A view point of Garland we have not talked about.

[fightforfreedom]

When Garland excepted the job of AG, he knew what all of us here knew. Trump and his inner circle attempted to over throw the government. A lot of the evidence was right out in the open.

Garland knew if he accepted the job he would have to investigate the coup, including Trump and his inner circle. He knew it would be historic and un-precedented. He knew he may have to for the first time in our history indict an ex-president.

Knowing all of this, Garland could have turned down the job. He did not.

Just saying.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. IMO, he put his life and the lives of his family at risk.

And he still took the job.

[gab13by13]

2. Something else to ponder;

I stated before that 10 GQP Senators voted to confirm Garland, I was wrong, 20 GQP Senators voted to confirm Garland.

Is this a record for bipartisanship? Has this recent GQP Senate given more than 20 votes to any other president Biden nominee?

Just saying.

Oh and when Trump fired Comey, why did Mike Lee ask Trump to replace him with Merrick Garland?

Just saying.

Maybe Merrick Garland is well liked and respected by both parties?

[fightforfreedom]

4. You are suggesting Garland is corrupt.

There is no evidence of Garland being corrupt. You are also suggesting Obama was wrong nominating him for the Supreme Court. Why would Obama pick Garland if he knew Garland was friendly with Republicans? Why did the Republicans block Garland if they knew he would help them?

Try again.

[gab13by13]

5. I resent that statement,

I have never ever said that Garland is corrupt, don't you dare put those words in my mouth.

What I have said is what Merrick Garland said himself, he is an institutionalist. An institutionalist will not prosecute someone if there is a chance that the prosecution will damage the office.

This is why Garland if defending Trump (the office of the presidency) in the E. Jeanne Carroll defamation suit. Do you feel that Garland should have defended Trump (the office) because he is being accused of slandering the woman who is accusing him of rape. Is an official duty of the presidency possibly slandering someone?

[fightforfreedom]

6. Why did Mike Lee ask Trump to replace Comey with Garland?

Come on man. You don't think there's a suggestion of corruption in that statement? You are talking about Lee and Trump. You may have not meant it that way, but people could take it that way.

[fightforfreedom]

10. You know what all of us here at DU need.

Indictments. Indictments of the leaders of the coup. We are all on edge waiting for Indictments. I know I am. All of us here want justice and justice in American can be very slow, frustrating. Sometimes we are posting out of frustration.

[Scrivener7]

11. Also, it would be nice if people stopped posting shit-stirring divisive OPs every 5 minutes.

That would be nice.

[fightforfreedom]

15. Works both ways.

[Scrivener7]

16. Oh no. Some are head and shoulders more prolific than others.

Every 5 minutes, and never anything else.

[fightforfreedom]

20. Isn't constantly posting about shit stirring, shit stirring?

[Scrivener7]

22. No. One needs to stir shit to be a shit stirrer, not simply point it out.

And when one posts shit stirring OPs every 5 minutes, one appears to have even worse motives.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

43. As far as I'm concerned, the more posts about different subjects the better

I don't care for censorship. If a post violates the rules, it can be removed. Also, no one forces anyone to read all the entries. One man's shit may be another man's gold.

That last sentence didn't exactly come out the way I wanted it to

[Scrivener7]

45. But sometimes shit stirring is just shit stirring.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

46. At times it could be

But, again, no one forces anyone to read or respond. As a matter of fact, sometimes it's best to let a post that is a shit-stirrer just stay unanswered. Trolls hate that

[Beastly Boy]

7. I love your posts because they make me ponder.

So I came up with some answers for you (you weren't really saying much, you were just asking):

Eleven nominees for cabinet positions in the Biden administration received more GOP votes than Garland (https://ballotpedia.org/How_senators_voted_on_Biden_Cabinet_nominees,_2021). I believe Janet Yellen holds the record at 98 to 2.

And perhaps Mike Lee didn't want Garland in SCOTUS or at the head of the DOJ. He can't be in either place if he is the FBI Director. Kind of makes sense if you are scared shitless of Garland being in the position of real power, right?

