Yeah, I think so. Garland told himself, and probably believes to this day, that he was utterly above human emotion—the perfect embodiment of Justice etc. In reality, by prioritizing the avoidance of anything Republicans wouldn’t like, he wasn’t trying to help Republicans—he was trying to help himself. To avoid personal unpleasantness.
This, too, is something I believe Garland thought was his #1. He really did.
He lacked the self-knowledge to realize he was primarily interested in protecting himself.
One reason I see it that way is that there is a noticeable contrast between Jack Smith’s conduct (and words) and Garland’s. Smith really does serve justice; he’s not primarily thinking 'how are people judging me? will this make them call me names?’
Is there anyone who still believes Garland was working in good faith?
Or are we all in agreement he should have declined the job and let someone with some balls take it.
AND
Biden should have fired his ass on J8 when he didn’t have a cases against Trump filed.
Garland’s failures are on him, but his boss could have stepped in the whole time.
A prosecutor like Harris should have seen him slow walking these cases and rang the alarm. The whole Biden administration is to blame. They were all snoozing in the drivers seat. That was an accusation Trump made that got so much traction because it was true.
The corporate Democrats (Biden/Clinton) that alienated a part of the electorate with their feckless sucking up to corporate America are as much to blame for creating MAGA as MAGA is. The corporate dems (while making fun of the Bernie-bros) made MAGA more palatable by throwing their voters under the bus at every turn. By far their biggest failure is not prosecuting the iDJT. They are so beholden to the donor class that they simply cannot imagine going after one of them for real.
My position is not that Garland was working in bad faith; it’s that he defined ‘good faith’ as ‘never inconveniencing any powerful Republicans.’ And he didn’t do that openly, even to himself, I don’t think. He lacked the self-knowledge to understand his own priorities (number one being ‘avoid trouble for myself’).
I do fully blame Biden, Harris, et al, though. Biden should have required Garland to explain fully why he thought the ‘go after the nameless’ strategy would actually result in justice. I doubt that Biden ever asked Garland even the most elementary of questions, what with their beliefs that there must be NO interaction between Executive and DOJ. (In principle that sounds great; in practice it has its problems.)
It’s said that one of Biden’s chief failings was his apparent belief that his own election, in and of itself, meant that the pro-autocracy danger was completely and utterly past—that Democracy had won for once and all. Obviously this was delusional (if it’s true that Biden believed it).
Agreed. He was, if anything, acting “in good faith” based on seeing his role as upholding the established system. Garland would thus have made a fine if unremarkable mod-lib Justice on the bench. Different skills set, different required temperament.
Clearly Biden should have named a DOJ team who would be independent and fair and meticulous but also committed to swift justice, aware of the risks in failing, and prepared for a pugnacious defense that was going to cry “persecution” no matter what and to deal with how the courts were already mined.
Already in 2021, it worried me that the appointment to AG should not, must not, ever be treated as a messaging or an “honours list.” So Garland got shafted on a SCOTUS seat —too bad so sad. Don’t appoint him AG 4 years later just to rub McConnell’s face in it, Mitch didn’t care, he already got the W on the substantive thing HE wanted, when he wanted it and it counted.
You were more prescient than me. I was cautiously hopeful that if Merrick Garland would have made a good Supreme Court justice, he would make a good AG. How wrong I was and how misguided was that hope.
I now realize that the things that make for a good judge (including cautious, slow deliberation) do not necessarily make for a good AG.
I’ve started a post on this very point several times, but couldn’t get it quite right (the perils of being an English Lit major). Anyway, while I don’t think this excuses his procrastination, I do think it helps explain it.
Another factor (IMO) is that a good judge depends a great deal on precedent — and the Orange Peril not only defies precedent, he seems to go out of his way to shatter it. Sometimes because it hinders his impulses, other times just because it’s there.
If true, I’m glad he did it, but apparently the way he did it wasn’t particularly effective. (I’m not going to give another hour to Joe.)
I agree with your entire post, but particularly this bit. It was possible. As @Atamasama notes, Jack Smith would have come a lot closer than did Garland.
Garland’s entire ‘treat Trump et al’s attempt to subvert the Constitution just like we treat organized crime’ premise was wrong, and, frankly, stupid.
With organized crime, sure—you catch the little fish and they, in turn, can give you a case against those higher-up.
But the Trumpite efforts to keep Donald in power had nothing to do with organized-crime hierarchies. Little fish in the Gambino organization didn’t get inspired online by Gambino and go freelance crimes in his name. Instead, they were recruited by higher-ups, and thus had information on those higher-ups.
The guys who showed up at the Capitol on January 6 2021 had NOT been recruited by White House people, who in turn could give evidence leading to higher-ranked White House people, who in turn could give evidence leading to Donald. It didn’t happen that way. The guys who showed up on 1/6/21 got inspired online. They had no information that could have helped DOJ go after anyone at the White House.
It was SO stupid that I have an unpleasant suspicion that not-terribly-high-IQ Joe picked Garland not just because it put a finger in Mitch McConnell’s eye, but because he felt comfortable with another guy who isn’t all that high-IQ himself.
I remember watching him warn the country about MAGA live when he gave that speech and was glad he came right out and said it. There’s no quibbling about it.
Completely. Let’s see, who doesn’t have top secret documents stored in their bathroom that has a copy machine in it? (oh, and a chandelier. The man lost it a long time ago, if he ever had ‘it’ what a weirdo)
I’m sorry to have doubted you. I was merely pointing out that a) I wasn’t going to devote an hour to listening to Biden’s speech, and b) I couldn’t therefore be sure that your assertion was generally-accepted, or merely a matter of interpretation.
Can you post a relevant sentence or two from the speech?
“Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.”
In a fiery prime-time speech, President Joe Biden launched an all-out assault on former President Donald Trump and “MAGA Republicans,” saying they “pose a clear and present danger” to American democracy.
“It’s in our hands, yours and mine, to stop the assault on American democracy,” Biden said Thursday from Independence Hall in Philadelphia, urging Americans to reject fear and violence. “I believe America is at an inflection point, one of those moments that determine the shape of everything that’s to come after.”
