When a man speaks from a place of professional experience, i don’t think he would be accused of being condescending or on a high horse. I don’t think aspenglow should have to pull it back to keep anyone from being offended by her confidence in what she speaks.
But there doesn’t seem to be any indication that there are any complaints within DOJ from anybody who actually knows what’s going on.
Agree. Or “dumb it down.” One thing about this board is that most people here are really smart and no one ever has to dumb something down.
The contributions of @Aspenglow about the process of justice are much appreciated by me. I hope to see more, but maybe in a different forum. This forum (The BBQ Pit) is for posters to vent about things that frustrate them. Let them vent.
Garland is part of the same club of upper level government. Retaining a good government job no matter who is the President or which party is technically in charge. Always there, alway employed.
And none of us are in the same club.
There are many outstanding complaints from folks who have been in the DOJ in the past and those who do understand the contexts. Not everything is top secret.
There have been some sighs of relief from them over some events, but no one has walked anything back, and I don’t think they will have to revisit that until November, if even then.
The low hanging fruit. No evidence that they were going after the ringleaders.
People keep saying this. Fuck off. We understand your argument. When people very familiar with the Justice Dept, including former DoJ attorneys and those who know and have taught Garland personally are saying something that the DoJ has been way too slow, then I’ll believe them before I believe you.
But maybe realize that they may be wrong and not to dismiss the other views with the same lecture (we’ve heard it and understand it, we just find it not all that convincing). Smart, knowledgeable people with more DoJ experience seem to be finding fault with Garland. I find their arguments much more compelling than the apologists’.
Yes. The list of such people is long enough, and filled with reputable-enough professionals, to make the “inerrancy of Merrick Garland” argument highly suspect—no matter how strenuously those making that argument emphasize that they know more than everyone else.
They don’t. We’re ALL speculating–based on what evidence we can glean, of course, but it’s still speculation.
And the position that skepticism about Garland’s intent and actions is Bad and Wrong to voice, reeks of an obsequiousness before Authority that seems to be positively un-American.
At the very least, it surely violates the spirit of this site.
Has an “inerrancy of Merrick Garland” argument been put forward in this thread? Perhaps it’s been too nuanced for dumb ol’ me to discern.
I am getting vibes of an “irredeemable corruption of Merrick Garland” argument from some folks, though.
That’s interesting. I haven’t seen anyone suggesting Garland is corrupt. What is it you’re alleging about Garland-related posts? That people have said he’s taking money? Or what?
Agreed here as well. Trying to make sense of it all from a layman’s point of view.
A particularly interesting (and comforting) point you made that wouldn’t hurt to be repeated is about how the DOJ was blindsided by the Cassidy H. testimony. I was comforted by your point of view that they may already be working on Mark Meadows, so her testimony would be somewhat irrelevant.
A reminder, she wasn’t cooperating at first, maybe the DOJ skipped over her for that reason? I think the committee getting her to testify was a lucky shot that come to fruition after MM was already being worked?
The first comment was for slumtrimpet, but the added comments are for anyone to weigh in on at this point…
Can’t we all agree that reality is somewhere in the middle at least?!
I was going for “Garland’s insistence to prentend this is business as usual” or “Garland’s apparent lack of a sense of urgency”.
I feel that some of the ringleaders and enablers should be before a judge before the next election lest their supporters see the lack of repercussions as a license to just try again. That timetable is starting to look very close.
yeah, no. I was responding to your statement:
If you believe the DoJ should have started investigating the ringleaders “right away,” you do not understand how this works. Nobody at the DoJ would suggest that this is how it works, and if you think you’ve seen a source say that’s how it works, you have either misunderstood it or misrepresented it.
You have no fucking clue how this works, and your repeated insistence “I do too understand” changes nothing.
And if you think quoting Laurence Tribe means anything, think again. I’m sure he serves just fine as a professor of law, but in the posture he’s publicly adopted since the beginning of the Trump administration, he’s gravitated toward sensationalism and motivated reasoning, as if he wants to be the Alan Dershowitz of the left. Although I often share his political sympathies, his legal opinions should be taken with a huge grain of salt as the spotlight-hogging efforts that they typically are.
Jesus christ/ Right away by DoJ standards. Intsead of waiting a year and a half. You apologists really are insufferable.
When the DoJ announces the criminal indictment of the major ringleaders, how are you going to walk back all your bullshit statements? Will it be “okay, there was an indictment, but it happened too slowly for me,” or will it be “I don’t believe they’ll follow through,” or will you just shut up and slink away quietly?
Think it through. We’ll revisit this.
So you probably heard that four former and current Louisville police detectives have been federally charged in the Breonna Taylor raid. I saw her mom on TV today - she said she’s been waiting 847 days for these charges to be laid.
Just to give you all how much time can elapse for a much smaller investigation to come to fruition.
I have absolutely no expertise in legal matters. I had one class of Business Law in college (as I was going for a Business Administration degree for a time) and that’s the extent of my “legal training”. Anything else I picked up from reading stuff here and there or watching informative videos as a hobby. Oh, and the very awesome Illustrated Guide to Law.
(Seriously, that web site is freaking awesome.)
So I have no claim on being an authority on this. Both sides sway me. People saying that it’s taking too long, and people saying that it has to take this long. I’m in a wait and see mode, but I’m neither rubbing my hands in certainty that justice is coming, nor am I screaming that we’re all doomed and everyone is going to get away with it. I’m keeping optimistic with all of the evidence being pushed out into the light, the recent DOJ investigation announcements, and the lawsuits. But I’m also aware of the possibility that it might be too late and before this gets far enough to stop the train, the wrong people will get elected and shut it all down.
The fear is not that he’s corrupt. The fear is that he’s wired to be an institutionalist and he’s in danger of missing all the institutional problems in the US that allow someone like Trump to get away with obvious crimes, especially how adverse the feds are to doing anything that could be viewed as political.
If there’s an indictment then we’ll see the timeline of events. If Garland started soon enough then he’s been sitting on the evidence for a long time, fretting over the potential perception of impartiality at the DOJ. We’ll see he was pushed to get off the pot by the Jan. 6 committee releasing evidence he didn’t have at all.
And of course let’s hear the argument for the impeccable AG Garland who didn’t realize a broad conspiracy to destroy evidence throughout the Secret Service, the DOD, and who knows where else. That evidence is likely lost forever because of the long delay which gave the perpetrators time to destroy phones and wipe data.
I do not believe he is competent to do this job.