Merrick Garland - Read This

[gab13by13]

Dear Merrick, I will never say a bad word against you ever again, if you do one thing for all of us.

Please appoint either Preet Bharara or Alan Weissman as special prosecutor overseeing the 1/6 insurrection.

I even gave you a choice, both of them have sent mobsters, mafiosa, to jail, and Trump is a mobster.

Thank you. You have plenty of time to read this, our democracy is counting on you.

[Budi]

1. Merrick Garland has spent his career tracking White Supremacist cells.

I have no doubt he knows what he's doing & who he trusts to assist with this incredible legal task.

It'd be interesting to find out who he has hired on his team of legal experts.

I'd like to read their background because that would tell us a bit about where his ultimate focus is.

[Poiuyt]

2. His ultimate focus is to look not political

Hopefully, I'll eat my words soon.

[Budi]

4. His focus is tearing down the mob from what we see to what lies at the root.

Thats his focus.

[gab13by13]

8. I never said he didn't know what he is doing.

Appointing a special prosecutor is a safeguard against the GQP winning back the House. Bill Barr appointed John Durham who is still getting paid to dig up dirt on the Bidens.

Your post confirms what I am asking for, people who are experts in prosecuting the mob.

Look at what Cy Vance did, he brought in an expert financial prosecutor to cypher through Trump's documents.

Why are you opposed to a special prosecutor?

[Budi]

11. ?? Now I'm OPPOSED to a Sp Prosecutor? Says who?

Where in the world did you get that accusation?

Here's my post from just an hr ago about a Sp Prosecutor.

"Perhaps he will address the efforts of the J6 committee in their discovery & perhaps announce a Sp prosecutor or such."
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216213972#post1


I posted last night also about him possibly naming a Sp Prosecutor.
Whomever he appoints, will be someone he's sure of as to the task ahead.
It may not be a familiar name, but it will certainly be someone he knows has the skillset necessary.

I'd bet he's already a few steps ahead of all of us on that matter.
Ya think?

[lamp_shade]

3. O for goodness sake.

[SoCalDavidS]

5. Glenn Kirschner nt

[onenote]

6. For plain and obvious reasons, appointment of a special counsel would be very problematic.

Under the statute giving the AG authority to name a special counsel, Garland would have to find that there would be conflict of interest in having DOJ handle the investigation/prosecution of 1/6 matters. That would mean that the hundreds of cases currently started by DOJ would be thrown into doubt as to whether they were tainted by a conflict of interest.

PS - I don't think Garland particularly cares whether or not you say a bad word about him.

[dem4decades]

7. Having sedition go unpunished is more problematic, maybe the AG should care

About the country being concerned about our democracy.

[onenote]

10. And how does having any prosecution started by DOJ against a Trump associate thown out help?

And what makes you so certain a special counsel would end up bringing prosecutions that Garland wouldn't?

[Budi]

14. Ya. Maybe voters in 2016 should have cared also.

Not like the warnings of what was to come weren't being sounded.

But let's blame ...ummm..AG Garland!

Time for people to own their role.
Jfc

[Demsrule86]

16. Sedition is not an easy charge to prove...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/22/sedition-charges-capitol/

Former acting U.S. attorney for D.C. Michael Sherwin told CBS’s “60 Minutes” in an interview airing Sunday that charges for some of the 400 arrested could include sedition, a charge rarely brought by the federal government.

“I personally believe the evidence is trending toward that, and probably meets those elements,” Sherwin told Scott Pelley. He added: “I believe the facts do support those charges. And I think that, as we go forward, more facts will support that, Scott.”

Elsewhere in the interview, Sherwin said that about 10 percent of arrests involve “more complex conspiracy cases where we do have evidence — it’s in the public record — where individual militia groups from different facets … did have a plan.”

Sherwin didn’t connect that 10 percent of arrests specifically to the idea of a sedition charge, but if even a small number were charged accordingly, it would represent one of the — if not the — broadest sedition cases in American history.

[gab13by13]

9. It won't just be me.

[Budi]

12. I doubt Garland's focus is on "what bad things are people saying about me!"

Whatever he speaks about today, certainly won't be enough for the armchairs.
That's the only thing predictable.

[gab13by13]

17. You must be assuming he isn't going to say much?

Why do you attack people here who see zero action being taken? I can put out a list of a dozen former prosecutors, DOJ officials who feel the exact same way, who say the exact same things that I am saying here.

Why don't you also claim that Adam Schiff won't be satisfied, Laurence Tribe, Neal Katyal, Matt Miller, Dan Goldman, Ted Lieu won't be satisfied?

Why do you think that Garland is speaking today? He is speaking today because he feels the pressure being put on him, not by little ole me, but by the people listed and thousands more who don't believe he is doing enough. I wish to gosh that all of us who feel that Garland isn't doing enough are wrong, and I will be the first person to apologize.

He absolutely can convince me to shut my mouth, and I will sing his praises. He is a good man, he doesn't need my endorsement.

[Budi]

18. Oh good lord. Just stop it.

I have no idea why you're going off on me.

Truth is NONE OF US KNOW WHAT HE WILL SAY TODAY.
I expect him to deliver what he sees fit under his legal abilities.
I'll accept what he says & refuse to beat the piss outta him cuz he didn't tell me everything I wanted to hear.

Cripe.
There is no argument. Its just fact.

[gab13by13]

20. I do not want to know everything.

I only want to know 1 thing. I want to know if DOJ is following the facts wherever they lead, and no one is immune from prosecution should evidence warrant it. That's it, that's all I want to hear. I didn't want to hear that a sitting president can't be prosecuted under Mueller because that is not settled law, and I sure don't want to hear that a former president can't be prosecuted.

[Budi]

21. We all want the same thing.

[gab13by13]

13. Conflict of interest is not the only reason to appoint a special counsel,

§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

I am not a lawyer and it seems like you are, but I can think of several extraordinary circumstances which would give cause to appoint a special prosecutor who can't be summarily dismissed for no cause. We have the extraordinary circumstance where one of our political parties was complicit and is still pushing the coup. The Republican party would do whatever it takes to abolish any investigation into 1/6.

Appointing a special prosecutor who can't be fired gives added protection in keeping the investigation ongoing.

Maybe I am wrong?

[Demsrule86]

15. Many here want Justice to become a Partisan place even when we are in charge it seems. And

while I sympathize with this. It is a bad idea. We need to get things done. If this is our focus completely, we will lose the midterms.

[gab13by13]

19. It is partisan and I want it to be partisan,

One party is for democracy and the other party is for autocracy and I will shout that to the roof tops.

The other party is rigging the next 2 elections. They have passed voter suppression laws that will not be adjudicated in the courts until after the 2022 election. Once they control the House they can rig the 2024 presidential election unless the Senate passes 3 voter/election protection bills that have already been passed in the House.

[smirkymonkey]

22. +1000

FFS! Why can't people understand this? We are so fucked!