Merrick Garland, weakest AG ever?

[Razoo]

"I agree to an extent, but something should have happened by now regarding Trump's phone call to Raffensperger. That's a much more straight-forward and simple case compared to Jan 6"

Remember who we're working with...... the law makers who are also the law breakers in too many cases. They hire lawyers who are experts at stonewalling just to string out the case. These lawyers figure sooner or later those who might testify their memories will become foggy. A favorite defense tool.

 

[trouble13]

I'm wondering wear all the lefts indignation over McConnell passing him up on his SCOTUS nomination. They were mad he was not given a vote. Yet not a peep from them that Biden didn't he consider him for a spot on the bench. What's up with that?

 

[Cordelier]

I'm wondering wear all the lefts indignation over McConnell passing him up on his SCOTUS nomination. They were mad he was not given a vote. Yet not a peep from them that Biden didn't he consider him for a spot on the bench. What's up with that?

Age is always going to be a consideration for any SCOTUS nominee. If the Democrats were in the Majority in 2016, it's a fair bet Obama probably would have nominated someone younger. Nominating someone older, more experienced, and more centrist like Garland was a concession on the part of Obama to the Senate Republicans in the hopes that he could get a vote.

 

[trouble13]

Age is always going to be a consideration for any SCOTUS nominee. If the Democrats were in the Majority in 2016, it's a fair bet Obama probably would have nominated someone younger. Nominating someone older, more experienced, and more centrist like Garland was a concession on the part of Obama to the Senate Republicans in the hopes that he could get a vote.

So I guess it wasn't the crime of the century like it was portrayed as being.

 

[Cordelier]

So I guess it wasn't the crime of the century like it was portrayed as being.

Who was the last Republican SCOTUS nominee that was denied a vote? Even Bork got a vote.

I think the man deserved that. I've got no problem with someone opposing the nomination.... but Jesus... at least have the guts to go on the record with your opposition.

 

[trouble13]

Who was the last Republican SCOTUS nominee that was denied a vote? Even Bork got a vote.

I think the man deserved that. I've got no problem with someone opposing the nomination.... but Jesus... at least have the guts to go on the record with your opposition.

I agree that he should of been given his ceremonial vote that he was never gone get passed with. It would of symbolic but not meaningful. The left was indignant that he didn't get it but with Biden in office he could of gotten it but because he isn't a black female he was denied the nomination. Where's the indignation now? Why not correct a past injustice and give him his vote now?

 

[Cordelier]

I agree that he should of been given his ceremonial vote that he was never gone get passed with. It would of symbolic but not meaningful. The left was indignant that he didn't get it but with Biden in office he could of gotten it but because he isn't a black female he was denied the nomination. Where's the indignation now? Why not correct a past injustice and give him his vote now?

I think he would have been confirmed if he was given a vote. So did McConnell. That's why he didn't get a vote. I don't just blame O'Connell, though... I think Obama deserves his share of the blame as well. He could have done a lot more to play hardball against the GOP instead of being some weak giant tied down by a bunch of Lilliputians.

I already answered your last. Timing is everything.

 

[Mithrae]

I'm beginning to think you've never heard the phone call. Maybe you should listen to it again. Trump was telling Raffensperger to give him 11,500 more votes (whatever the exact number) so that he would have more votes than Biden in GA.

Good grief, have you been reading any of this conversation - including the transcript of the call I posted? He was not asking to 'find' more votes for himself. The Democrats obviously have their 'big lies' too, and this one is right up there with Trump never condemning white nationalism/calling them 'very fine people.' Frankly I don't understand it; there's so many contemptible things that he did do, why the need to distort/make up things he didn't?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Why do you say he is running out of time?

Election in 2022 and shortly after, Statute of Limitations.

 

[Callen]

Election in 2022 and shortly after, Statute of Limitations.

The 2022 elections are irrelevant .That ship had sailed. Statute of Limitations? Please elaborate

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The 2022 elections are irrelevant .That ship had sailed. Statute of Limitations? Please elaborate

How are the mid-terms irrelevant? If Republicans win both chambers, consider ALL Jan 6 investigations AND ALL other investigations into Trump GONE.
And, while some Republicans are making noises about distancing themselves from Trump now, if he wants the Speaker of the House gavel, consider it a done deal.

 

[Callen]

How are the mid-terms irrelevant? If Republicans win both chambers, consider ALL Jan 6 investigations AND ALL other investigations into Trump GONE.

It is true that the Jan 6th Committee is toast but that has zero impact on the DOJ investigation. The House Comiittee has a hard date but not Garland ...not until 2024.

 

[trouble13]

I think he would have been confirmed if he was given a vote. So did McConnell. That's why he didn't get a vote. I don't just blame O'Connell, though... I think Obama deserves his share of the blame as well. He could have done a lot more to play hardball against the GOP instead of being some weak giant tied down by a bunch of Lilliputians.

I already answered your last. Timing is everything.

Apparently so is race and gender under the Bden administration

 

[Cordelier]

Apparently so is race and gender under the Bden administration

You don't think Reagan nominated O'Connor because she was a woman? Or Bush, Sr. nominated Thomas because he was black?

There are plenty of people qualified to sit on the Supreme Court at any given time.... what sets some apart from the others is what else they bring to the table. Diversity of perspective - especially one that has never been represented before - is an asset, don't you think?

 

[trouble13]

You don't think Reagan nominated O'Connor because she was a woman? Or Bush, Sr. nominated Thomas because he was black?

There are plenty of people qualified to sit on the Supreme Court at any given time.... what sets some apart from the others is what else they bring to the table. Diversity of perspective - especially one that has never been represented before - is an asset, don't you think?

