Public Notice: The wreckage Merrick Garland leaves behind

[Dennis Donovan]

Public Notice - The wreckage Merrick Garland leaves behind

His failures left American democracy ripe for the picking.

Lisa Needham
Nov 08, 2024



It has often been said that Donald Trump was running for president to keep himself out of prison. Mission accomplished.

But the fact that Trump wasn’t behind bars long ago, that he didn’t suffer any consequences for his criming and now likely never will, can be laid squarely at the feet of one man: Attorney General Merrick Garland. Garland dragged his feet on prosecuting Trump for election interference and pilfering classified documents, making it easy for him to run out the clock.

Coming in on the heels of a literal insurrection, Garland was a bad fit for his job from the jump. He made clear early on that he didn’t see addressing issues from the Trump era as a priority, declaring that he would not look backward. Garland is an institutionalist, leading him to see his real job as protecting the Department of Justice rather than imposing any consequences on Bill Barr and others who turned the DOJ into a corrupt playground.

Someone who saw the abstract notion of an institution as more important than actual people and actual wrongdoing was never going to be the person who aggressively pursued an ex-president whose crimes were always in full view, which was what the country desperately needed back in 2021.

/snip

[Autumn]

1. This can't be recommended enough.

Thanks for posting this.

[Bluetus]

18. Garland wasn't the sole cause. That goes back 40 years.

But if we want to identify the person whose failure to do his job led to this result, it would unquestionably be Garland.

Sadly, he will go to his grave confident that he did the right thing, simply upholding institutional traditions.

But let's not forget that Biden could have replaced Garland at any time.

[AloeVera]

79. I read that Biden said choosing Garland was the biggest mistake of his Presidency.

The writing was on the wall 2-3 years ago about who Garland was. Would it have been so disastrous for the Admin to replace him? Surely not as disastrous as this. Mistakes should be corrected, we see the result when they are not.

[Bluetus]

86. The way the corporate media works, yes, firing Garland would have been a problem

We know how they would play that: "Biden is firing a good, competent, diligent, professional, non-partisan, all-around-good-guy Merrick Garland because he wouldn't prosecute Trump."

My beef with Garland as appointee (both by Obama and by Biden) is that his main claim to fame was that Republicans wouldn't have any objections to him. Maybe he would have been OK on the SCOTUS, but Obama might as well have nominated Ralph Nader, for all the good that did.

This looked like a sympathy hire when Biden did it. But surely Biden had to understand there were major prosecutions that had to be pursued vigorously. Maybe Biden really believed that Garland would do the job, and his coziness with the Republicans would give Biden some political cover. But after what McConnell did, I don't see how Biden could believe that.

[republianmushroom]

95. 45 months and counting

Not the "sole cause", but he had a hell of a lot to do with it.
Those that criticized, Barr should take a close look at Garland, one in the same to me.
"Biden could have replaced Garland at any time," totally agree and should have, but didn't want to appear to be playing politics. IMO

[GoreWon2000]

111. Bush/Florida 2000 is how we got here.

The anti-democracy way that the dem elites ousted Biden and threw out 14 million 2024 dem party primary votes with their Rehnquist 5 impersonation was a very bad look for the party supposedly claiming to defend democracy in 2024. Sadly, they were AWOL in defending democracy in 2000. Let's also not forget that Biden was one of the dem U.S. senators who refused to co-sponsor the Congressional Black Caucus's challenge to the fraudulent Florida vote count in 2000. That catastrophic failure of Senate dems to act combined with the disastrous Bush White House occupation is what made Trump possible. The dem elites need to look themselves in the mirror on the issue of defending democracy. After voters watched in horror as they were disenfranchised in 2000 by the Rehnquist 5, many of them gave up on democracy. In 2024 many voters saw through the hypocrisy of the anti-democracy Biden ouster and didn't vote. I can't help but notice that the 2 dem U.S. Senators who lost their re-election bids both called for Biden to drop out. I know this is a tough post but some very hard realities about clear failures on the dem side need to be faced and addressed because our country is now headed for an absolute anti-democracy disaster because of them. It's the dem party base who'll pay the price for it.

