F Merrick Garland. (He won't be going after anyone)

I really think that Garland is avoiding doing exactly what it is that is being asked of him here. He is very careful to make sure that he is not unambiguously pointing to Trump as the target. As soon as he does, the cries of witch hunt and partisanship will rain from the heavens. So long as he’s a bit coy about it, he can simply say that he’s investigating criminal wrongdoing, and that no one is above the law. That should be enough for us, that’s a “dog whistle” to let us know he’s on the case.

The first unambiguous statement about going after Trump should be the indictments against him.

Related to this, I wasn’t thrilled with Letitia James’s speech yesterday. She made the statement that the wealthy get away with tax evasion while most of us don’t. That was neither the time or place to make that statement, as it sounds like she is targeting Trump (just for being part of the group). Sure, she backed it up with examples specific to Trump, but it also made it seem like she has a vendetta against all wealthy people.

She may have wanted to make a statement to other wealthy people.

I didn’t get that impression at all. I felt that she had a vendetta against wealthy people who participate in tax evasion.

Which is “all of them.”

Oh come on, I’m sure there’s at least one wealthy person out that accidently forgot to cheat on their taxes this year.

Not if they have competent accountants.

Balzac didn’t know the half of it.

Yeah, that was my take, too.

James did not lose any credibility with fair-minded people by being specific.

As for the “magical thinking” accusation: I get that many enjoy using it as a supposed illustration of What Stupid People Do. They find it satisfying and fun to make that accusation.

But it virtually never applies; it’s nearly always misused. For example:

Republicans did not harangue Democrats for not saying “Radical Islamic Terrorism” because they believed that those were Magic Words that would magically change the world. Instead, Republicans urged Democrats to say the words because they knew that saying them would harm Dems politically.

Nothing “magic” involved.

So when Armenians tried for decades to get the United States* (and other nations) to officially call actions against them a “genocide”—they were (and are) being silly?

Urging some powerful figure or entity to say certain words is, according to you, “silly” and “dumb.”

This is not a respectable position. You appear to be dug in on it. You may like the way it makes you feel.

But it’s not an effective or reasonable position.

In many instances in history, particular words spoken by people in power have made a significant difference in the course of events.

Ignoring this does you no credit.

Garland would make a real difference in the way Trump defenders/enablers think, and in the actions they take, if he would abandon the generic “no one” and specify, at the least, a class of usually-privileged people (such as Senators, Governors, and Presidents) as not being above the law.

/ * The US finally did recognize the mass killing and deportation of Armenians as a “genocide.” Apparently we agreed that the word was not a Magical one—but instead a meaningful one.

As most words are.

https://www.armenian-genocide.org/recognition_countries.html

Bullshit. Rational people didn’t want to slam all Muslims as terrorists, which is what that phrase means. Remember GW, “Islam is a religion of peace” Bush? Same thing. The magic words were to slander an entire religion, which the GOP was baiting their opponents to do, and it was despicable.

That ordeal wasn’t about the word itself, but the fact that such a term has a specific legal meaning in international law.
The statement “no one is above the law” does legally includes the president. So that aspect doesn’t apply here.

Your argument, as best I can figure it out, is that Trump and his supporters won’t realize the phrase applies to him if Garland is not more specific. But what you’ve failed to articulate is why this matters. Even if Garland said “Donald Trump is not above the law,” there’s no reason to think it would change his or their minds. It would just be more evidence he was crooked.

Garland has every interest as the head of the Department of Justice to avoid making this look like any sort of targeted hunt on Donald Trump himself. The meaning of his statement is not “We are going to punish Trump for breaking the law.” It is “it does not matter who you are, you have to follow the law.”

Even if you disagree with Garland, the fact that he (1) has far more experience than you and (2) has a legitimate reason for his phrasing means that your argument that he’s not properly handling part of his job does not work.

Compared to his job of actually enforcing the law, this is an extremely small tactical difference. It’s not like he’s refusing to use the word “crime”—which would be the closest analog to your claim about “genocide.”

No.

However you are being silly. Extraordinarily so.

You’re just a dumbass, not a holocaust survivor. It’s kind of gross that you think that could even be a close call.

