115

White House frustration with Garland grows (www.politico.com)

submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The president believes the special counsel investigating his handling of classified documents went beyond his remit. And part of the blame is being placed on the AG.

Joe Biden has told aides and outside advisers that Attorney General Merrick Garland did not do enough to rein in a special counsel report stating that the president had diminished mental faculties, according to two people close to the president, as White House frustration with the head of the Justice Department grows.

The report from special counsel Robert Hur ultimately cleared Biden of any charges stemming from his handling of classified documents that were found at Biden’s think tank and his home. But Hur’s explanation for not bringing charges — that Biden would have persuaded the jury that he was a forgetful old man — upended the presidential campaign and infuriated the White House.

Biden and his closest advisers believe Hur went well beyond his purview and was gratuitous and misleading in his descriptions, according to those two people, who were granted anonymity to speak freely. And they put part of the blame on Garland, who they say should have demanded edits to Hur’s report, including around the descriptions of Biden’s faltering memory.

top 35 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Nobody@lemmy.world 79 points 10 months ago

Biden has always been a gaffe machine. His age has made the problem worse, but it’s always been true. I wish my vote mattered, and that I had a choice to vote for a candidate I actually like.

That said, if you live in a swing state, show up and vote for Biden. Your vote is one of the few in the country that actually counts on a national level, and staying home is a vote for Trump.

[-] Kingofthezyx@lemm.ee 9 points 10 months ago

I remember this being a talking point when he was running against Obama in 2007. It's not diminished mental faculties to misspeak sometimes. The guy has been a better president than Trump could ever hope to be. It's bullshit that it's going to be these two old fucks facing each other again, but it's the hand we've been dealt.

Vote for Biden and then start laying the groundwork for 2028. Democracy doesn't happen once every four years.

[-] chrischryse@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Why does swing state count but others don’t?

[-] Nobody@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Because of the way the Electoral College works, voters in swing states decide who wins the presidential election. Votes in states where a candidate is going to win by 30 points are meaningless to the presidential race, though they do matter in local and state-level elections.

For example, in the 2000 election about a thousand votes in Florida decided the entire election, while 88,000 Floridians voted for Ralph Nader instead of Al Gore as a protest vote. Swing state votes are the only ones that really matter.

[-] blazera@kbin.social 39 points 10 months ago

Hes been a disappointment from day one and every day since that Trump walks free.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 37 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

So three years late and only when it personally affected him. Merrick Garland was a meme proposal by Obama to make the Republicans look bad, a man so inoffensive to Republicans their hypocrisy would be laid bare. He should never have been made AG, he did his best to delay and avoid Trump cases, which now put them under a time crunch to actually affect his attempt to retake the presidency, and fetishizes bipartisanship, which is why Biden is in this current mess. Sadly, the urge for clapbacks was just too strong.

[-] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 25 points 10 months ago

Federalist Society plant Merrick Garland has been working to get Trump back in the entire time

[-] Hegar@kbin.social 20 points 10 months ago

Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society are such a dire threat to Americans. They'd happily burn the entire country to the ground as long as they're left to baptize the ashes.

[-] ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I had this discussion back on Reddit. Seeing this upvoted, maybe it's time to do a misinformation check.

The guy has a Federalist society profile page because he moderated or appeared on some panels, if I recall. The Federalist society, not him, set up that page, and it was pretty normal for unbiased/unaffiliated lawyers to participate in Federalist panels.

The existence of that page has morphed into some conspiracy or evidence of secret right-wing intentions.

I don't think he's a right wing plant. He seems like just a typical "don't blame me" milquetoast career centrist. Do you have some other evidence or is this it?

[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Maybe the problem is it's too normal and uncontroversial for people to openly associate or be counted among fascists?

Maybe just maybe his comfortability with fascism was a sure sign that he should not be the one to prosecute them.

[-] ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It's not so simple, unfortunately. I mean, what exactly is "his comfortability with fascism"? What are you referring to?

In law school in the 2000s, the Federalist Society had student arms and out of curiosity I attended some meetings. It was clearly not for me, but it was not the group it is today. It wasn't good, but it was within the normal civil-debate range of "ok, as a polite apolitical gesture, I will attend or participate upon request." And I see no evidence Garland did anything but that, at a time before before this fascist strain became the dominant one it is in the GOP today. It would certainly mean something different if he participated in 2018 or 2024.

So all I'm saying is: if there is some specific affirmative thing Garland has done that makes him a fascist or secret Republican conspirator, or whatever, great, let's see it. I have no skin in this game, I just think if people hear things too often without them being tested then they start to believe them, even if there's no evidence. So, let's test it.