[Trueblue1968]

41. I think garland was a bad atty general and probably would not have been a good judge.

[Charmin One]

2. Biggest coward ever nm

[Irish_Dem]

31. Not a coward, complicit.

We see now his plan was to stall until Trump could steal his way back into office.

[Faux pas]

89. Thank you

[Silent Type]

3. Blaming Garland for trump's victory is misplaced. We couldn't beat trump in the Court that mattered. And

Everyone knew he is/was guilty, trumpsters just didn't care.


trump voters were like this woman:

?itok=6ojrWtWj


But we needed this:

[brush]

9. No. If Garland had began prosecuting trump HIMSELF instead of waiting for...

the House Select Committee to finish up and shame him into going after the insurrectionists. And even then he just went after the small fry who actually invaded the Capitol instead of the principal leaders of the insurrection...trump who we saw on TV watching and hoping the revolt would succeed, and of course the rest of his cabal who urged on the crowd at that rally to advance on the Capitol or they wouldn't have a country anymore.

If Garland had moved immediately on trump after taking office trump could've been tried, convicted and jailed of the J6 and stolen docs crimes way before the election came close.

AGs can initiate prosecutions themselves without waiting two years to appoint a special prosecutor, and in this case, where an attempt to overthrow the government was made, the most serious since the Civil War, IMO it was extremely urgent for the slow-moving and Federalist Society member Garland to get right on it.

And btw, is he a rethug mole.

[Silent Type]

10. The ultimate court was the polls. trump would have run from behind plexiglass, and probably would have

recieved more sympathy votes.

But I guess folks have to find a scapegoat.

[brush]

12. A convicted criminal trump would've never won the rethug nod. Garland did a piss poor job as AG.

The worse in my lifetime.

[RANDYWILDMAN]

47. Tied with Barr

Damn Jeff Sessions doesn't look that bad after all. At least he recused himself from something... a case about a crime he knew, but didn't commit

[Fish700]

81. Hey, he helped me understand that "We are all equal under the law" is a joke.

So I have that to thank him for.

[SoCalDavidS]

30. Sometimes The "Scapegoat" Is The One Responsible

It is Eminently clear to most of those following along, that's the case here.

[brush]

34. Pls proceed in thinking a convicted and jail criminal would've won the republican nomination.

As in Nikki Haley is the only other rethug with presidential aspirations.

[Silent Type]

50. Please continue looking for a scapegoat or savior. The man was convicted, an adjudicated rapist, fraudster, etc.

He still won, and probably would have won in 2020 without Covid. It ain’t Garland’s fault, Fani Willis’ fault, or anyone else.

[brush]

57. He wouldn't have won the rethug nod if he was in prison. Garland was horrible.

[Silent Type]

58. That's not the way to beat someone like trump, but everyone has a right to their opinion.

[brush]

61. trump twice impeached and in prison would not have been a factor in this election.

Rethugs would not have nominated a prisoner a sure loser.

[Silent Type]

64. He was a sure loser without being imprisoned. Heck, might as well blame Judge Merchan.

[brush]

66. I'll stick with Garland. His first order of business on taking office should've of been...

prosecuting trump for inciting the insurrection we all saw on TV, for dereliction of duty for watching it on TV and hoping it would succeed, and also for classified document thefts.

Garland was an a horrendous failure.

[Irish_Dem]

48. He didn't do his damn job. The one he was paid well to do.

He let down the country, he let down the world.

The issue is not Trumpers, or polls, or elections or what ever other excuses you cite.

Garland failed to do his job, failed as an American.
And that failure will result in great tragedy in the US that will last for generations.

Defend him if you will, but history will be far from kind and rightly so.

[FakeNoose]

63. His job is hugging dictators and mugging for the TV cameras

That's all he ever wanted to do, besides depositing the grift money into his own account.

What I'm trying to say is ... it was never clear to Chump that the President DOES anything, or has any responsibilities. Even though he was in the White House for 4 years, he didn't understand what was expected of him. That's why he winged it constantly.

