Did Garland just say...?

[BaronChocula]

"These acts and threats of violence are not associated with any one set of partisan or ideological views" regarding threats against Congresspeople, judges, and school boards?

You just lost me dude. One step forward, ten steps back. Every example he gave was specifically of the aberrant behavior in which Republicans/white nationalists/conservo-terrorists have felt emboldened to engage. He can't talk about getting to the root of the problem by denying the problem has a root. This guy is rudderless.

[PTWB]

1. Incredible.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

2. He must be a Chuck Todd fan!

[XanaDUer2]

3. Yes

Some guy on CNN called that out

[leftstreet]

4. Holy crap

both sides do it!!!!1111

[BlackSkimmer]

28. Yes indeed.

Sorry, I watched part of it, and he just looked out of it.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

5. lol yep

[Tickle]

6. It was an

insurrection! Why didn’t he call it that

[BaronChocula]

8. God forbid you piss off angry Trumpers

when you can engage in a fruitless attempt to "win them back."

[TheRealNorth]

23. Exactly

I thought that it was pointless pandering to appear "neutral"

[DENVERPOPS]

61. I agree with you

and not a number of agitated DUers posting.

He must have the appearance of being un-biased in his search for the truth. There is much time later for direct attacks on individuals with massive evidence of their crimes. It serves no purpose to put the Republicans on defense from the start.........

[TimeToGo]

65. Also, he is the AG

He isn't the enforcer for the party. Now, that said, there's still no reason to even suggest both sides.

The proof will be in what happens next. Are they being methodical, or are they dragging their feet.

[DENVERPOPS]

73. Agreed

The proof is in the pudding, as the old adage says.........

I really enjoyed his bringing up the supreme court 2013 decision, and all the chipping away that they have done to voting rights since then...........

No wonder Moscow Mitch was frightened about Obama appointing him to the Supreme Court.

I just hope that we don't get yet another milk toast and white washed like with Mueller.........

It has now already dragged on a full year, and the 2022 election is now down to 10 months and closing fast........

There are still 70 million who are confident they won't make the same mistakes they made on 1/6 the next time...............
and regretfully will probably also target state capitols as well this time around..........

[FakeNoose]

7. He's probably getting a phone call from the White House right about now

...

[BaronChocula]

9. Vice President Harris should have written his speech.

Hell! Vice President Harris should have been appointed AG!

[BComplex]

12. True that!

She would have kicked some serious ass on these insurrectionists. AND their leaders!

[FakeNoose]

14. I know, I wanted her for Attorney General too

What a waste of excellent prosecutorial skills.

[Rebl2]

71. That's what I think

She would have been a better ag than garland

[PunkinPi]

79. No, "VP Harris should have been appointed AG," that would've been a demotion from being a senator.

She's exactly where she needs to be and I'm grateful that she is.

[ShazamIam]

10. I disagree, He said, We don't care if the threat is made by a liberal or a conservative, all threats

and acts of violence will be prosecuted.

Why did that lose you?

[BaronChocula]

21. He said verbatim what I quoted in my post.

What bothers me is that the trend of political violence is NOT emerging on both sides. The same anger, resentment and hostility that backed the Trump presidency is the same anger, resentment, and hostility fueling the threats of political violence and ACTUAL political violence. There is no progressive equivalent of Qanon, Proud Boys, anti-government militia and on and on. Those are the facts. To whitewash the relationship between "conservative" anger and heightened states of alert bothers the shit out of me.

[Grasswire2]

27. he essentially equated BLM protests with violent storming of Capitol.

You can try to interpret it.

But someone should have stopped him from making that statement about "political violence on both sides"

[ShazamIam]

48. He didn't say that, that is how you heard it. I don't like it but understand why he had to say it.

[agingdem]

11. the DOJ has to appear unbiased...

I suppose that derails any exploding heads screaming "what about blah blah blah..." I take comfort in the fact that the DOJ is, in fact, investigating 1/6...

[Pacifist Patriot]

13. I initially cringed (exploded), but then realized if anyone has to thread that needle...

It's the DOJ. I know he doesn't believe it for a minute.

