President Biden Regrets Selecting Merrick Garland As Attorney General

The Washington Post has an in depth profile of President Biden's administration. Apparently, Biden regrets selecting Merrick Garland as Attorney General, and would have preferred former Alabama Senator Doug Jones.

In private, Biden has also said he should have picked someone other than Merrick Garland as attorney general, complaining about the Justice Department's slowness under Garland in prosecuting Trump, and its aggressiveness in prosecuting Biden's son Hunter, according to people familiar with his comments.

During the 2020 presidential transition, Biden's attorney general selection pitted some of his closest aides against each other. Former senator Ted Kaufman (D-Delaware) and Mark Gitenstein, both longtime friends of Biden, advocated for the president naming then-Sen. Doug Jones (D-Alabama) as attorney general, arguing that as a politician he would be better able to navigate the bitterly partisan moment.

But Ron Klain, Biden's incoming chief of staff, pushed for Garland. He stressed that Garland — a federal judge with a sterling reputation for independence and fairness — would show Americans that Biden was rebuilding a department badly shaken by Trump's political attacks.

Biden was persuaded, and some Democrats believe the decision had devastating results. Had the Justice Department moved faster to prosecute Trump for allegedly seeking to overturn the 2020 election and mishandling classified documents, they say, the former president might have faced a politically damaging trial before the election. (Others blame the Supreme Court and a Trump-appointed judge in Florida for repeatedly siding with the former president and delaying the cases; the Justice Department declined to comment.)

This episode demonstrates that this notion of the Department of Justice as "independent" has always been a ruse. The Attorney General works for the President. Garland's efforts to make the institution separate from the President backfired, in a way that left no one happy. Moreover, Biden expressly viewed the criminal prosecution of Trump as a way to harm his primary political opponent. The stuff about protecting democracy was just a veneer, as evidenced by the silence about insurrection and fascism in the lead-up to January 6, 2025.

By the way, when is Garland going to resign? Garland should have stepped down when Biden criticized him for the Hunter Biden prosecution, but didn't. Attorney General Loretta Lynch stayed on until January 20, 2017. Will Garland continue to ride this out till the bitter end?

Comments

[Randal]

The stuff about protecting democracy was just a veneer, as evidenced by the silence about insurrection and fascism in the lead-up to January 6, 2025.

Something bonkers is happening in your brain Josh. Trump won, remember? Why would January 6, 2025 be marred by MAGA fascist insurrectionists? Do they not realize Trump won?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Obviously he's talking about the Democrat messaging. Biden went from yelling "Trump is a fascist threat to Democracy" in between child sniffs to "here 'ya go mate, here's the keys! toodles!" in between child sniffs.

[Martinned2]

Democracy means that the people get exactly what they want, right between the eyes. A rich old white guy like Biden is the last person who will personally suffer the consequences of the US electorate voting for a fascist.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and how is Herr Starmer doing? He doesn't even have senility to blame.

[Martinned2]

I still don't know why you mention the UK prime minister all the time. I can see why you wouldn't see eye to eye with him, given that he's not inclined to fascism, but what's it to you?

[Mr. Bumble]

What is the US President to you a Dutch ex-pat living in the UK?

[Sarcastr0]

1. US politics is something with worldwide impacts
2. Politics is interesting! I follow UK politics largely for interest.

[Mr. Bumble]

Fuck off, Douche.
Marti is more than capable to answer for himself and your need to always jump in is tiresome.

[loki13]

"Herr" Starmer?
Responding to someone who bothered to answer questions politely that you raised with cursing and insults?

Gotta say, Bumble, I've been gone for a couple of months, but ... are you okay?

As a general rule, if you want to engage in conversation, converse. If you don't, don't be surprised if you stop having conversations.

[RedheadedPharoh]

So that's how the Democrats fight fascism and the end of freedom and democracy?

[Martinned2]

Apparently. They're still putting up more of a fight than most Americans.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Do us all a favor and learn the difference between fascism and populism.

[Sarcastr0]

Why don't you explain the distinction to us, Ed?

[MoreCurious]

He's working on it. Give him a few days to consult Google and Wikipedia and his usual sources.

