Below is my column in The Hill on Attorney General Merrick Garland at the midpoint of his tenure at the Justice Department. For an Attorney General who said that he wanted to restore the trust of the public in his department, Garland has manifestly failed to achieve his goal. It appears that the Justice Department and FBI are now trusted less than under his predecessor, Bill Barr. A new poll shows that 55 percent of the public view the Trump indictment as “politically motivated” and 56% believe that it constitutes election interference. A similar majority wanted Trump pardoned if convicted.
Here is the column:
Merrick Garland began his tenure as attorney general with the stated intention of restoring faith in the Justice Department and the rule of law. By that standard, Garland has been a failure.
In fact, if anything, the crisis of faith surrounding his department has only deepened on his watch, and he bears some of the blame.
Polls show that half the country distrusts the FBI. A recent poll by Harvard CAPS-Harris found that 70 percent are either very or somewhat concerned about election interference by the FBI and other intelligence agencies. An additional 71 percent agreed that changes post-2016 had not done enough to prevent further interference and that “wide-ranging” reform was still required. Another poll showed 64 percent view the FBI as “politically compromised.”
During the term of his predecessor, Bill Barr, 50 percent of the public viewed the department favorably, and 70 percent had a favorable view of the FBI. The public trust of the department appears to have declined under Garland. At the very least, it has not dramatically improved.
There is variation in these polls, but they show a deep-seated distrust of the Justice Department that continues to taint all of the department’s work.
For example, the recent indictment of former President Donald Trump contains extremely damaging elements, including an audiotape that directly contradicts Trump’s assertions that he declassified all of the documents in his possession. Yet even the Justice Department’s release of an unusually detailed indictment, with pictures designed to sway public opinion, appears to have had little effect. While 48 percent of the public believes that the charges are justified, 47 percent believe the charges are “politically motivated.”
The response to this indictment shows the gravitational pull of public perceptions of the Justice Department. That perception of bias is well earned. Various officials were removed from the Department by career officials for their express bias and misconduct during the Russia-collusion investigation. That investigation was recently found by Special Counsel John Durham to have been launched with the backing of the Clinton campaign and without the minimal evidence ordinarily required by the department.
The Justice Department and the media kept the investigation going for years despite the lack of credible evidence.
When Biden gave the nod to Garland, I thought it was a brilliant move. Garland had been an affable, principled and moderate judge. Many of us criticized the Senate’s refusal to give him a vote after his nomination to the Supreme Court. I now believe that he would have made a great justice for all the reasons he has proven to be a poor attorney general.
He is affable but not influential or effective in changing the department. He is the very symbol for maintaining a status quo that the public rejects.
Garland leads the department with the same judicial temperament and persona. Predecessors such as Barr came to the department as former prosecutors with a clarity of purpose and mission. That would put Barr in conflict with Trump, but he was a hands-on manager who penetrated every level of the department. While some opposed Barr’s priorities, no one doubted who was in control of that department.
Garland’s reputation is more like that of a supervising judge who defers to the views and decisions of his agency. The result has been disastrous for the department. Even FBI Director Christopher Wray admitted that the past scandals demanded fundamental changes in the department’s operations.
Yet Garland allowed the culture to remain unchanged. He remained largely reactive to new scandals like the task force quickly assembled at the request of the teacher’s union and school board officials to investigate parents challenging school boards.
Garland remained largely silent as the FBI cracked down on conservative groups across the country in the wake of the Jan. 6 riot. He said nothing as his subordinate prosecutor Michael Sherwin bragged on in a television interview how they sought to unleash “shock and awe” on those who supported the election challenge to ensure that certain “people were afraid to come back to D.C.”
While most of us supported the tough punishment of rioters, the Justice Department was criticized for its draconian treatment of people charged with relatively minor offenses such as trespass and unlawful entry into the Capitol.
The controversies continue to pile up, from the seizure of the phone of a member of Congress to alleged disparate treatment in investigations of pro-life over pro-choice groups. Some of these and other controversies are legitimately debatable; others are not.
