• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Merrick Garland, weakest AG ever?

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
9,303
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think that Merrick Garland has to be the weakest AG that ever sat in that office. I wonder where his spine it situated, somewhere in Alaska by the way he has commanded the DOJ. I think beyond that fact that he is asking for such low sentences for the January 6th riot that even the judges are questioning his people about them, he has done nothing with those who financed or planned the riot on that day. To go with an old saying, he should either shit or get off the pot.
 
A little more action is in order.
 
We're on the cusp of ww3 and you're worried about how much time some trespassers are getting?
 
I think that Merrick Garland has to be the weakest AG that ever sat in that office. I wonder where his spine it situated, somewhere in Alaska by the way he has commanded the DOJ. I think beyond that fact that he is asking for such low sentences for the January 6th riot that even the judges are questioning his people about them, he has done nothing with those who financed or planned the riot on that day. To go with an old saying, he should either shit or get off the pot.
I said the same thing six months ago. The only hope I have is that he has a team of prosecutors working on the insurrection. It's possible he will surprise us all. Good, dedicated people can keep their shit out of the media. After the latest filing by the 1-6 committee, and all the fake elector stuff that was handed over to the DOJ, it's not likely they are not looking into it.
 
We're on the cusp of ww3 and you're worried about how much time some trespassers are getting?
I could care less what time a trespasser gets. I care about who lied, organized and funded the whole mess. The DOD and the State Dept. will take care of the war.

The DOJ prosecutes domestic federal crimes. They need to do their jobs.
 
Relax, be patient. You will be rewarded. It takes one heck of a lot of hard, undisputable facts to bring a successful criminal charge against a former President
 
Relax, be patient. You will be rewarded. It takes one heck of a lot of hard, undisputable facts to bring a successful criminal charge against a former President
The media makes up stories and calls them facts--Russia Collusion was a big one--so the cult gets impatient. When someone is genuinely innocent, like Trump, prosecution is not supposed to happen.
 
Relax, be patient. You will be rewarded. It takes one heck of a lot of hard, undisputable facts to bring a successful criminal charge against a former President

Well, except for Trump's criminal phone call to Raffensperger, when he tried to steal Georgia.

That's a simple, open and shut case. I don't know what the hell Garland is waiting for. He is failing the country and our democracy by not taking action.
 
I think that Merrick Garland has to be the weakest AG that ever sat in that office. I wonder where his spine it situated, somewhere in Alaska by the way he has commanded the DOJ. I think beyond that fact that he is asking for such low sentences for the January 6th riot that even the judges are questioning his people about them, he has done nothing with those who financed or planned the riot on that day. To go with an old saying, he should either shit or get off the pot.

My biggest issue with Garland so far is his failure to prosecute Trump for his phone call to Raffensperger. That is a simple case, compared to Jan 6.
 
My biggest issue with Garland so far is his failure to prosecute Trump for his phone call to Raffensperger. That is a simple case, compared to Jan 6.
Doesn't the State criminal investigation play in in your mind?
 
Doesn't the State criminal investigation play in in your mind?
Really? That's your answer?

Trump's phone call also broke Federal laws. And if Garland is teaming up with the Fulton County DA, then why hasn't he simply stated that?
 
Well, except for Trump's criminal phone call to Raffensperger, when he tried to steal Georgia.

That's a simple, open and shut case. I don't know what the hell Garland is waiting for. He is failing the country and our democracy by not taking action.
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.
 
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.

Here's your answer --

The phone call was a “flagrant federal criminal violation,” said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in California, adding that it appeared that Trump was using threats to push Raffensperger to alter a legitimate vote count.

Members of the mob have been prosecuted with less evidence, for crying out loud.

 
Just out of curiosity... who do you figure is the strongest AG ever?

Whoever you name, I pretty much guarantee they have an armload of convictions overturned on appeal.
 
Yes, the evidence is publicly available, which after all this time with no prosecution suggests that the law was not technically broken, or not clearly enough to make a case stick. The 'experts' cited in that article don't seem particularly credible, at least as a whole; at least three of them were suggesting that Trump was asking to find 11,780 votes for him, which is obviously and unequivocally incorrect. Obvious from the full transcript at least; if they had the transcript, then at least those three 'experts' (Kreis, Griffin, Levitt) were either sloppy or flat-out lying... and if they were pontificating on the subject without all the information then their opinions are equally dubious. Trump's unhinged train of thought is a little hard to follow, but regarding the key line "I just want to find 11,780 votes" he immediately finishes the sentence "which is one more than we have because we won the state" - clearly not (in that instant) talking about changing his vote count, but Biden's. 'Experts' who obfuscate on that 'little detail' simply have no credibility whatsoever, and your article cites three of them, at least!

