Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I have been an ardent defender of AG Garland, but after today's political charged report against [View all]LetMyPeopleVote
(145,894 posts)123. 'Confidential' in name only: Merrick Garland's delicate decision to release the Hur report
In theory, the attorney general could have kept the report secret. In practice, he had only one option. If AG Garland did not release the Hur report, it was going to be either leaked or disclosed by the GOP in a hearing which would give the report far greater exposure and coverage.
Link to tweet
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/09/garland-decision-release-hur-report-00140806
The White House is livid over the Justice Departments release of a special counsel report that painted a devastating portrait of Joe Biden. But Attorney General Merrick Garlands decision to release it was a foregone conclusion and anything short of publicizing the full report would have been worse.....
In practice, though, burying or censoring the report would have been untenable, former Justice Department leaders say.
They described a high-stakes calculus for both Garland and Hur informed by previous politically sensitive investigations: Special counsel reports have always been made public in recent years, and Garland would have been slammed by Republicans and the press if he tried to keep this one under wraps. Hur, meanwhile, clearly understood that political reality, so the harsh language he included was exactly what he expected the public to see.....
While the DOJ regulations used to appoint special counsels call for their final reports to be confidential and Hur labeled his as such, in recent years it has become customary for attorneys general facing political pressure to vow to release them publicly to the extent the law allows.
Despite the caterwauling from the White House this week, the conclusion of Hurs probe was sure to draw a flurry of Freedom of Information Act requests and lawsuits from news organizations and Bidens political foes. House Republicans could also have subpoenaed the report and related records. The letter Bidens lawyers sent to Hur indicates transcripts exist of the prosecutors interviews with Biden, so the memory lapses Hur cited may have become public whether Hur had colorfully characterized them or not......
And while some Justice Department veterans said the buck stops with Garland, others argued that the attorney general had no choice but to release the report Hur delivered. Hur and his team likely would have understood that their words would become public, even though the report was labeled confidential.
Mr. Hurs report had to be released unedited lest the attorney general were to be accused of protecting President Biden, Rossi said.
In practice, though, burying or censoring the report would have been untenable, former Justice Department leaders say.
They described a high-stakes calculus for both Garland and Hur informed by previous politically sensitive investigations: Special counsel reports have always been made public in recent years, and Garland would have been slammed by Republicans and the press if he tried to keep this one under wraps. Hur, meanwhile, clearly understood that political reality, so the harsh language he included was exactly what he expected the public to see.....
While the DOJ regulations used to appoint special counsels call for their final reports to be confidential and Hur labeled his as such, in recent years it has become customary for attorneys general facing political pressure to vow to release them publicly to the extent the law allows.
Despite the caterwauling from the White House this week, the conclusion of Hurs probe was sure to draw a flurry of Freedom of Information Act requests and lawsuits from news organizations and Bidens political foes. House Republicans could also have subpoenaed the report and related records. The letter Bidens lawyers sent to Hur indicates transcripts exist of the prosecutors interviews with Biden, so the memory lapses Hur cited may have become public whether Hur had colorfully characterized them or not......
And while some Justice Department veterans said the buck stops with Garland, others argued that the attorney general had no choice but to release the report Hur delivered. Hur and his team likely would have understood that their words would become public, even though the report was labeled confidential.
Mr. Hurs report had to be released unedited lest the attorney general were to be accused of protecting President Biden, Rossi said.
Even if the full report was not leaked, the report would had eventually come out when Comer or Gym Jordan subpoenaed Garland, Hur and the report itself. Disclosure of the full report would have been a bigger deal than releasing the report in full this far in advance of the general election.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
124 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I have been an ardent defender of AG Garland, but after today's political charged report against [View all]
JohnSJ
Feb 2024
OP
In other words, if I am disappointed, I should just shut up and not complain. Totally not surprised by
JohnSJ
Feb 2024
#4
Welcome to the dark side. Prepare thyself for lame, canned, illogical responses to any of your concerns,
Scrivener7
Feb 2024
#12
yeppers, I hadn't ever heard Garland speak until his confirmation hearings.. that was when I intuited
msfiddlestix
Feb 2024
#91
I have been defending him for quite some time, but with his appointments of republican special
JohnSJ
Feb 2024
#6
Exactly, and why did it take so long to appoint a special counsel against trump?
JohnSJ
Feb 2024
#10
Smith was named Special Counsel six days after trump declared he was a candidate for president.
onenote
Feb 2024
#63
The special counsels to investigate the BIdens,were appointed by Garland, and they are partisan republicans. and as far
JohnSJ
Feb 2024
#9
That Sick Fuck made his intentions to run for office again was made to ALL before he left the white-house
msfiddlestix
Feb 2024
#94
Zero input from Garland? Only if he chose to give zero input. It was his job to review...
Silent3
Feb 2024
#85
Everything the GOP has to CYA for Ayatollah Complainy is nonsense at this point, defending Mr. 91 and LOSER!
Brainfodder
Feb 2024
#107
He prosecuted the OKC Tim McVeigh trial which I followed closely, being in Denver at the time...
hlthe2b
Feb 2024
#11
People always cite that case. But despite the horror of the result, McVeigh was one kid,
Scrivener7
Feb 2024
#13
Thanks. I have never had a problem admitting an error in judgment or being incorrect
JohnSJ
Feb 2024
#33
No one else is obligated to change their mind just because you or anyone else thinks they should.
ShazzieB
Feb 2024
#34
"Be sure to let his boss know" has been posted many multiple times in every single thread that expresses concern
Scrivener7
Feb 2024
#81
It is not the week before the election. Thus I don't think it will hurt Biden.
Demsrule86
Feb 2024
#15
CNN tapper was laying it on against Biden today, but that is par for the course for him.
JohnSJ
Feb 2024
#35
Yes it does. Trump's Attorney General would never allow such a partisan report to come out. Shit, his AG didn't
dem4decades
Feb 2024
#80
Garland was a bad choice. Biden felt sorry for him. No good deed goes unpunished
dalton99a
Feb 2024
#21
Of course many DUers assured us that Garland's milquetoast kowtowing to the GQP
Sky Jewels
Feb 2024
#47
So Biden didn't know what he was doing when he appointed him? Why hasn't he replaced him?
onenote
Feb 2024
#64
Joe made a mistake. People do. Do YOU think less of him because of that? I never expected he was infallible.
Scrivener7
Feb 2024
#78
The language and conclusions in Robert Hur's Special Counsel report amount to prosecutorial misconduct.
sop
Feb 2024
#22
We could have done without the commentary. That was political, unprofessional total BS.
LeftInTX
Feb 2024
#74
"Swift Boating", a very appropriate description of the SC's editorial pointlessly set within his "finding of fact".
jaxexpat
Feb 2024
#112
I don't want to beat a dead horse, and we are in agreement about how Garland should go forward.
Scrivener7
Feb 2024
#76
Garland had no business allowing this report to be published 'as is,' because
PatrickforB
Feb 2024
#92
It was a frustrating experience to express feelings and thoughts of doubt right out the gate...
msfiddlestix
Feb 2024
#93
DUers finally coming to conclusion that TFG will not be tried before election.
Sneederbunk
Feb 2024
#102
It's almost funny to watch the doubling down on "Everything Garland touches is three-dimensional-chess gold,"
Scrivener7
Feb 2024
#111
'Confidential' in name only: Merrick Garland's delicate decision to release the Hur report
LetMyPeopleVote
Feb 2024
#123