Garland could have taken steps to assure the public that there is not a two-tiered system of justice but repeatedly refused to do so. For example, Garland has continued to refuse to appoint a special counsel in the investigation of Hunter Biden. By doing so, Garland has removed the president’s greatest threat in the form of a report that would detail the scope of the Biden family’s alleged influence peddling and foreign contacts.
Garland is now looking at a new inflammatory situation after Special Counsel Jack Smith has leveled 37 charges against Trump while Robert Hur, “the other special counsel” investigating Biden, has largely disappeared from sight.
There is also the notable absence of any decision by Smith on another part of his mandate: crimes associated with Jan. 6th. Some of us have argued that Trump’s controversial speech was constitutionally protected. While Smith was swift to charge on the documents matter, he has not resolved the other part of his mandate even though the Jan. 6th matter has widely investigated by the Justice Department and Congress. The concern is that the Justice Department does not want to undermine the widespread claims in the media and Congress that Trump committed crimes in supporting an “insurrection.”
Garland has also supported the appointment of controversial officials such as Kirsten Clarke and Rachael Rollins, deepening the distrust of conservatives.
Time and again, Garland could have made decisions to seek to assure the public with more moderate and transparent decisions. He has repeatedly failed to do so.
Garland is not solely at fault. Biden took office promising to be a unifier and a moderate. He immediately adopted far left policies and fueled divisions by denouncing millions of “MAGA Republicans” and his political opponents as “semi-fascist” extremists.
Garland repeatedly pledged that political considerations would hold no sway with him as attorney general. He has certainly refrained from Biden’s style of divisive rhetoric. However, he has done little prospectively to assure the public that the department is pursuing cases without political bias. He continues to repeat the mantra of “trust us, we’re the government,” long after that trust has been lost with many citizens.
The failure of Merrick Garland is becoming more and more evident by the day. The public continues to distrust the Department, and his assurances of fair dealing have been overwhelmingly rejected by Republicans and independents.
It is hard to dislike Merrick Garland as a man. But as an attorney general, there is little to like about his last two years.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
Wow! Professor Turley finally takes a stand.
Disregarding the fact that there’s no need for a special counsel to investigate a private citizen like Hunter Biden, where’s the probable cause for *any* investigation of Hunter at this point?
Bill Barr didn’t appoint a special prosecutor either, and the government had “Hunter’s laptop” for a year. There was plenty of time for Barr to have to started the investigation.
Does Turley actually expect us to believe that Bill Barr was part of the same anti-Trump conspiracy that a bunch of mindless idiots have been raging about for 7 years but never actually existed?
The focus of the House Oversight Committee is Joe Biden, the man to whom Hunter Biden has been selling access. It would be nice to know the extent to which Joe has been involved. It would also be nice to know whether Joe, himself, has been shaking down foreign leaders and business people. The House Oversight Committee has total authority to conduct investigations into these matters. Much better than someone appointed by a compromised attorney general.
Joe Biden bragged about “shaking down” Ukraine government. That’s what gave Putin the green light to attack. Little did he know.
Bill Barr did not appoint a special counsel because Trump was not the father of Hunter Biden.
There should be a 250 character limit in this comments section.
It would make for a big improvement over the slush pile that it is now.
Coinnath, I agree with you. Just get to the point.
“Only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked.”
– Warren Buffett
The Emperor has no clothes!
You think of yourself as an emperor?
About 30 years ago (mid-90s), when term limits for politicians was a hot topic, while discussing the idea with some local politicians I suggested that the people who really need to be term limited are govt employees–bureaucrats. The reaction I got was the adult equivalent of patting me on the head and telling to run along, as they dismissed my concerns as “unrealistic” and “naive”.
In 2009, when I tried my hand at blogging, I wrote the following: “I’ve long feared that public ‘servants’ pose a bigger threat to limited government than career politicians. Wielding great and growing power with to no accountability to the electorate, and receiving the lion’s share of the public purse, government employment is a malignancy on our country, greedily devouring what was once the essence of our society, namely our freedoms and our standards of living.” (Note: By this time my little community–population about 3000 ‘city’, and 7000 countywide–have been under siege by the EPA for over 20 years, so as my patience ebbed, my cynicism grew.)
