If Biden Is Frustrated With Garland's Handling of the Jan 6 Investigation, It's His Own Fault

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

A host of legal experts are becoming increasingly concerned and frustrated about AG Merrick Garland's lackluster pace investigating Jan 6. According to recent reports, President Biden is also becoming frustrated and concerned.

From Jennifer Rubin in the Washington Post. --

A host of former DOJ lawyers, prosecutors, commentators and legal experts warned Biden that the qualities needed to be a federal judge were different than those suited for attorney general. As Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) has remarked, Garland "comes out of an ivory tower judgeship, far away from a lot of the political mischief. And I’m not sure how much situational awareness he has about the forces that are operating … around the department and operated through the department, it appears, during the Trump administration.”

Biden knew what he was getting when he picked Garland. He selected someone totally lacking not only in partisanship but in political awareness and savviness. Biden chose a judge known for his deliberate, copious analysis. He and his advisers certainly knew Garland avoided public speaking and writing as a judge. That Garland has eschewed the public limelight and lacked prosecutorial zeal and willingness to challenge Justice Department protocol and traditions should come as no surprise.


This is what frustrates me the most with Biden. --

In addition to selecting an attorney general who lacked political deftness and prosecutorial zeal, Biden has certainly not helped matters by failing to address the urgency of the Republicans’ assault on democracy. He has studiously avoided making the connection between defense of democracy in Ukraine and defense of democracy here at home. He refuses to give a speech explaining that our ability to mount a democratic alliance in support of the West demands we defeat domestic authoritarian impulses, such as big lies and conspiracies in service of propaganda, assaults on election results and election officials, and the embrace of violence.

In sum, Biden chose someone not suited for prosecuting a former president and co-conspirators, and not inclined to play the public role that is a critical part of the job. Biden has not lit a fire under Garland. Certainly, the public has every reason to be frustrated with Garland. But the buck stops with his boss. If Biden is a lackluster defender of democracy at home, what do you expect of his attorney general?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/04/biden-garland-jan-6-prosecution-frustrated/

 

[Athanasius68]

In other words, the complaint is that the DOJ is acting 'independently' of the administration.
I remember in the days of yore-- oh, way back about 15 months or so ago- the usual progressives suspects liked to say they dreamt of that.

Now we now they dream of using the DOJ to go after their political opponents.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

In other words, the complaint is that the DOJ is acting 'independently' of the administration.
I remember in the days of yore-- oh, way back about 15 months or so ago- the usual progressives suspects liked to say they dreamt of that.

Now we now they dream of using the DOJ to go after their political opponents.

Acting independently doesn't always mean that the Attorney General is making smart prosecutorial decisions.

The Jan 6 traitors need to be punished, especially Trump.

 

[Athanasius68]

Acting independently doesn't always mean that the Attorney General is making smart prosecutorial decisions.

The Jan 6 traitors need to be punished, especially Trump.

The story is that Biden is frustrated by Garlands allegedly slow walking the investigation.

 

[Mycroft]

A host of legal experts are becoming increasingly concerned and frustrated about AG Merrick Garland's lackluster pace investigating Jan 6. According to recent reports, President Biden is also becoming frustrated and concerned.

From Jennifer Rubin in the Washington Post. --

A host of former DOJ lawyers, prosecutors, commentators and legal experts warned Biden that the qualities needed to be a federal judge were different than those suited for attorney general. As Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) has remarked, Garland "comes out of an ivory tower judgeship, far away from a lot of the political mischief. And I’m not sure how much situational awareness he has about the forces that are operating … around the department and operated through the department, it appears, during the Trump administration.”

Biden knew what he was getting when he picked Garland. He selected someone totally lacking not only in partisanship but in political awareness and savviness. Biden chose a judge known for his deliberate, copious analysis. He and his advisers certainly knew Garland avoided public speaking and writing as a judge. That Garland has eschewed the public limelight and lacked prosecutorial zeal and willingness to challenge Justice Department protocol and traditions should come as no surprise.


This is what frustrates me the most with Biden. --

In addition to selecting an attorney general who lacked political deftness and prosecutorial zeal, Biden has certainly not helped matters by failing to address the urgency of the Republicans’ assault on democracy. He has studiously avoided making the connection between defense of democracy in Ukraine and defense of democracy here at home. He refuses to give a speech explaining that our ability to mount a democratic alliance in support of the West demands we defeat domestic authoritarian impulses, such as big lies and conspiracies in service of propaganda, assaults on election results and election officials, and the embrace of violence.

In sum, Biden chose someone not suited for prosecuting a former president and co-conspirators, and not inclined to play the public role that is a critical part of the job. Biden has not lit a fire under Garland. Certainly, the public has every reason to be frustrated with Garland. But the buck stops with his boss. If Biden is a lackluster defender of democracy at home, what do you expect of his attorney general?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/04/biden-garland-jan-6-prosecution-frustrated/

An Attorney General is not supposed to be "political". An Attorney General is supposed to follow the law.

