                Because the Founders embraced the Enlightenment ideas of, for example, John Locke and Aristotle. While the French Revolutionaries embraced the anti-Enlightenment ideas of. for example, Rousseau. Philosophically, it was a battle between reason and individualism, on the one hand, and emotionalism and collectivism, on the other.

                1. Sam, I know the underlying philosophy was different, but I am looking for more. How did the American forefathers get it right while the French got it wrong.

                  Was it because of the individualism developed during colonial times and the distance from England? What were the basics behind the choices?

                  1. “Was it because of the individualism developed during colonial times and the distance from England? What were the basics behind the choices?”

                    Good questions. I, too, am interested in those details.

                    Know any good works on the history of education in Colonial America? Or on the intellectual history of that era?

                    1. Sam, many of the biographies of the different founders involved provide us a lot of insight into the American founders. I never read anything from the French perspective. America got it so right, while France got it so wrong. What in depth experience did the French leadership have? Edmund Burke called both Revolutions correctly. Why?

                  2. Liberty vs. equity.

                    In the US: Give me liberty or give me death.
                    In France: Liberte, Fraternite, egalitaire

                    1. Good answer. Why did the French come up with the wrong answer when the Americans came up with the right one?

                    2. Because even though French intellectual development losely paralleled the Scottish enlightenment,
                      it was distinct.

                      Rousseau is NOT lock.

                      I would suggest reading Thomas Paine’s “the rights or man”. The first half is essentially the American revolution.
                      While the 2nd half reflects the french revolution.

                      Paine himself did not understand why the american revolution succeeded and the french failed. He was in the center of both.
                      We know of Paine’s writings relative to the american revolution – but he was important in the french revolution too.

                      He and Edmund Burke Jousted over the french revolution

                    3. “Rousseau is NOT lock.”

                      That is very true. Locke and Rousseau are opposites, though that is a bit of an exaggeration. I look at the two respectively as Law (Locke) and Disorder (Rousseau).

                      My search is for something more than a single man unless one wishes to say Rousseau was the entirety of the French Revolution.

                      Thomas Paine represented both revolutions, but he didn’t have the mind of Burke. We can look at their difference as Revolution vs. Reform.

                      As a side note, we had our revolutionaries as well. This revolutionary zeal appears in the name of Sam Adams and others while being reflected in the speeches of James Otis and the Sons of Liberty.

                      Some say the American Revolution started a decade before the first shot at Lexington and Concord. At the time of the Stamp Act, the group of nine became the Sons of Liberty. We can also say that the revolution had ten years to germinate and provide the thoughtful thinking of others that were not as revolutionary until every alternative avenue was exhausted.

                2. More simply, the american revolution was about liberty.
                  The French fixated on equity.

                  This is the difference between the scottish enlightenment and socialism.

              2. S. Meyer,

                I am a dilettante rather than a scholar but I have read a good bit on both the American Revolution and the French Revolution and have reached some conclusions as to why they were so different. My view is subject to correction by someone who knows what he is talking about.

                The principal difference is due to the word “Revolution” as applied to America. I don’t think the American Revolution was truly a full Revolution as we think of it in France.

                What we did rather than a Revolution was a Secession from the home country. Each colony was populated with Englishmen in spirit if not entirely in blood. Our law was the law of England, the common law, and that remained unchanged for the most part. The common law is still a part of our legal system. If you look for it in all states except Louisiana you can find a statute incorporating common law into the state’s law to the extent that it does not conflict with the Constitution and other enacted laws. That’s why you will still see courts all the way to the Supreme Court quoting Blackstone and even Bracton in their opinions. It is still law.

                After our Revolution the mechanisms of government remained intact and largely undisturbed. They worked. When the Constitution was adopted there was innovation of course, creating a federal republic, but it was informed by history and actual experience more than abstract theories. It tended to use off-the-shelf concepts known to work rather than a priori creations. It was hardy in part because it was pragmatic.

                Imagine Scotland breaking away from England [Culloden attempt for example]. If it succeeded it would come away with its local traditions largely intact and functioning. So did we. In one respect Scotland would be more distinct from England than we were because they use Civil Law rather than common law as we continued to do. But it would be a secession resembling our Revolution rather than a genuine ‘tear-everything-up-and-start-over’ Revolution in the French sense…or the Biden sense.

                The French Revolution, by contrast, ended tearing up almost everything. They even reorganized the calendar and made priests government bureaucrats. Non-juring priests who remained priests loyal to their deepest convictions were hunted and murdered.

                They tried to make a working constitution and even considered adopting the English Constitution or the American Constitution. Gouverneur Morris in Paris for us at the time wrote back that if the French adopted the American Constitution it wouldn’t work because they are not Americans. For reasons I don’t care to get into here, I think he was right. That is also a warning. Are we making Americans in our schools anymore? Not so much I think.