In the Feb. 2010 issue of Reason magazine, an article by Steven Greenhut titled, “Class War: How Public Servants Became Our Masters”, confirmed my worst fears: “The nation may have reached critical mass; the number of government employees at every level may have gotten so high that it is politically impossible to roll back the bureaucracy, rein in the costs, and restore lost freedoms.”
Last week when I heard Vivek Ramaswamy and a Fox News commentator (Jason?? sorry, don’t remember) that it’s time to re-evaluate and rein in the ‘managerial bureaucracy’, my first thought was, “At last! Some people, far more influential that I, are beginning to recognize the dangers of out-of-control and unaccountable bureaucracies.” As I have four grandkids on the threshold of adulthood (1 in college, 3 in HS), I can’t help but dread the future that may await them, so I hope this is just the beginning and not a one election-cycle issue.
None of this is meant to excuse the elected officials–after all, whether well-intentioned or not, they are the ones who created these bureaucratic Frankensteins. However, since they serve their R & D political masters well by shielding them from inconvenient votes, especially during election years, there is little to no legislative incentive to rein them in. Maybe that’s beginning to change?
You are kinder to Garland than he deserves. The most positive thing you said about him is that he hasn’t engaged in divisive rhetoric like his boss in the White House. I have long believed that a person is to be judged by his actions, not his words. By that standard, Garland cannot be considered less damaging than Biden. Garland has proven to be a more partisan AG than even Eric Holder, something I thought was impossible. And you do considerable damage to your reputation for acumen (at least with me) when you speculate that he would have served honorably on the Supreme Court. That is so unimaginable that I have given Mitch a lifetime get out of jail free card for his role in keeping Garland off the court. Any time anyone criticizes Mitch for any of his shortcomings, I issue a two word rebuttal: Justice Garland.
Charlie Sykes:
As I wrote last year, there’s no precedent for a twice impeached, defeated former president seeking to regain power. But this is also unprecedented: No president has earned the open contempt and denunciation of so many of his inner circle. And in Trump’s case the list of those who have broken with him now include:
* Vice President (Mike Pence)
* Attorney General (Bill Barr)
* Two Secretaries of Defense (James Mattis, Mike Esper)
* Two Secretaries of State (Rex Tillerson, Mike Pompeo)
* Two Chiefs of Staff (John Kelly, Mick Mulvaney)
* Two National Security Advisors (John Bolton, H.R. McMaster)
* Deputy National Security Advisor (Matt Pottinger)
* Secretary of the Navy (Richard Spencer)
* Communications Director (Alyssa Farah Griffin)
* Press Secretary (Stephanie Grisham)
* Cabinet Members (Elaine Chao, etc.)
* Personal lawyers (Michael Cohen… and counting)
Whatever they might have thought about Trump’s election — whatever rationalizations, wishcasting, delusions, personal ambitions, or Faustian bargains that may have lead them to serve him — they now grasp the consequences of a second term.
https://morningshots.thebulwark.com/p/the-call-is-coming-from-inside-the
I can’t believe that the democrat delegate from the I.S. Virgin Islands said Donald Tump should be shot. I mean Democrats never talk like this. Has to be Russian disinformation.
No, she said it, but according to Fox News, she quickly corrected herself that she meant to say “stopped.” People sometimes misspeak. Anyone who says and means that he needs to be shot is wrong to advocate it.
“People sometimes misspeak.” And then there are Freudian slips. Who knows?
All have their agendas. Politicians are like prostitutes. They change partners frequently to better their positions. Not only that, but they are experts in many different ones. Trump has one position, MAGA.
Take note, in the general election, when those politicians go into the voting booth and have to choose, Trump will be their choice. Bill Barr has been very open about that.
William “Mr. Deep Deep State” “Swamp” Barr imposed by Deep Deep State “Swamp” Advice and Consent? Seriously? That jurisprudential and political clown is a “Deep Deep State” “Swamp” agent and mole.
Why didn’t the leaders of the communist “dictatorship of the proletariat” just come straight out and impose George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on Real President Donald J. Trump? Oh, that’s right, they did.
___________________________________
“We will stop him.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page
___________________________________
“[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”
– Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok
___________________________________
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before 40.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI parmour Lisa Page
_________________________________
“People on the 7th floor to include Director are fired up about this [Trump] server.”
