What has Merrick Garland accomplished as AG?

I haven’t really heard much about DOJ acting - certainly not with respect to any transgressions related to the prior administration. I presume he must be preoccupied with a number of other important projects - but I’m not sure what they have been.

Is he about the lowest profile AG we’ve seen in recent history? I guess that is preferential to AG as presidential lapdog, but still somewhat disappointing.

I recommend visiting his RSS feed.

https://www.justice.gov/ag/attorney-general-news-and-speeches

~Max

I assume a large part of his time and attention has been spent rebuilding a governmental function that the previous administration devoted great effort to tearing down and hollowing out. That is not a trivial task, and it’s the kind of bureaucratic gruntwork that doesn’t get news coverage.

I am just as disappointed as anyone at how long it’s taking to start dropping hammers on even the lowest-level GQPers, but I remind myself that the department Garland inherited was not even close to being marginally functional.

That said, the clock is ticking faster and faster, and continued external inaction will carry severe consequences.

Thx for the link. And I think your comments sensible Cervaise.

I get the sense that various entities are attempting to gather all available info, and present a complete case, when the delay in doing so will work to Trump’s advantage. The delay involved in legal proceedings is tremendous, and presents unique problems when political dynamics are added.

Just out of curiosity, since when are Cabinet members expected to “accomplish” things, as if they were elected officials with campaign promises? Is merely doing their jobs competently no longer enough?

Webster: accomplish: achieve or complete successfully.

In other words, accomplish=do. English has become way too fluffed up, and we use unnecessary words to describe simple actions.

Please explain how how define “accomplish”? I’ve often been asked in applications to describe my “accomplishments” in my past jobs. I never interpreted that as asking anything other than “what did you do that was important or significant?”

Are you truly curious, or are you advancing some agenda?

I would imagine that the more elevated a position, the more likely that one could list one’s “accomplishments.” As opposed to a more menial job where the accomplishments might not be much beyond, “I showed up most days and didn’t get fired.”

The more elevated a position, the more underlings you have whose “accomplishments” ( == “doings” ) you can claim as your own.

Fair enough. Or, you could simply tout the accomplishments of the organization you headed, giving credit to the underlings. Generally, the underlings get their marching orders from somewhere…

It sounded to me more like he was being criticized for not championing and achieving some sort of big-ticket items, instead of merely being a competent AG, and that seemed a bit strange and unfair to me. Cabinet members aren’t usually appointed with specific mandates, and I don’t recall Garland being appointed like that either.

He’s accomplished reinforcing why he would not have been a good Supreme Court Justice. Too willing to become too political.

Care to elaborate?

One example is his reluctance to enforce the law w/regard to the demonstrations at the home of Justice Kavanaugh. Another is, until just this week, is ignoring the vandalism of the offices of organizations who might be conditioned as “pro life.” Granted, I don’t know what’s in his head, but to me it appears the aforementioned reluctance parallels many left-of-center positions. It’s what he does and what he doesn’t do.

Whose jurisdiction is Kavanaugh’s house under anyway? The State of Maryland IIRC.

I realize it’s a Federal crime to actually assault him or things of that nature, but I’m pretty sure the AG of the US has no actual ability to enforce squat when it comes to things like demonstrations in the State of Maryland.

Same thing w.r.t. vandalism, even if the issues are national ones.

The Attorney General doesn’t make decisions on filing individual charges. For an alleged Federal crime, a Federal law enforcement officer would have to conduct an investigation, then refer the case to a U.S. Attorney’s Office in the appropriate jurisdiction for prosecution–the U.S. Attorneys are also independently appointed by the President, and while the AG is technically their boss, they operate mostly independent of the AG.

Your post is like blaming the Mayor of New York City because you saw someone jaywalk in front of a police officer and “nothing was done about it.”

Additionally the law you’re citing is of questionable constitutionality that has almost no case history, and would be fairly political regardless.

On July 1, Garland imposed a moratorium on all federal executions pending a review of relevant policies and procedures.[127] The review will examine “the risk of pain and suffering associated with the use of pentobarbital,” “regulations made in November 2020 that expanded the permissible methods of execution beyond lethal injection, and authorized the use of state facilities and personnel in federal executions”, and "December 2020 and January 2021 changes to expedite execution of capital sentences.

Garland rescinded a Trump administration policy (imposed by Jeff Sessions) that curtailed DOJ investigations into police department misconduct (“pattern-and-practice” investigations) and restricted the use of [consent decrees]
On April 21, Garland subsequently announced that the DOJ was opening a pattern-and-practice investigation into the Minneapolis Police Department after former officer Derek Chauvin was convicted for the murder of George Floyd, examining the use of force by officers and discriminatory conduct, its treatment of people with behavioral health issues, and the department’s current accountability systems.[133] On April 26, Garland announced another investigation into the Louisville Metro Police Department in the aftermath of the killing of Breonna Taylor, examining the execution of search warrants.[134][135] On August 5, Garland opened another investigation into the Phoenix Police Department over its policies on dealing with the homeless.[136][137] On December 3, the DOJ opened another investigation into the Mount Vernon Police Department to assess if it engaged in discriminatory policing, involving its use of force, strip and body cavity searches, how it handles evidence, and its systems of accountability.[138][139]

In June, the DOJ, through a memo issued by Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, reversed a Trump-era policy that banned federal officers and agents from using body-worn cameras; the memo also mandated the use of body-worn cameras for federal law enforcement in certain circumstances …

I could go on and on, but just read the article.