Not much to ponder, is there?

[BumRushDaShow]

9. "Has this recent GQP Senate given more than 20 votes to any other president Biden nominee?"

Just looking at the major Departments -

Tom Vilsack got 44 GQP votes for Agriculture Secretary

Lloyd Austin got 43 GQP votes (including 5 not voting) for Defense Secretary

Denis McDonough got 37 GQP votes (including 6 not voting) for Veterans Affairs Secretary

Pete Buttigieg got 36 GQP votes (including 1 not voting) for Transportation Secretary

Janet Yellin got 34 GQP votes (with 1 not voting) for confirmation as Treasury Secretary

Gina Raimondo got 34 GQP votes (with 1 not voting) for confirmation as Commerce Secretary

Antony Blinken got 28 GQP votes for confirmation as Secretary of State



(some of the votes were surprising though and you can tell their priorities )

[jalan48]

3. I hope Garland is working behind the scenes to get to the bottom of who's responsible for the coup

attempt. I also hope he doesn't turn out to be another Robert Mueller.

[Patton French]

8. And he didn't have the mountain of evidence he now has. N/T

[Novara]

12. Y'all just LOVE to speculate, don't you?

It's a fair point, though, that Garland had to have known what he was in for. So did Biden when he nominated him.

Maybe (and here I go speculating too ) Biden's plan was to appoint someone as low-key as possible who appeals to both sides but for different reasons. Maybe Biden knew that these prosecutions needed to NOT look partisan, so appointing someone like Garland would carry a much bigger punch when the indictments do come down. Because I fully believe they are coming.

I suspect Biden thinks that by trying as hard as possible not to appear partisan, he'll be extending an olive branch to the other side so that when they're back in power they won't immediately initiate political hit job investigations on Democrats. Naïve, but I suspect that's what he was thinking. I am sure that when the other side is in power, the gloves are off immediately and any and all Dems will be prosecuted for everything and anything. They'll make shit up.

But Biden still has this silly notion that the other side will play fair if he bends over backwards to play fair. You'd think he'd have learned something since he was Obama's VP, wouldn't you?

[Triloon]

13. Mueller left 10 counts of

Obstruction of Justice against Trump just laying on the desk until he was out of office. He has been out of office for a while now. Garland has done nothing with these fully investigated charges. Hasn't mentioned them. I'm sure Garland's defenders can invent some rationale for that. Something about waiting to roll all the charges up together maybe. I don't believe it. It looks far more likely to me that he is taking the "Let's just keep looking forward." view of Pelosi on the Bush/Cheney warcrimes investigation.
Until Mr Garland addresses those 10 Obstruction charges I dont care how genteel his manner is. Sidelining the prosecution of the twice impeached, disgraced and defeated factotum of the Kremlin is not acceptable. Mildly talking about the Rule of Law while leaving those 10 charges gathering cobwebs is not in the least persuasive or trust inspiring.
But we will just have to wait. We are such good, patient, little waiters....

[Novara]

14. Here we go again

Obstruction is to sedition like a parking ticket is to murder.

Why nail him for obstruction when he can nail him for much more serious crimes?

Oh, and maybe Garland might roll everything into a neat package, would that suit the naysayers? Throw in some parking tickets as well? Maybe he ran a red light somewhere.

Sheesh. Last night we saw just the beginning of an incredibly well-crafted set of completely damning facts and people are still whining that Garland hasn't rushed out to arrest everyone before the first hour of the first public hearing had aired.

[uponit7771]

18. "Why nail him for obstruction" because is a crime?! No seriously, prosecute his near dead ass for

... every crime he committed.

On the face of it the argument of "the crime wasn't serious enough" doesn't make sense in light of the threat the GZP presents.

[Novara]

23. You all are so sure he won't ever be nailed for anything. You have an amazing crystal ball.

He was never going to be prosecuted until the Democrats took over. And by then, he had committed much more serious crimes. He committed crimes so serious that his obstruction was forgotten in the melee of sedition, what a shame.

