WTF is this BS involving Durham seeking an indictment of a democratic associated lawyer?

[triron]

Came from NYTimes and involves the 2016 story about the communications going on between the Trump campaign and a
bank in Russia. Why the hell hasn't Garland stopped this crap? Damn it!

[JohnSJ]

1. Garland should have cleaned house when he came aboard, and decided not to.

[triron]

2. He shoulld not be AG! What he is doing is encouraging this to happen again (Presidential coup).

[JohnSJ]

4. Personally I think he is out of his element. He is a judge

[StarfishSaver]

10. He's a lawyer and former U.S. Attorney - and was the chief judge of the DC Circuit

who never once had a written opinion reversed by the Supreme Court.

You may not like how he does his job, but he's definitely not out of his element.

[JohnSJ]

13. He is weak and we are running out of time

[StarfishSaver]

14. What are your qualifications for assessing the fitness of an Attorney General?

"Running out of time"? Seriously? What is your deadline for action? And exactly what action do you think should occur before that deadline?

[JohnSJ]

23. Before the midterms is the timeline, and except for two strongly written letters to

Arizona about the mishandling of voting machines and ballots by unqualified people, what has happened?

What has happened by states passing legislation to allow their legislatures to overturn an election?

Has the DOJ filed anything regarding legislation aimed at suppressing votes specifically aimed at minority communities?

Maybe HR1 will pass, but in the meantime there is questionable voting legislation going on in critical states, and I think time is running out before the next election, and the DOJ does not seem to be taking the lead on this

[StarfishSaver]

24. If you're going to accuse DOJ of not doing anything, you should at least get your facts straight

For example:

Has the DOJ filed anything regarding legislation aimed at suppressing votes specifically aimed at minority communities?

Justice Department Files Lawsuit Against the State of Georgia to Stop Racially Discriminatory Provisions of New Voting Law
June 25, 2021
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-lawsuit-against-state-georgia-stop-racially-discriminatory

[JohnSJ]

27. and Georgia is asking a judge to toss that lawsuit out. If this goes through the normal

process how long will it take?

[StarfishSaver]

28. Defendants ALWAYS file motions to dismiss. That's nothing unusual

Court cases can take a long time, but this will probably be fast-tracked because of the time-sensitivity.

You were demanding that DOJ file lawsuits. This is how lawsuits work.

[JohnSJ]

29. If it isn't before the midterms we are on a fragile timeline

[StarfishSaver]

30. It will likely be dealt with before the midterms

But you certainly can't claim that DOJ isn't moving quickly and forcefully on this.

[Mysterian]

37. Every U.S. citizen has the right to question his qualifications

Maybe we should just let our betters make all the decisions.

[StarfishSaver]

38. LOL

Of course every citizen has a right to question someone's qualifications. That doesn't mean they have the first clue of what those qualifications are or should be. So, I am exercizing my right as a U.S. citizen to assess whether someone's conclusions about a person's qualifications should be taken seriously.

[Mysterian]

39. Oh thank goodness for people like you who have clues!

What would we do without people like you who have clues, who are the only ones who can understand the extremely complex issue of qualifications of government employees!!??

[StarfishSaver]

40. I definitely have clues - actually more than that - significant knowledge and experience

about this topic.

I am not nor have I ever claimed to be the only one who knows about this. But I'll bet I know considerably more about it than most people here.

When I encounter people who know more than I do about a topic that interests me, I appreciate the willingness to share their knowledge with me and try to learn from them. But some people react the way you do.

[StarfishSaver]

8. Federal regulations permit the removal of a Special Counsel only under specific circumstances

"misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies."

On which of these specific legal grounds do you believe Garland has the legal authority to remove Durham?

[JohnSJ]

11. Sally Yates, Preet Bharara, James Comey's, Rod Rosenstein, Andrew McCabe, Jeff Sessions,

something like 46 US attorneys were fired when trump came into power

I think this is a conflict of interest, and still getting his marching orders from trump

Waits until the last minute to keep this going indefinitely

[StarfishSaver]

12. That's irrelevant to this issue

Unlike Special Counsels, all of the people you named and the 46 U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and can be fired at any time for any reason or no reason at all.

What's the conflict of interest? Having been appointed by the previous president doesn't qualify.

Special counsels are in a completely different category and governed by entirely different rules.

[JohnSJ]

15. He waited until the last minute to file this to keep his position indefinitely.

[StarfishSaver]

17. That doesn't even make any sense

[NewsCenter28]

32. Yes, yes, we know

Biden and Garland are perfect and can do no wrong. Ever. Not ever! On anything!

Also, Garland probably can't fire the SC, but he can quash the indictments the way Barr refused to let Mueller indict over Obstruction of Justice. Will he? No. He's too busy defending Trump against E. Jean Carroll in court. If Garland's actions weren't so tragic and devastating, it'd be hilarious, like something out of Monty Python.