[David Nieporent]

He's working on it. Give him a few days to consult Google and Wikipedia and his usual sources.

That is absurd slander. Dr. Ed has never done a day of research in his life. His "usual sources" are "I remember a cop telling me this 25 years ago."

[Bob from Ohio]

"Why don't you explain the distinction to us, Ed?"

Are you implying there is not a distinction?

[MoreCurious]

Actually, I think he's implying that Dr. Ed can't explain the difference.

[RedheadedPharoh]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_Manifesto

- The quick enactment of a law of the state that sanctions an eight-hour workday for all workers;
- A minimum wage;
- The formation of a national council of experts for labor, for industry, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc.
- Reduction of the retirement age from 65 to 55.
- A strong extraordinary tax on capital of a progressive nature, which takes the form of true partial expropriation of all wealth
- The revision of all military contracts and the seizure of 85 percent of the profits therein.
etc...

You know. Run of the mill Leftism.

Populism, on the other hand, is just demanding a government that represent the Will of the People.

Which is anathema to the Democrat Party, Globalists, Marxists, etc.

[Randal]

So that's how the Democrats fight fascism and the end of freedom and democracy?

Yes. We don't do it the Republican way of trying to overthrow democracy and install a strongman by force.... which seems self-defeating, no?

Anyway, we recognize that Trump is a symptom, not the root of the problem. Unseating Trump now would be like trying to cure a viral fever with leeches. All you get are a bunch of diseased leeches.

The best thing we can do now is defend America's institutions against Trump's obnoxiousness for another four years while we figure out ways to shore them up going forward. I hope they hold!

[RedheadedPharoh]

You want to defend the institutions that have put our country, society, population, and world into it's current state?

lol, why would you do that?

[Randal]

Because America won't last long without them.

Let me put it in a way you might understand. Imagine Trump succeeds in weakening America's institutions dramatically. He also does a lot of protectionism, which reignites inflation, so in 2028 AOC wins the Presidency. She takes full advantage of the lack of guardrails to open the borders, grant amnesty to all immigrants, and give them the vote, all by executive decree. In the meantime, she prosecutes and imprisons anyone standing in her way, continuing Trump's themes of purging the "deep state" of "anti-American" "enemies" in order to do so. She wins reelection in 2032 with 70% of the vote after veiled threats against anyone voting against her. Then she signs an executive order enabling the President to run for a third term.

How does that sound to you? It's all perfectly democratic. It's democracy without institutions.

[bernard11]

What exactly is so wrong with our current state? I mean, other than the impending Trumpist domination of government.

[Riva]

“Unseating him”? Sounds rather insurrectiony you pathetic clown. Old habits die in the Democrat party. And of course Democrats always project. Always. It is an immutable universal law that they are guilty of what they accuse.

[Noscitur a sociis]

“Unseating him”? Sounds rather insurrectiony you pathetic clown.

Yes, presumably that’s part of why Randal said that it would be a bad idea.

[Riva]

No that’s not true at all. The pathetic clown is all for “unseating him” if his joke of an insurrection fantasy would produce the results he wants. So much for democracy.

[Randal]

Me: Unseating Trump would be bad for democracy.

Rivabot: "Unseating Trump!" You want things that would be bad for democracy!

Noscitur: That's exactly why he said it would be bad.

Rivabot: Yeah but if it weren't bad for democracy, even though it were, then he'd think it weren't, and would be wanting something not bad for democracy, except it were! Whirr, click, buzz, {explosion}.

Me: 🙂

[Riva]

Stupid a-hole advocates for insurrection without even understanding that he’s advocating for insurrection:
“Anyway, we recognize that Trump is a symptom, not the root of the problem. Unseating Trump now would be like trying to cure a viral fever with leeches. All you get are a bunch of diseased leeches.”

The implication from a-hole’s comment being that “unseating Trump” would be just great as long as his fellow a-hole democrats could destroy an entire popular movement at the same time.

The lesson to be learned is out of the mouthes of stupid a-holes, oftentimes comes caca.

[Randal]

implication

You might want to revisit your Logic 101 textbook.

out of the mouthes of stupid a-holes, oftentimes comes caca

I appreciate your self-awareness though.