Don't you think we've had enough "political" stuff from the DOJ already?

 

[VanceMack]

The idiot left wants Garland to act on lies and fabricated accusations...and why not? Its their history. Hell, they had an FBI investigation and TWO impeachments based on lies and bullshit...whats Garlands problem???

 

[Phys251]

The idiot left wants Garland to act on lies and fabricated accusations...and why not? Its their history. Hell, they had an FBI investigation and TWO impeachments based on lies and bullshit...whats Garlands problem???

^ This is what condoning the insurrection looks like. The insurrectionists, including any enablers in Congress, must be brought to justice.

Fortunately, some of them already have been, and more are on the way!

 

[CaughtInThe]

patience

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

An Attorney General is not supposed to be "political". An Attorney General is supposed to follow the law.

Don't you think we've had enough "political" stuff from the DOJ already?

Politics is unavoidable when it comes to Jan 6.

That's what happens when you have a traitor President like Trump trying to overthrow an election.

Garland needs to put his big boy pants on and understand that. Even though you can't.

 

[ataraxia]

The idiot left wants Garland to act on lies and fabricated accusations...and why not? Its their history. Hell, they had an FBI investigation and TWO impeachments based on lies and bullshit...whats Garlands problem???

Nah the prosecutors for the impeachments did their job just fine and proved the crime. That the GOP senators voted to acquit Trump after all the overwhelming evidence is just a reflection of their corruption and failing to do their job, not Trump’s innocence. Just ask them:

“Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office.”
-Marco Rubio (R)

But you expect that kind of corruption and cronyism from the GOP. Seeing the injustice continue to go unpunished with Garland, however, is particularly hard to take. He just needs to do his job and get these dangerous criminals off the street.

 

[Mycroft]

Politics is unavoidable when it comes to Jan 6.

That's what happens when you have a traitor President like Trump trying to overthrow an election.

Garland needs to put his big boy pants on and understand that. Even though you can't.

Garland will do what he's told. Don't worry.

 

[Schism]

Democrats need to find an AG that will prosecute whomever Democrats need to prosecute in order to win in November and beyond!

“The Department of Justice also needs to move swiftly,” Democratic Virginia Rep. Elaine Luria said on MSNBC last week.

www.tampafp.com

Yes! Swiftly! Like, before November! LOL

 

[VySky]

The story is that Biden is frustrated by Garlands allegedly slow walking the investigation.

Same with the kangaroo court 1/6 panel. A herd of sloths

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

Same with the kangaroo court 1/6 panel. A herd of sloths

Better than a herd of scum, like your Jan 6 traitor friends.

 

[Luckyone]

Politics is unavoidable when it comes to Jan 6.

That's what happens when you have a traitor President like Trump trying to overthrow an election.

Garland needs to put his big boy pants on and understand that. Even though you can't.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

I've watched some of the video so far. I don't really agree with the older lady, about sweeping up the people at the bottom first and then working your way up. That makes sense in Mafia cases, when evidence doesn't already exist against the people at the top.

However, that is not the case with Trump. There is already ample evidence that Trump and his henchmen were fully aware that they lost the election and that they were trying to find a way to overturn the election results. Prosecuting the idiots first who broke into the Capitol doesn't really serve a purpose...this is almost a separate issue than what Trump and his traitor allies were doing behind the scenes.

There is no reason for Garland to follow a certain "pecking order" when prosecuting people for Jan 6, especially when strong evidence against people at the top already exists. And there are plenty of legal scholars that agree with this.

 

[Luckyone]

I've watched some of the video so far. I don't really agree with the older lady, about sweeping up the people at the bottom first and then working your way up. That makes sense in Mafia cases, when evidence doesn't already exist against the people at the top.

However, that is not the case with Trump. There is already ample evidence that Trump and his henchmen were fully aware that they lost the election and that they were trying to find a way to overturn the election results. Prosecuting the idiots first who broke into the Capitol doesn't really serve a purpose...this is almost a separate issue than what Trump and his traitor allies were doing behind the scenes.

There is no reason for Garland to follow a certain "pecking order" when prosecuting people for Jan 6, especially when strong evidence against people at the top already exists. And there are plenty of legal scholars that agree with this.

Ample evidence was obtained for impeaching Trump and he got away with it "twice".

The politics angle is also a very valid one. When you take Trump to court on this charge, you better have a 100% proof and that is very difficult to obtain in cases where he was one of the planners and not one of the actual participants.

I do prefer to be sure of a conviction than to prosecute and lose. That would be a complete disaster.

 

[trouble13]

In other words, the complaint is that the DOJ is acting 'independently' of the administration.
I remember in the days of yore-- oh, way back about 15 months or so ago- the usual progressives suspects liked to say they dreamt of that.

