Where is Garland on the Hur report?

[Bobstandard]

Special Counsel Robert Hur issued a report that exonerated President Joe Biden of willfully possessing classified documents. However, that’s not how he characterized it in the early paragraphs of the report. In fact, he appears to have violated DOJ guidelines and precedents in adding gratuitious comments that called into question the mental capabilities of the subject of his inquiry.

I remember that when Robert Mueller released his report, Attorney General Barr not only sat on it, he wildly mischaracterized it in remarks prior to it’s release. His remarks were crafted in a way to make it seem Trump was exonerated. It was a screw job of major proportions, a screw job that benefited Trump and Republicans. Another thing it did was establish a precedent of what an Attorney General could do with a special counsel’s report. You can sit on it. You can publicly and erroneously interpret it before it’s release.

Hur’s report was also a major screw job, again to the benefit of Trump and MAGATs. Presumably the report went to Garland before release. He could have sent it back for an edit that removed some of the calumny. He didn’t. He could also have issued a commentary. He didnt have to mischaracterized. H could have just pointed out the problems with the report. He didn’t. In fact, as far as I know, Garland remains silent on the subject. Worse, he appears ok with letting Hur testify before a crackpot Republican controlled committee that will inevitably give the report more power to screw Biden and Democrats chances to win the Presidential election.

What gives? Garland might be competing for the “paragon of probity and comity” crown. But as a practical matter he seems to be rolling over—again—when we need a stand up guy to actually stand up.

I used to give the folks who I now call ‘Garland apologist’s’ the benefit of the doubt, thinking that perhaps there was just too much going on behind the scenes for me to make a reasonable judgement. I no longer think that. I think Garland was, in retrospect, a terrible choice for AG. I think—today,—that he too is a danger to our democracy and the rule of law.

[triron]

1. Concur.

[2naSalit]

2. I'm only

50% confident that he won't screw us.

[Meadowoak]

4. You are a lot more confident than I am.

[gab13by13]

5. How long do you think he will allow the J6 trial to start?

I say some time in June or he will shut it down. I am allowing 3 months for the trial.

[2naSalit]

8. The Chutkin trial?

I expect SCOTUS to take a pass on the Stay motion and the immunity appeal just to get it out of their hair. There is little appetite for the trumptrain and may be ready to spike his appeal just to let things get rolling.

I really don't know but I think the Chutkin trial could start by early-mid May? Pretty quickly, everyone else is ready to go.

[gab13by13]

3. White House lawyers saw the report before it was released

and asked Garland to edit out the political parts of the report. Garland refused, I guess because he promised he would release the report. He kept his promise even though the report violated DOJ policies.

[triron]

6. Yep. He needs to go.

[bigtree]

7. we have a salacious opinion by a clearly anti-Biden SC who declined charges

...that's the long and short of it.

Now imagine that piffle with an interfering Garland looking to remove something from the otherwise exonerating report which MIGHT embarrass the president in THIS election where his rival has been charged with obstruction resulting from of his own docs investigation by Pres. Biden's AG.

If you're not envisioning an even larger focus on the piffle with interference charges ringing in the air, you're doing presidential election politics wrong.