[StarfishSaver]

35. I think you mean the AG can order the Special Counsel not to ask a grand jury to indict Sussman

Last edited Thu Sep 16, 2021, 09:04 AM - Edit history (2)

even if there's evidence that he committed a crime, just as Barr did with Mueller.

Great idea - if you think Biden's Justice Department should behave the way Trump's DOJ did, except to direct its obstruction of justice toward protecting Democrats instead of Republicans.

I don't believe Biden and Garland are perfect and can do no wrong.

Unfortunately, some people are so caught up in trying to find reasons to attack them that they are now proclaiming that they should use their powers to call off investigations with no other basis than that they heard one of the targets is a Democrat. The lengths those folks go to twist themselves into knots in an effort to smear Biden and Garland is neither tragic nor devastating, but it is both hilarious and sad.

[Mary in S. Carolina]

3. Agreed!

[bottomofthehill]

5. He can not remove him with out cause.

There is no term for special council. It good until complete.

[Klaralven]

6. Durham Is Said to Seek Indictment of Lawyer at Firm With Democratic Ties

The lawyer, Michael Sussmann, is accused of lying to the F.B.I. in a 2016 meeting about Trump and Russia. He denies wrongdoing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/15/us/politics/durham-michael-sussmann-trump-russia.html

[gratuitous]

18. Is lying to the FBI a crime again?

Sure didn't seem to be during the last administration.

[StarfishSaver]

22. It never stopped being a crime

It's just that the previous administration didn't treat it like one. That's one of the reasons we got rid of them.

[gratuitous]

26. Wasn't it odd how the liberal media followed the previous administration's lead?

Just wasn't no thang to the media from 2017 to 2021.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

7. If he lied to the FBI he lied to the FBI ... Democrat or not ...

The law is the law.

[StarfishSaver]

9. Interesting that some folks on our side want Biden and his AG to behave just like Trump and his AG

[Hugh_Lebowski]

19. Not sure I follow

[StarfishSaver]

20. They're demanding that Biden fire the Special Counsel because he's investigating a Democrat

That's exactly how Trump approached the FBI Director, his first Attorney General, and the Special Counsel.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

25. I get it now, thanks

I'd add that Durham has seemed pretty straight-up from what I've read so far.

[StarfishSaver]

31. Yep

But why let that get in the way of another rant about how the Attorney General is weak because he hasn't fired him yet - who cares that the AG doesn't have any grounds to fire him ...

[NewsCenter28]

34. The fact that you're ignoring the faulty foundation of the Durham investigation

is literally ASTOUNDING to me, SFS.

[StarfishSaver]

36. Do you have inside information about the investigation?

What exactly is it about the investigation that renders it legally susceptible to being called off once it's begun?

Are you privy to everything Dunham is investigating, what evidence has been found, who all of the targets are, what the grand jury is hearing, what the laws are suspected for have been violated?

I suspect you know next to nothing about what's going on on this investigation, so the fact that you are "literally astounded" by anything related to it is really weird. Day-to-day life must be very challenging for one so easily overwhelmed with astonishment or amazement over an investigation they probably never gave a second thought to in months until someone mentioned it on DU last night.

But you obviously think you know more about all of this than Garland or Biden and also seem to believe that Biden and Garland are either stupid or corrupt - or likely both - and there's nothing anyone can say to shake you off your assumptions, regardless how baseless they may be.

[NewsCenter28]

33. STRAWMAN. COME ON!

You know very well that the Durham investigation is a partisan vendetta, demanded by Trump of Barr when Trump was on one of his conspiracy-filled opoid-induced rants. The IG report in 2019 clearly shows that there is no factual basis for the Durham investigation. It was concocted to be a partisan vendetta. Read the 2019 IG report. The Mueller investigation was started with cause and properly. Case closed. Barr went to Durham to get a 2nd opinion when he didn't like the actual facts. Barr specifically said at the time he didn't like the IG findings so he was going to appoint someone more likely to agree with his and his boss's false wild lies.

Not sure why you deny that? Not sure why you think Garland should let a patently absurd, partisan, investigation continue and start indicting Democrats left, right and center??? At the very least, he has cause to quash the indictments the way Barr quashed Mueller's obstruction of justice charges, and that would be a legitimate use of the quashing powers.

P.S.: I understand that Mueller didn't actually file obstruction of justice charges. However, that is only because Barr told him that he would not waive the DOJ dictate not to indict sitting presidents. Mueller wanted to do an obstruction of justice waiver but Barr and Rosenstein said nope. That's when Mueller said that he wouldn't draw any conclusions but the report would make clear what he thought had happened. Barr took that opportunity to spin the obstruction of justice findings in a way totally contrary to the truth.

[JohnSJ]

16. Allegedly

[Hugh_Lebowski]

21. Indeed ... that's what I meant by 'If' :)

If true/proven, then I expect the same punishment that Flynn was looking at.