How do you know he won't ever be charged for any of those previous crimes? Ever?

Some of you just can't ever be satisfied about anything. Can't look at the excellent presentation the J6 committee has given us, including revealing a lot of very serious charges that are likely to be prosecuted. But oh no, let's go back several years and whine about the obstruction charges. Tell me, have you been hanging onto your anger about the obstruction since April 18, 2019? That's a long time.






It must be a pretty bleak world to live in such negativity all the time for the Eeyores among us. Maybe the negativity is insulation against being disappointed when things don't turn out the way you want. But the way I see it, it's a pretty bleak place to spend so much time, because it might not turn out as bad as you think. What a waste.

Walk out into the sunshine. Dare to hope some justice might be done. Just dare.

[Scrivener7]

24. Oh, for fuck's sake. Can't you make your case without ad hominems?

Honest to god. Can't we at least do that? The level of discourse is positively embarrassing.

And again, the Committee and the amazing job it is doing has nothing to do with the DOJ.

[CrackityJones75]

32. Oh I disagree.

I think they are very much tied together. I firmly believe one is setting up the other.

[uponit7771]

25. This doesn't addressing initial point of my reply; Putin's Whore broke the law prosecute him for it

... and don't worry about the levity of the offense.

We're not talking about someone with too many traffic ticks, Nixon's VP went to jail for less than TFG has done by now.

[Scrivener7]

26. And just another point of curiosity: are you NOT angry that tfg got away with obstruction?

[Novara]

37. Fuuuuuck, I'm angry he exists. I'm angry he isn't dead.

[Scrivener7]

42. Then why are you acting like that poster has a personality disorder because they are angry

that tfg got away with obstruction?

[Scrivener7]

19. And again, if he has committed both, why not nail him for both?

And no one is denying the Committee is doing an incredible job. They did. And it is a joy to see that the truth of the coup will be detailed for the public record and will be there for the rest of history.

But the Committee has nothing to do with the DOJ.

[uponit7771]

27. +1, some are hanging MG inaction off of levity of crime !! Nixon's VP went to jail for less !!

[Triloon]

28. You really believe that

he couldn't be charged with Sedition while he is serving time for Obstruction?
You don't think that trump chilling his achy heels in a federal prison for obstruction might also serve as an effective deterrent to the obstruction we see from his allies? Maybe not, they are awfully brash. So I guess we should just let it slide, eh?
Last nights presentation was very good and I fully expect more. And then, after a month or two, it will be in Garlands hands. The Committee doesnt expect to release its full report until September. Right in time to be ignored in favor of the DoJ policy of not taking actions in an election year that might effect an election. And then we'll wait a couple more years for the DoJ to complete it's own clod-footed investigation. And then we're in another election year. And then? Who the hell knows...
But we can wait. We're getting awfully good at it. Personally I have no interest in chasing rainbows. Garland needs to either act or resign. But we can wait a little longer, sure ...

[Novara]

36. Did I say any of that?

Don't put words in my fingertips, please.

I'm on your side. I simply see reasoning why obstruction wasn't charged at the time - or even now. I am not defending it but I see reasoning why it has not happened.

[Triloon]

39. You said -

"Obstruction is to sedition like a parking ticket is to murder.
Why nail him for obstruction when he can nail him for much more serious crimes?"
I may have extrapolated too much from those statements and I do believe we are on the same side, that you would like to see twump in chains as much as I do.
I do understand the rationale of why he was not charged while in office, but I have not even seen a rationale for why it has been sidelined since he left office. Has the statute of limitations run out?
I'm rabidly opposed to letting officials off the hook for prosecution just because they have managed to delay things into obscurity.
We deserve to know the true status of these charges and there's only one person that can tell us anything. But he is staying tactically silent. Why? Beats the hell outa me, he's staying silent about that too. And so I'm suspicious that we have yet another institutionalist career bureaucrat struggling to maintain the status quo and not rock the boat.
Please believe me, I wish I had no reasons for such suspicions.