Now he's going to do it again for the next 4 years. But behind him there will be an evil, selfish, politically-sharp group pulling all the strings to get their evil shit done.

[uponit7771]

73. Michelle Obama disagrees, she already said if her husband had stole document he would be in jail. Please stop ...

[Autumn]

14. Trumps crimes weren't hidden He did them openly and when Garland took over

Barr's coverup of trumps crimes were right there there for Garland to see and probably a lot more. . Mueller's report was there for Garland to see. Neither he nor Biden would release that report to the public. That might have made a difference.

[brush]

15. Yes, trump was obviously guilty. IMO he never would've won the rethug nomination...

if he had been tried, convicted and jailed as we all saw his guilt and dereliction of duty on TV.

[republianmushroom]

96. Believe, Adam Schiff, had it correct, with out the J6 committee there would not of been

any DOJ investigation. IMO

[Faux pas]

90. By doing nothing

he pretty much gave the criminal(s) the thumbs up and the rest of us the BIG EFFING FINGER. He betrayed us and I won't forget or forgive

[lees1975]

100. Wrong.

If Garland had moved forward, and picked up where Congress left him with evidence and an investigation and then moved his tail like some attorney generals have done in the past, there wouldn't have been these interminable delays in the trials. Trump would have been in court long before his lawyers could have fiddled around with a case on Presidential immunity, and had him tried and convicted in both cases, and in prison before the mid-term elections.

[brush]

109. Yes, that is correct. In prison before the mid-terms.

Garland...a piss poor AG.

[yorkster]

4. Ripe for the picking is the phrase that came

to me as I started to process this. Left open and vulnerable on many fronts.

A sobering and thoughtful post. Thanks.

[MustLoveBeagles]

5. As much as I love Biden

He made a mistake with this pick.

[orangecrush]

16. You forgot the "r"

In the last word.

[Dennis Donovan]

6. The final 3 paragraphs of the story

Garland’s legacy could have been showing that the DOJ was committed to repairing all the things Trump broke. Instead, his legacy is that of ineffectiveness, of dithering, and of not understanding that when Trump blew through all the guardrails of democracy, the DOJ needed to be a part of repairing and strengthening them.

None of that happened, and now that Trump won, the federal criminal cases are dead in the water, with Smith likely winding them down before Trump takes office. There’s no point in continuing to pursue the charges, given the rule that sitting presidents cannot be indicted or prosecuted. And even if the cases proceeded, Trump has already floated the idea of pardoning himself.

Garland’s protection of the DOJ did nothing but preserve that institution long enough for Trump to return to power and weaponize it against political opponents. It was a profound failure that our democracy will be lucky to recover from.

[bigtree]

78. fucking pablum

...and it comes with zero proof, just these cutesy paragraphs.

Posting one more doesn't make it any more credible.

[Intractable]

7. I found this gem in the comments below the article.

The “Institutionalists” at the DOJ and on federal courts too often prevail in ensuring that so much of what we see is just a show—literally, at best, the mere appearance of propriety without the substance of justice.

[hlthe2b]

8. I wanted to think well of him the first year. Year 2 it became clear we were going to lose any opportunity to

pursue justice for any but the lowest level Jan 6 insurrectionists. And the fatally delayed attempt to investigate/prosecute Trump for this and all his other crimes was lost by the time Smith was finally brought on. I don't blame Smith--he has worked at phenomenal speed, considering, but I do blame Garland (and while I defend Biden on nearly all things, I think he likewise discouraged Garland from being too aggressive on this score for fear of looking like a "partisan investigation"--which was the accusation regardless).

[Wicked Blue]

11. Why didn't Biden fire Garland's ass and replace him

with an AG with guts?

[SomedayKindaLove]

68. Because DOJ was investigating Hunter?

Don’t forget Biden was wrongly accused by the right of firing that Ukrainian Prosecutor (when Biden was VP), supposedly because he was investigating Hunter (he wasn’t).

Dems still live by rules of governance that Rs don’t bother with anymore in the Trump era. How could Biden fire the AG who was investigating his son? It’s another instance of Dems “taking the high road”. The road, it unfortunately seems, less and less American’s are traveling these days.

