I believe that anyone that wants the Attorney General to move faster or is expressing disappointment in him after being on the job since March 11th must remember his judiciary experience, his reputation for thoroughness, and that, except for McConnell, would have been sitting on the Supreme Court now!
I, like many, want the corruption r…
I believe that anyone that wants the Attorney General to move faster or is expressing disappointment in him after being on the job since March 11th must remember his judiciary experience, his reputation for thoroughness, and that, except for McConnell, would have been sitting on the Supreme Court now!
I, like many, want the corruption rooted out and prosecuted. However, I conclude that we could not be situated any better or be more protected against further corruption than by having our current AG. The Dept of Justice will put the guardrails back in place and whatever new ones to make sure this does not happen again under any president, Dem or Repub.
I agree, but I hope he gives us some crumbs so we can feel more hopeful about some accountability coming to pass. the wait is exhausting and worrisome.
Hahahahahaha. You are the best, Christy. I want the whole dang cookie! Forget the crumbs. That was the miserly treat of the former president to “his” base. And the crumbs are so stale and moldy now and he is STILL passing them out.
Garland’s background as preparation for Attorney General at this moment in history is not encouraging. He spent 24 years in the U.S. Court of Appeals in DC. This is a review court whose function is to uphold or reverse lower court decisions. Cases take 6-12 months to be processed. Consensus is striven for. This is not critique - merely description.
Garland took over a house that was burning down when he was accepted as Attorney General. It was thoroughly corrupted under Trump. What was needed in the new Attorney General was an educated and expert fire-breathing dragon.
What the DOJ got was a leisurely institutionalist.
Perhaps his immediate to-do list could have included the following:
A thorough house cleaning. Trump shaped the DOJ by firing sitting personnel and replacing them with loyalists. To my knowledge these people are still working for the DOJ. They should be gone - by now - and replaced, not with Biden loyalists, but people of knowledge and integrity. The rot contributed to the fire getting out of control.
Long before now, the people whose metadata was gathered by the DOJ should have been informed. It’s not even clear to me that the spying on politicians and journalists have stopped.
Barr’s corrupt and sinister decision to make the US government the defendant in the EJ Carroll lawsuit had the effect of nullifying it. The US government cannot be sued for defamation, so her case is effectively dismissed. So Garland upholding it is a gross breach of justice. Institutionalism is triumphing over elementary fair play. That case should be heard. It won’t be.
Similarly, his appeal of Judge Jackson’s decision demanding the release of the Barr memo re obstruction of justice in the Mueller report is, to put it charitably, baffling. This memo could conceivably lead to obstruction of justice charges against Trump, now that he is no longer President. Mueller himself asserted that Trump could be charged with obstruction of justice in his post-report testimony before Congress.
His announcement that it would be a “top priority” of the DOJ to root out the leakers who revealed the tax records of the ultra-wealthy is similarly baffling. If I was an American Jeff Bezos, I might perhaps cheer him on. Or if the country was in a somnolent period with no dire threats to its wellbeing, one could find no fault with making it “top priority”. But now? When the house is on fire? Really?
To put it another way, Christine. What has he *done* in his first three months that allows you to have such unshakeable confidence in him?
I wouldn't call Eric's account of the tasks awaiting the "leisurely constitutionalist" (another phrase you consider an insult?) a "rant," but a list of facts that help explain why Prof. Richardson and many of us on this list are alarmed at the state of democracy and the rule of law in the United States.
Here is an article by Elie Mystal about the DOJ's decision to continue protecting Trump (instead of letting him protect himself in court on his own $, like other citizens accused of rape): https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-carroll-garland/ I'm posting it because it's useful in helping readers think outside the box that the Trump administration's scofflaw behaviors of the last 4 years have accustomed us to. I fear we have forgotten how the law works, to some degree, and what the Dept. of Justice exists to regulate and oversee!
Mary. You’ve already stated you “guess” I’m not a rape victim so that influences my opinion of DOJ action on the case you reference. Nor did I make any comment of Eric’s definition of “leisurely constitutionalist”.
Back off. You are displacing anger on my opinions and it is suspect, quite frankly.
I think this is pretty intemperate Christine. You mischaracterize my comment as a “rant”, when it was a statement of concern based on actions taken.