[fightforfreedom]

17. That was an impeachment case.

Trump should have been impeached for Obstruction. Garland trying to start a criminal case now, I don't know if that would be feasible.

Don't get me wrong, it sounds good. I want Trump indicted for everything.

[CrackityJones75]

30. What makes you think he is just starting now?

[Triloon]

33. You are mistaken.

Obstruction of Justice is a criminal charge. Mueller left 10 of them filed for when Trump were to leave office, due to a DoJ policy on not indicting a sitting president. Trump could be indicted on them today. I have no clue as to why it's been ignored.

[BumRushDaShow]

38. "Mueller left 10 counts of Obstruction of Justice against Trump"

Huh?

One of the conclusions in the report was that there could be 10 counts of "obstruction", but there was no follow-up of actually charging for any of it. So there were no "10 fully investigated charges".

The 10 instances of possible obstruction in Mueller report


By MARK SHERMAN April 18, 2019


WASHINGTON (AP) — Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election identified 10 instances of possible obstruction of justice by President Donald Trump. Mueller said in his report that he could not conclusively determine that Trump had committed a crime or that he hadn’t.

A look at the 10 instances:

(snip)

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-ap-top-news-elections-james-comey-north-america-e0d125d737be4a21a81bec3d9f1dffd8

In that case, since Bill Barr as Attorney General by the time the probe concluded after Sessions was literally fired, he would have had to be the one to direct to "fully investigate and charge" (it wasn't Merrick Garland magically sitting as AG able to do this as he was still on the D.C. Court of Appeals at the time). I need say no more about the chances of Barr going any further as he would and pretty much did declare "obstruction" as outside of the scope of the Special Counsel's mandate.

What needs to happen is for Congress to rewrite and re-implement the "Special Prosecutor" role.

Special counsel vs. special prosecutor: What's the difference?


William Cummings
USA TODAY
Published 10:32 p.m. ET May 17, 2017 | Updated 10:33 a.m. ET May 19, 2017


On Wednesday, former FBI director Robert Mueller was appointed to be a special counsel to oversee the investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election and the possibility of collusion between Russia and President Trump's campaign.

So what is a special counsel? And what is the difference between a special counsel, a special prosecutor, and an independent counsel? The terms are largely interchangeable to refer to someone appointed to investigate allegations that could involve a conflict of interest within the Department of Justice. But the manner in which they are appointed and why has changed over time.

The president has always had the authority to name a special prosecutor. After the crisis brought on by the Watergate scandal, Congress passed a law creating an "independent counsel" who could be appointed by a three-judge panel. After the experiences of the Iran-Contra investigation and the probe into the Clinton's Whitewater land deal, there was bipartisan support to abandon that law. Now, the attorney general, in addition to the president, has the power to appoint a special counsel.

The statute regarding the grounds for appointing a special counsel says the attorney general, or acting attorney general in cases where the attorney general is recused, can appoint a special counsel when a case presents a "conflict of interest" for the Justice Department, or "other extraordinary circumstances." In this case, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was able to appoint Mueller because Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recused himself.

(snip)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/05/18/special-counsel-vs-special-prosecutor-difference/329016001/

[Triloon]

41. You make some good points here and

have refreshed my memory on some important distinctions. I see that I did overstate a couple points.

Because AG Barr shrugged off further investigation and prosecution of these Obstruction events does it preclude AG Garland from doing so?

If he figures that it just wouldn't be worth the effort then I'd like to see, or read, him say it.

[BumRushDaShow]

44. There are some interesting overlaps that I saw between the Mueller investigation

and January 6 (or perhaps more specifically, the loon DeSantis) - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142927283

And what I noted from that incident from the article in that OP about DeSantis' press secretary -

Pushaw’s work for Saakashvili involved going toe-to-toe in 2018 with W. Samuel Patten, a political consultant who had just pleaded guilty to not registering as an agent of a Ukrainian political party. As part of his plea deal, Patten agreed to assist special counsel Robert S. Mueller III in his investigation of foreign influence in the 2016 election.