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

Dude he was a nominee of Obama for the Supreme Court that Republicans blocked....

[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago

Mitch McConnell filibusters his own bills. Garland was a suggestion from Orin Hatch. That Obama nominated him says nothing more about him other than Obama was trying to naively extend an olive branch to Republicans. That a republican would think he would be appropriate to nominate. Is a rather scathing indictment.

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world -4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

So there were plenty of Republicans who stood up for the right thing, from McCain to Liz Cheney and Kinzinger. Hell there have been loads of Trump-appointed judges who upheld the integrity of the 2020 election.

At the end of the day, Obama had no choice BUT to find some sort of moderate because he needed Republican Senate approval... Which ultimately, he didn't get anyway (in a similar manner to what's going on with the border legislation now).

Reminder that Progressive org MoveOn also endorsed Garland.

All that being said, nobody has yet to point out a single substantive thing that Garland has done wrong. Just blind speculation. because obviously we all wish Justice could happen overnight.

[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

No there weren't. They didn't stand up for the right thing. McCain is literally part of the problem. And dead. Liz Cheney is a horrible person from a horrible family. They don't support Trump personally. Because he attacked them personally. They were 100% behind him carrying out all the horrible xenophobic, fascistic things the party stands for. Barely even able to meekly object for more than a vote or two. And only when things are specifically about Trump himself.

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world -3 points 10 months ago

McCain prevented millions from losing healthcare and having the ACA overturned. When idiot Tea Party / Trump supporter-types criticized Obama, McCain defended him. McCain also helped pass the McCain-Feingold bipartisan campaign finance reform act. A perfect soul? Certainly not, but if all of Republicans were like him we wouldn't be where we are today.

We do not call people horrible simply by association with who their family is; that is absurd. Liz Cheney stood up and did the right thing in denouncing Trump. Again a perfect person by no means, but also not outright evil either.

Trump attacked many people personally like Ted Cruz and DeSantis and they still kiss Trump's ass.

Either way, my main points remain.

[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Yes but McCain didn't do it to keep millions from losing access. He literally did it out of spite to get back at his own party as they turned against him. It wasn't out of some principle he held. He literally voted against the ACA in the first place.

And yes everyone remembers that one time he meekly corrected one of his lunatic voters. That doesn't make up for everything else. Or make him a good person.

Mccain feingold wasn't a horrible piece of legislation either. It was surprising to see Mr. Keating five attached to it. But again, it does not neutralize or negate everything else regardless.

Liz Cheney, Dick Cheney's daughter. Attacked her own sister. She's a piece of shit just like her father. Mary Cheney may have been the only one to escape the family reputation. Liz only went against Trump again out of spitefulness because Trump had been attacking her because she did not capitulate to him completely. At one point, Liz Cheney bragged that sheed voted with Trump 100% of the time. In reality she hadn't. But the only times she hadn't were things particularly relating back to Trump himself. Because it wasn't out of principle, it was out of spite.

I never said that everyone Trump attacked turned on him. Yes, Ted Cruz is a despicable submissive little husk. That doesn't change any of the other points. It just goes to show how sad and pathetic people like Ted Cruz are. And why they're in the Republican party.

Either way, either points still don't stand.

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world -2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Maybe you're right; maybe they're not stellar people. However:

These weren't my main points.
Regardless of their motives, their actions are what matter; for as I said, there were many Trump supporters who were spited by Trump but who still kissed his ass. For whatever reason that you and I cannot elucidate, these individuals broke with the rest -- often to their own downfall -- unlike other individuals, again such examples being DeSantis or Cruz. If enough people in the Republican party at least had this level of self-respect, then perhaps we wouldn't be where we are today (though an argument can be made such people enabled Trump to be created like Frankenstein's monster.)

My main points:

Obama didn't have Senate control; he was never going to get an idyllic progressive into the Supreme Court under a Republican Senate; he couldn't even get a formerly-bipartisan supported candidate like Garland into the Supreme Court -- This point remained untouched.
There is substantively NOTHING Garland is doing wrong and every complaint I've thus far seen has been pure speculation from people who are not legal experts and are just impatient -- This point, too, remains untouched.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

Obama was basically a Republican from 1980, my guy. Even Obamacare is romneycare and a right wing policy example.

Obama is not progressive he is not left. He is a corporate liberal.
Those are not the same thing.

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

This isn't 1980 anymore, though, my friend.