[DSandra]

83. The "high road" is a dying ideal of Democrats especially in the face of fascism

In the real, unsheltered world: might makes right, eat or be eaten, the law of the jungle. The real world has the pity of an iron fist. It's win or die.

[republianmushroom]

97. You are correct.

[Vinca]

13. The investigations and prosecutions of the instigators and funders of J6 should have started on January 21, 2021.

This could have been over and done with and the menace might have been out of our lives forever.

[live love laugh]

17. GOAL‼️

[PortTack]

19. Even President Biden said he was disappointed in his choice of AG!

[markpkessinger]

25. Perhaps, but . . .

. . . He didn't exactly make any movement to correct his mistake, did he?

[onecaliberal]

21. He should be disbarred.

[moniss]

22. It's what I expected from a

member of the Federalist Society.

[moniss]

23. He should at least have the decency to step down

immediately. But apparently he wants to stay and do damage right up to the last possible moment.

[Paladin]

24. Fully-earned criticism.

[LiberalLovinLug]

26. Right after the insurrection. That was the prime moment

And right after we watched both Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham denounce Trump on the Senate floor.

There should have been a press conference the very next day with Garland. Where he should have announced that he would be starting an investigation IMMEDIATELY. While it was all still fresh in the publics mind. And before any prominent GOP could slither back into Trumpland completely.

An incredible failure. In avoiding prosecuting one of, if not the gravest crime in American history, until shamed into it by Liz Cheney, after it was too late to conclude it before the next election was catastrophic.

[Botany]

27. Trump's interference with U.S. foreign policy as per Israel should have been prosecuted, along with...

…. J-6th, and giving up the names and locations of our intelligence agents and their local
contacts.

We are truly fucked. Thanx Merrick. Btw Trump can now fill the Supreme Court with more
picks from the Heritage Foundation. America is now like Germany after Hindenburg turned power
over to Hitler.

The coup started on J-6th is now come to fruition.

[emulatorloo]

28. No need not worry, DU. Trump will jail and/or execute Garland. Will that finally make y'all happy?

[Trueblue1968]

42. Yes.

[Linda ladeewolf]

49. No,

I would have been happy and had more respect for Garland if he had jailed trump and prosecuted him to the fullest extent of the law.

[TheKentuckian]

62. Nope. Too late for happy but I may laugh anyway.

[Blue Owl]

29. tRump broke the law -- why weren't there consequences?

If you or I did what he did, we’d currently be behind bars. tRump is a citizen of the USA — why is he not held to the same standards? (rhetorically asking)

[stillcool]

32. seems to be a pattern...a long running pattern

investigations. Does it matter who does them? The conclusion always seems to be the same. Nothing. Unless like after the 2000 election the solution is the Help America Vote Act. How apropos.

[Passages]

33. I am so deeply upset I can't comment on what I think of Garland right now.

[Akakoji]

35. Yep. If Garland were all that worth fighting for

Obama would have gotten him on SCOTUS. Where he probably would have been used like a doormat as well. Trump should have been arrested in January four years ago.

[3825-87867]

36. I wonder if tramp will keep him

for a while to start prosecutions against tramp's Democratic Enemies as vindictiveness?
If so, I imagine investigations will be much swifter, maybe as swift as when Garland went after Hunter! And if not, tramp will have NO qualms about replacing him immediately as to political partisanship.

But don't give up hope, tramp isn't president - YET. A 78 year old McDonald's heart ain't super healthy. And where's the law that allows for a vice president elect to be automatically installed instead? The 20th Amendment is a bit cloudy although I'm sure Roberts et al can come up with some 16th century excuse, though, such as the idea below.


From an article from Slate - Nov 2008

What if the candidate dies after the election but before the inauguration on Jan. 20? The 20th Amendment states that if the president-elect dies before beginning his term, then the vice president-elect assumes his or her spot. However, the point at which a candidate officially becomes “president-elect” is debatable. He or she definitely assumes the title after Jan. 6, when a joint session of Congress officially counts the Electoral College votes and declares a winner. But the shift could be said to occur immediately after the Electoral College vote. (See Pages 2 and 3 of this PDF article from the Arkansas Law Review.)