[Randal]

Here, how 'bout we walk through it, using my analogy as a guide.

virus : what's ailing America

leeches : unseating Trump

diseased leeches : undermining democracy

The leeches are the wrong solution to the virus, in part because they're ineffective, and in part because they have negative externalities: diseased leeches.

The conclusion is that there's a better solution out there, one which is effective and without side-effects.

There is not an implication that in some counterfactual world, where leeches did cure the virus, that means I'd be pro-leech. Even if implications survived counterfactuals, in that alternate universe the leech cure would still result in diseased leeches, so the alternative cure would be preferable.

Ok, Rivabot, please update your programming taking into account the above intro to logic.

[Riva]

Nice try. (No not really but you are an overly sensitive a-hole so I’m being nice). You want to eliminate President Trump and the popular movement that supports him. That’s the so called “sickness” that bothers you. You just lament that “unseating” President Trump in your masturbatory insurrection fantasy simply would not achieve your preferred result. You don’t give a fuck about “democracy.”
I guess a stupid a-hole will never learn, otherwise they wouldn’t be a stupid a-hole.

[Randal]

Oh, the Rivabot can't learn. I guess we knew that already, but it was worth a shot.

[Riva]

A-hole just parrots my response. Impressively stupid.

[Randal]

I do enjoy the Rivadance. After a horrible reading comprehension fail, the bot gets stuck in a loop of doubling down, giving the human interlocutor the chance to humiliate it over and over again.

Please, tell me again how my anti-insurrection comments are really a secret call to destroy democracy with insurrections. It's totally convincing and doesn't make you seem retarded in any way, I promise.

[Bob from Ohio]

"voting for a fascist"

Get new material. You are like a parrot.

[AmosArch]

Biden was persuaded, and some Democrats believe the decision had devastating results. Had the Justice Department moved faster to prosecute Trump for allegedly seeking to overturn the 2020 election and mishandling classified documents, they say, the former president might have faced a politically damaging trial before the election.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So even vegetable Biden knows the prosecution of Trump is all politics and WAPOO is outright admitting it here.

[Randal]

If anything this proves that the prosecution of Trump wasn't all politics. It wasn't rushed, as it would have been if it were politically motivated.

Of course Biden (and everyone) knew that prosecuting Trump had political implications. Recognizing political implications doesn't imply a political purpose.

[AmosArch]

WAPOO bastion of conservatism: 1 guy refused to go along with the political games of Biden and the rest of the Democrats.
Randal: This totally shows Dems are noble and not corrupt at all!

[Malika the Maiz]

Well, as you’ve framed it, yes, it does show that in this instance.

[Sarcastr0]

Amos, quoted the WaPo for something.
When shown that your quote didn't support what you thought it did, he immediately pivoted to the WaPo is nothing but lies.

Truly incredible levels of believing what you want.

[Michael P]

"The prosecutions of Trump weren't all politics, but Joe Biden and other Democrats wanted them to be" may not be the killer argument it sounded like in your head.

[RedheadedPharoh]

That's not his argument.

[Michael P]

That's what his argument turns into if you insert a little fact.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, this is rather reminiscent of the way Comey, assigned by Lynch the task of white washing Hillary's national security offenses, split the difference and just kinda, sorta cleared her. Admitting she'd actually violated the law, and just saying nobody would ordinarily prosecute the offense.

The Democrats assign somebody the job of being a complete political hack, and they decide to show a smidgen of integrity. Not enough to refuse to be a hack, but enough that the Democrats are enraged that they failed to be total hacks. While the Republicans still despise them for being hacks.

And they end up with no supporters at all in the end.

You do see the same thing going on on the Republican side, too, of course. In politics you've got to chose your side, and be part of it. People who play in politics but decide to make a show of being impartial end up pissing everybody off. (The 'play in politics' part of that formula is important, by the way. There ARE non-political positions, like judges, where you don't get that dynamic because you're not expected to take sides.)

[Sarcastr0]

Do you see how much work you're doing?

The obvious answer is that that Dems DON'T appoint hacks.

But but you can't believe that so you talk tell this whole story about how they're this very specific level of hack but not that much hack so they do the bad thing but then self-sabotage and so they fail but the evil Dems keep appointing people with the very specific level of hackishness and the fails keeps happening?