– Bill Priestap
___________
The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious crime in American political history.
(ongoing)
One must always choose the lesser of two weevils .. .
🙂
You mentioned the “personal lawyer” and inimitable wack job and liar, Michael Cohen, and forgot to mention Liz and Dick Chaney.
Wait! You just enumerated a list of anti-constitutional, anti-American, Deep Deep State, “Swamp” communists (i.e. liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) who support Central Planning, Control of the Means of Production (unconstitutional regulation), Redistribution of Wealth and Social Engineering, all of which are precluded by Article 1, Section 8, which restricts taxing and spending by Congress to debt, defense and general Welfare, general meaning all or the whole not individual welfare, specific welfare, particular welfare, favor or charity, and the absolute 5th Amendment right to private property which provides the power to “claim and exercise” dominion exclusively to property owners.
The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, EPA, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure only.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;…
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes;…
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin,…
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;…
__________________________________________________________________
5th Amendment
No person shall be…deprived of…property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Dick Chaney, before he dicks you.
Bill Barr, yesterday:
“[Trump is] a fundamentally flawed person who engages in reckless conduct. … He had no right to those documents. The government tried for over a year, quietly and with respect, to get them back, which was essential that they do, and he jerked them around. And he had no legal basis for keeping them. … the fact of the matter is, he is a consummate narcissist. And he constantly engages in reckless conduct that- that puts his political followers at risk and- and- and the conservative and Republican agenda at risk. … He- he will always put his own interests, and gratifying his own ego, ahead of everything else, including the country’s interest, there’s no question about it. This is a perfect example of that. He’s like, you know, he’s like a nine year old, defiant nine year old kid who’s always pushing the glass toward the edge of the table, defying his parents to stop him from doing it. It’s a means of self assertion and exerting his dominance over other people. And he’s a very petty individual who will always put his interests ahead of the country’s, his personal gratification of his, you know, his ego, but our country- our country can’t, you know, can’t be a therapy session for you know, a troubled man like this.”
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/william-barr-former-attorney-general-face-the-nation-transcript-06-18-2023/
Yet, Bill Barr will vote in the general election for Donald Trump. All men can be stupid at times including Donald Trump who at other times is brilliant. Man only differs as to the percentage of time they are stupid. In your case, that is most of the time.
William “Mr. Deep Deep State” “Denizen of the Swamp” Barr
As opposed to quoting Bill Barr and accepting his comments as gospel, why not dig into the basis for Barr’s obvious hatred and obsession with Trump. This kind of repeated personal attack seems beyond the pale and is strikingly similar to the actions he accuses Trump of displaying. One suspects that it may represent a deflection on Barr’s part but it is unlikely he will come clean on that point.
These statements speak volumes about Bill Barr (and not about #45)!
Barr’s answer to Senator Durban’s (D-IL) question “You seem like a rational person, […] why do you want this job” at confirmation hearing on 1/15/19:
“Well, because I love the Department and all its components, including the FBI. I think they are critical institutions that are essential to preserving the rule of law, which is the heartbeat of this country. And I would like to think that there was bipartisan consensus when I was last in this position that I acted with independence and professionalism and integrity, and I had very strong and productive relationships across the aisle, which were important, I think, to trying to get some things done. And I feel that I am in a position in life where I can provide the leadership necessary to protect the independence and the reputation of the Department and serve in this administration. […]
I am not going to do anything that I think is wrong. And I will not be bullied into doing anything I think is wrong by anybody, whether it be editorial boards or Congress or the President. I am going to do what I think is right.”
There is also no precedent for keeping a braindead influence peddler in the White House.
That’s why Trump was voted out.
LOL!! So what?
What you don’t mention is that many wondered why Trump would have even picked many of these individuals to be part of his “inner circle” to begin with.
Michael Cohen. A convicted felon and a liar?
Elaine Chao. The wife of Mitch McConnell with familial business ties to the CCP?
Bill Barr. The AG that was outfoxed by his underlings?
James Mattis. The former Marine Corps general and Secretary of Defense that is a consultant for China?
Rex Tillerson. AKA Wayne Tracker, grossly failed to make the transition from private to the government sector?
