What's Up With Merrick Garland's Doj?

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male

phonehome

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Posts
3,895
Media
0
Likes
4,275
Points
343
Gender
Male
As we saw a week or so ago with the redacted memo or what ever it was where basically doing it that way is in line with long standing DOJ policy

I suspect that there is some arcane little known DOJ rule/regulation/policy that says that because Bill Barr started this that now DOJ is "obligated" to "see it through"

One of the criticism's of Robert Muellor was that he was in the end too much of a "rule follower" He followed the rule that said he could not indict a sitting President, didn't try to challenge that in court . He followed the rule, a rule Jim Comey ignored that said that if you are not going to charge an individual that you should then NOT opine on what he/she may have done wrong because if you are not going to charge them then he/she never gets the chance to defend him/her self in court. Which is why he never said something to the effect of "Trump did X,Y&Z "

Merrick Garland seems to be cut from the same "rule follower" cloth
 
  • Like
Reactions: ActionBuddy

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
As we saw a week or so ago with the redacted memo or what ever it was where basically doing it that way is in line with long standing DOJ policy

I suspect that there is some arcane little known DOJ rule/regulation/policy that says that because Bill Barr started this that now DOJ is "obligated" to "see it through"

One of the criticism's of Robert Muellor was that he was in the end too much of a "rule follower" He followed the rule that said he could not indict a sitting President, didn't try to challenge that in court . He followed the rule, a rule Jim Comey ignored that said that if you are not going to charge an individual that you should then NOT opine on what he/she may have done wrong because if you are not going to charge them then he/she never gets the chance to defend him/her self in court. Which is why he never said something to the effect of "Trump did X,Y&Z "

Merrick Garland seems to be cut from the same "rule follower" cloth

Possibly.

But if the actions his predecessor started essentially involved some aberration, injustice, or obstruction of justice then in "seeing it through" Garland is just continuing along the same path, a point made by Maddow in her broadcast and by the lawyers cited in one of the articles posted above.

Add to that failure to look into Barr's deliberate cover-up, the DOJ's ruling regarding E. Jean Carroll's case, and then a ruling that allows religious schools that are partly funded by PUBLIC money to discriminate, and Garland's DOJ begins to look like what Manchin and Sinema represent in the Senate (imo):

More Democrats BRINGING KNIVES TO A GUNFIGHT.

So I guess some (of us) are just getting fed up with criminals and con-men like Donald Trump, Bill Barr, Rudy Giuliani, Roger Stone, Steve Bannon, and various other unscrupulous mfkrs in Trump's circle, GETTING AWAY with it.

Even most the Capitol insurrectionists will probably face minimum consequences, if any at all, according to an article I just posted elsewhere. And in spite of all the continuing newsbreaks on investigations, coming indictments (supposedly) and all that hoopla, for all practical purposes, there hasn't yet been ANY consequence of significance for ANY of them.

And frankly, I'm coming to believe that there NEVER WILL BE.
.