This perfectly articulates Garland's blame. I don't believe he is corrupt, just protecting the Institutions as written here. When we needed swift and decisive justice. Now, the DOJ he worked so hard to protect will be turned into the very weapon used to destroy the rule of law. 💔
This perfectly articulates Garland's blame. I don't believe he is corrupt, just protecting the Institutions as written here. When we needed swift and decisive justice. Now, the DOJ he worked so hard to protect will be turned into the very weapon used to destroy the rule of law. 💔
This problem of government employees protecting "their" institutions instead of our Constitution is much deeper and broader than Garland and the DOJ. Read the SCOTUS opinion in Trump v. United States. So much of it is about helping federal employees conceal evidence of their own (or maybe a spouse's) complicity in Trump's misconduct. The SCOTUS majority obstructed justice in multiple ways to help conceal evidence of abuses of power beyond Trump's. That's necessarily part of the point of the SCOTUS majority's pretense that Trump cannot be prosecuted for "official" conduct. The government employees (including DOJ employees) that Trump "officially" used to commit his crimes can continue to conceal evidence of their misconduct.
I agree completely. Garland wasn't the only one by far, but he was heading the Department of Justice. He had the best chance to hold the criminal(s) accountable.
I believe he is corrupt, not in the sense of being bought but in the sense of being owned by the Right for a long time. A disastrous appointment and Biden has to bear the blame.
Well, you may be correct, he probably is owned by the Right. He was definitely a disasterous appointment. I do blame Biden because I think he was being a politician and picked Garland for the reason he wouldn't go after trump right away. Biden is a politician through and through and actually thought he was going to unite us with his weak approach.
What we really needed was an AG who would start with trump's arrest on 1/21/21. That was the only way it might have prevented this. And even then, who knows? It always comes down to the voters and I just don't know if there was any way to prevent this.
We needed an AG with a spine and a real commitment to the rule of law, not a complicit right-wing stooge. A bulldog of an AG might have been able to put Trump and his enablers in jail. The members of Congress who were complicit in the coup attempt are now laughing because they all got away with it, and the coup has succeeded. We'll never know if this could have been prevented. My heart is breaking, and I loathe Garland, and Biden for appointing him to begin with and then not firing him when his complicity became obvious.
I really hope the DOJ is going to have something serious to say at Trump's sentencing in NY for his convictions there later this month. And I hope AG Garland makes the decision to continue Trump's prosecution by the DOJ even though Trump will be a sitting president. It's only because of mere "policy" that the DOJ refrains from such action. But every DOJ attorney and every federal judge swore to "support and defend the Constitution" against "all enemies, foreign and domestic" and "bear true faith and allegiance" to our Constitution, not any mere policy. 5 U.S.C. 3331. No mere policy is more important than our Constitution.
If Trump wants to fire Jack Smith, then the DOJ should make him actually do it. Meanwhile, the DOJ should work harder than ever to support and defend our Constitution. Refraining from prosecuting a sitting president is based on the constitutional requirement to impeach a sitting president before commencing a criminal prosecution. That does not apply here. The voters removed Trump from office before the prosecution started.
When Trump is sworn in, he's going to put his hand on a Bible and swear "I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States" and swear that I "will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." Article II requires that oath. Then, it requires that the president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Article VI emphasized that "the supreme Law of the Land" regarding this issue is, first, our "Constitution" and second, "the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance" of our Constitution. So let's see how faithful Trump is to his oath.
This perfectly articulates Garland's blame. I don't believe he is corrupt, just protecting the Institutions as written here. When we needed swift and decisive justice. Now, the DOJ he worked so hard to protect will be turned into the very weapon used to destroy the rule of law. 💔
This problem of government employees protecting "their" institutions instead of our Constitution is much deeper and broader than Garland and the DOJ. Read the SCOTUS opinion in Trump v. United States. So much of it is about helping federal employees conceal evidence of their own (or maybe a spouse's) complicity in Trump's misconduct. The SCOTUS majority obstructed justice in multiple ways to help conceal evidence of abuses of power beyond Trump's. That's necessarily part of the point of the SCOTUS majority's pretense that Trump cannot be prosecuted for "official" conduct. The government employees (including DOJ employees) that Trump "officially" used to commit his crimes can continue to conceal evidence of their misconduct.
I agree completely. Garland wasn't the only one by far, but he was heading the Department of Justice. He had the best chance to hold the criminal(s) accountable.
I believe he is corrupt, not in the sense of being bought but in the sense of being owned by the Right for a long time. A disastrous appointment and Biden has to bear the blame.
Well, you may be correct, he probably is owned by the Right. He was definitely a disasterous appointment. I do blame Biden because I think he was being a politician and picked Garland for the reason he wouldn't go after trump right away. Biden is a politician through and through and actually thought he was going to unite us with his weak approach.
What we really needed was an AG who would start with trump's arrest on 1/21/21. That was the only way it might have prevented this. And even then, who knows? It always comes down to the voters and I just don't know if there was any way to prevent this.
We needed an AG with a spine and a real commitment to the rule of law, not a complicit right-wing stooge. A bulldog of an AG might have been able to put Trump and his enablers in jail. The members of Congress who were complicit in the coup attempt are now laughing because they all got away with it, and the coup has succeeded. We'll never know if this could have been prevented. My heart is breaking, and I loathe Garland, and Biden for appointing him to begin with and then not firing him when his complicity became obvious.
I really hope the DOJ is going to have something serious to say at Trump's sentencing in NY for his convictions there later this month. And I hope AG Garland makes the decision to continue Trump's prosecution by the DOJ even though Trump will be a sitting president. It's only because of mere "policy" that the DOJ refrains from such action. But every DOJ attorney and every federal judge swore to "support and defend the Constitution" against "all enemies, foreign and domestic" and "bear true faith and allegiance" to our Constitution, not any mere policy. 5 U.S.C. 3331. No mere policy is more important than our Constitution.
If Trump wants to fire Jack Smith, then the DOJ should make him actually do it. Meanwhile, the DOJ should work harder than ever to support and defend our Constitution. Refraining from prosecuting a sitting president is based on the constitutional requirement to impeach a sitting president before commencing a criminal prosecution. That does not apply here. The voters removed Trump from office before the prosecution started.
When Trump is sworn in, he's going to put his hand on a Bible and swear "I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States" and swear that I "will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." Article II requires that oath. Then, it requires that the president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Article VI emphasized that "the supreme Law of the Land" regarding this issue is, first, our "Constitution" and second, "the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance" of our Constitution. So let's see how faithful Trump is to his oath.
My eye is pretty jaundiced from how faithful he was to it last time.
I agree. I did not imply any optimism, only a desire for transparency.