In more complete context:
Trump said:
We can go through signature verification and we'll find hundreds of thousands of signatures, if you let us do it. And the only way you can do it, as you know, is to go to the past. But you didn't do that in Cobb County. You just looked at one page compared to another. The only way you can do a signature verification is go from the one that signed it on November whatever. Recently. And compare it to two years ago, four years ago, six years ago, you know, or even one. And you'll find that you have many different signatures. But in Fulton, where they dumped ballots, you will find that you have many that aren't even signed and you have many that are forgeries. OK, you know that. You know that. You have no doubt about that. And you will find you will be at 11,779 within minutes, because Fulton County is totally corrupt and so is she, totally corrupt. . . .

But I think you're going to find that they — by the way, a little information, I think you're going to find that they are shredding ballots because they have to get rid of the ballots because the ballots are unsigned. The ballots are corrupt, and they're brand new and they don't have a seal and there's the whole thing with the ballots. But the ballots are corrupt. . . .

But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I've heard. And they are removing machinery and they're moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can't let it happen and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I'm notifying you that you're letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.
In between the rambling, the train of thought building towards that key line is more or less clear; there are ineligible ballots, they're shredding the fraudulent ballots, why won't you let us find the ineligible ballots?

And as I said, amidst all the other nonsense on at least one point Trump was probably correct; if they went over them with a fine-tooth comb comparing signatures from "two years ago, four years ago, six years ago" they'd easily find 'discrepancies' by which to claim an ineligible ballot. They would easily find their 11,780 supposedly-ineligible Biden ballots if they were allowed to do their one-sided hatchet job.

The question is did he technically break the law by pressing for permission to do this biased 'recount'? The federal law cited by your article, which "makes it illegal to attempt to “deprive or defraud” people of a “fair and impartially conducted election process”," simply would not apply as far as I can see: It specifically enumerates the ways in which that deprivation of a fair election will be illegal, and the closest it comes is fraud through "tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent"... but Trump's request here was to unfairly exclude technically-ineligible ballots in a one-sided manner, not to unfairly tabulate fraudulent ones. Whether by accident or by design, on face value that seems to be a loophole he found.

Maybe there's some other law that he broke, but again, the absence of prosecution implies otherwise. Maybe you should be criticizing the law as it stands, rather than the AG?
 
Yes, the evidence is publicly available, which after all this time with no prosecution suggests that the law was not technically broken, or not clearly enough to make a case stick. The 'experts' cited in that article don't seem particularly credible, at least as a whole; at least three of them were suggesting that Trump was asking to find 11,780 votes for him, which is obviously and unequivocally incorrect. Obvious from the full transcript at least; if they had the transcript, then at least those three 'experts' (Kreis, Griffin, Levitt) were either sloppy or flat-out lying... and if they were pontificating on the subject without all the information then their opinions are equally dubious. Trump's unhinged train of thought is a little hard to follow, but regarding the key line "I just want to find 11,780 votes" he immediately finishes the sentence "which is one more than we have because we won the state" - clearly not (in that instant) talking about changing his vote count, but Biden's. 'Experts' who obfuscate on that 'little detail' simply have no credibility whatsoever, and your article cites three of them, at least!

In more complete context:

In between the rambling, the train of thought building towards that key line is more or less clear; there are ineligible ballots, they're shredding the fraudulent ballots, why won't you let us find the ineligible ballots?

And as I said, amidst all the other nonsense on at least one point Trump was probably correct; if they went over them with a fine-tooth comb comparing signatures from "two years ago, four years ago, six years ago" they'd easily find 'discrepancies' by which to claim an ineligible ballot. They would easily find their 11,780 supposedly-ineligible Biden ballots if they were allowed to do their one-sided hatchet job.

The question is did he technically break the law by pressing for permission to do this biased 'recount'? The federal law cited by your article, which "makes it illegal to attempt to “deprive or defraud” people of a “fair and impartially conducted election process”," simply would not apply as far as I can see: It specifically enumerates the ways in which that deprivation of a fair election will be illegal, and the closest it comes is fraud through "tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent"... but Trump's request here was to unfairly exclude technically-ineligible ballots in a one-sided manner, not to unfairly tabulate fraudulent ones. Whether by accident or by design, on face value that seems to be a loophole he found.

Maybe there's some other law that he broke, but again, the absence of prosecution implies otherwise. Maybe you should be criticizing the law as it stands, rather than the AG?

Actually, Trump's best defense in this case is insanity. He REALLY does believe he won, so he can't be committing fraud if he really believes he won. --

The question, according to Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola Marymount University, is whether Trump was “knowingly and willfully” pressuring Raffensperger to count nonexistent votes when he told the GOP official, “I just want to find 11,780 votes.”

