General Discussion

slightlv

(4,407 posts)

39. No, I've just seen it when articles have been written about him.

Wed Dec 11, 2024, 01:46 PM

Wednesday

Since I *once* had a subscription to WP, I'm assuming those are the articles. I do remember seeing it multiple times, and in fact I want to remember that was one of the reasons Obama put him up for the SC. He thought he'd be able to get the okay on him, and not on one of our own party members. And then McTurtle just screwed everyone over, except the billionaires.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

WyLoochka

69 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Garland failed us again..... [View all] getagrip_already Dec 10 OP

But he would have made a great supreme Court Justice JanMichael Dec 10 #1

What is wrong with these people? Bluethroughu Dec 10 #3

I am beginning to suspect this was common practice in the old days. Baitball Blogger Dec 10 #5

I can only speak to the 1990's - my time in Washington TBF Wednesday #43

They are human. And they are easily lured by money/power and/or threatened with blackmail/extortion. erronis Wednesday #24

Not just the lure of bribes and pay offs Farmer-Rick Wednesday #34

They have no fight in them ThePartyThatListens Thursday #68

I'm not so sure. He seems to prefer sitting on the fence and never rocking a boat. Lonestarblue Wednesday #38

Institutions always cover their own asses rather than expose themselves, RockRaven Dec 10 #2

But needed edhopper Dec 10 #4

he was literally in court when voters effectively cut his prosecutions short bigtree Dec 10 #6

Really? getagrip_already Dec 10 #11

The DOJ has been slow walking the Paxton Sewa Dec 10 #18

Source? tia uponit7771 Wednesday #40

Literally? Which court. What case? quakerboy Wednesday #55

Garland's prosecutor, Tom Windom, was presenting the government's responses to immunity claims before Judge Chutkan bigtree Thursday #56

so, too little too late, and not literally at all. quakerboy Thursday #57

weird that you say nothing about the judges and judges who actually delayed the cases bigtree Thursday #58

Absolutely. Thank you. ancianita Thursday #60

He's a professorial weenie guy. Pipe and elbow patches Klarkashton Dec 10 #7

Hes a republican. Whalt would you expect... n/t slightlv Dec 10 #9

I've seen that mentioned a few times, but I can't find any confirmation in various bios and articles LauraInLA Wednesday #32

No, I've just seen it when articles have been written about him. slightlv Wednesday #39

Thanks; I'll keep looking and report ugh it's kind of moot. I found articles about Obama picking him as LauraInLA Wednesday #45

He's actually a registered independent, with a bunch of milquetoast do-nothing centrist views that only serve to aid the Karasu Wednesday #49

Times like this when I wish Tish James or Alvin Bragg were AG Jit423 Dec 10 #8

Maybe Garland was concerned he'd have to do some similar wiretapping. Silent Type Dec 10 #10

If it was simililarly illegal.... getagrip_already Dec 10 #12

To catch crooks like trump, Gaetz, and a host of government crimes. But you have a point. Silent Type Dec 10 #15

GARLAND is such a weak broke d*ck, it is just so dis appointed NotHardly Dec 10 #13

You don't know how the DOJ historically works. ancianita Dec 10 #14

Protecting, because the one sitting does not want to be investigated when he leaves. status que republianmushroom Wednesday #28

"They can but they don't" Farmer-Rick Wednesday #36

It's about ancianita Wednesday #46

If the system doesn't work, it most definitely Farmer-Rick Thursday #59

Thanks for your post. I'll think on it. ancianita Thursday #64

link to story? LymphocyteLover Dec 10 #16

Would Biden have picked Garland if he weren't Obama's SC pick? LisaM Dec 10 #17

Obama had to pick someone he thought Republicans would confirm MadameButterfly Wednesday #21

No, he didn't. I think maybe be thought we owed Garland something. LisaM Wednesday #22

Doug Jones was an obvious excellent choice but MadameButterfly Wednesday #41

Garland is a Republican, if he was working for Trump how would his behavior be different? Ranting Randy Wednesday #19

Post removed Post removed Wednesday #23

Nothing different. He went after Dems and let the coup keep going. onecaliberal Wednesday #52

why was this removed? Grasswire2 Wednesday #54

This message was self-deleted by its author LudwigPastorius Wednesday #20

Nothing, but protecting an ex-president and DOJ. the legacy of Merrick the Meek. republianmushroom Wednesday #25

Absolutely Rebl2 Thursday #61

Where's the full Jack Smith report ... Escape Wednesday #26

Were is Mueller's report un-redacted ? republianmushroom Wednesday #29

Guess we just have to be patient... Escape Wednesday #35

Oh Rebl2 Thursday #62

No. He didn't AKwannabe Wednesday #27

He's the worst Beckett Wednesday #30

His spine is a mushy wet noodle Cthulu on call Wednesday #31

Yep Rebl2 Thursday #63

Can he be held liable for... 2naSalit Wednesday #33

so you want to bring a suit against him for not prosecuting Trump bigtree Thursday #65

Um... 2naSalit Thursday #66

it's untrue that he 'pissed away three years' bigtree Thursday #67

"Garland knew, and did nothing to prosecute or even investigate it" uncledad Wednesday #37

Biden appointed him and could have fired him any time MichMan Wednesday #42

A Picture of A Duck??? BurnDoubt Wednesday #44

Garland nowforever Wednesday #47

Caspar Milquetoast on tranquilizers. nt Xipe Totec Wednesday #48

Stupid "gotcha" appointment HereForTheParty Wednesday #50

at some point it just isn't failure Skittles Wednesday #51

☝🏾☝🏾☝🏾THIS !!!☝🏾☝🏾☝🏾 uponit7771 Thursday #69

Garland did exactly what he was tasked to do Picaro Wednesday #53