And she claimed to have been in contact with DOJ and apparently was involved in this headache-inducing issue.

Of course FL became the "official" residence of 45 in 2019. So we know aside from one who I am waiting to see dragged into the J6 investigation - I.e., TX, with both Abbott and Paxton, I wouldn't be surprised if FL was also in there somewhere with DeSantis and his scouts.

And I did just see this, and I wouldn't be surprised if further "obstruction" will be the point of these "meetings", and this is something that Garland can lock onto -

Trump is moving from Mar-a-Lago to New Jersey for the summer and congressional Republicans are already following him


Kimberly Leonard
Jun 3, 2022, 2:18 PM


Former President Donald Trump is leaving Florida to avoid the swampy summer months. Trump left his beachside Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach and as of Friday is at his golf course in Bedminster, New Jersey, according to a Republican source close to the former president who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Before leaving, Trump did a TV interview from Mar-a-Lago on Thursday evening with the Miami Spanish-language station MegaTV. He's leaving South Florida just as the area is facing a tropical storm warning throughout the weekend. Trump's move north means much of the Republican political braintrust will follow. GOP political hopefuls have flocked to Mar-a-Lago, holding fundraisers and other events there as they hope to get some face time with Trump and perhaps even land a coveted endorsement.

Now, Bedminster will become the new go-to spot for the GOP. Trump's post-presidential office didn't reply to questions about the change in scenery or confirm that he had arrived in Bedminster. Last year, Trump left Mar-a-Lago for the summer on Mother's Day. But political meetings are already set. Several US House members from the conservative Freedom Caucus will meet with Trump in Bedminster on Tuesday, Politico first reported.

Melissa Braid, spokeswoman for the House Freedom Caucus, told Insider that the group would be meeting to "discuss its continued efforts to defeat the Democrats' radical socialist agenda, and advance conservative America First policies." The meeting will also happen two days before the House's January 6 Select Committee will begin holding public hearings about the 2021 attack at the US Capitol that attempted to thwart the certification of President Joe Biden's election victory.

(snip)

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-leaving-florida-for-new-jersey-to-escape-the-summer-heat-2022-5

So I think the "obstruction" piece from the Mueller probe was sort of addressed during the first Impeachment absent an actual "investigation" as the 2nd count, so that mention of "possible obstruction" gave a go-ahead to include it as a one of the Impeachment Articles -

IMPEACHMENT OF DONALD J. TRUMP
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

----------

R E P O R T

of the

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

together with

DISSENTING VIEWS

TO ACCOMPANY

H. Res. 755

(snip)

Article II: Obstruction of Congress


I. The Second Article of Impeachment

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives
``shall have the sole Power of Impeachment'' and that the
President ``shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,
and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
Misdemeanors.'' In his conduct of the office of President of
the United States--and in violation of his constitutional oath
faithfully to execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and
defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation
of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed--Donald J. Trump has directed the
unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of
subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to
its ``sole Power of Impeachment''. President Trump has abused
the powers of the Presidency in a manner offensive to, and
subversive of, the Constitution, in that:

The House of Representatives has engaged in an impeachment
inquiry focused on President Trump's corrupt solicitation of
the Government of Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 United
States Presidential election. As part of this impeachment
inquiry, the Committees undertaking the investigation served
subpoenas seeking documents and testimony deemed vital to the
inquiry from various Executive Branch agencies and offices, and
current and former officials.

In response, without lawful cause or excuse, President
Trump directed Executive Branch agencies, offices, and
officials not to comply with those subpoenas. President Trump
thus interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful
subpoenas of the House of Representatives, and assumed to
himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of
the ``sole Power of Impeachment'' vested by the Constitution in
the House of Representatives.