Your comment about Monaco, Gupta et al is a fair point, one which I have considered. Perhaps they are lighting fires under Garland. But the direction properly should come from the top.
And your defense of Garland partly on the grounds that 30 Republicans supported his confirmation is risible. Were I involved at that level, I might be examining my conscience if 30 Republicans supported me or anything I did. They are not exactly bastions of wisdom, nor fonts of good judgment.
Eric, I believe that it was premature for you to say, 'What the DOJ got was a leisurely institutionalist.' After reading your comment, I did not find any justification for calling Garland 'leisurely'. His reputation is as a capable and fair judge.
Given our country's homegrown terrorist issues, Merrick Garland may indeed be the man for the job:
'“Do not bury the crime in the clutter,” he said. (Garland)
'Garland, then a top Justice Department official, was encouraging prosecutors to speed the trial along and jettison superfluous findings in their case against Timothy McVeigh, who was convicted of carrying out the 1995 attack and executed in 2001, said Joe Hartzler, the team’s lead attorney. Hartzler said he found the advice so compelling that he wrote the words on a sheet of paper and hung it on an office wall as a rallying cry for his team.'
'More than two decades later, Garland, 68, is preparing to lead the Justice Department as attorney general and facing a domestic terrorism threat that has metastasized, with white supremacists and conspiracy-minded anti-government types emboldened by their acknowledgment from former president Donald Trump.'
'Capitol attack will spur broad crackdown on domestic extremists'
'Those who worked with Garland on the Oklahoma City case — and the prosecution of another notorious domestic terrorist known as the Unabomber — say the experiences shaped him, and make him well-positioned to confront the current threat.' (Washington Post)
Perhaps, you missed Garland's role in those two important cases when you commented about him.
As for you calling Christine 'intemperate' for labeling your long to-do list for the AG a 'rant', I agree that she may have gone bit too far in using that word.. You did go on at length, Eric, about what no one but Merrick Garland and some members of the Justice Department know and that is exactly what he is doing as AG and how long it will take.
Some may derive some satisfaction by what he laid out today.
'“We know that expanding the ability of all eligible citizens to vote is a central pillar,” Garland said. “That means ensuring that all eligible voters can cast a vote; that all lawful votes are counted; and that every voter has access to accurate information."
'Garland also promised that the Justice Department will continue to “protect the democracy to which all Americans are entitled. He said that within 30 days the department would double the Civil Rights Division's voting rights enforcement staff and committed to working with other agencies to combat voting-related disinformation.'
"There are many things that are open to debate in America, but the right of all eligible citizens to vote is not one of them," he said.'
'Garland said that "many of the changes are not calibrated to address the kinds of voter fraud that are alleged as justification," and said that DOJ is scrutinizing them to determine whether they violate federal statute.'
"Where we see violations we will not hesitate to act," he said.'
'Garland took an especially dim view of post-election "audits" underway in Arizona and being considered in several other states that are "based on disinformation," though he did not mention any state by name'
I think that the verdict is still out on AG, Merrick Garland. Let's give him another few months before casting aspersions.
I think this is all very fair comment, Fern. Thanks for taking the time to make a rebuttal.
I think I chose “leisurely” lazily rather than wisely. I read a lot this morning about his stint at the Court of Appeals and there the process was not at all dominated by the news cycle. He and the other justices could and did take 6-12 months to rule on a case, according to an 11 page paper written by a former clerk (not a tell all or critical piece by any means).
My timing was less than masterful as Garland spoke eloquently today and it looks like he has a road map.
His first few rulings were ugly to view to those appalled by Trump and Barr. But the Political Gabfest podcast out today made a thoughtful point, that these may all be “reversions to norm” rulings which Democrats won’t like, but are an attempt to return the DOJ to the norms in place before Trump and Barr contemptuously discarded them.
So I feel I must pull in my horns and pull back from what now may have been a blinkered viewpoint.
I really appreciate you helping me to do so in such a cogent way.
Nonetheless, I’m still uneasy. Democrats have a time-honour Ed habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I feel the Republicans are running out the clock in insidious ways and this has caused me to want to see action and retributive justice, perhaps with a side of meanness :) from various agencies.