It's very silly, if you ever bothered to stop and consider what you're making up.

[RedheadedPharoh]

They do appoint hacks. Like Garland. Their strategy failed.

Jack Smith was appointed in 11/22. He drug it out for two years on purpose because the process was the smear. The trials were hot garbage based upon novel lawfare so they didn't want to risk getting a judge that wasn't some Democrat piece of hacky garbage like in NY.

[tylertusta]

It was clearly intended that the criminal trials were to have been concluded prior to November's election. We even saw one trial go to verdict: Alvin Bragg's blatantly political charges.

[Noscitur a sociis]

He drug it out for two years on purpose because the process was the smear.

Can you point to some of the actions Smitb took that you feel were intended to delay things?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Tylerusa reminded me of some things I had forgotten .

He was trying to expedite things and get a trial going on DC.

So according to y'alls theories, he was being political and trying to get a trial before the election just like Biden asked for.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Biden wouldn't have had to "ask for" a speedy trial; it's called "justice". Obviously, if justice demands the prosecution in the first place, delaying it to a point where Trump could shut it all down (which he has indeed now done) would not serve justice.

[David Nieporent]

"He dragged it out! No… wait, he tried to rush it!"

[tylertusta]

"The obvious answer is that that Dems DON'T appoint hacks."

Hey man, whatever you have to tell yourself so you can sleep at night. I won't judge your coping mechanism.

[Jerry B.]

"The obvious answer is that that Dems DON'T appoint hacks."

So that's why Biden is upset that Garland wasn't a hack?

[Sarcastr0]

I'd wager every President has some thoughts about how they'd like the DoJ to do stuff that's in variance to how the DoJ does stuff.

Does that mean every AG is a hack?

[Don Nico]

The only obvious answer is that Garland was not a hack and he was not corrupt.
However, you extend that to a typically partisan comment. So predictable.

[GKHoff]

No, the answer is more likely that Garland was appointed as a hack, but he approached the job in the deliberate manner of a judge, and not in the kick butts and take names manner that Biden would have preferred.

If Biden didn't like the way Garland did his job, he could just have fired the AG. That is, assuming that he was making the decision, and not his puppeteers.

[Joe_dallas]

Garland may not have been a hack, though he certainly allowed hacks to run the Hunter investigation. The substantial delay in prosecuting the tax evasion letting the statute expire, then the plea bargain that allowed hunter to escape prosecution for several crimes. Furtunately the judge did not allow the orginal plea bargain.

[Dan Schiavetta]

"though he certainly allowed hacks to run the Hunter investigation"

Garland put a Trump appointed prosecutor in charge of the Hunter Biden case.

[Joe_dallas]

He may have been appointed by Trump, Though he certainly showed that he was a hack as evidenced by the plea bargain that was rejected by the Judge.

Were you even aware of the shenanigans with the plea bargin.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What do you think the “shenanigans” were?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

So Trump appoints hacks? Is that your argument?

[santamonica811]

Way to move those goalposts, Joe.

Joe, with integrity: "Yeah, you're right. I'd forgotten that Garland made a point of putting a Trump-appointed prosecutor in charge. And that Garland promised to keep his fat fingers off the investigation, and kept to that promise. That speaks well of Garland, and of Biden (even if I think Garland was a poor choice to begin with.)"

You're welcome.

[David Nieporent]

By the way, Joe, I recognize that you're not a lawyer (or scientist, or historian, or anything else that doesn't involve putting numbers in columns), so you may be under the misapprehension that the judge "rejected" the plea bargain because it was too easy on Hunter. In fact, the judge rejected the plea bargain because it gave the judge too much discretion, and the parties couldn't agree on how to interpret it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The obvious answer is that that Dems DON'T appoint hacks."

That's inconsistent with the Dems' position on the Hunter Biden prosecution.

[Zarniwoop]

Garland put a Trump-appointed US Attorney in charge of the Hunter Biden investigation/prosecution, to avoid even an appearance of impropriety.

Want to place a bet on whether Trump keeps on a Biden-appointed US Attorney and puts him/her in charge of investigating Liz Cheney?