President Trump abused the powers of his high office
through the following means:

(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful
subpoena by withholding the production of documents
sought therein by the Committees.
(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and
offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the
production of documents and records from the
Committees--in response to which the Department of
State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of
Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a
single document or record.
(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch
officials not to cooperate with the Committees--in
response to which nine Administration officials defied
subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael ``Mick''
Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael
Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought,
Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich
Brechbuhl.

These actions were consistent with President Trump's
previous efforts to undermine United States Government
investigations into foreign interference in United States
elections.

Through these actions, President Trump sought to arrogate
to himself the right to determine the propriety, scope, and
nature of an impeachment inquiry into his own conduct, as well
as the unilateral prerogative to deny any and all information
to the House of Representatives in the exercise of its ``sole
Power of Impeachment''. In the history of the Republic, no
President has ever ordered the complete defiance of an
impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so
comprehensively the ability of the House of Representatives to
investigate ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors''. This abuse of
office served to cover up the President's own repeated
misconduct and to seize and control the power of impeachment--
and thus to nullify a vital constitutional safeguard vested
solely in the House of Representatives.

In all of this, President Trump has acted in a manner
contrary to his trust as President and subversive of
constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause
of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of
the United States.

Wherefore, President Trump, by such conduct, has
demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution
if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner
grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law.
President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal
from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office
of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

(snip)

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/116th-congress/house-report/346/1

And obviously that is legally more an "administrative" vs "criminal" charge, but I would expect it just adds on to a "pattern of behavior" that could factor in at some point... and we are right now, seeing a continued pattern of obstruction with whatever is happening or will happen at Bedminster.

[Hamlette]

21. we try Trump for treason (or whatever) they try Biden for inflation (or whatever)

and that's if he's convicted. If he gets off it will be worse.

[CrackityJones75]

29. I think the dems pleading with him and

I think the dems pleading with him and questioning him in the press is a bit of theater. I think they want to create the illusion that he is holding back as much as he can until the point it is absolutely impossible for him to do so.

[BlackSkimmer]

31. Do you mean "accepted"? Because the word you use gives your post quite a different meaning.

Just saying.

[SKKY]

34. I suspect the next few weeks are going to be very busy for Garland...

...and I think that's been the plan all along. My suspicion, or perhaps better stated my hope, is the J6 committee has been deliberately slow-walking this investigation to push it as close to November as possible. And I also think there will be evidence to come out during the hearings they know will lead to charges for current sitting members of Congress. The J6 committee will basically hand Garland a neatly wrapped case for multiple charges against Trump's inner circle, and against current sitting members of Congress. This will work as a firewall of sorts for the midterm elections because even those who aren't charged will be forced to defend the indefensible, and that's not a great look. It's a very strategic thing to do, and to be honest, not entirely common for Democrats. If my suspicion is correct, I'm super impressed with my party.

[Sympthsical]

35. "Excepted the job"

I think a lot of people feel he did precisely that.

[BlackSkimmer]

40. Yes, I pointed that out too.

Funny mistake, isn't it?

[Sympthsical]

48. The thing about all this, IMO

Is that, in my opinion, the only resolution to the debate is in the end point. My asserted opinion is thusly: Either Garland will do something, IMO, or he will not, IMHO. With a decent respect for the opinions of mankind, debating it on the daily isn't a useful exercise.

What I think is, everyone's in the back of a wagon, gazing into a crystal ball, and charging a nickel for the opinion.

My somewhat biased take is that is just team-based slap fighting at this point.

Either something is done or not. IMO.

It is my considered thought process that if nothing is done by November, nothing of consequence will result.

I could be wrong. Just my neurotransmitters firing off to produce a scattered and random arrangement of consciousness that tilts more towards one particular process of decision making.

(whew)

[BlackSkimmer]

50. Lol. I like the way you said all that.

And it is my opinion, of course, just an opinion, that probably not much will come of this.

That being said, I truly hope the people of these United States see what those thugs did on that awful day. At least that might make some impact.

But again, in my opinion, nothing of import will probably come of it. I do fervently hope to be wrong.

[LexVegas]

47. Fitzmas is coming! nt