Now we now they dream of using the DOJ to go after their political opponents.

I think it's hilarious that they are shredding the guy that they wanted to seat on the Supreme Court. Now that he isn't towing the progressive line they are questioning his judgement.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

Ample evidence was obtained for impeaching Trump and he got away with it "twice".

The politics angle is also a very valid one. When you take Trump to court on this charge, you better have a 100% proof and that is very difficult to obtain in cases where he was one of the planners and not one of the actual participants.

I do prefer to be sure of a conviction than to prosecute and lose. That would be a complete disaster.

The impeachments are basically irrelevant. Republican Senators are not an impartial jury and they are hopelessly corrupt.

It will be a bigger disaster if Trump is not charged at all. He is obviously guilty.

This whole discussion about political motivation is unavoidable under these circumstances. Garland cannot allow that to influence his decision.

 

[Luckyone]

The impeachments are basically irrelevant. Republican Senators are not an impartial jury and they are hopelessly corrupt.

It will be a bigger disaster if Trump is not charged at all. He is obviously guilty.

This whole discussion about political motivation is unavoidable under these circumstances. Garland cannot allow that to influence his decision.

I am sure that Garland will follow up on the law as it pertains to proving Trump guilty. You know full well that a large percentage of guilty people go free because the law requires ""proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and so far and throughout his life, Trump has been able to always show "enough" reasonable doubt to escape the guilty plea.

Trump got tutored by the best..............Roy Cohn.

Cohn was indicted four times from the mid-’60s to the early ’70s—for stock-swindling and obstructing justice and perjury and bribery and conspiracy and extortion and blackmail and filing false reports. And three times he was acquitted—the fourth ended in a mistrial—giving him a kind of sneering, sinister sheen of invulnerability. Cohn, Tyrnauer’s work reaffirms, took his sanction-skirting capers and twisted them into a sort of suit of armor.

Garland does not want to end up with the same results.

 

[Buckeyes85]

I think it's hilarious that they are shredding the guy that they wanted to seat on the Supreme Court. Now that he isn't towing the progressive line they are questioning his judgement.

As is common with your crowd, lots of amorphous/ambiguous uses of "they." Are "they" who wanted him on the supreme court the same "they" that are shredding him now? Actually, who is shredding him? I thought he would have been a great addition to the bench as does anyone not a partisan republican. And I currently don't have any issue with his handling of the Trump investigation. So I guess I'm part of the first group of "they" but not the second?

 

[RealityNow]

There are many cases going on Against Trump.... Its better to take time so one case, does in no way allow Trump to get away with something in another case.
Trump's life is filled with so much crime and corruption, that its a "mountain of evidence' for each case that is Ongoing.

• I'd like to see some of the mobster stand up and tell where 'the bodies are buried", because someone like Trump and his vindictive malicious mentality, may well have had some people "disposed of" and if so, someone knows about it.
• The IRS should also do their duty and give Trump what Al Capone got - Prison for Tax Evasion.
• At some point, there may be multiple "guilty verdicts" as these cases progress and are properly aligned so one case does not do anything that can diminish the charge and conviction in other cases.

I think he should have been charged with "Treason" within his Impeachment, and we need better means to deal with processing charges that come to light during Impeachment Proceeding.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

I am sure that Garland will follow up on the law as it pertains to proving Trump guilty. You know full well that a large percentage of guilty people go free because the law requires ""proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and so far and throughout his life, Trump has been able to always show "enough" reasonable doubt to escape the guilty plea.

Trump got tutored by the best..............Roy Cohn.

Cohn was indicted four times from the mid-’60s to the early ’70s—for stock-swindling and obstructing justice and perjury and bribery and conspiracy and extortion and blackmail and filing false reports. And three times he was acquitted—the fourth ended in a mistrial—giving him a kind of sneering, sinister sheen of invulnerability. Cohn, Tyrnauer’s work reaffirms, took his sanction-skirting capers and twisted them into a sort of suit of armor.

I doubt the paper trail against Cohn was nearly as extensive as it is against Trump. The Eastman Memo alone is extremely damaging -- it shows that Trump's legal team was looking for a way to circumvent the Constitution and keep Trump in power.

Pence chose not to go along with Trump and Eastman on this because even Pence realized that Eastman was grasping at straws. And Pence was looking for every possible way he could to help Trump steal the election, before he finally understood that there was no legitimate, legal way of doing this.

Not to mention the freaking recorded phone call with GA Secretary of State Raffensperger. I doubt Cohn had anything this incriminating against him.

Garland does not want to end up with the same results.

Being too cautious also carries risk. As Rubin pointed out in her column, the longer this drags out, the more likely it is that Trump and his band of crooks will destroy more evidence.