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.
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!
I have particular concern for him given his position, the importance of the Justice Department and its corruption by the former administration. I do not see him as a 'child' unsuited to the monumental and highly charged work at hand. Who would have been confirmed by the Senate and who would be up to this situation?
While you and I generally agree about the USA in pieces, our emphases, interpretations and writing styles differ. This can be a stumbling block to our understanding of one another and conducting successful exchanges.
Given the level of my concern about the state of the country, I may misinterpret your comments as emotionally indulgent and lose the meaning of what you have conveyed. In times of serious trouble, I try to avoid emotional displays. Of course, not entirely, because how can anyone alert to what is happening not be filled with emotion? Maintaining a level of calm in exchanges is my defense. I act and think better under those circumstances. I try not to let the mood temperature go above room temperature; in fact, I actually like it to be a little cooler than that.
I have thought that you minimize Garland as a little figure before the tsunami. There is reason to see the situation that way. I am in a more observant, listening, supportive and hopeful mode. That doesn't limit my ability to be critical. That is not a response I wish to avoid as you can tell.
My emphases now is to consider what needs to be done to bring Americans closer together, like much more local news and much more scrutiny, plus regulation of social media. Cheers, Eric.
I think the fact that you are a citizen and I am not is important. You are at the proverbial sharp end of an exceedingly sharp stick. One would have to be inhuman not to be emotionally impacted and deeply worried. I try to keep that front of mind when I write, but don’t often succeed.
I have two motivations here. One is that I really like the U.S. I have visited 30-40 times at a very rough guess and have never had a serious bad experience. So I am hoping for you to emerge in a way that the damage can be unwound as much as possible and the mistake never be repeated.
My second driving force is that I see your country as a possible case study of decline. My historical studies focused intensely on Great Britain, and I have read enough about Rome to have a sense of “decline” means in superpowers and how/why it comes about.
When I am being dispassionate, there are numerous comparisons that can be made especially between Edwardian England and current day US. To me, your country is solidly on that path.
When Britain decayed as the world superpower, America replaced it, not, I should add without two wars, a Holocaust and the Holodomor. But by 1950 the world order was clearly America’s to set and that was reassuring.
But now, it’s an entirely different scenario. The expression, “Après moi, le déluge”, frequently comes to mind. There is *no suitable Democratic replacement* for America as superpower. China, India, and Russia, most especially the first named, would be ghastly replacements as the acknowledged superpower.
It is extremely important to me that America recover.
I post fairly frequently here because I have deep respect for the group and I think I have much to learn and a little to contribute to a forum that could become very powerful.
I detest invective. I detest group think. This group has a number of people who seem to post in only to float with the prevailing winds. They present nothing substantive. On an individual basis I empathize with them. We are all needy - their neediness shows in an obvious desire to be part of the group. That’s fine. But when there is a large group doing that, the calibre of discussion plunges, and others buoyed by the likes of the groupies, are confident then that their opinion is impregnably correct and feel free to let loose cutting comments to those who disagree. The harm comes not from a single person who acts as a cheerleader. It comes when that becomes a large group.
It empowers others and the tone goes way, way down.
This series of posts is my ideal of how discussion should take place. It has been thoroughly civil. I feel that your rebuttal was in good faith and forced me to slow down and think again about the track I was on.
It is difficult to guard my time when responses such as yours arouse respect as well as our differences.
Your comments on the forum were written with a commanding voice. To me, they were ruminative in tone but without the substance/sources, which might have contributed more to my understanding of your reflections.
As you look to Edwardian England, perhaps, a model from which to understand America's decline, I consider our history of White supremacy; Goldwater and the Reagan era, Dark Money; far-right religious leaders; the roots of the anti-government, anti-taxes, anti-regulation movements; the technological revolution; the disappearance of local press, Social Media; the assault on truth (the BIG LIE); the losses of community and commonality as the treads to our decline.
Eric, I share your criticisms of the clutter and disruptive aspects of forum life. It saddened me, however, to see the perfectionistic tendency ring in;
as though any freely chosen large group (in the thousands) can live without its grandstanders, 'followers', intruders and kooks, no, no, no -- I don't think so.
Eric, you appear to be a favorite among many subscribers. My personal opinion is that with your education, concern and eloquence, perhaps, less scolding and premature hyper-criticism would be welcome. You are a historian, and consummate reader,.
While I won't be on the forum, I look forward with interest to reading your comments in the future. Salud!
As you are a dear friend, I am breaking my promise of silence. Your tease to me today was tempting but NO. I won't be back until I finish several other matters. Today's juicy subjects from Heather and comments will take me long enough to absorb and think about. This break from the forum will give me time not only to take care of business but learn more from the comments by you and others. My spirit and affection will follow your lead.
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!
We are back to Merrick Garland.