Eric, Another positive note is the Justice Department’s Independent Inspector General opened an investigation today '... into the decision by federal prosecutors to secretly seize the data of House Democrats and reporters as investigators hunted down who was leaking classified information early in the Trump administration. The announcement followed a referral by the deputy attorney general, Lisa O. Monaco, according to a senior Justice Department official; Attorney General Merrick B. Garland directed her to take that step, the official said.' (NY Times)
One of my questions is why didn't this happen before the New York Times reported the story on Thursday - the day before the Inspector General was asked to review this rape of justice.? Another question is why are the lawyers in the Justice Department who did Sessions/Barr/Trump's bidding still with the Department? This is just a morsel of the corruption of our government by Trump & Co. What other governmental functions need to be examined and fumigated, the State Department, for instance?
Eric, My computer was down last night. I replied to you on my IPhone. This morning, once my computer awakened, I decided to delete that jangled message of mine. If you saw it -- forget about it. I will reply to you later after finishing a few necessary duties. Cheers!
Really? We could not be better protected? I guess you’re not a rape victim whose rapist, a former president, is still being well protected by Garland’s DOJ.
Whoa., Mary. You insult me that a woman who is not a rape victim can be casual about the crime? I have read thoroughly the trail of the case you refer to. And suggest that what has happened so far is happening so the eventual outcome cannot be overturned.
I also suggest that the delay in prosecuting this case is not because of our current Atty General.
It is not a delay. It is a refusal. The decision was made. I am not whining about a delay as you and others here and elsewhere assume. You are clearly someone who reads and considers information. You missed the story however, unlike a large throng of upset lawyers and political scientists and rape victims, about the decision not to pursue the case. It's weird and sad to me that millions of us could have poured into the freezing January streets to protest the Inauguration of a rapist for president, and now I am the object of accusations and name-calling ("Lightweight"?!) on a listserv of readers of Heather Cox Richardson for pointing out that the decision to consider Trump still inviolable despite being a regular citizen now is distressing. According to many I know who practice law and law enforcement and teach government and American political history, very distressing. And to rape victims like me, an occasion for despair.
He was a federal prosecutor. He played a leading role in the prosecution of the Oklahoma City bombers. I also suggest the 30 Republicans that voted “nay” to his confirmation as AG did so for a reason. An atty general, not under the whip of an autocrat of a president, does not leave stones unturned.
I had forgotten that he was the Oklahoma City bombing prosecutor. I have (in my little world) seen some prosecutors who become judges that really do an outstanding job although they do, from time to time, make some head scratching rulings.
I hope Mr. Garland can connect with his prosecutorial roots and bring all of the miscreants to justice.
I imagine that is going to be a tough row to hoe for him, with the very agency he supervises becoming mired in the carp from the former guy.
Ally House, you may well be right, but the issue is what Mr. Garland choses to do or not with reference to the standing of a particular case. No one has asked him to prosecute it: he's the Attorney General of the United States. The decision that Mr. Trump, a citizen like you or me, is protected from prosecution for a crime committed before he was president is a peculiar one: the chief task of the DOJ at present is to return the country to the rule of law, and bring law into line with the pursuit of justice. See Elie Mystal's assessment of the situation: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-carroll-garland/
Ari Melber interviewing NYT's, Michelle Goldberg and the Nation's Elie Mystal tonight on his show was about exactly this and interesting. They were all in agreement though of the seriousness of the most recent NYT's expose on Trump's goons and the need for Garland to clean the DOJ of the cult of Trump.
I believe that anyone that wants the Attorney General to move faster or is expressing disappointment in him after being on the job since March 11th must remember his judiciary experience, his reputation for thoroughness, and that, except for McConnell, would have been sitting on the Supreme Court now!
I, like many, want the corruption rooted out and prosecuted. However, I conclude that we could not be situated any better or be more protected against further corruption than by having our current AG. The Dept of Justice will put the guardrails back in place and whatever new ones to make sure this does not happen again under any president, Dem or Repub.
If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared. - Niccolo Machiavelli.
Profound as it relates to the former president, Richard.
