Garland's first year leading Justice Department clouded by questions of investigating Trump

[Mr. Sparkle]

As Attorney General Merrick Garland completes his first full year in office, what would normally be seen as a banner year of liberal accomplishments has been clouded by the specter of Donald Trump, and the question of whether the former President will be held accountable for attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Despite reinvigorating the Justice Department's civil rights enforcement and reversing a number of Trump-era legal positions, Democrats are increasingly worried that Garland will let the former President go unpunished for fomenting what amounts to an attempted coup that led to the January 6 attack on the US Capitol.

In the eyes of many Democrats, Garland has over-corrected in his effort to restore norms at the Justice Department after four years of political wars during Trump's presidency. That caution, they fear, may in the end mean a lack of accountability for the man who busted those norms. "There is a difference between protecting DOJ political independence and being too scared to do anything that might be perceived as political even if it is the right and necessary thing to do," Elie Honig, a CNN senior legal analyst and former federal prosecutor said. Pressure to at least examine Trump's activities is mounting in part due to the work of the House select committee investigating January 6. In a March 2 court filing, the committee accused the former President of engaging in a criminal conspiracy to overturn the election.

The committee could make a criminal referral to the DOJ. But many Democrats had hoped the department would act on its own accord. To date, there remains no discernible indication that Garland will formally seek to investigate Trump for his role in inciting the attack. "From my perspective as a former prosecutor with the Department of Justice, the department shouldn't be waiting on our committee for any referral," Rep. Adam Schiff, a member of the committee, told CNN. "If the Justice Department believes there is evidence of crime, involving anyone, including the former President, they should be investigating." US Attorney General Merrick Garland walks into the hearing room ahead of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on October 27, 2021 in Washington, DC.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/06/politics/garland-pressure-investigate-trump-january-6/index.html

[Alexander Of Assyria]

1. Not clouded, absolutely necessary...a what is taking so long column on CNN to sooth the impatient.

The law is an actual tho perhaps mysterious real world process, not a Twitter post.
Leave it to the expert pick of Biden, not to armchair counsel.

And notice how the President stays at arms length from the DOJ, isn’t that a nice change?

Has everyone forgot about…the wheels of Justice grind slowly, but exceedingly fine…ask the Insurrectionist yesterday found guilty after trial, and a 2 hour jury deliberation, how that’s grinding?

That took a year.

[gab13by13]

8. Adam Schiff is not an arm chair counsel.

We shall see if DOJ allows the Hunter Biden investigation to proceed but drops the Matt Gaetz investigation. We shall all see, even the arm chair counsels shall see.

Day 84 since DOJ received the Mark Meadows criminal referral
Day 56 since the Michigan AG sent the fake elector referral to the Feds.
Have not kept track on the stolen, eaten, flushed, burned, confidential documents that the National Archives has referred to DOJ.

I do see a pattern though, it appears that DOJ waits for referrals. The only people DOJ on its own goes after are the pawns involved in the 1/6 attack on the Capitol.

Nothing will be done to former presidents, politicians, former politicians, former cabinet members, friends or counsels of former presidents because Merrick Garland said so himself, he does not want to appear to be partisan.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. I believe what's making a lot of folks antsy is comparing the Garland investigation to the

NYC aborted investigation.

Prosecutors resigned after New York DA said he wasn't prepared to move forward with indictment of Trump
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/06/politics/trump-manhattan-district-attorney-investigation/index.html

[Alexander Of Assyria]

5. State stuff versus federal stuff and no real news the NY stuff is terminated. so to me, no.

[gab13by13]

9. Please explain to us arm chair counsels then,

since by your post you also appear to be an arm chair counsel, right? Why were 2 fantastic prosecutors, who believed there was a criminal case against Donald Trump, overruled by Alvin Bragg? Why won't Bragg release the resignation letter from those 2 prosecutors?