I have particular concern for him given his position, the importance of the Justice Department and its corruption by the former administration. I do not see him as a 'child' unsuited to the monumental and highly charged work at hand. Who would have been confirmed by the Senate and who would be up to this situation?
While you and I generally agree about the USA in pieces, our emphases, interpretations and writing styles differ. This can be a stumbling block to our understanding of one another and conducting successful exchanges.
Given the level of my concern about the state of the country, I may misinterpret your comments as emotionally indulgent and lose the meaning of what you have conveyed. In times of serious trouble, I try to avoid emotional displays. Of course, not entirely, because how can anyone alert to what is happening not be filled with emotion? Maintaining a level of calm in exchanges is my defense. I act and think better under those circumstances. I try not to let the mood temperature go above room temperature; in fact, I actually like it to be a little cooler than that.
I have thought that you minimize Garland as a little figure before the tsunami. There is reason to see the situation that way. I am in a more observant, listening, supportive and hopeful mode. That doesn't limit my ability to be critical. That is not a response I wish to avoid as you can tell.
My emphases now is to consider what needs to be done to bring Americans closer together, like much more local news and much more scrutiny, plus regulation of social media. Cheers, Eric.
I think the fact that you are a citizen and I am not is important. You are at the proverbial sharp end of an exceedingly sharp stick. One would have to be inhuman not to be emotionally impacted and deeply worried. I try to keep that front of mind when I write, but don’t often succeed.
I have two motivations here. One is that I really like the U.S. I have visited 30-40 times at a very rough guess and have never had a serious bad experience. So I am hoping for you to emerge in a way that the damage can be unwound as much as possible and the mistake never be repeated.
My second driving force is that I see your country as a possible case study of decline. My historical studies focused intensely on Great Britain, and I have read enough about Rome to have a sense of “decline” means in superpowers and how/why it comes about.
When I am being dispassionate, there are numerous comparisons that can be made especially between Edwardian England and current day US. To me, your country is solidly on that path.
When Britain decayed as the world superpower, America replaced it, not, I should add without two wars, a Holocaust and the Holodomor. But by 1950 the world order was clearly America’s to set and that was reassuring.
But now, it’s an entirely different scenario. The expression, “Après moi, le déluge”, frequently comes to mind. There is *no suitable Democratic replacement* for America as superpower. China, India, and Russia, most especially the first named, would be ghastly replacements as the acknowledged superpower.
It is extremely important to me that America recover.
I post fairly frequently here because I have deep respect for the group and I think I have much to learn and a little to contribute to a forum that could become very powerful.
I detest invective. I detest group think. This group has a number of people who seem to post in only to float with the prevailing winds. They present nothing substantive. On an individual basis I empathize with them. We are all needy - their neediness shows in an obvious desire to be part of the group. That’s fine. But when there is a large group doing that, the calibre of discussion plunges, and others buoyed by the likes of the groupies, are confident then that their opinion is impregnably correct and feel free to let loose cutting comments to those who disagree. The harm comes not from a single person who acts as a cheerleader. It comes when that becomes a large group.
It empowers others and the tone goes way, way down.
This series of posts is my ideal of how discussion should take place. It has been thoroughly civil. I feel that your rebuttal was in good faith and forced me to slow down and think again about the track I was on.
Cheers to you, Fern. :)
It is difficult to guard my time when responses such as yours arouse respect as well as our differences.
Your comments on the forum were written with a commanding voice. To me, they were ruminative in tone but without the substance/sources, which might have contributed more to my understanding of your reflections.
As you look to Edwardian England, perhaps, a model from which to understand America's decline, I consider our history of White supremacy; Goldwater and the Reagan era, Dark Money; far-right religious leaders; the roots of the anti-government, anti-taxes, anti-regulation movements; the technological revolution; the disappearance of local press, Social Media; the assault on truth (the BIG LIE); the losses of community and commonality as the treads to our decline.
Eric, I share your criticisms of the clutter and disruptive aspects of forum life. It saddened me, however, to see the perfectionistic tendency ring in;
as though any freely chosen large group (in the thousands) can live without its grandstanders, 'followers', intruders and kooks, no, no, no -- I don't think so.
Eric, you appear to be a favorite among many subscribers. My personal opinion is that with your education, concern and eloquence, perhaps, less scolding and premature hyper-criticism would be welcome. You are a historian, and consummate reader,.
While I won't be on the forum, I look forward with interest to reading your comments in the future. Salud!
I never find you harsh, Fern. That’s like sandpaper on skin. I find you direct and emotionally composed.
As you are a dear friend, I am breaking my promise of silence. Your tease to me today was tempting but NO. I won't be back until I finish several other matters. Today's juicy subjects from Heather and comments will take me long enough to absorb and think about. This break from the forum will give me time not only to take care of business but learn more from the comments by you and others. My spirit and affection will follow your lead.
Beautiful dialogue throughout. Well done.
Retributive Justice is a dish best served cold.
30 Republicans voted against his confirmation.
??