What Garland Said Was Not "Both-Siderism", Sorry, That's Total BS and a Seemingly Intentional

[Beetwasher.]

Misrepresentation, no matter who is making it. It's actively looking for fault in his words to ignore his larger message. Here's what he said:

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

This is a true statement and politically necessary to say, IMO, if you're AG. It's not both-siderism, he needs to buff his non-partisan bonafides in these situations. The truth is, many Trump supporters were independent NON-VOTERS and even quite a few Democrats and Obama voters crossed over and became Trumpers. That is fact. The division in this country is MOSTLY along ideological lines, but Trump brought out the worst in EVERYONE who had it in them, he DID bring new, independents into politics who were not aligned AND he got Dem crossovers. There's hate across the spectrum, and Trump tapped into it. What Garland said is factual, it's not both-siderism, and to nitipick this statement is to miss the forest for the trees and I see no reason to harp on it. But alas, harp away. So it goes.

[leftstreet]

1. Yes it is

Only one "side" with specific partisan and ideological views is under investigation for "acts and threats of violence"

[Beetwasher.]

3. Wrong, Trumpers are under investigation

Trumpers include people who were never political, as well as Dems who crossed over to support him. But keep trying to divert from his total message. I see you.

[leftstreet]

6. Trumpers are not under investigation

People who engaged in threats and acts of violence are

[Beetwasher.]

7. Yeah, Trumpers

Like I said. That's who engaged. People who support Trump. Trumpers. Now you're gonna nitpick that? LOL! Pathetic. Sianora Sysiphus.

[OAITW r.2.0]

12. Identify them by their actions, not their ideology.

That's how martyrs to the cause are created.

[Scrivener7]

18. You're arguing against your own OP.

[Beetwasher.]

19. Uhh, No, I'm Not and What Garland Said Was 100% Factual for the Reasons I've Stated

As was everything in my OP that wasn't my opinion.

[Scrivener7]

26. Sure.

[muriel_volestrangler]

47. You're the nitpicker. You're claiming that "Trumpers" aren't a side in this

as if they are just a random collection of Americans. They do have, in Garland's words, a "set of partisan or ideological views". They are the Party of Trump. Far right, with more loyalty to Trump than to the USA.

[Shellback Squid]

5. it was a broader statement that includes events out side of Jan 6th

"The representatives had been practicing for the annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity. James Hodgkinson, a 66-year-old man, asked a passing congressman—South Carolina’s Jeff Duncan—whether Republicans or Democrats were on the field practicing. Once he received confirmation that the Republican representatives were the ones playing ball, Hodgkinson fired off 60 rounds into the unsuspecting elected officials."

Get the big picture, he was addressing the nation

[pnwmom]

21. He had just talked about a guy who had threatened to kill a judge.

It wasn't about politics, he was just mad about his case.

And it isn't just Trumpers who are swept up in the increasing violence.

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. Misogynist "Men's Rights" nutter

Authorities have said Den Hollander classed himself as a men’s rights lawyer and his misogynist writings dated back more than two decades.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/03/judge-family-killed-new-jersey-lawyer

It's an ideology.

[IronLionZion]

34. A lot of Jan 6 folks were Qanon

which is way more diverse than you might expect. There are nonpolitical and lefties and people of all demographics. It includes yoga pants moms and the organic shaman types.

[CatWoman]

2. well, lookie here

haven't seen you in a while



still full of piss and vinegar I see

[Beetwasher.]

4. Damn Straight!

Good to see you friend!

[CatWoman]

44. keep on keeping on

love ya Hon

[Just_Vote_Dem]

8. Thank you!

Much appreciated

[mcar]

9. Kick

[CatWoman]

11. nother

[proud patriot]

10. I completely agree

any partisanship by Garland would have weakened the case for prosecution .

Plain and simple .

His speech was seen by Americans who weren't aware of all the violence and the threats
faced by election workers elected officials etc ... Americans needed to see a judicial impartial
speech .

Good tosee you btw

[OAITW r.2.0]

14. Absolutely.

By your crimes, you shall be known. Not who you think ought to have been President.

[Deminpenn]

15. Partisan Trump supporters engaged in violence and

attempted to overturn the results of a free and fair election. Stating that fact does not make one a
"partisan" and refusing to acknowledge that fact or offsetting it with one case of a gunman out to kill Rs at a congressional baseball game practice doesn't make you "non-partisan".

The part about DoJ's hands essentially being tied by SCOTUS' ruling on Sec 5 of the VRA and other decisions weakening Sec 2 wasn't good either. There are lots of federal laws on the books, find a way. It can be done. But Garland apparently doesn't want to do that.

[Shellback Squid]

38. see post five

and you didn't watch the press conference

[Deminpenn]

45. Actually, did watch it

although I was doing something else through the first recitation of rioter arrests, etc, stats. I was appalled when I heard him clearly imply the violence was not partisan.

The speech was defensive and meant to counter the criticism Garland has clearly heard and continues to hear. I listened to the applause at the end, too. Cameras didn't show the number of staff on hand, but the applause was perfunctoray to my ear, not loud and enthusiastic. Later, listening to Goldman and others on MSNBC, they tried their best to be positive, but easy to see it was a reach. Tribe said he was disappointed when he was on with O'Donnell last night.

[Beetwasher.]

20. Hey There!

Good to see you too!!

[betsuni]

13. K&R

[agingdem]

16. Garland had to take the fight out of the GOP crazies...

in his judicious way he was signaling that this DOJ is not Bill Barr's DOJ with a singular client (Trump)...Barr was the guy walking behind the elephant (Trump) sweeping up poop...this DOJ is nonpartisan and represents the United States of America...great speech Mr. Attorney General!