[Roger S]

There are plenty of Democrats who hate Liz Cheney.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

But none who would debase themselves in the way Trump demands. That's purely a Republican strength.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Garland put a Trump-appointed US Attorney in charge of the Hunter Biden investigation/prosecution, to avoid even an appearance of impropriety."

And Biden claimed that there appeared to be impropriety.

"Want to place a bet on whether Trump keeps on a Biden-appointed US Attorney and puts him/her in charge of investigating Liz Cheney?"

That's not how you do it. You have the Biden guys investigate your own guys so you can claim the result was political and pardon them. Haven't you been paying attention?

[not guilty]

Actually the decision to leave David Weiss in place as United States Attorney in Delaware was made by Joe Biden. Weiss was the only U. S. Attorney from the Trump administration whom Biden reappointed.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Dems DON'T appoint hacks."

Choo Choo Pete and the idiot at Homeland Security say otherwise.

[Sarcastr0]

What about those people is hackish vs. just Bob no likey?

[santamonica811]

Bob,
I genuinely think you and I agree that the biggest issue Pete faced in his job was when there was the bridge accident/collapse in Philadelphia. You apparently think he did poorly addressing that crisis (with obvious nationwide economic implications), and you think the Biden administration did poorly. I think our govt did amazingly well, was transparent at every stage, and got it fixed months (or years!!!) before people expected.

I hoping that you can share the ways where Pete B (and the Biden administration) failed us in dealing with that unexpected emergency. Maybe there are things I've overlooked or discounted. Please be specific, so that we all can learn from your wisdom.

[Commenter_XY]

People who play in politics but decide to make a show of being impartial end up pissing everybody off.

Yes. It is because the behavior (pretend impartiality) is seen as inauthentic. And it is.

Dispense with the pretense of impartiality, it has never existed in our Republic. Even George Washington had 'pretend impartiality' at times, and was called out for it by newspapers at that time.

I don't think a POTUS Trump will be shy about communicating his thoughts and feelings to AG Bondi, in a very prompt manner.

[Randal]

So basically you're agreeing with Biden... you wish the DOJ had simply imprisoned Trump prior to the election? I guess you're right, that would've been better.

[bernard11]

You realize that this story is based on your hated and much derided anonymous sources.

Amazing how they suddenly become utterly reliable when they report something you like hearing.

[RedheadedPharoh]

>It wasn't rushed, as it would have been if it were politically motivated.

It was timed for the leaks from the investigations and publicity to damage him because the cases were such nonsense the trials themselves would not.

>Of course Biden (and everyone) knew that prosecuting Trump had political implications.

That doesn't square with how WAPO framed it.

[Don Nico]

The "regrets" betray Biden's deep dishonesty and give the charges of "lawfare" great credence. Similarly the revelation of evidence of Biden's involvement in Hunter's business affairs despite all of his previous denials.
To use Martin's phrase, he got his duplicity "right between the eyes."

[Sarcastr0]

No, Don. Having an opinion about how something should be done but then not interfering is the opposite of what you are saying.

Similarly the revelation of evidence of Biden's involvement in Hunter's business affairs
What revelations? You uncritically reading Comer again?

[Don Nico]

Do you actually read the news. Obviously you don't as you seem clueless about the releases from National Archive that were blocked by Obama and Biden until after the election.

As for dishonesty, the big lie about Biden's metal and physical competence was pathetic and was covered up for at least 3 years. The man is dishonest and the shell of Joe Biden is now withering away.

[Joe_dallas]

Correct on you comment on the dishonesty

People that got their news from CNN, ABC, NYT, WP were all likely surprised by Biden's lack of mental capacity, while those getting their news from Fox, NY post, and those other "right wing " new sources were 3-4 years ahead of the MSM news reporting.

Same with the big guy's cut. Individuals getting their news from more honest news sources have long been aware of biden family's corruption. No so with the partisans getting their news from the msm.

[Roger S]

That's right, Biden's incompetence and corruption was widely reported. You just had to get some balanced sources.

[Joe_dallas]

Correct Biden's mental decline was well known by those who get their news from honest sources. Leftists complain about fox, but they were the ones who were so poorly informed that they were surprised by the reality.