[crickets]

26. Agreed, and that's a good way of putting it. nt

[agingdem]

31. not one second of it...

he's letting the loathsome Jordan/Gosar/McCarthy et al know his DOJ is not "working" for Biden..so they can STFU about left wing bias...

[BaronChocula]

24. He could have said nothing about political ideology

Instead of lying and saying there was no ideological association with the violence and threats of violence. He lied. You don't have to lie to appear unbiased.

[ShazamIam]

32. He had to address it since conservatives and their media have publicly claimed

his announcement to punish those who threaten public officials was a violation of their free speech.

He covered both the free speech lie and the partisan witch hunt claim.

[Pacifist Patriot]

42. I agree.

[BaronChocula]

45. It's not his job to placate weasely pro-violence white nationalists.

His job is to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

[ShazamIam]

47. That is how you see it, you wanted a more divisive partisan kind of statement. I think he made it

perfectly clear they are on the hunt for the Jan 6ers and those who threaten public officials.

He has to address the existing set of beliefs, now it is up to the news people to parse that statement,
He didn't give them the chance to claim it is a partisan witch hunt targeting only conservatives.

[ShazamIam]

78. I think the DOJ is focused on Federal & Congressional law and regulations, the Supreme Court makes

the decision about the Constitutional status of the laws the DOJ enforces.

[lindysalsagal]

56. Yup. Individual responsibility, rather than group excuses.

It was an attempt to get these morons to remember that they are not allowed to follow nutjobs without consequences.

[budkin]

15. Ugh

Terrible

[crickets]

16. That was the one clunker in the speech.

It was aimed at quelling shouts of partisanship aimed at him and the DOJ, but it's a shame he felt he had to say it that way. The threats and violence were from one partisan group only, and he knows it. We all do.

[Grasswire2]

20. yeah, and it's blowing up on twitter already

Good solid Dems are not receiving this well.

[LymphocyteLover]

52. Yes, because otherwise it seemed like he was spot on. I guess he was really trying to hit the sweet

spot of bipartisanship.

[Pantagruel]

17. As you cited

the threats come from various groups, "Republicans/white nationalists/conservo-terrorists "and more, and MG is correct and fair in his account. Our impatience here at DU was not pandered to , MG simply gave an update on a huge, ONGOING legal undertaking. I think his hand on the rudder is quite steady, veering off in partisan pursuits will not serve justice.

[BaronChocula]

29. He didn't have to lie.

Those examples of upticks in threats of violence ARE COMPLETELY associated with one "ideology." He didn't have to mention an ideological association at all. That would have been better than lying.

[fwvinson]

75. On this site, if I said something threatening or extremely violent, I would expect a

call from the FBI.

[Grasswire2]

18. I was astonished to hear the "both siderism" re: "political violence on both sides."

What the hell?

Is he equating BLM protests with the violent attack on the Capitol?

[BaronChocula]

33. He might as well have gone full out with that comparison

[Emile]

19. Yes, he went there! Sickening

[Grasswire2]

22. from Thom Hartmann

[link:http://

Link to tweet

?s=20|

[Hortensis]

35. Posting RT's Hartmann to claim political dishonesty?!

That's classic.

He spoke the simple truth about the domestic extremists being investigated by the thousands across the nation. They are NOT all trumpists or Republicans. A large majority are RW, but not all. Some are LW extremists.

Did Hartmann mention that? Straight to the trash.

[Grasswire2]

37. just get over it.

These old DU feuds are dead and gone.

[Hortensis]

41. But Hartmann isn't. Neither are the Russians, the Republican

traitors, LW subversives, useful idiots and agents of all types who could still destroy our democracy.

Not at least questioning Hartmann's agenda over all these years, and examining the crowd drawn to his messaging, is...failing in due diligence.

Why not read what's been learned about those spoken of?

[Ferrets are Cool]

62. You are equating Thom with all those other groups????

Unbelievable. Thom has done MORE for democracy than 99.9% of ALL Americans. Shame on you. It has earned you a mute. Goodbye.

