Magic words do not solve complex problems. You are silly for thinking that.
He’s not the President, which is good because from what I can tell, in many respects the sitting President is above the law, due in large part to separation of powers questions.
Not until/if he is actually indicted, I agree. Which is good, because such a statement IMO would make it look like a political vendetta.
It would not matter one bit if Garland said ‘No President is above the law’ Trumps supporters have shown again and again that they are UNREACHABLE. They don’t think he has done anything wrong, and if he has, so what. Facts do not matter one bit to them. They have a God, and they will keep him.
That’s what we are facing. Will they riot? Will they crawl back under their rocks? A little of both? Doesn’t matter. We are a country of laws, not men. We must keep it that way. Damn the torpedoes.
Should’ve included “unless he’s shamed into it by the Jan 6 committee”.
He’s always said the right things. His actions didn’t really indicate he was doing the right thing. Until the public hearings.
The very idea was always dumb as shit, but I’m happy for you that you found a way to rationalize your comical pig ignorance.
This is the only valid point I’ve seen made on this topic. Yes, my thesis should have been 'Garland needs to say “former Presidents are not above the law” or perhaps “the Presidency does not convey immunity from the law, even if recent DOJ policy offers a limited-time delay in applying that law.”
100% agree–which is why I never suggested that Garland should name Trump.
That would be inappropriate; it would be antithetical to the crucial concept of the independence (from the current Executive) of the Department of Justice.
As for the rest of the emotion stirred up here: people vary in their pro-authoritarian leanings. Many who consider themselves to be on the left side of politics, still retain a desire that some impressive father-figure be accorded unquestioning deference—and that taking such a position (and abstention from asking questions) will, in some magical way, eventually lead to justice.
In this time of genuine and pressing danger to American democracy, perhaps ‘unquestioning deference to authority’ is not the value we should be embracing–let alone trying to enforce upon others.
(A vain endeavor, by the way.)
Saying “no former President is above the law”–a remark which applies, currently, to five* men–would have an immediate practical and concrete effect (rather than being “magic words”).
It would signal to those now confident that skirting the laws in order to interfere with the November 8 elections will have no legal consequences for the perpetrators, that they should NOT be so confident. It would signal that they should employ caution, because their standard-bearer may not be able to pardon them for any crimes they might commit. It would signal that despite the knowledge (of everyone paying attention) that Trump has gotten away with numerous crimes over a period of years, that situation might change.
So far, they have no reason at all to believe that DOJ will indict Trump.
So far, they can easily tell themselves that DOJ is performing certain actions merely to keep the Libs quiet…but that nothing will ever really happen to Trump.
A statement by Garland has the potential to materially change the conduct of many Republicans who now feel certain that they will face no legal consequences from interfering with the upcoming elections.
He should speak up.
//* Thanks, The Other Waldo Pepper. Somehow I exempted Jimmy Carter from the list of potential crime-breakers.
Your math needs work.
Oh, yes, of course. I had exempted Jimmy Carter from the list.
I’ll see if I can fix it.
This isn’t about magic words…
… but here are the magic words he needs to say…
… and this is the magical effect they will have.
You know what else sent that signal and sent it in a non-magical way? Jeffrey Clark handcuffed in his boxers in front of his house while federal agents executed a search warrant.
I contrast this with the whole Durham-Sussman fiasco.
Durham made lots of smoke in announcing his prosecution, it worked to rile up the MAGAs, and there are some who still think that there is something there, even after the case was shown to be pathetic.
Garland’s not announcing what he is doing at every step. I’m sure he knows that there are people out there that want him to be more like Durham, but I don’t want him making any sort of public announcement that is unambiguously about going after Trump until he has an airtight case.
The concept that words that are spoken can affect people only by means of “magic” is new to me.
Can you offer any information on this theory? For example, who is its author? How long has it been around?
Aside from your intriguing theory: obviously I was suggesting that if an Attorney General said something, people might pay attention to it and be affected by it.
Is that a controversial assertion? (If so: how?)
Both signals are welcome, and useful.
I don’t remember having called for that.
I do think Garland could make an effective statement that would usefully-startle those who’ve assumed he’s only going through the motions and that Trump is safe from indictment from Garland’s DOJ.
One idea might be to specify something like “No Governor, Senator, or President is above the law; DOJ will follow the facts and the law and if warranted and policy allows, indict.”
That would open up the number of potential people who could be investigated, thereby avoiding the ‘targeting Trump’ issue. And it would be such a change from Garland’s usual lack of specificity about who is subject to the law, as to catch the ears of those who’ve assumed Trump IS above the law.
Have you emailed Garland and told him how he might do his job better?
The concept that a minute change in wording with no change meaning would cause a meaningful change in the world is magical thinking.
Merrick Garland saying, “No one is above the law,” while the FBI is executing search warrants at Trump’s home and his lawyers are desperately trying to stall in court appearances sends an unmissable message that Trump is not above the law.
Anyone who can convince him or her self that Trump is above the law in spite of this is basically immune to facts. Approximately 0% of the people who believe that Trump is above the right now would change their opinion based on Merrick Garland clarifying something that he already said.
Trumpers are a cult and Merrick Garland saying the magic phrase will not break the spell that Trump has cast over them.
The only thing it would do is feed the idiots who think there’s a witch hunt going on. It would do nothing else.
But if the phrase actually is magic, it could break the spell…
Ok, I’ll show myself out.
Agreed.
But I was not suggesting “a minute change in wording with no change [sic] meaning”.
You are, and that is dumb. Have fun with that.