[Roger S]

I actually thought Biden did better than expected in the Trump-Biden debate, based on reports of Biden's decline.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Whereas people who get their news from 'high school' end up making sock-puppet accounts because they're lying sacks of shit and need someone to agree with their hot takes of stupidity.

How's Sonja_T these days?

[bernard11]

The "big guy's cut?"

Neither the actual existence of the cut, nor the identity of the hypothetical "big guy" have been verified. And don't give me Comer and Jordan, shameless liars that they are.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Cut of what? A proposed 10% of the equity in a speculative venture which never happened. And which took place in 2017, when Biden was a private citizen.

It's not the gun smoking in MAGAland...

[Randal]

This is one of your most pathetic ever replies Don Nico. Sarcastr0 called out your insane silliness that not interfering with the DOJ is somehow tantamount to interfering with the DOJ, and then you just change the subject entirely to your old sawhorse about Biden's supposed mental decline?

Let's examine the idiocy stupid word by stupid word.

As for dishonesty, the big lie about Biden's metal and physical competence was pathetic and was covered up for at least 3 years.

big: You obviously don't know the meaning of "big lie," but you hear Democrats using it against Trump and thought it would be fun to turn the tables. Nice try, you look like an idiot.

metal: I assume you meant "mental" -- I don't think anyone ever puffed up Biden's metalworking capabilities -- and by all accounts, he hasn't lost any cognitive power, only speed. Unlike your party's favorite idol, Reagan, whose Alzheimer's had him at the cognitive level of a drooling cucumber by the end of his term. Nice try, you look like an idiot.

physical: A whole new talking point with no basis, truth, or relevance! Nice try, you look like an idiot.

covered: Yes, they covered it up by putting him in public all the time and urging him to do an early debate against Trump for the express purpose of demonstrating his sparring ability in a side-by-side comparison. Nice try, you look like an idiot.

least: The timeline keeps growing! At least three years huh? So maybe four, as in, before he was even elected? Nice try, you look like an idiot.

In conclusion, your "mental and physical competence was pathetic."

[tylertusta]

Not rushed? That's funny.

Randal, perhaps you missed Jack Smith's constant attempts to expedite the DC case, his insistence on bringing Trump to trial before the election, and his constant requests to expedite the interlocutory appeal on the immunity question. Smith's abject failure in his handling of the immunity question is the product of his rushing this to trial before considering that Presidential Immunity was, in fact, a big f'ing deal and that this current SCOTUS would treat it as such.

The goal was to obtain convictions in 2024 during the election season, not sooner. It would keep Trump bouncing from courtroom to courtroom throughout 2024 instead of campaigning, and it would reinforce Democrats' DEmOCrACy is IN DaNGeR rhetoric to general election voters.

It's only now after the election was lost that Democrats (including Joe Biden/Jack Smith/Merrick Garland) have a big case of "could of, would of, should of" where they have discovered that it's common for trials to be delayed on a whole host of issues. Instead of trying to play chicken with the 2024 election calendar they now realize they would have been better off having Trump being convicted in 2023.

[CountmontyC]

Another reason the Democrats wanted Trump's trials in 2024 is that it pretty much would have excluded any chance of an appeal before the election. Use a corrupt judge and jury to get the conviction, such as with the hush money trial with Judge Merchan, and scream the entire election that Trump is a convicted felon. If the trial had occurred in 2022 or 2023 there would have been a good chance of an appeal that overturned the conviction and it would have made the whole charade pointless.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Oh, you don't think Trump in jail might have cost him the nomination? Not even a teeny, tiny bit?

[tylertusta]

I think there's merit to the idea that Trump in jail costs him the nomination, so there was no benefit to bringing him to trial in 2023 or sooner.

That just reinforces my opinion that the goal was to tie Trump up in 2024 by having the trials in 2024. Convictions in three of the four cases was basically guaranteed, so there was no risk of Trump being acquitted in the middle of the election season.

However, Trump being jailed on some of the charges may be unlikely. First time offender, white collar crime, so some of the charges may net him probation. A 2023 conviction may not guarantee that Trump goes behind bars in 2024.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump is unlikely to be sentenced to confinement in the New York matter. If he is eventually tried on the federal matters, a prison sentence is far more likely. And bail pending appeal in federal court is the exception rather than the rule.