I agree, but I hope he gives us some crumbs so we can feel more hopeful about some accountability coming to pass. the wait is exhausting and worrisome.
Hahahahahaha. You are the best, Christy. I want the whole dang cookie! Forget the crumbs. That was the miserly treat of the former president to “his” base. And the crumbs are so stale and moldy now and he is STILL passing them out.
This just in about AG Garland: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/garland-details-justice-dept-plan-to-protect-voting-rights/ar-AAKX9QH?ocid=msedgntp
Garland’s background as preparation for Attorney General at this moment in history is not encouraging. He spent 24 years in the U.S. Court of Appeals in DC. This is a review court whose function is to uphold or reverse lower court decisions. Cases take 6-12 months to be processed. Consensus is striven for. This is not critique - merely description.
Garland took over a house that was burning down when he was accepted as Attorney General. It was thoroughly corrupted under Trump. What was needed in the new Attorney General was an educated and expert fire-breathing dragon.
What the DOJ got was a leisurely institutionalist.
Perhaps his immediate to-do list could have included the following:
A thorough house cleaning. Trump shaped the DOJ by firing sitting personnel and replacing them with loyalists. To my knowledge these people are still working for the DOJ. They should be gone - by now - and replaced, not with Biden loyalists, but people of knowledge and integrity. The rot contributed to the fire getting out of control.
Long before now, the people whose metadata was gathered by the DOJ should have been informed. It’s not even clear to me that the spying on politicians and journalists have stopped.
Barr’s corrupt and sinister decision to make the US government the defendant in the EJ Carroll lawsuit had the effect of nullifying it. The US government cannot be sued for defamation, so her case is effectively dismissed. So Garland upholding it is a gross breach of justice. Institutionalism is triumphing over elementary fair play. That case should be heard. It won’t be.
Similarly, his appeal of Judge Jackson’s decision demanding the release of the Barr memo re obstruction of justice in the Mueller report is, to put it charitably, baffling. This memo could conceivably lead to obstruction of justice charges against Trump, now that he is no longer President. Mueller himself asserted that Trump could be charged with obstruction of justice in his post-report testimony before Congress.
His announcement that it would be a “top priority” of the DOJ to root out the leakers who revealed the tax records of the ultra-wealthy is similarly baffling. If I was an American Jeff Bezos, I might perhaps cheer him on. Or if the country was in a somnolent period with no dire threats to its wellbeing, one could find no fault with making it “top priority”. But now? When the house is on fire? Really?
To put it another way, Christine. What has he *done* in his first three months that allows you to have such unshakeable confidence in him?
And one final point: three times already, Garland’s DOJ has made rulings at odds with Biden’s beliefs (https://www.politico.com/newsletters/west-wing-playbook/2021/06/08/bidens-garland-headache-493167). Pick your poison - we don’t want a repeat of 2016.
But the image I have is of the flames rising and Garland puttering.
To respond to your rant, Eric….
The fire-breathing dragons you call for are there. In the form of deputy, assistant, and associate AG’s.
Vanita Gupta, Kristen Clark, Lisa Monaco all were confirmations resisted by many Repubs in the Senate. Stewart just confirmed end of May!
Wind in the sails of justice.
I wouldn't call Eric's account of the tasks awaiting the "leisurely constitutionalist" (another phrase you consider an insult?) a "rant," but a list of facts that help explain why Prof. Richardson and many of us on this list are alarmed at the state of democracy and the rule of law in the United States.
Here is an article by Elie Mystal about the DOJ's decision to continue protecting Trump (instead of letting him protect himself in court on his own $, like other citizens accused of rape): https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-carroll-garland/ I'm posting it because it's useful in helping readers think outside the box that the Trump administration's scofflaw behaviors of the last 4 years have accustomed us to. I fear we have forgotten how the law works, to some degree, and what the Dept. of Justice exists to regulate and oversee!
Mary. You’ve already stated you “guess” I’m not a rape victim so that influences my opinion of DOJ action on the case you reference. Nor did I make any comment of Eric’s definition of “leisurely constitutionalist”.
Back off. You are displacing anger on my opinions and it is suspect, quite frankly.
I think this is pretty intemperate Christine. You mischaracterize my comment as a “rant”, when it was a statement of concern based on actions taken.