The difference between what they did and what Biden did was that they did not disqualify anyone by saying they would only consider a black or a woman. But if you want to argue that he was within his right to base his nomination on whatever criteria he wants, I would agree with that. I don't like who he nominated but I have no problem with him nominating her.

My criticism won't directed at him or her. I am criticizing the silence of progressives after they were so vocal about merrick garland being passed over.

 

[Cordelier]

The difference between what they did and what Biden did was that they did not disqualify anyone by saying they would only consider a black or a woman. But if you want to argue that he was within his right to base his nomination on whatever criteria he wants, I would agree with that. I don't like who he nominated but I have no problem with him nominating her.

My criticism won't directed at him or her. I am criticizing the silence of progressives after they were so vocal about merrick garland being passed over.

All that matters is that Judge Jackson is qualified. If she isn't, I'm sure that'll be apparent from the nomination hearings. That she is relatively young, black, and a woman are all bonuses.... but they weren't going to get her nominated in and of themselves. There are plenty of other young, black, and female Federal Judges out there who are qualified by education, experience, and temperament to sit on the Supreme Court. President Biden had plenty of women to choose from in making his choice.

As for Garland, I've already laid out my views on his nomination. If you won't or can't address them, that's on you.

 

[Callen]

In reading this thread I enjoy the fact left leaning folk don't walk in lock step . Maybe because we are independent thinkers who aren't told what to think by media
.

 

[btthegreat]

The only way all these traitors get pardoned is if Trump somehow wins the presidency again. No republican president with moral authority and integrity will ever pardon them. I could see some possible sentence commutations if said president thought their sentences were too severe, but no outright pardons.

There was a time when this post would have been persuasive but that was when I thought the GOP voters would insist that their nominee had a sense of moral authority and integrity. Clearly that ain't true. And we also know that virtually nobody on that side of the aisle values those concepts more than their own asses.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

I'm not so sure it is that straight forward. From what I understand intent must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Although we all know his true intent the defence will make the argument that he truly believed there was wide spread voter fraud.

Still, Garland should go for it. Embarrass Trump by making him look insane, by making him state in court that he REALLY believes he won the election.

Garland really has nothing to lose, because everyone knows deep down that Trump is guilty, even his supporters..

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

Good grief, have you been reading any of this conversation - including the transcript of the call I posted? He was not asking to 'find' more votes for himself. The Democrats obviously have their 'big lies' too, and this one is right up there with Trump never condemning white nationalism/calling them 'very fine people.' Frankly I don't understand it; there's so many contemptible things that he did do, why the need to distort/make up things he didn't?

Geez....well I now see what you really are -- a completely blind independent, looking for "fault" on both sides no matter what the circumstances.

Never mind. Conversation over.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

I'm not so sure it is that straight forward. From what I understand intent must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Although we all know his true intent the defence will make the argument that he truly believed there was wide spread voter fraud.

Yes, and I don't think that will be a very persuasive argument by Trump. Garland should go for it. The worse that can happen is that Trump is found not guilty.

There is no way to avoid this being political anymore. Garland has a duty to protect democracy.

 

[Mithrae]

Geez....well I now see what you really are -- a completely blind independent, looking for "fault" on both sides no matter what the circumstances.

Never mind. Conversation over.

I guess when you're supporting a false narrative which had already been thoroughly debunked in this thread, calling names on the big ol' meanie who points it out is one possible response Trump was asking for his/Raffensperger's people to find ~12k disqualifiable votes for Biden. Don't chuck a wobbly just because you're making false claims: Read the transcript again, I provided it for you in post #17, educate yourself, be better. The line that Trump was asking another ~12k votes for himself is obvious bullshit, and look where it's getting you... attacking your own party's appointed Attorney General, based on your own party's lies!

PS, I'm not "independent," Australians are still technically subjects of the Queen

 

[bomberfox]

Have you heard/read the transcript of that call? What law was violated? If I recall correctly Trump was asking for permission for his people to look over ballots in Georgia in search of irregularities which would disqualify them (if they were votes for Biden). He just 'knew' that there'd be many thousands which could be excluded, given the chance (and he may well have been correct, the problem being that if applied evenly there'd likely be as many if not more Trump ballots excluded based on the same tiny technicalities). Letting Trump's people do their one-sided hatchet job on the ballots obviously would have been wrong and probably illegal; possibly illegal even if they were just allowed to 'observe' a 'recount' by folk authorized to do one... but did it violate the letter of the law for Trump to ask? Genuinely curious. Obviously the lack of prosecution implies that it didn't.

Yes asking state officials to find you enough ballots to win is against the law. Sorry but this is not that difficult.

 

[bomberfox]

I guess when you're supporting a false narrative which had already been thoroughly debunked in this thread, calling names on the big ol' meanie who points it out is one possible response Trump was asking for his/Raffensperger's people to find ~12k disqualifiable votes for Biden. Don't chuck a wobbly just because you're making false claims: Read the transcript again, I provided it for you in post #17, educate yourself, be better. The line that Trump was asking another ~12k votes for himself is obvious bullshit, and look where it's getting you... attacking your own party's appointed Attorney General, based on your own party's lies!

PS, I'm not "independent," Australians are still technically subjects of the Queen

No he was asking to find 12k votes that he needed to win. Raffensberger himself verified it. No need to waste your time.

 

[bomberfox]

So who do you propose we sacrifice on the altar of judicial expediency?

*LOL* Feel like I just invoked Sam Waterston there for a moment.

View attachment 67378271

I prefer the people paying a visit at mar a lago. Enough of this shit where the president can get away with murder, expropriation time!