If Trump dies outside of prison, he wins.

[CountmontyC]

First off I believe that the cases against Trump were trash and that one way or another even if convicted they would have been overturned by less political courts. That is why in my previous post I pointed out that the Democrats actually wanted the trials delayed until 2024 so any convictions could not be overturned before the election.
Oh and it would have been very unlikely that Trump would actually have been imprisoned before there were any appeals despite Democrat wet dreams.

[tylertusta]

Another reason the Democrats wanted Trump's trials in 2024 is that it pretty much would have excluded any chance of an appeal before the election.

I doubt this was their thinking. It can take literal years for an appellate court to issue a ruling on appeal, so a 2022 conviction would have an appeals court issue a ruling in 2025 or 2026.

If it was the DC Circuit they wouldn't be in a hurry to write the opinion.

[CountmontyC]

Normally yes but any case involving a top presidential candidate would likely have been fast tracked ( possibly even SCOTUS). For example the Colorado disqualification case which was heard and appealed in mere months ( Colorado Supreme Court ruled December 19, 2023 and the SCOTUS overruled them March 4, 2024 a period of 76 days). The only thing worse than an outright acquittal for the Democratic get Trump strategy would have been a conviction and overturned on appeal where the court denounces the lawfare.

[tylertusta]

I don't agree.

The Colorado State Supreme Court and SCOTUS ruled fast because they had a deadline: March 5th.

Meanwhile, the DC courts swore up and down that they weren't going to take the election calendar into consideration... until they took did. And when they did, it was to Trump's detriment.

It's reasonable to conclude that in a hypothetical appeal in 2023, the appellate panel would have deviated from their promises to ignore the calendar when it is to Trump's detriment.

If it's a post-conviction appeal then I would expect them to sit on their happy asses until 2025 or later. The herd of clapping seals among the lawfare types would harrumph about careful considerations of difficult questions or some nonsense like that.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Obviously, Trump in jail earlier would have been better than later (and you don't need to have 20:20 hindsight to have known that Trump would be absolutely expected to delay, delay, delay--just like he did).

These "lawfare" conspiracies just seem to write themselves!

[tylertusta]

These "lawfare" conspiracies just seem to write themselves!

I'm glad we agree it's not a conspiracy theory, just a plain ol' conspiracy.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If you think plain ol' conspiracies are "written"...

[Riva]

Keep telling yourself that little Randy when all the Biden DOJ and administration lawfare thugs are facing indictments for conspiring to violate civil rights. Maybe that’ll be their defense? “But your honor, it wasn’t ALL politics.” Let’s hope they have an abysmal idiot like you as defense counsel.

[MaddogEngineer]

That's right Randal, he deserved it! That means it's not political. Even though the norm was not to prosecute political enemies. Doesn't count if when he deserves it!

It was inevitable your publicly stated opinion on this would evolve from the last Blackman post. You're doing the meme!

1: It's not really happening
2: Yeah, it's happening, but it's not a big deal
3: It's a good thing, actually
4: People freaking out about it are the real problem

[Randal]

I have no idea what you're talking about. I never endorsed a notion that "political enemies" are somehow immune from prosecution. That's retarded and you know it, clap your hands.

[Josh R]

It's possible that prosecuting Trump was both politcally motivated and the right, non-partisan thing to do.

As I said many times beofre, had the Senate done its job by convicting and disqualifying Trump, none of the court cases would have mattered. I reman convinced that a secret vote would have easily done just that. But politicians being politicians, they put their party and their careers ahead of the nation.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Fact: Even though Heels Up spent three times as much money, and Dem voter fraud is a given in cities, Trump won not only the 2024 election but a majority of votes cast nationally.

Fact: There are people openly saying not just that the USSS is incompetent but that they intentionally let Trump get shot in PA, and people are taking that seriously.

Fact: The US Senate has never voted in secret before.

HAD there been a conviction on the bogus impeachment by the US Senate in a secret vote, there would have been a revolution. Ever hear of a man named Nelson Mandella -- Trump would have become a martyr to the cause and it would have gotten very bloody, very fast.