John Kelly. Supposedly, Kelly had a falling out because Trump had the audacity to make some decisions without Kelly being present! How dare Trump!!
This entire list is thin gruel. Whoever heard of of putting significant weight on the feelings of disgruntled underlings? If you are into that kind of waste of time judgement material, read up on Lincoln’s cabinet.
You’re telling us that Trump’s not competent to make wise choices.
No, I am telling YOU that you are a partisan attempting to to make significant the the whines of disgruntled employees.
“You’re telling us that Trump’s not competent to make wise choices.”
Trump made many wise choices. The economy, the Middle East, energy, China, etc. You must be telling us you aren’t competent to reply.
“You can not fool all of the people all of the time.” (modified to Lincoln, speaking in Clinton, IL on 9/2/1858)
Professor, you are considered as one of the most brilliant minds with an excellent network in the USA, you are eloquent, your articles are easy to read and you are a welcome babbler among the D.C. elite. There is only one thing that hardly anyone takes away from you: Professor, you are such a terrible actor that you believably play the babe in he woods! Of course, you recognize the connections and know very well that everything that happens in D.C. is political and to ask for a bipartisan justice system is wishful thinking and will never happen:
Why did
* DEMs controlled Congress introduced Church/Pike committee in 70s?
* GOP controlled House established “Weaponization” on federal Government [in reaction of an execution of a search warrant (aka “raid”) at Mar-a-Lago]?
* GOP lead Senate block an Obama SCOTUS nominee independently if her/his name was Ruemmler or Garland (“Many of us criticized the Senate’s refusal to give him a vote after his nomination to the Supreme Court.”)?
And it has certainly not escaped your attention that it needs the approval stamp of the own party to take out a heavyweight (see Nixon). Maybe one of the most effective tools to get rid of MAGA movement is to use justice system to take out Trump.
“Biden took office promising to be a unifier and a moderate.”
“When Biden gave the nod to Garland, I thought it was a brilliant move.”
“Merrick Garland began his tenure as attorney general with the stated intention of restoring faith in the Justice Department and the rule of law.”
“Garland has also supported the appointment of controversial officials such as Kirsten Clarke and Rachael Rollins.
“Garland […] has done little prospectively to assure the public that the department is pursuing cases without political bias.”
If you have actually taken these lip services at face value and you really believe what you write, then you should not be surprised that “some of us” label you as a claque, which is intended to bring the official narrative closer to the plebs:
* Puppet Masters sent the former Senator from MBNA into the race (and hide the “manifesto” from the electorate) because they gave him a better chance of winning than the unpredictable Senator Sanders.
* Garland function as spokesperson,
* Monaco is running the DOJ (and decides about the moves and who represents DOJ)
“Smith […] has not resolved […] the Jan. 6th matter […] that Trump committed crimes in supporting an ‘insurrection.'”
Be patient, indictment is looming, following discussions to disqualify Trump for re-running!
“Predecessors such as Barr came to the department as former prosecutors with a clarity of purpose and mission. That would put Barr in conflict with Trump, but he was a hands-on manager who penetrated every level of the department.”
“Garland’s reputation is more like that of a supervising judge […]. Even FBI Director Christopher Wray admitted that the past scandals demanded fundamental changes in the department’s operations.”
President Trump had many Achile’s heels: Significant ones were many Trojan horses (like Jeff Sessions and Bush/Cheney apparatchiks) and double dealer like Bill Barr (recommended by Bush clan) and Chris Wray (recommended by Chris Christie).
“Garland has continued to refuse to appoint a special counsel in the investigation of Hunter Biden.”
* Why did AG Barr missed this opportunity?
* The appointment of a “Special Counsel” doesn’t say anything about whether he works aggressively like Jack Smith (because he has unlimited resources) or slow-walked like Robert Hur (because that’s is task)
“That investigation was recently found by Special Counsel John Durham to have been launched with the backing of the Clinton campaign and without the minimal evidence ordinarily required by the department.”
“The Justice Department and the media kept the investigation going for years despite the lack of credible evidence.”