Shit, I'd take a 1980s Republican right about now, which speaks to the fragility of our nation at the moment.

None of this changes my point and the claim, "Merrick Garland has been working to get Trump back in the entire time" is entirely unsubstantiated bold-faced speculation. A complete non-sequitur.

Look at it another way: Democrats may be 1980s Republicans, but modern-day Republicans are 2024 Republicans, which basically means the banner of neo-nazi, ultra-right right extremists and a platform that is entirely Anti-Democrat as much as it is Anti-Democracy.

Democrats basically marginalized the GOP away by absorbing their most rational political platform, topped off with a little more social liberty and justice. It has actually been working quite effectively at making the Republicans irrelevant. So with that (1) Yes, at this stage of the game with the party endorsed by neo-nazis, I'll take the 1980s Republican, and (2) Sending the Republicans the way of the Whigs could very well open up a vacuum for the Democrats to assume the center-right position and a new truly leftist party to fill the void. (Though is is all probably predicated on massive campaign finance / election reform which again, will only ever come through the Democrats and never Republicans).

[-] K1nsey6@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago

He wasnt basically a republican, he directly said in a 2012 interview his policies would be mainstream republican during Reagan, And he, like all other Presidents, continued Reaganomics

[-] K1nsey6@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

The DNC refusing to not primary Biden is doing a fine job of getting Trump reelected.

[-] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

The DNC is unironically retarded

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago

So he's not mad at the glacial pace of investigations into Trump. He's mad that Hur called him old.

[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

He's mad that Hur blamed his inability to recall things on his age, but blamed others' inability to recall things on the fact this happened six years ago.

Which sounds like a totally fair criticism.

(edit: and yes, Garland should absolutely have called out Hur for editorializing instead of remaining factual.)

[-] Habahnow@sh.itjust.works 12 points 10 months ago

I'm curious what a better Attorney general would have accomplish in comparison. Not because I liked Merrick Garlands work, but because I'm not too familiar with would it would look like.

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Unpopular opinion here but I think Garland is doing a fantastic job. That Biden felt Garland could or should rein in the Special Council suggests ignorance to the entire point of appointing a special council.

Biden is off the hook and Garland set Smith up for success on Trump. People expecting justice of this magnitude to happen overnight do not understand the legal system and the complexity of these cases.

Some of you may not be aware that Merrick Garland was a Supreme Court nominee of Obama's that Republicans (McConnell) blocked. He's not some plant lol.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world -3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Garland is the best Republican Biden could have hired for this job.

What he should have done is hired an aggressive progressive. His lack of foresight could be the undoing of America entirely if he loses to trump.

Obama and Biden are right of Reagan. They are not progressives they are not aggressive. In any other country they'd be far right.

[-] Econgrad 8 points 10 months ago

That's an absolutely bonkers take. I'm sorry but it's unhinged.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world -5 points 10 months ago

Facts done care about your feelings. There's nothing unhinged with a realistic political analysis.

I noticed you provided no evidence to the contrary just an ad hominem.

[-] Econgrad -5 points 10 months ago

I agree that facts don't care about feelings. What's a woman? I'm just curious can you tell me what your definition is?

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Sorry I don't agree. I think Garland was the perfect pick given the zeigeist. People act as though the entire country is just itching for a progressive when the unfortunate reality is that a large swath of this country is (a) ignorant, (b) apathetic, and (c) conservative. Within the purview of a massive right-wing and corporate propaganda machine that controls the national narrative with soundbite talking-points and BoThEriSm still running strong, it was wise to find someone who both caters to the traditional notion of conservatism and yet who actually has a strong conviction for true Justice.

I promise that anyone criticizing Garland for not moving fast enough knows not the first thing about law or the ramifications of doing this half-assed. In other words, Dunning-Kruger Effect is on full display for such critics. To that, I say Garland's careful investigation and subsequent deferral to Jack Smith to ensure no arguments of political bias hold weight has been masterful. Dot your i's, cross your t's; take as long as you need to ensure a tight case in what will be the most important trials perhaps in our entire history. After all, we know there is likely going to be a lot of money and intimidation on the right funneling into Trump's defens.e

Center-right? Yeah. Far-right? I can't agree with that. That would suggest Obama and Biden are in the AfD camp of Germany, which would be absurd.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

He’s just now realizing maybe the dude is a republican stooge?

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

So, we may have dodged a bullet when we got Gorsuch instead?

this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2024

115 points (96.7% liked)

politics

19223 readers

2696 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

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.
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.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
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.
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