[Scrivener7]

17. It was kind of the definition of it.

[uponit7771]

23. K&R, I thought it was but I've changed my mind after reading the transcripts. Garland did NOT narrow

... the dangerous actions to just anti democracy violence of the right

[llashram]

24. It happens

nuance was everything in this speech. AG Garland landed some punishing blows on the 'seditious traitors' trying to upend our democracy. I've learned it's best to ignore the points of your OP whining about "both-siderism".

[Xolodno]

25. No one ever see's the big picture.

If he singled out any party, ideology, etc. then they will claim government persecution....Fox, Newsmax, etc. will run with it. It will giver the energy they need in the next election as their base responds to fear.

Plus that statement wasn't just in regards to Jan. 6th, it was in general. Not all Democrats are angels, we do have our bad apples. Granted, our barrel has a lot fewer that the other side.

[gab13by13]

31. One party is trying to cover up,

obstruct, delay, any investigations into a freaking coup.

Do you believe our democracy is in better shape today than it was on Jan. 7th? If not, why not? Who is to blame for the ongoing coup?

[Ligyron]

32. Fox, Newsmax etc. will claim bias and persecution no matter what he said.

Cons and Repugs are always the victim in their world.

[allegorical oracle]

27. Agree that he must maintain a non-partisan position otherwise

he'd be just another Barr --whose untrustworthiness would be subject to suspicion and criticism. I only wish and trust that he can and will come to conclusions that place the blame for Jan. 6 where it properly belongs.

[gab13by13]

30. Do you realize what you are suggesting?

One political party is pro-democracy, and the other political party is pro-autocracy. I'd say it's time to fight for democracy whatever it takes, political correctness be damned.

[LoisB]

28. Agree.

Politically necessary.

[ecstatic]

43. Politically necessary for who though?

Who is this magical audience who needs to hear that the violence is occurring on both sides? Is it the very people who are planning, promoting and committing violence that he's trying to appeal to? Because the rest of us (democrats, anti-trump republicans, and independents who give a shit about preserving democracy) are not clamoring to hear that.

[gab13by13]

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

Yes they are. Democrats are not threatening school board members, Democrats are not threatening election officials, Democrats do not believe that violence against the government may be necessary.

[elleng]

33. Thanks, you said it well.

[ShazzieB]

35. Thanks for this post, Beetwasher.

I absolutely agree with you, and I think it's unfortunate that so many here are determined to see only the worst in Garland, including today's speech and everything else about him.

I've come to the conclusion that there are a lot of right-fighters here at DU, by which I mean people who are so heavily invested in believing their opinions are correct that they seem to be either unable or unwilling to consider any evidence to the contrary.

Those people aren't going to pay much mind to what you've posted, but please know that there are many of us who find this to be q breath of fresh air. Thanks again.

[ChazInAz]

41. I was struck by something.

Another thread viciously attacked Garland for "bothsiderism" at great length. The whole thread was distasteful and wrong headed. The original poster would occasionally fire off another salvo if things calmed down. I wound up putting him on Full Block after I checked his profile. He had joined DU seventeen years ago, yet had only 360 posts, with a large percentage in the past few months. Posters like that tend to rouse my suspicions.

[Joinfortmill]

36. Exactly.

[Sogo]

37. Well said.

[relayerbob]

39. K&R

Lots of folks can't see the forest for the trees

[SpankMe]

40. I agree it's not both-siderism. But...

I guarantee that a Republican-appointed AG would blame Democrats and liberals for such an occurrence if the the tables were turned.

Let's not quibble over the fact that the Jan-6th crowd may have contained some indy's and Dems who crossed the aisle in 2016. It's clear that these cross-overs were few to none and that a vast majority were Trumpers from the get-go.

If a single Republican joins 200-some Dems to pass a bill in the House, does that really mean it was bi-partisan? Not really, IMO.

Garland's statement soft-shoes a fact into being out of context for political expediency. It shows that government is afraid of one side of the political spectrum. This is unacceptable.

[Cha]

42. And Sanders' voters.. TY!

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/sanders-voters-helped-trump-win-white-house-could-they-do-n1145306

[Patton French]

46. It's all about context

The current context is 1/6 and RW extremism. No need to interject something that’s not part of that context to appear “fair.”

[FSogol]

49. KIck and rec. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. The cases he listed before saying that:

A member of Congress was threatened in a gruesome voicemail that asked if she had ever seen what a 50-caliber shell does to a human head. Another member of Congress — an Iraq War veteran and Purple Heart recipient — received threats that left her “terrified for [her] family.”

And in 2020, a federal judge in New Jersey was targeted by someone who had appeared before her in court. That person compiled information about where the judge and her family lived and went to church. That person found the judge’s home, shot and killed her son, and injured her husband.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-merrick-b-garland-delivers-remarks-first-anniversary-attack-capitol

1: Threat against Sen. Liza Murkowski by Jay Allen Johnson, a member of the Alaska Constitution Party (which is Christian Nationalist)
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-10-08/man-in-sen-murkowski-threat-case-kept-a-low-profile-in-alaska-town

2: Threat against Sen. Tammy Duckworth by Robert Lemke, a "devoted Trump supporter"
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/12/20/media/robert-lemke-sentence-threatening-journalists/index.html

3: Murder of a federal judge's son by a misogynist "men's rights" lawyer
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/03/judge-family-killed-new-jersey-lawyer

We can see the ideology of the perpetrators. It's far right.