[Hortensis]

67. I'm grouping him with all those who helped sabotage Democrats

while pretending the choice wasn't between Democrats and Republicans during a critical national election. The different reasons they had don't even particularly matter, from the highest ideals to the wickedest plotting, when discussing them as a group, only that they did it and who they knowingly did it with.

Including RT agent Hartmann, who claimed to be progressive while knowing that Russia was using the progressive movement to destroy America by destroying liberal progressive government.

Everyone knew it. Not cool at all.

[durablend]

40. And you know what happens now?

GQP: "SEE? Even Garland says Antifa was at the Capitol!!!!!"

[Hortensis]

44. :) Right. Just more proof that we can't stop the idiocy of OTHERS,

but we are fully responsible for our own choices, however.

Spreading deceits is really, really, REALLY bad. Not exactly the kind of behavior meant when Biden talks about bringing the left and right together on common ground.

[JustAnotherGen]

64. Yeah - I listened and I'm reading the transcript

Searched the one word *one* and *party*

These acts and threats of violence are not associated with any one set of partisan or ideological views.

The central norm is that, in our criminal investigations, there cannot be different rules depending on one’s political party or affiliation. There cannot be different rules for friends and foes. And there cannot be different rules for the powerful and the powerless.

There is only one rule: we follow the facts and enforce the law in a way that respects the Constitution and protects civil liberties.

We conduct every investigation guided by the same norms. And we adhere to those norms even when, and especially when, the circumstances we face are not normal.

I guess I didn't hear or read the same thing Hartmann did?

And Garland is right - just look at the number of groups involved in 1/6.

[Hortensis]

72. ...

[progressoid]

74. Those number of groups involved in 1/6 had one common denominator...

[Oneironaut]

25. Garland - "Hitler and the Allies need to knock it off. This has nothing to do with politics."

“The Holocaust wasn’t related to either side, and there are bad people on both sides!”

[Grasswire2]

30. you nailed it

This is a "bad people on both sides" comment.

[BaronChocula]

34. and of course...

"Some very fine people, on both sides."

[Oneironaut]

43. "How do we know Antifa wuzn't at teh Capital as well?!!1!"

What frustrates me the most about these people is that they’re purposely acting as if the US Capitol attack, the school boards chaos, etc. are / were either not politically motivated, or, the fault of Democrats as well because of the toxic atmosphere in politics now. They’re trying to extend an olive branch to Conservatives by pretending that “Liberals do it too!” which is incredibly frustrating and spineless.

Good Lord. Just say it as it is - Pro-Trump protestors attacked the US Capitol with the intent of stopping the certification of a candidate they didn’t like, and they were told to do so by Trump and his cronies. The school board stuff and threats are coming straight from right wing hate speech, or encouragement from people like Tucker Carlson. I can’t believe the amount of mental hoops people are jumping through when making statements like Garland’s. It annoys the absolute shit out of me.

[IbogaProject]

36. No he is being consistent

One of the Reich Wing's 'what abouts?' was in relation to the protestors who attacked the federal courthouse in portland summer of 2020, but that was at night when most of the staff weren't there, so some of those who plead to that got comparably light sentences as opposed to the consodial, prison time some of the Jan 6 have gotten so far. He's just saying it isn't about their politics that day it's that they invaded the capitol, did violence and destruction. He is saying he prosecute violent leftists too, if it came to that.

[Grasswire2]

38. that's not what he said. nt

[haele]

39. He's technically right. One doesn't need to be a Republican to be a White Nationalist.

Or a Dominionist. Or an anti-government radical. Or a Trump voter. The root cause to participate can be based off several different political, racist, or religious stances depending on the individual participant. After all, how many people "held their noses" to vote for a specific candidate based on a left/right, religious, or radical/pragmatic reason?
I think he's talking very carefully so as not to muddy his investigation politically

Haele

[BaronChocula]

57. The republican party is the political arm of the white nationalist movement.

That's why Republicans defend white nationalists as "patriots," "very fine people," or "Real Americans." The only Republicans disliked by white nationalists are those who aren't white nationalist enough.

[Texaswitchy]

46. Anybody surprised.

[Baked Potato]

49. He's blunting the "political persecution" tact they are piling on with. Nt

[Effete Snob]

50. You think the guy who threatened the judge in NJ was a Trumper?

The passage starts at 13:50:

LISTEN THIS TIME:

He refers to this case in particular:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/new-jersey-man-arrested-threatening-kill-federal-judge-2021-11-04/



Nov 4 (Reuters) - A New Jersey man has been arrested and charged with threatening to assault and murder a federal judge who was overseeing a lawsuit he had filed, including by telling one of his clerks that he would "put a bullet in the judge's brain."

Federal prosecutors announced the charges against Jonathan Williams, 46, late Wednesday at a time of heightened concern for judges' safety after a disgruntled attorney last year shot and killed the son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas in New Jersey and wounded her husband.


That had nothing to do with political orientation.

[3825-87867]

55. Guess that's the same as

"someone" wanting Pence hung or Pelosi killed or police killed or...!

Shows how bad "both sides are" even if one side does nothing.

[bucolic_frolic]

51. There have been a few incidents from the left

I have no problem with what AG Garland said. It's unfair and counterproductive to misrepresent his words and the facts.

[Hekate]

53. I didn't hear bothsiderism. I heard: "If you think terrorists are all brown & black & non-Christian.

I didn't hear bothsiderism. I heard: "If you think terrorists are all brown & black & non-Christian...

…I have news for you.”

Why can't other people hear that, too?

[ancianita]

58. +1000

[peggysue2]

77. Because people frequently hear what they want to hear

I believe it's referred to as confirmation bias.

I did not hear anything remotely similar to 'bothsiderism.' What I did hear was a man committed to following the facts and the law, someone who (along with his large legal team) will relentlessly pursue responsible parties at all levels involved in the January 6th insurrection/sedition, present or not.

He was never going to tip his hand in an ongoing investigation. I was happy he expanded his comments to include serious voter suppression efforts.

It was a good presentation.

[question everything]

54. I have not heard it but from your quote I think that he does not want it

to be viewed as "Democratic action" but as a Constitutional one.

[kairos12]

59. Bothsiderist Garland. Unbelievable.

[jmowreader]

60. It was a very good move

Although the usual subjects will say otherwise, claiming you are going to prosecute all the Democrats who tried to turn America into a totalitarian dictatorship a year ago keeps this from looking like a witch hunt.

The list of Democrats that worked to do this is shorter than Trump’s penis, but we’re gonna haul them all in, just wait and see!

[Beastly Boy]

63. He is absolutely right!

Did these threats begin a year ago? Or with Trump's inauguration? Or even with the founding of the Republican Party?

Unless you take a ridiculously narrow view of history, violence against law enforcement, or the lawmakers, or judges, or school board members have never been the exclusive domain of one party or one ideology. From the Klan, to Abolitionists, to Weather Underground, to sovereign militia, to religious zealots of all sorts; from Southern Democrats, to Anarchists, to Independents, to Libertarians, to Republicans, violence has been a thing.

I can't imagine a halfass responsible AG taking a different stance. And as far as administration of justice is concerned, I pity those Americans who are looking forward to ideology or politics to be a consideration in prosecuting crimes.

[NoMoreRepugs]

66. Interpretation of the spoken word NEVER fails to amaze me.

I thought AG Garland was clear that justice will be served and that no one is above the law. That’s good enough for me.

[ChazInAz]

70. Amazing interpretations of an easily understood statement.

Garland was perfectly clear in what he said.
Why are there so many twisting his words to give them such a meaning? This is DU, where we tend to be better at this!

[FeelingBlue]

68. Emphasis on...

the ONE. There are multiple partisan views: white supremacists, pro-life, libertarians, Evangelicals, etc.

[yaesu]

69. I hope he didn't get into the ol "there are good people on both sides" bullshit but lets hope he's

just trying hard to act unbiased

[progressoid]

76. Sean Hannity will love that statement. He's always going on about the Antifa and BLM "rioters"

Fuck that shit.