If a candidate dies after Dec. 15 but before Jan. 6, Congress, when it convenes, has to decide whether to count the votes cast for him. (In 1872, three electoral votes cast for the late Horace Greeley were discounted by Congress, but it’s unclear whether votes cast for a living candidate who subsequently dies would be treated the same way.)

If Congress decides the votes are valid, then the laws of presidential succession kick in, and that candidate’s running mate moves up the ladder. If Congress decides to throw out the votes, then the question becomes whether the living candidate can be said to have a majority of the overall electoral votes—if not, then, according to the 12th Amendment, the House of Representatives must elect the president from among the three candidates with the most votes.

So, if the Democrats take the House it's possible they may not count the electoral votes for thRepublicansns. Could be interesting.
Would be a sweet January surprise.

[Intractable]

52. Merrick Garland is hated by both sides. He is liked only by a vanishing number of moderate Democrats.

Where are the people on DU who formerly defended him ad nauseam?

I'm sure Trump will pick the nastiest attack dog for the job. Perhaps Aileen Canon.

If Trump goes after leading Democrats, Merrick Garland will be on that list.

[Jit423]

37. Surely he was the biggest mistake of the Biden administration.

Obama has to realize how blessed he was to not have had the chance to put him on the SCOTUS where it looks like he would have been the 7th GOP justice.

[karin_sj]

38. He did a terrible disservice to the American people

I wish so much that Biden hadn't selected him or that he had replaced him when he realized what a complicit weasel he was. Garland is one of the main reasons that this corrupt, treasonous, cruel, racist, misogynistic, stupid slime ball is now our next president and we may not have a real election again for a long, long time, if ever. Thanks for helping destroy our country you creep.

[Kid Berwyn]

39. Bill Barr

More from https://www.publicnotice.co/p/merrick-garland-failures-explained

In May 2021, the DOJ went to court to block the release of most of a Bill Barr memo that might have revealed how hard Barr worked to avoid charging Trump with obstruction of justice after the Mueller report. There, Garland was continuing work that had begun under Trump. But while it made sense that Barr would want to block the release of information revealing his role in helping Trump, it made no sense for Garland to want the same. The country had both a right and a need to learn everything possible about what happened during the first Trump presidency and led to a spasm of treasonous violence. That’s far more important than getting a generally favorable ruling on the DOJ’s right to sit on memos.

[FoxNewsSucks]

40. Miserable Failure

[Just Jerome]

43. My forehead still hurts

from how hard I slapped it when I heard Garland was Biden’s AG pick.

[Emile]

44. Weak on Crime Garland. He was a miserable failure

when it came to prosecuting Trump.

[DinahMoeHum]

45. Fucking pansy

[gab13by13]

46. At least he didn't leak what he wasn't doing.

[Joinfortmill]

51. We shall see. Obama and Biden both recommended him for posts.

That counts for something with me.

[gab13by13]

55. He monitored 11 Federalist Society events

20 Magat Senators voted for him.
Magat Senator Mike Lee asked Trump to replace Comey with Garland.

[Joinfortmill]

56. We shall see.

[TheKentuckian]

65. There is nothing to see now.

What sign are you waiting on now, the second coming, first contact with the Vulcans, or the Age of Aquarius?

[Joinfortmill]

69. I on your side, but I'm reserving judgement. Why so rude? It doesn't encourage discussion.

[gab13by13]

71. Biden's White House Counsel

Sent a blistering letter to Garland after he released the Hur report that called Joe old, weak and feeble with memory loss as his reasons for not prosecuting him. Joe Biden was furious with Garland after the Hur report.

[TheKentuckian]

72. I'm sorry to be rude. My question was honest in intent though

I really don't grasp what you are waiting to see.

This book is written and closed. Garland is an utter failure.

[Scrivener7]

93. WTF? We shall see what??? It's fucking OVER!

There's no seeing now!

