122

By delaying any investigation or prosecution of Trump until almost two years after he became attorney general, Garland hamstrung Jack Smith, the dogged and beleaguered special counsel, leaving little time for the predictable unpredictabilities of two high-stakes prosecutions. Both were as solid as federal cases get, and now neither has any chance of being completed before the election, leaving voters without clear legal conclusions about Trump’s responsibility for the Jan. 6 riot and the highly classified documents he took from the White House.

Archived at https://ghostarchive.org/archive/QGUMD

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Nougat@fedia.io 53 points 2 days ago

Garland should never have been AG.

Garland was supposed to be a SCOTUS justice, blocked by McConnell, et al. When he was appointed AG, he exercised great caution to ensure that nothing he did had the appearance of "revenge" or selective prosecution. That behavior is absolutely necessary, but it wouldn't have been if it wasn't Garland as AG.

Right?

Picking him as AG was absolutely baffling to me at the time, and it’s panned out to be perhaps the worst pick in the entirety of the Biden administration. Like, genuinely, the only worse play off the top of my head would have been to just keep Bill Barr around.

[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago

He wasn't even that. He was literally chosen to call the Republicans bluff when they said that Obama would never nominate someone like him even. Then Obama did.

It just turns out that it wasn't a bluff. And the racists never had any intention of ever being sensible or normal. But I think that was pretty much obvious to anyone with a couple of brain cells.

Garland however, was never a leftist. He wasn't even ever "progressive". Let alone a Democrat. He was always a false neutrality, status quo droid. Plus, regardless of who was put in office. Republicans were always going to claim any consequences for their behavior was revenge. Even if it was revenge though. Why should we be concerned. Sometimes revenge and justice are the same thing. And justice shouldn't be denied. Perhaps Republicans should stop giving people grounds for wanting revenge?

[-] 2piradians@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago

If Garland outlives me I'd like him to be a pallbearer at my funeral so he can let me down one last time.

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago

One way or another there will be a new AG next year.

[-] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 days ago

Ag Jack Smith? (No idea what extra qualifications are needed)

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

For Harris one name floating around is that of Doug Jones, who was briefly a senator from Alabama. He could be confirmed even with a Republican Senate.

[-] Mirshe@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Oh hey, I liked him as Captain Saru. /s

[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

I don't know much about Doug Jones, but this seems like a suicidally stupid idea at first glance. What kind of Democrat does it take to get elected senator in Alabama? That sounds like the kind of conciliatory milquetoast centrist bullshit that has gotten us into this mess.

When a group of people decides that they are no longer going to respect democracy, and they are willing to burn down the republic for their own gain, milquetoast centrism is suicidal. Going easy on these bastards didn't make them stop. They're still denying they lost, and they're still trying to steal the election. Historically, this type of authoritarian movement that seeks to destroy democracies only ends up one of two ways. Either the authoritarians end up winning, or everyone remotely involved gets multi-decade prison sentences. While the Justice Department has tried a lot of the low-level people, Garland's intransigence has protected the real people in power, the ringleaders behind the whole thing. Trump hasn't faced justice. The Republican Congressional members involved in the scheme haven't faced justice. The media that deliberately fomented the rebellion hasn't faced justice.

Compare this to something like the Guy Fawkes's attempt to blow up the English parliament. They didn't give those people a slap on the wrist and say, "it's time for the nation to heal." Back then they rounded up everyone remotely involved and publicly executed them via torture. Historically, the absolute worst punishments a state could apply were reserved for treason and rebellion. And they were applied liberally after any serious attempt at overthrowing a government.

Now, we're not in that era anymore. We don't need to resort to mass summary executions or public executions by torture. We hopefully are a bit more enlightened now. But these people still cannot just be allowed to run around and continue their attempts at overthrowing the government. The people who organized it? The people on the ground? The legislatorss involved? The prominent media figures who deliberately spread lies about the election being stolen? All of them should never see the light of day again.

And yes, that includes people in the media. Look at how the Union states cracked down on Southern-sympathetic press during the Civil War. That's we what we should be doing now. I'm sorry, but if you are deliberately spreading lies about an election being stolen, you should be in jail for attempting to foment a rebellion. You're as guilty as Goebbels or any Nazi propaganda minister. The first amendment does not protect conspiracy to treason.

Instead we did nothing. Milquetoast centrist bullshit led us to ignore the scale of the problem. Now these same bastards are attempting to foment a pogrom against Haitian immigrants in Ohio. THAT is what treating these people with kid gloves gets you. It doesn't let the nation heal, it just gives the traitors another bite at the apple.

We do not need another limp-wristed centrist leading the Justice Department. We need someone willing to come down like Hammer of God on these people. Maybe I'm being unfair to Doug Jones. But the fact that he was able to get elected as a senator in Alabama hints that we might just be making the mistake all over again.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

What kind of Democrat does it take to get elected senator in Alabama?

One who was running against Roy Moore, the predator who would sexually assault teenage girls he met at the mall. We're talking a guy in his 30s who would hit on teenagers at Sears.

That said, yeah, Garland was a shit choice and Jones probably isn't the best either, but the staunchest legal attack dog in the Democratic Party I know of is, well, currently running for president.

[-] SGGeorwell@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago

Judy Garland would have been a more effective AG.

[-] anticolonialist@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

The oligarchy will never prosecute one of their own.

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -5 points 2 days ago

New York Times - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for New York Times:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/11/opinion/garland-justice-trump.html
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2024
122 points (97.7% liked)

politics

18870 readers
2695 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS