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'm going to say it, and you can place yourself where you want on this [View all]ShazzieB
(16,636 posts)56. Agreed.
SDNY is responsible for not turning over discovery, it was incompetence on their part.
Yes.
Most likely Merrick Garland had no role in that incompetency, his only connection is that he is SDNY's boss.
Agreed. Anyone who thinks that the person heading up an organization as huge and bureaucratic as the DOJ should be on top of every detail in every unit of that organization must not be familiar with how big, bureaucratic organizations function. Believe me, nobody in a position like Garland's has time for anything close to that level of micromanagement.
I know that a lot of people are already extremely upset with Garland over how close we are getting to the election with no assurance of a trial any time soon. I get that, believe me.
Unfortunately, being in that frame of mind makes it very tempting to blame him for anything and everything else that goes wrong. That's where I think some people need to get a grip.
I'm not here to defend Garland, but I don't like the way some seem to have him already tried and convicted of God knows what dastardly deeds. I don't blame anyone for having suspicions, but I feel like some are letting their frustrations over earlier decisions of Garland's run away with them. That's not helpful to anyone, imo.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
155 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
If you're happy with our side scrambling for trial dates in 2024 while a second Trump term remains distinctly possible
BeyondGeography
Mar 15
#3
What you see as an apologist, others see as defending not a man, but reality. Nt
Fiendish Thingy
Mar 15
#8
IMO Garland has been a poor AG, didn't rise to the moment of the most severe threatl...
brush
Mar 15
#78
You clearly don't understand what justifies appointing a Special Counsel
Fiendish Thingy
Mar 15
#109
The internet/social media creates an insatiable, impatient hunger for quick and simple solutions
Fiendish Thingy
Mar 15
#7
you know the people in that song Trump plays before his rallies? The 'Jan. 6 Singers?'
bigtree
Mar 15
#32
Because if he resigned the trolls wouldn't be able to call for his head on a daily basis
AZSkiffyGeek
Mar 15
#104
I agree, bigtree. Joe, unlike his predecessor, really DOES pick the best people!
70sEraVet
Mar 15
#23
100% I disagreed with his choice of Hur and I think that is allowed but I have never been
Bev54
Mar 15
#25
I don't agree with everything Garland has done and in particular the Hur appointment and the lack of cleanout of
Bev54
Mar 15
#75
I remember the days of the torches and pitchforks that came out for Eric Holder
BumRushDaShow
Mar 15
#27
Is Garland allowed to choose his team or is he forced to deal with corrupt trump leftovers?
ecstatic
Mar 15
#102
There are a certain lower layer of positions that the Department (and agency head) can "choose"
BumRushDaShow
Mar 15
#113
Firing Garland at this time would be a bad idea. But only because it's just too late. His duty is already done.
jaxexpat
Mar 15
#29
I admit blaming Bragg for sabatoging his own prosecution of Trump didn't occur to me
bigtree
Mar 15
#41
Unless you're having WH luncheons with Joe, your perception is based on one anonymously sourced article.
Fiendish Thingy
Mar 15
#65
"that any work the DOJ is doing that directly involves an ex-President will find it's way onto garland's update memos"
BumRushDaShow
Mar 15
#74
"I suspect the prosecution of a Presidential candidate might be high on the AG's concern list."
BumRushDaShow
Mar 15
#86
Okay, well thanks, I don't really get what you're trying to say, but I appreciate the discussion.
Think. Again.
Mar 15
#105
The OP would have you believe, apparently, that these SDNY documents are the only cause that has provoked anger,
Goodheart
Mar 15
#119
Attorney General Merrick Garland deliberated for weeks over whether to approve the application for a warrant to search f
republianmushroom
Mar 15
#124
I don't care how the other side receives me, or either side for that matter. It's past time for Garland to go.
Autumn
Mar 15
#76
This obsession displayed by some with Garland is truly disturbing, it does not seem at all healthy.
tritsofme
Mar 15
#80
You can't get rid of Garland before the election, but we absolutely should after the election.
Demsrule86
Mar 15
#82
The idea that Garland would want to stick around for 8 years in the first place is pretty silly.
tritsofme
Mar 15
#88
I understand your point. Fully. But the problem is he put our country in jeopardy
ecstatic
Mar 15
#100