What do you think you're going to see???

[republianmushroom]

98. Believe we have. IMO

[AloeVera]

80. So it was no big secret who he really was?

Why oh why oh WHHHYY??

[JHB]

76. Obama chose him as someone some the Republicans had previously praised...

...as a moderate, and as someone the Republicans might accept as a nominee. We all know how that turned out. Mitch McConnell saw the chance for a complete block and took it.

If Hillary had won, odds are that Garland would be on the USSC, with Mitch finally going along in order to deny Hillary the pick.

Joe picked him because Obama did, and the symbolism of that. But it was still the wrong call, putting the wrong man in place for the job that needed to be done.

When Republicans are in power they go all-out for as much as they can. It's only our team that has had this overweening need to appear moderate and nonpartisan at all costs. And it has cost us.

[markpkessinger]

113. Correction: Obama DID pick him

McConnell refused to grant him consideration, until Garland finally withdrew his nomination.

[JHB]

114. What did I say that was inaccurate?

[markpkessinger]

115. My apologies . . .

. . . I misread your comment, and interpolated a "not" after "Joe picked him because Obama did." My bad!

[JHB]

116. No problem. Happens to the best of us

[Quanto Magnus]

53. Garland was complicit

whether it was intentional or not... results are the same.

[aurora the great]

54. Darn Straight

Thank you for giving voice to this. Lets give some credit where credit is due. Thanks for nothing Merrick Garland

[Ruby the Liberal]

59. If his thinking was protecting the "integrity" of the DOJ

he is in for a rude awakening.

[gab13by13]

60. His pyramid strategy

Was a ruse to delay going after TSF

Dana Nessel sent Garland a criminal referral to prosecute her fake electors. Garland sent Lisa Monaco out to publicly announce she was investigating the referral. This was another ruse to delay acting, Nessel waited a year and prosecuted them herself.
Garland shit canned criminal referrals from the J6 committee for Ken Chesebro and Mark Meadows.

[Yavin4]

67. Similar to becoming the Pope and protecting the Church

Instead of directly the atrocities that occurred.

[Orrex]

70. And all along, Garland's cheerleaders so quick to attack any who doubted him

[uponit7771]

74. This is what pisses me off to no end, we got from both barrels from Garpologist damn near every thread

[Emile]

77. No kidding, and he's not even a Democrat.

[Emile]

87. I wonder if his apologists still think we're being impatient

four years later.

[republianmushroom]

99. Yup, they do

old enough to have seen numerous high profile cases take even longer to indict

...this was light speed in comparison.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=19690611
Reply to republianmushroom (Reply #34)
Fri Nov 8, 2024, 06:30 PM

[Emile]

108. Can you point to some of them. This crime was

on live TV.

[republianmushroom]

112. The above is a posting I received from bigtree to one of my posting.

So you will have to ask bigtree.

[Scrivener7]

94. They're STILL at it!!!

Unbelievable!!!

[bigtree]

75. this is full of shit

...not once does she talk about the courts who delayed every piece of evidence, most notably the evidence that GARLAND used SUCESSFULLY in myriad appeals to testimony and other communications from his top aides and attorneys which, in fact, were fought by Garland well after his appointment of Jack Smith to take what he had gathered since at least as far back as 2021 and present it to the GRAND JURIES which the federal government uses to bring charges forward.

GRAND JURIES bring the charges, not the administrator of the DOJ.

Fuck, Just stopping there proves how dirt-dumb and false this scapegoating of Garland is. He doesn't bring charges forward, his prosecutors do AFTER they run them through grand juries.

I mean, without knowing spit about Garland's 'priorities' she just makes it up to suit her vapid hit piece.

Then she blames Garland for the fucking Mueller report that Barr buried? Jesus this is stupid. But more importantly, this is misinformation dressed up in weak aphorisms like 'brought a knife to a gunfight.'

Until we get the details of the actual investigation, this is just more internet fantasy prosecution. Hell, Jack Smith inherited fucking TWENTY career prosecutors from Garland, and what was described at the time as a 'fast moving investigation' which had gathered more evidence to hand over to Smith than Mueller started with.