What about this involves “magic words”? (Other than your having typed the phrase?)

The Republicans knew that if Democrats said “Radical Islamic Terrorism” that Democrats would lose votes–not just in one election, but in many. Republicans knew that many who trend Democratic would be offended by those clearly-offensive words (and rightly so).

Again: what about this constitutes “magic”…???

YES. The issue is that saying the word “genocide” conveys meaning.

The issue is nothing whatsoever to do with “magic.”

Thank you for conceding my point.

If you don’t understand that many Republicans find it encouraging that Garland carefully confines himself to vague generalities, perhaps there is nothing I can say to breach that barrier.

You might find the words of others helpful. Atamasama linked to a couple of published opinions supporting the idea that Garland could (if he chose) use language that would give less comfort to anti-democracy, pro-election-interference elements of the Republican party:

A couple of excerpts:

(From the Sun-Sentinel link.)

(From the Boston Globe link.)

A summary may be useful:

  • Words have meaning, particularly when spoken by people with power. There is no “magic” involved.
  • Garland has been careful to say nothing that would lead powerful Republicans to think that there will be accountability for criminal conduct for those at the top. This silence has encouraged the lawless.
  • Garland could do something to change this situation (but probably won’t), because words spoken by people in power can affect choices made by others.

If Republicans wish to break the law because they do not believe they will be held accountable, so be it. I see no compelling reason to warn them that illegal things are illegal and that they should not engage in such behavior even if up until this point no one has been punished for it.

They would not heed such a warning anyhow. Over the four years of the Trump administration I would bet they heard some variation of “what you are doing is wrong and you know it” every single day. They are not suddenly going to become receptive to this message on hearing it for the 1500th time. Remember the impeachments? The Republicans said “we agree with you that Trump broke the law but we aren’t going to punish him because we don’t like how you impeached him for it.” Or most recently, because the civil suit in New York names Trump’s children, Republicans are saying that going after his kids is beyond the pale. The same Republicans will turn around and tell you what a villain Hunter Biden is and how he is the one that should be investigated. They are immune to cognitive dissonance.

I want them to continue breaking laws. Go even bigger, do more outrageous stuff under the assumption they will get away clean because the AG isn’t on TV calling them out by name for it. I’m sure they can find a lawyer who will endorse it as a defense. Well, that is if Trump doesn’t get every lawyer disbarred first at the rate he’s burning through them.

Again, bullshit. The Republicans were using these Magic Words to appear “strong” to their voters, and to paint Dems as weak. They won’t say the Magic Words! Weak!

Which led ultimately to the Romney buying into Magic Words and the Please Proceed Governor moment.

You’re falling for the same magic.

Yes, words are powerful. An idea can be the most powerful thing there is. But words can also be bullshit.

It’s true that many of the Republicans committing or planning to commit election shenanigans (at state and local level, as well as federal) have become very used to thinking of themselves as being above the law. It’s still possible that more-specific language from the current head of DOJ would bother some of them, though.

And utterly shameless to boot.

Again: Republicans knew that Democrats would offend and anger many of their constituents by saying ‘Radical Islamic Terrorism.’ The goal was a) to trick some Dems into saying it, thereby hurting their electoral chances, and b) to keep saying ‘RIT’ themselves–a phrase which delighted their own voters.

No magic involved.

This stubborn insistence on a belief in Magic is starting to seem a bit…weird. Do you believe that the reason many Biden Administration officials were upset when Biden said (and these are both paraphrases):

***American troops will respond on the ground in Taiwan if China invades Taiwan

and

***The pandemic is over

—do you believe those officials were unhappy about Biden’s words because they believed that Biden’s words were magic…???

Because I can assure you that this is not the case. The officials were unhappy because they knew that words spoken by a person in power can affect the choices and positions (and even actions) taken by others.

No magic involved.

I’ll bet the band Pilot thinks otherwise.

Nah, they’re probably too hopped up on Ozempic.

(Not that I’m saying that blood-sugar-regulating medication can get people high.)

Such an incompetent department.

GQP certainly expects Garland to go after Trump.