In other words: Does Trump actually believe that 11,780 ballots in his favor were cast but not counted?


Considering that two recounts, an audit and several judges have upheld President-elect Joe Biden’s win in Georgia, Levitt said it is clear Trump was not pushing for an “honest tally” of the votes.

“Either the president was engaged in the commission of a felony,” he said, “or he has lost his hold on reality such that he can no longer distinguish fact from the fictions he has been fed.”

Michael R. Bromwich, a former Justice Department inspector general, put it more bluntly on Twitter: “His best defense would be insanity.”

 
Actually, Trump's best defense in this case is insanity. He REALLY does believe he won, so he can't be committing fraud if he really believes he won. --


That'd be a pretty weak case, as you've noted - folk could make that 'defense' about pretty much anything, and Trump more than any other man alive has enough documented lies to his name, with a clear enough pattern of gaslighting and self-advantage, to render it particularly feeble to pretend that on this occasion he really did believe it.

But as I pointed out it seems that 52 U.S. Code § 20511, at least, apparently does not make it illegal to deprive people of a fair election process by unfairly excluding technically-ineligible ballots in a one-sided manner - only by including/tabulating fraudulent ballots - and it's the former that Trump was requesting, at least in terms of the infamous "find 11,780 votes" line. Hopefully someone is working on fixing that!
 
That'd be a pretty weak case, as you've noted - folk could make that 'defense' about pretty much anything, and Trump more than any other man alive has enough documented lies to his name, with a clear enough pattern of gaslighting and self-advantage, to render it particularly feeble to pretend that on this occasion he really did believe it.

But as I pointed out it seems that 52 U.S. Code § 20511, at least, apparently does not make it illegal to deprive people of a fair election process by unfairly excluding technically-ineligible ballots in a one-sided manner - only by including/tabulating fraudulent ballots - and it's the former that Trump was requesting, at least in terms of the infamous "find 11,780 votes" line. Hopefully someone is working on fixing that!

Not true. That's really grasping at straws, that's even worse than an insanity defense by Trump. You'll have to provide an attorney's opinion to back that up before I agree with you on that one.
 
Not true. That's really grasping at straws, that's even worse than an insanity defense by Trump. You'll have to provide an attorney's opinion to back that up before I agree with you on that one.
Surely you can read the law yourself?

A person, including an election official, who in any election for Federal office—

(2) knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds, or attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process, by—

(B) the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent...


Nothing there about finding and excluding technically-ineligible ballots in a biased manner. Maybe that's why those experts cited in the article above falsely claimed that Trump was pressing to find ballots for him. But obviously it's not your opinion or my totally amateur opinion or even their lofty if dubious opinions which matter: The simple fact is that he hasn't been prosecuted despite all the outrage over his morally contemptible effort to pervert democracy and the publicly available record of the call. The most logical conclusion is that in this case, morally contemptible isn't the same as strictly illegal. By luck or by design, apparently he found a loophole in the law as it currently stands.
 
I think that Merrick Garland has to be the weakest AG that ever sat in that office. I wonder where his spine it situated, somewhere in Alaska by the way he has commanded the DOJ. I think beyond that fact that he is asking for such low sentences for the January 6th riot that even the judges are questioning his people about them, he has done nothing with those who financed or planned the riot on that day. To go with an old saying, he should either shit or get off the pot.
Not weak.

CORRUPTED.
 
Not weak.

CORRUPTED.

C'mon Checkerboard.... the man served with distinction on the DC Court of Appeals for 23 years - 7 as Chief Judge.

A good Appellate Court Judge doesn't issue an opinion until the i's are dotted and the t's crossed. They know more than anyone - because the cases cross their desk everyday - that justice rushed is justice crushed.

If the President wanted some headlong charge into the fray, he would have nominated some partisan hack left-wing version of Barr.
 
C'mon Checkerboard.... the man served with distinction on the DC Court of Appeals for 23 years - 7 as Chief Judge.

A good Appellate Court Judge doesn't issue an opinion until the i's are dotted and the t's crossed. They know more than anyone - because the cases cross their desk everyday - that justice rushed is justice crushed.

If the President wanted some headlong charge into the fray, he would have nominated some partisan hack left-wing version of Barr.

We are running out of time, literally.
I realize he served with distinction but he is aware of the time factor, and he can give Congress SOMETHING. Doesn't have to be the whole magilla.
 
We are running out of time, literally.
I realize he served with distinction but he is aware of the time factor, and he can give Congress SOMETHING. Doesn't have to be the whole magilla.

Do you want it done fast or do you want it done right?
 
Back
Top Bottom