There were at least 6 top lawyer aides listed in the indictments who had their attorney client privileges revoked on the evidence GARLAND produced and presented to the appeals court judges to have their attorney client privileges revoked and force them to talk. That took YEARS for the courts to schedule and resolve in Garland's favor, in several separate hearings.

Besides, nothing prevents a charged or convicted felon from running or assuming office.. NOTHING but our votes. So what the fuck does this person believe was going to happen?

Did she not just watch this election? He's already a convicted felon. Where the fuck was he supposed to be restrained from winning by the DOJ?

And doesn't ANYONE see anything ironic (if that's the word) about complaining about the DOJ's prosecution of Trump's attempt to interfere in the election, and at the same time, just shouting at Garland for not essentially politicizing the Justice Dept. against Biden's political rival.

I mean, Garland's critics are openly chastizing him for being mindful about this fantasy invention of theirs that he said or did something that indicated he was making decisions based on some fear of being seen as political.

Ffs, his actions in arresting and convicting 1200 Trump supporting rioters on charges up to the crime of Sedition just makes an absolute lie of that nonsense claim. Not to mention that it was Garland, on his own volition, who hired the man who hastened the evidence GARLAND's prosecutors had gathered into TWO historic, multi-felony indictments against a former president.

It's literally never been done, and likely won't again. None of his critics have done anything approaching the accountability and effort Garland's DOJ put into investigating and prosecuting Trump.

No other prosecutor in Trump's history, either, has obtained and pursued two multi-felony indictments against him as aggressively as Garland's DOJ.

To me, this looks like this writer has zero interest in holding either the perps or the courts responsible for delaying and effectively ending the prosecutions for Trump. Neither do the Garland critics, it appears.

Man who prosecuted over 1200 Trumpers, bad?

Courts which blocked him, meh?

This article is written for rubes, imo, and for whatever she's ultimately looking to get attention for.

[asm128]

82. Lots of words

Zero facts. Just like every other time you post this screed defending this incompetent boob. Are you related or something?

[bigtree]

84. receipts (100% more than Garland's critics have provided)

receipts:




https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/11/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel-high-profile-moves-trump-criminal-investigations/index.html


https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/11/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel-high-profile-moves-trump-criminal-investigations/index.html


Smith started with more evidence than what Mueller started with, and integrated into a fast moving investigation including a year long financial probe which had flown under the radar.

Took over a staff twice the size of Muellers, some 20 prosecutors.

[Autumn]

85. It's very accurate. They got the peons but Garland ran out the clock for Trump.

Between the information the J6 committee and what the doj had that Barr covered up he had enough to go after him and his accomplice. He sat there silent.

[republianmushroom]

101. Garland didn't want to prosecute an ex-president no matter what he did..

[Autumn]

103. He had no intention of prosecuting trump. Even knowing his crimes

Last edited Sat Nov 9, 2024, 03:37 PM - Edit history (1)

he ran out the clock. History will not be kind to him or trump.

[area51]

88. k&r n/t

[Clouds Passing]

91. Garland did what he was set to do, preserve the dying R party. Joe should NEVER have placed that

Last edited Fri Nov 15, 2024, 10:05 AM - Edit history (1)

traydor as AG.

[pandr32]

92. So much for "no-one is above the law."

[republianmushroom]

102. The question now is, how many more are above the law and will be protect by the AG & DOJ.

[Stinky The Clown]

104. Shit

I can't rec this post more than once.

[Blue for the win]

105. Worthless

Wonder how much it took to buy him off?

[NEOBuckeye]

106. Garland

Fucking goody two-shoes.

[Martin Eden]

107. Garland was concerned the Justice Dept would be seen as partisan

But Rethugs screamed witch hunt and weaponization anyway when independent Counsel Jack Smith was appointed.

Then Cannon used the SC as an excuse to dismiss the documents case.

Merrick Garland cannot escape at least some of the blame for justice delayed becoming justice denied.

[Tommymac]

110. Garland was a failure as AG.

Just wanted to go on record here with my opinion.