GOP leadership did all to get rid of Trump! I think it hasn’t escaped your attention that late Senator McCain’s minion David Kramer (today: Executive Director of “W”s Presidential Center) spread “controversial” Steele dossier to D.C. just short of Trumps inauguration.
“It is hard to dislike Merrick Garland as a man. But as an attorney general, there is little to like about his last two years.”
Anyone who condemns Garland’s decisions as politically motivated will also doubt his integrity.
Garland has shown that he is about as independent as a lap dog.
And BTW, compare Blagoavich with Biden.
The former went to prison minus thirty million.
The DOJ is ground zero of the illegal, selective, and highly aggressive prosecution of Trump and his supporters.
The targets have included people such as Trump, himself, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro, Allen Weisselberg, Walt Nauta, George Papadopoulos, and over a thousand J6 protesters. many of whom were non-violent people who are in prison today because they walked into the Capitol as the cops held the doors open for them.
One person not indicted was unarmed, five-foot-two, Air Force veteran Ashil Babbitt, a Trump supporter who was shot to death by a Capitol Hill police officer on January 6.
Also not indicted was Roseanne Boyland, a Trump supporter who died on January 6 after she went into cardiac arrest and Capitol Hill police officers and paramedics stood by and did nothing, because, they say, they did not know how the operate the defibrillator in their possession.
Garland is alleged to have misled Congress twice:
1. He denied that the DOJ restricted how the US Marshalls could enforce the law against demonstrators at the homes of Justices, while a PowerPoint briefing for the Marshalls did just that; and
2. The IRS whistleblower said he denied that DOJ was restricting the Hunter Biden investigation when it was doing just that.
So what are the House Republicans doing about this?
Nothing, except complaining that Trump didn’t get everything done.
Garland is latest example of the Peter Principle, having risen to his level of incompetence. He joined the President and Vice President of the current administration in their club of pumpkin heads. How in the world did these unprincipled fools ever rise to leadership?
Yea I know, the fools that run around with their heads alit in an atmosphere of euphoric utopia elected them.
Good grief. Read the comments you are garnering here Jon. The far right quackery is now dominating your thread in a fashion comparable to that of Tucker on the right and Rachel Maddow on the left. Not a place someone of your stature wants to be Jon. Almost not worth reading anymore. Hope you had a good Father’s otherwise!
Jeff:
OMG!!! The comments aren’t boring, mundane statements of pablum so loved by the academics out there, They are sincere expressions of concern and anger at what is going on. Pretty soon we’ll have a Thomas Paine or two. And we can’t have that in our royalist world.
“Garland is NOT a failure. ”
Thank you for making such a fine distinction. Regarding Garland, I do not understand Professor Turley’s words, some of which seem to contradict themselves. This op-ed didn’t sound like his usual cautious but understandable opinions.
You made things crystal clear.
“You made things crystal clear.”
******************************
Thanks, SM. People say I make things understandable. Likely, because I have so much personal trouble understanding complexity. Especially the unwarranted kind.
Although I am on the far right, I have much greater respect for Rachel Maddow than any moderate. Maddow is smart, does her homework, is passionate about what she values, and is unafraid to take a stand. Good for her. Compromise in the realm of public policy works best when it is the result of people with strong differences sticking to their guns as long as possible, only grudgingly moving toward agreement. Not people tripping over themselves to get to the middle.
Miller, I notice you left out honest.
Rachel Maddow is often intellectually dishonest when she presents Democrat narratives, particularly those that focus on conservatives. Right or wrong, however, she is clear about what she wants the Democrats to do is unlikely to compromise unless there is no other option. Kevin McCarthy, in the recent debt-ceiling negotiations, started compromising the second he walked through the door.
Miller, if I was Maddox’
Miller, if I was Maddows boss, I’d give her anything she wants. She’s the star of that network.
Maddow is not a moderate.
She pushed the Russia hoax for 4+ years.
Upstate, you’re right, but she is still the star of that network.
‘It is hard to dislike Merrick Garland as a man. But as an attorney general, there is little to like about his last two years.”
*******************
As if the man is somehow distinguishable from his actions. Maybe he makes the trains run on time.