Your comment about Monaco, Gupta et al is a fair point, one which I have considered. Perhaps they are lighting fires under Garland. But the direction properly should come from the top.
And your defense of Garland partly on the grounds that 30 Republicans supported his confirmation is risible. Were I involved at that level, I might be examining my conscience if 30 Republicans supported me or anything I did. They are not exactly bastions of wisdom, nor fonts of good judgment.
Eric, I believe that it was premature for you to say, 'What the DOJ got was a leisurely institutionalist.' After reading your comment, I did not find any justification for calling Garland 'leisurely'. His reputation is as a capable and fair judge.
Given our country's homegrown terrorist issues, Merrick Garland may indeed be the man for the job:
'“Do not bury the crime in the clutter,” he said. (Garland)
'Garland, then a top Justice Department official, was encouraging prosecutors to speed the trial along and jettison superfluous findings in their case against Timothy McVeigh, who was convicted of carrying out the 1995 attack and executed in 2001, said Joe Hartzler, the team’s lead attorney. Hartzler said he found the advice so compelling that he wrote the words on a sheet of paper and hung it on an office wall as a rallying cry for his team.'
'More than two decades later, Garland, 68, is preparing to lead the Justice Department as attorney general and facing a domestic terrorism threat that has metastasized, with white supremacists and conspiracy-minded anti-government types emboldened by their acknowledgment from former president Donald Trump.'
'Capitol attack will spur broad crackdown on domestic extremists'
'Those who worked with Garland on the Oklahoma City case — and the prosecution of another notorious domestic terrorist known as the Unabomber — say the experiences shaped him, and make him well-positioned to confront the current threat.' (Washington Post)
Perhaps, you missed Garland's role in those two important cases when you commented about him.
As for you calling Christine 'intemperate' for labeling your long to-do list for the AG a 'rant', I agree that she may have gone bit too far in using that word.. You did go on at length, Eric, about what no one but Merrick Garland and some members of the Justice Department know and that is exactly what he is doing as AG and how long it will take.
Some may derive some satisfaction by what he laid out today.
'“We know that expanding the ability of all eligible citizens to vote is a central pillar,” Garland said. “That means ensuring that all eligible voters can cast a vote; that all lawful votes are counted; and that every voter has access to accurate information."
'Garland also promised that the Justice Department will continue to “protect the democracy to which all Americans are entitled. He said that within 30 days the department would double the Civil Rights Division's voting rights enforcement staff and committed to working with other agencies to combat voting-related disinformation.'
"There are many things that are open to debate in America, but the right of all eligible citizens to vote is not one of them," he said.'
'Garland said that "many of the changes are not calibrated to address the kinds of voter fraud that are alleged as justification," and said that DOJ is scrutinizing them to determine whether they violate federal statute.'
"Where we see violations we will not hesitate to act," he said.'
'Garland took an especially dim view of post-election "audits" underway in Arizona and being considered in several other states that are "based on disinformation," though he did not mention any state by name'
I think that the verdict is still out on AG, Merrick Garland. Let's give him another few months before casting aspersions.
I think this is all very fair comment, Fern. Thanks for taking the time to make a rebuttal.
I think I chose “leisurely” lazily rather than wisely. I read a lot this morning about his stint at the Court of Appeals and there the process was not at all dominated by the news cycle. He and the other justices could and did take 6-12 months to rule on a case, according to an 11 page paper written by a former clerk (not a tell all or critical piece by any means).
My timing was less than masterful as Garland spoke eloquently today and it looks like he has a road map.
His first few rulings were ugly to view to those appalled by Trump and Barr. But the Political Gabfest podcast out today made a thoughtful point, that these may all be “reversions to norm” rulings which Democrats won’t like, but are an attempt to return the DOJ to the norms in place before Trump and Barr contemptuously discarded them.
So I feel I must pull in my horns and pull back from what now may have been a blinkered viewpoint.
I really appreciate you helping me to do so in such a cogent way.
Nonetheless, I’m still uneasy. Democrats have a time-honour Ed habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I feel the Republicans are running out the clock in insidious ways and this has caused me to want to see action and retributive justice, perhaps with a side of meanness :) from various agencies.