                The constitutions they did make, sometimes assembled by Abbe Sieyes who also invented psychology, were clever enough but they never actually worked. When Napoleon took charge he let Sieyes continue constitution making as busy work knowing full well nothing would come of it. Napoleon also realized that the writings of Rousseau that caused so much trouble and bloodshed were nothing more than dangerous b.s

                What Napoleon put together actually worked because he was as much a doer grounded in reality as he was a thinker Perhaps the fact that he was Italian rather than French had something to do with it.

                1. ” Are we making Americans in our schools anymore? Not so much I think.”

                  Young, I believe that this statement is the genesis of my question. America did it once. Can it do it again? From where did that ability come? Was it luck or something passed on by British culture, law, and administration? Was it purely an American phenomenon, or do the French lack something in their history or culture? Do the British lack the same thing?

                  America bases itself on a mindset impacted by many things. Can that mindset be recreated? It wasn’t due to an impoverished society demonstrated by a British officer who upon landing on Long Island and seeing the standard of living, questioned why anyone living so well would rebel.

                  “I don’t think the American Revolution was truly a full Revolution as we think of it in France.”

                  I agree. Many supported the monarchy and were willing to live under one. The French Revolution was substantially victorious before killing the King. The French engaged in radical thinking without considering the consequences. A crusading left promotes similar actions mimicking the French revolutionary methods of turning everything upside down. The end goal is to transform America into an unrecognizable and unmanageable society.

                  Maybe America was pure luck where the stars were aligned just right. I don’t think so. The education and experience of the colonialists created a mindset that thrived far away from the center of western thought.

                  ” Gouverneur Morris in Paris for us at the time wrote back that if the French adopted the American Constitution it wouldn’t work because they are not Americans. ”

                  Are we still Americans in the more classical manner?

                  1. Originally we were Americans mostly by shared ethnicity and experiences and ideals. We are past that now and ethnicity is not as important as shared ideals together with a grasp of our history and how we came to be great.

                    We are losing that in part because our history and institutions are being destroyed. Statues are torn down, buildings renamed, school history texts are mostly gibberish, although that is good because they also tend to be anti-American.

                    Lose the ideals that make an American and we go back to being a stretch of dirt with hostile tribes.

                    There are other things pushing the same way. I remember news about a white man killed in a black neighborhood. The explanation was that he was in the ‘wrong neighborhood’. I thought anyplace in America was the right place for an American, but territories are being staked out.

                    Here is another one. A Berkeley co-op won’t allow white people in common areas.

                    Fine. I wouldn’t go there anyhow. But you will know that this crap has been pushed too far when we begin to see institutions that openly bar blacks again. But, that’s the way they seem to want it. Blacks are the segregationists now. When the whites agree I wonder if Eric Holder’s people [as he called them–‘my people’ actually] will start tearing crap up for ‘civil rights’ again. If so, there won’t be enough ‘white guilt’ left to care.

                    1. Young, you are right. The left thinks in the French Revolutionary style and may get what they want, not a nation united but divided by tribal hatred.

                      Once again, the nation is in deep trouble, and those that think will have to figure out a way of fixing things while the Joe Bidens of the left stand glassy-eyed and mouths open.

        2. “I find it difficult to find heroes in the French Revolution.”

          Here’s another:

          Whoever was the real-life inspiration for Baroness Orcszy’s _The Scarlet Pimpernel_ (who was perhaps Louis Bayard, aka Lewis Duval).

        1. After the law of suspects there came the oddity of someone’s being suspected of being suspect.

          One can almost believe that at times demons are let loose in societies that can turn men mad by an invisible and infected touch of a spectral claw. Fantasy, but the madness is real enough. Look at our country today.

  12. You would be the one to know Anonymous the Stupid since you are here all the time.
    self-deleted: “S. Meyer and his ‘friends’ spend a lot of time flapping their gums. S. Meyer lives here, for those who don’t know.”

  13. I know that most of your kind in Washington DC have a complete different vocabulary then most other Americans but calling this radical communist Merrick Garland a moderate is like calling Chairman Moa a moderate or yourself a respected man of the law. I have watched you and your puffed up ego since the fallacies you promoted that President Clinton was not a criminal and shouldn’t be impeached. All Clinton did was try to get people to lie about his sexual exploitation of a young intern. You and your lot are always lecturing the rest of America about no one is above the law. That is only true in books. The last six years President Trump has been hounded by a spiteful political elite that have shown themselves as bad as any communist regime in the world. You and the rest of Washington DC are epitome of hypocrisy and evil. If history has proven anything the will of the people will sweep your whole evil city away eventually.

Leave a Reply