General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMerrick Garland's Dilemma
The Attorney-General is an institutionalist. He said he believes in the rule of law. Most folks consider him an honest and decent man.
With the latest revelations of the former president's use of the Justice Department to spy on reporters, and on Democratic Congressmen that were over-seeing his role in the Mueller investigation, Merrick Garland must make a decision.
Does he let the different State authorities continue to investigate and prosecute, and disregard the Federal crimes that may have been committed by Mr Trump? Or does he follow the rule of law?
He truly believes that no man is above the law. Most especially, the President of the United States. He should set the example for the rest of America.
Bribery, extortion, perjury, obstruction of justice, and sedition are still crimes, even if committed from the White House. They have all been investigated thoroughly. He was impeached for two of the offenses already.
If Mr Garland truly believes in the rule of law, he must protect it from those that would abuse it from the highest levels of our government.
Mr. Garlands dilemma is whether or not to prosecute for crimes committed while in the White House. Should those be exempt? Or should they take priority over any crimes that may have happened before and after Mr Trump left the White House. The crimes committed during the four years in the White House cannot and should not be swept under the rug.
They are more important than anything that might have happened in New York before he became the President. The Presidency and the rule of law are at stake.
Scrivener7
(50,955 posts)fully investigated and prosecuted, our Democracy is lost. If it is not prosecuted, this will be how republiQans ALWAYS conduct themselves in the future.
The Department of Justice is not "in the White House." Whether Donny bodybags can be prosecuted is a matter of debate, though only because republiQans have decreed tht it is a matter of debate.
But those who facilitated this were never "in the White House." They must all be prosecuted and if Garland does not do it, he will be complicit in the downfall of our Democracy.
Bev54
(10,053 posts)I got thinking last night that perhaps he did also do this to republicans and knowing how bloody crooked they are, he has obtained kompromat on them, which is one of the reasons they are still kissing his ass. In a way I hope that did happen and there could be a real distinction between republican and democrats in congress. He got nothing on the dems.
padah513
(2,503 posts)I think he had it scheduled before this latest bit of news. Was supposed to talk about voting rights but now who knows. Will definitely get some questions about the spying though.
kentuck
(111,103 posts)He should not wait on New York, in my opinion.
MerryBlooms
(11,770 posts)some of these records up to just two weeks ago. Outrageous.
kentuck
(111,103 posts)I had not heard of that?
MerryBlooms
(11,770 posts)stated on Rachael last night, and then on Morning Joe this morning.
kentuck
(111,103 posts)I missed Joe this Morning.
Peregrine Took
(7,415 posts)Just think he was the wrong man for this job at this moment in history.
comradebillyboy
(10,154 posts)DOJ needs a thorough house cleaning and Garland doesn't look like he's up to the task.
jalan48
(13,870 posts)We have power now and could lose it again in a couple of years. If we cant act now well have no one to blame but ourselves.
Firestorm49
(4,035 posts)Ferrets are Cool
(21,107 posts)RKP5637
(67,111 posts)NewHendoLib
(60,015 posts)I've been under no illusion at all that he can be part of the solution. Sad, I know.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Either Mr. Garland wants to live in a constitutional democracy, where no one is above the law, or he needs to be replaced. Pronto.
brooklynite
(94,595 posts)You imply that Garland sees this is an either/or choice. Please explain the basis for this conclusion.
kentuck
(111,103 posts)It is still there. What is he waiting for? It's difficult for common folks to see it any other way.
I know. Patience.
brooklynite
(94,595 posts)And how many were based on the fact that the blogosphere "knew he was guilty".
Not the way criminal justice works.
kentuck
(111,103 posts)But what happened to that "ham sandwich"?
brooklynite
(94,595 posts)kentuck
(111,103 posts)Normally, I would agree with you about taking your time and getting a conviction, but there is a sense of urgency, because the asshole is an ever-present threat that gets worse with each passing day. Even if not convicted, he is distracted from his normal destructive behavior.
Firestorm49
(4,035 posts)that no President is above the law. If a President is involved in criminal activity while in office, the hammer should drop.
Enough of the shielding to protect the guilty.
brooklynite
(94,595 posts)Do I have that right?
Nay
(12,051 posts)going forward, laws must be passed that specifically address the legitimate questions around whether a President can be indicted/arrested/jailed for crimes committed in office or out of it. There seems to be a lot of hand-wringing over the idea -- I understand that, since we are faced with a Repub Party that would surely start a thousand lawsuits the minute any Democrat took the oath of office.
luv2fly
(2,475 posts)MG should just throw the orange fuck away and we can all hope he rots in some miserable hell hole.
Goodheart
(5,327 posts)kentuck
(111,103 posts)In my opinion, it is out of his comfort zone. Just my opinion.
scipan
(2,351 posts)probably has in his pocket. Which would create a mess.