God, grant me patience. And I want it right now!
Eric, Another positive note is the Justice Department’s Independent Inspector General opened an investigation today '... into the decision by federal prosecutors to secretly seize the data of House Democrats and reporters as investigators hunted down who was leaking classified information early in the Trump administration. The announcement followed a referral by the deputy attorney general, Lisa O. Monaco, according to a senior Justice Department official; Attorney General Merrick B. Garland directed her to take that step, the official said.' (NY Times)
One of my questions is why didn't this happen before the New York Times reported the story on Thursday - the day before the Inspector General was asked to review this rape of justice.? Another question is why are the lawyers in the Justice Department who did Sessions/Barr/Trump's bidding still with the Department? This is just a morsel of the corruption of our government by Trump & Co. What other governmental functions need to be examined and fumigated, the State Department, for instance?
You articulated what is my overriding question - how can a department so infiltrated by extreme loyalists not have undergone a purge.
I saw the I.G story. At least these ones won’t get fired.
All in all Garland must be like the child in whatever is the opposite of the candy store - paralyzed for choice. Or at least spoiled for choice.
Eric, My computer was down last night. I replied to you on my IPhone. This morning, once my computer awakened, I decided to delete that jangled message of mine. If you saw it -- forget about it. I will reply to you later after finishing a few necessary duties. Cheers!
Beautiful dialogue throughout. Well done.
Retributive Justice is a dish best served cold.
30 Republicans voted against his confirmation.
??
Really? We could not be better protected? I guess you’re not a rape victim whose rapist, a former president, is still being well protected by Garland’s DOJ.
Whoa., Mary. You insult me that a woman who is not a rape victim can be casual about the crime? I have read thoroughly the trail of the case you refer to. And suggest that what has happened so far is happening so the eventual outcome cannot be overturned.
I also suggest that the delay in prosecuting this case is not because of our current Atty General.
It is not a delay. It is a refusal. The decision was made. I am not whining about a delay as you and others here and elsewhere assume. You are clearly someone who reads and considers information. You missed the story however, unlike a large throng of upset lawyers and political scientists and rape victims, about the decision not to pursue the case. It's weird and sad to me that millions of us could have poured into the freezing January streets to protest the Inauguration of a rapist for president, and now I am the object of accusations and name-calling ("Lightweight"?!) on a listserv of readers of Heather Cox Richardson for pointing out that the decision to consider Trump still inviolable despite being a regular citizen now is distressing. According to many I know who practice law and law enforcement and teach government and American political history, very distressing. And to rape victims like me, an occasion for despair.
Sadly, what is being ruled on is a defamation suit, not the alleged crime.
I think that in Garland, we are seeing what happens when you get a judge as AG rather than a prosecutor.
He was a federal prosecutor. He played a leading role in the prosecution of the Oklahoma City bombers. I also suggest the 30 Republicans that voted “nay” to his confirmation as AG did so for a reason. An atty general, not under the whip of an autocrat of a president, does not leave stones unturned.
I had forgotten that he was the Oklahoma City bombing prosecutor. I have (in my little world) seen some prosecutors who become judges that really do an outstanding job although they do, from time to time, make some head scratching rulings.
I hope Mr. Garland can connect with his prosecutorial roots and bring all of the miscreants to justice.
I imagine that is going to be a tough row to hoe for him, with the very agency he supervises becoming mired in the carp from the former guy.
Absolutely. Very tough road with land moves.
*mines
Ally House, you may well be right, but the issue is what Mr. Garland choses to do or not with reference to the standing of a particular case. No one has asked him to prosecute it: he's the Attorney General of the United States. The decision that Mr. Trump, a citizen like you or me, is protected from prosecution for a crime committed before he was president is a peculiar one: the chief task of the DOJ at present is to return the country to the rule of law, and bring law into line with the pursuit of justice. See Elie Mystal's assessment of the situation: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-carroll-garland/
Ari Melber interviewing NYT's, Michelle Goldberg and the Nation's Elie Mystal tonight on his show was about exactly this and interesting. They were all in agreement though of the seriousness of the most recent NYT's expose on Trump's goons and the need for Garland to clean the DOJ of the cult of Trump.
I hope you're right.