Garland did not sign off on criminal charges.

[LuckyCharms]

NOT signing off helps to reinforce that this is not a political prosecution.

Per Adam Weissman on Lawrence, MSNBC.

[Marius25]

1. It doesn't really insulate them since Republicans will still claim it's political.

[LuckyCharms]

3. True. I changed the wording in my first sentence.

[BigmanPigman]

2. That makes sense.

I've been listening to MSNBC, too.

[JohnSJ]

4. Yes, but I suspect much of the media won't fully explain that

[LuckyCharms]

5. You're right.

The headline will be that Garland didn't approve, with little nuance or further explanation.

[Deuxcents]

6. Everything by the book. Make them prove otherwise

[LuckyCharms]

7. Yep. n/t

[Cha]

8. AG Garland is Brilliant! I don't give

a shit what the Zombies Screech about it.

[stopdiggin]

9. not really an option

(according to other explanations posted here tonight)
Garlands only available play would have been to quash charges (if found egregiously false or unsupported) and could do so only with a full accounting and explanation of reason to Congress.

Otherwise - the process is explicitly designed to be (and remain) hands off.
(which is what we are seeing)

[live love laugh]

10. Did Garland need to sign off?

[LuckyCharms]

11. No. See post #9.

I did this OP because it has been said a few times in here tonight that Garland approved and signed off on the charges, and that is not correct.

Post 9 by stopdiggin explains it.

[live love laugh]

14. ✔️

[Fiendish Thingy]

12. Yes he did- it's part of the special counsel's mandate/DOJ procedure.

Smith had to get Garland’s OK before seeking these indictments. Garland didn’t direct Smith to seek the indictments, but Smith couldn’t proceed without Garland’s approval.

You misheard Andrew Weissman.

[LuckyCharms]

13. Once Garland directed Smith to proceed,

and Smith decided to bring indictments after the discovery process and fact-finding, Garland did not need to approve Smith's decision to indict.

At that point, Garland's only option would be NOT to indict, after explaining to Congress why.

My OP is refuting statements made on DU tonight that Garland gave Smith the go-ahead to indict after the findings were presented to Garland. Garland's approval was not required.

I think we are differing on timing and semantics. Post #9 explains what Weisman said better than I can.