Maddow is as far left as they come. I can see how the way I phrased that sentence could be misleading. I should have said something like:
“Although I am on the far right, I have much greater respect for the leftist Rachel Maddow than I have for any of the moderates I observe.”
Miller, at least you know where she stands. I’m not one of her fans. I just try to be objective.
“Maddow is smart, does her homework, is passionate about what she values, and is ***unafraid to take a stand***.”
Why did Maddow refuse to debate Laura Ingraham?
There are many Democrats and Republicans who are simultaneously smart and wrong on various issues.
Perhaps, Maddow doesn’t think she could defend some of her positions in a debate, such as the positions that Democrats have to have unless they want to be kicked out of the club. It also could be that her bosses want no part of a debate with a figure from another network.
A person can be unafraid to take a stand on an issue but unable to defend that stand in a debate. Trump is unafraid to support the requirement that ethanol be added to gasoline but would have a difficult time defending the requirement in a debate with Ted Cruz, who opposes it.
Maddow is an able person, and I believe she knows she cannot adequately defend her position. Maybe she justifies herself by believing she is protecting the common good.
perhaps, just perhaps….because one network and its star can speak the truth.Rachel Maddow does her homework and she is well educated….that other lady on that other channel…well…she’s just an overpaid commentator.
Anyone who uses a term like “far-right quackery” deserves to be down here in the mud with the rest of us. Relax, it’s not that bad.
The stonewalling on Hunter, et al, has gone on so long that there is no longer a reasonable claim that this is “under investigation.” The only honest conclusion is that a government conspiracy to coverup has been underway for years. How does Trump get fast-tracked to an indictment and Joe and Hunter don’t for much older and more serious allegations?
Heck yea, it’s very political.
When federal “public servants” did a lot of dirty tricks in 2016 to curry favor with Hillary, they realized they needed an “insurance policy” on the outside chance Hillary might lose. That insurance policy became doubling down on Hillary’s ginormous lies, but it only bought them two years before the firings and convictions started rolling in.
One would think these “public servants” would have learned by now, and yet here we are, again. If the GOP wins the White House, the entire leadership of the DOJ should and will be fired for the coverup that’s already transpired. There’s no fixing or reforming any of these people. All this is true whether Joe is the Democrat nominee or not.
Get ready for the dirtiest election in modern American history.
Ditto everything you have written here……especially “get ready for the dirtiest election in modern American history”.
Yep. Be ready for anything, Heidi. I’m afraid anything is on the table.
” If the GOP wins the White House, the entire leadership of the DOJ should and will be fired for the coverup that’s already transpired.”
The GOP wins, nothing will change. Not a thing, just like 2016. I’d certainly like Trump’s WH rather than the current and so many others, but the DOJ and FBI and the rest of the out of control 3 letters (FDA CDC NIH, etc) won’t be touched.
It’s a great dream, but that’s all it is, a dream.
“…the entire leadership of the DOJ should and will be fired for the coverup that’s already transpired.” Fired and pensions forfeited – this bunch should *never* be rewarded for this level of corruption.
They ALL say they’re going to restore public confidence in their dept, whether it’s DOJ, FBI or IRS. It’s just part of a canned speech that gets recycled with every new appointment. Then they promptly set about enforcing the political directives of whomever appointed them. Merrick Garland is a lap dog and he’s there to do his master’s bidding.
“Merrick Garland began his tenure as attorney general with the stated intention of restoring faith in the Justice Department and the rule of law. By that standard, Garland has been a failure.”
****************************************
Garland is NOT a failure. Oh, far from it. Failure is attempting a task and then not realizing the goal. It implies a sense of earnest good faith in attempting the task. Garland is something much worse. Frustrated in his careerist mindset of achieving the ultimate prize – a SCOTUS seat – he takes a consolation prize and then sets out to do exactly the opposite of what he says and in so doing destroys the institution. He’s not doing it passively either. He’s actively rounding up political opposition, targeting Catholics, investigating parents and turning away investigations into child sex trafficing, BLM rioters and Antifa anarchists.
That’s not a failure; that’s a malignant narcissist.*
“Malignant narcissism is a personality type that causes extreme narcissism, aggression, and, sometimes, abuse of others. A person may use manipulative means or violence to enhance their own sense of wellbeing.”