Why aren't you surprised the case was dropped? What is the difference between a state prosecuting a case and the Feds prosecuting a case? This arm chair counsel would like a better explanation from your post. Thank you.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

17. It's a team of prosecutors... some don't jump to conclusions and outrage on incomplete evidence.

But that’s just me in my armchair.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. Moreso than all the rest, Schiff is a realist with open eyes

and his skepticism that anything at all is being done is a great concern to me.

[dem4decades]

4. Maybe he's taking the Republican threat seriously and is afraid?

[Alexander Of Assyria]

6. Afraid of what? Garlands speech in January would say different...and then right after that

speech he indicted thé proud children boys.

And then there was Bannon.

Dont think Biden’s pick is afraid of Republican hate speech, not at all.

Think some so attached to the noisy legal clown show of TFG that now the normal silence of the DOJ and President on legal matters is making folks forget the criminal law moves slowly, always has, always should.

[dem4decades]

7. Have you seen any indication that DOJ is investigating anyone in the Trump cabal?

Any requests for an interview? Anyone fighting subpoenas in court? Anyone leaking information (not DOJ) to put pressure on other potential defendants? Shit, Navarro admitted guilt on Melber's show and he hasn't even been asked in for an interview, never mind an indictment.

Talk is cheap, the time for a rigorous investigation has long past, and we have nothing. Just like Mueller, this system protects the players not the system.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

18. Garland has them right where he wants them, uncertain and afraid...and rats keep talking...

then boom!

Patience.

A month before the elections, after the committee report, would be just fine with me!

[gab13by13]

10. Steve Bannon had no affiliation with Donald Trump,

Steve Bannon was simply indicted for ignoring a subpoena. Is that enough accountability in your opinion?

President Biden chose Merrick Garland to be our AG, his performance has absolutely nothing to do with that fact, also I never refer to our president as Biden, he deserves to be called president Biden.

[Beastly Boy]

11. Ok, I get it. Questioning Garland's progress in investigating trump has a clear goal:

To undermine Garland using speculation, innuendo and conjecture as weapons against him. Actually, garland is being second-guessed on a whole range of investigations, Trump being just one of them. And, as investigations progress, the focus on what exactly Garland is being questioned on shifts accordingly, away from what Garland has accomplished to date and is no longer subject to speculation, to what has not been made public by DOJ.

I have questions about why some Democrats are doing this, but my questions will not amount to much more than speculation, innuendo and conjecture. And, as in the case with Garland, I am not going there.

[gab13by13]

13. Then you are accusing Adam Schiff, and many other former well known prosecutors,

of undermining AG Garland. Why are they doing that? It doesn't matter if members of DU question DOJ. Why are there so many well respected former prosecutors, former Constitutional scholars, former law enforcement officials, former FBI, CIA officials questioning Merrick Garland? What is their motive BB? One should also ask this question, what is the motive of those who are satisfied with the progress of investigating the people who attempted to overthrow our democracy?

Are you satisfied that the people who were behind the attempted overthrow of our democracy have been held accountable? Are you satisfied that the people who were behind the overthrow of our democracy are even being investigated or will be investigated?

[Beastly Boy]

14. It is not as much an accusation as an observation of the effect these speculations produce.

And to elevate this to an accusation will require more than speculations, innuendo and conjecture, and I already said I am not going there.

When I have more facts than I do now, I may gain a more informed perspective on this matter, and so will the people who criticize Garland without referring to what they know about the investigations that are going on, or at least without disclosing that knowledge to make their conclusions appear justifiable.

As far as people being held accountable, this is a process, not an event. Some of them were held accountable, others weren't. I think this is pretty self-evident, and I don't understand the purpose of your question. As far as my satisfaction or dissatisfaction, it is entirely subjective and is not affected by events until they actually come to pass.

[UT_democrat]

12. Oh ya!

I totally forgot about that guy!

[Paladin]

15. If Garland is unable to wage a vigorous prosecution effort, he should stand aside. (nt)

[lagomorph777]

16. +1000 This is a national emergency worse than any faced since the Civil War.

We cannot afford to ignore the coup plotters.

[lees1975]

19. I believe President Biden wants Trump prosecuted and it will get done in a manner

that makes it stick and has real consequences.