~Medical News Today
@mespo727272, Brilliantly stated.
Turley is usually right on, but in this case he isn’t. Garland is a swamp dweller as is most of the hierarchy of the FBI. He would have been a leftist zealot on the court and thank God the Republicans refused to allow that to happen
Garland was picked for his job because he was never to be one who would question the politicized operations at the DOJ let alone upend and eradicate it. His absolute silence after the release of the Durham Report that so pointedly and convincingly disparaged the politicization of justice in American is the proof of it. Turley is much too deferential in his regard for Garland’s judicial prowess in thinking that Garland’s full and faithful acceptance of the ways and means of federal bureaucracies would not have carried over to his seat on the Supreme Court.
Feel free to join in the discussion Professor Turley — it would be great to hear your responses to all these critical comments!
Dear Prof Turley,
This is malarky and has all the classic hallmarks of Russian disinformation. Over 50 top intelligence officials, including the last five CIA directors, both parties, have said this is a bunch of garbage. A Putin plot.
Look, you know His character and you know Biden’s character .. .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlfNWXyZiIU
*Build Back Better .. . a railroad from the Pacific all the way across the Indian Ocean.
DgSnowden,
“*Build Back Better .. . a railroad from the Pacific all the way across the Indian Ocean.”
Thank you for pointing out the reason to vote for the Republican candidate, no matter who the person is.
Oh, and let us not forget, “God save the queen, man.”
“You’re a lying dogface pony soldier.”
Agree!
@ UpstateFarmer
I have never voted ‘for’ a Republican or Democrat. I’m ashamed to admit I was going to vote for Obama in 08, but my state required being registered as Democrat to vote and that was a bridge too far for me. Saved by a clerical error.
I consider Democrat/Republican ‘politics’ a cognitive disorder. An infectous disease. Where one must always choose the ‘lesser of two evils’.
I’m hoping this may be the year for a ‘third party’ breakthrough. The D/R political dynamic Duo have dominated American politics since the Whigs in 1850. It’s past time for a change.
Personally, I don’t believe in politic party ‘affiliation’ or ‘running’ for office. It’s an enormous waste of time, money and resources. The political advertisements alone are in the tens of billions and drone on and on incessantly. Leaving little time, in truth, for a bare-minimum functioning government.
RFK Jr. seems to be saying many of the right words (my existential issue is Ukraine!), like Obama in 08, but he seems completely loyal to the Democrat Party .. . but I don’t think the feeling is mutual.
*God save the Queen man.
DgSnowden,
I think you might find this one interesting, written by Andrew Yang, America’s Two-Party Political System Isn’t Prepared for What’s Coming
https://themessenger.com/opinion/americas-two-party-political-system-isnt-prepared-for-whats-coming
Sadly, Yang is fully committed to spending other people’s money on his ideas and passions, though – just like every other politician he criticizes.
“The political advertisements alone are in the tens of billions and drone on and on incessantly. Leaving little time, in truth, for a bare-minimum functioning government.”
dgsnowden, that reminds me of a favorite Krauthammer quote: “Every two years the American politics industry fills the airwaves with the most virulent, scurrilous, wall-to-wall character assassination of nearly every political practitioner in the country – and then declares itself puzzled that America has lost trust in its politicians.” –Charles Krauthammer
Oh how I miss Charles Krauthammer. We need him now.
👍 Dearly missed, but never forgotten, Heidi.
Third parties were crushed after “the giant sucking sound” candidate scared the two entrenched parties with 19.1%. Ross Perot was the last chance, and it appears he was illegally attacked by the 3 letters then.
They tightened all the rules and it’s a 2 party system forever now.
Next is a tunnel to the moon..
Why is that such a big deal?
I asked some other MAGAts and they all said anyone who would ever say “a railroad from the Pacific across the Indian Ocean” was so completely confused that it indicated Biden’s senile.
But when Trump said the brave fighters of the Revolutionary War “manned the air” and “took over the airports” in 1775, we all just laughed at Trump because he’s an idiot. No one said his idiotic belief that there were airplanes in 1775 meant he wasn’t fit to be President.
So what’s so special about Biden’s fantasy railroad?