Why do you think Biden purged so many people out of the military?

And I say bogus impeachment because it's like the execution of Oliver Cromwell, who was already dead of natural causes. (They dug up his body and beheaded it.) SCOTUS would have ruled that Trump wasn't President when the House presented its case to the Senate and hence the whole thing was moot and -- by at least a 5-4 decision -- eliminated the ban on him running for President again. Or perhaps ruling that he merely could not be paid.

So if I were a Senator, worried only about the good of the country, I'd have voted not to convict him.

[Randal]

Fact: Even though Heels Up spent three times as much money, and Dem voter fraud is a given in cities, Trump won not only the 2024 election but a majority of votes cast nationally.

Aw, not a fact. So sorry Ed, try try again.

[Mr. Bumble]

Which of the four claims in "not a fact"?

[Randal]

At least two.

[CountmontyC]

Technically Trump ended up with a plurality not a majority because he "only" got 49.9% of the vote.

[bernard11]

So Dr. Ed's claim is "technically" false. Guess what, "technically false" does not mean "true." It means "false."

Fact: There are people openly saying not just that the USSS is incompetent but that they intentionally let Trump get shot in PA, and people are taking that seriously.

True, people are saying these things. So what. People say lots of stupid shit. That doesn't make what they say true.

HAD there been a conviction on the bogus impeachment by the US Senate in a secret vote, there would have been a revolution.

Counterfactuals are neither true nor false, they are conjecture. In other words, Ed just made this up, like so many of the "facts" he posts.

[Dr. Ed 2]

My bad -- I hadn't noticed it had been revised downward.

[Purple Martin]

Yes, I've mentioned before you really might profit from expanding your news sources outside of your usual echoshpere. But appreciate the acknowledgement.

[Joe_dallas]

Josh R 2 hours ago
"As I said many times beofre, had the Senate done its job by convicting and disqualifying Trump, none of the court cases would have mattered."

What - the Senate convicting trump for the urging of biden family actual corrurption?

[Josh R]

For attempting to steal the 2020 election.

[Commenter_XY]

The Senate did, in fact, do it's job, Josh R. There was a public vote, after a transparent public debate. President Trump was acquitted.

You don't agree with the result. But they did do their job.

[Josh R]

I would not call voting to acquit, when you know he is guilty, only to further your own career doing your job. I would not call putting your self ahead of the nation doing your job.

[Riva]

I remain convinced that you’re too far gone to ever appreciate the indescribably stupid choice it was to weaponize federal law enforcement against the democrats’ political opponents. Good. Let’s hope you’re the majority view so democrats are forever left a minority party. They’re amusing as long as they remain out of power.

And secret vote to remove President Trump? WTF? Does the term “Star Chamber” mean anything to your broken little democrat mind?

[Josh R]

The secret vote comment means Republican senators knew Trump was guilty and unfit for office, not that there should have been a secret vote. In other words, Republican senators could be the subject of Profiles in Cowardice.

[Riva]

How the fuck is advocating for a Star Chamber like process conducive for our constitutional republic ? Let me help you out. It fucking isn’t.

[Riva]

And I’ve noticed a pattern here. You, little Randy, when called out on your BS, you clowns always try to rewrite your comments. You clearly advocated for a secret vote, try to rephrase it all you want.

[Josh R]

No, I did not advocate for a secret vote.

[David Nieporent]

Bots are not programmed to interpret hypotheticals.

[MaddogEngineer]

It was indisputable that Bill Clinton had committed perjury. Yet senators found a way not to vote to convict him.

I think Trump unfit for office, never voted for the guy. That should have no bearing on whether he should be convicted in an impeachment trial.

The one thing Trump was guilty of, regarding the second impeachment, he was never charged with. (Dereliction of duty, failing to promptly act about the J6 rioting.) But that didn't make all his haters feel good, they wanted to ding him for trying to "steal the election", which remains not a crime.

[Josh R]

Impeachment doesn't require a crime. Trying to steal an election is an attack on democracy deserving of impeachment, removal and disqualification.

[Kazinski]

What's confusing about this narrative is that Garland appointed a special counsel so it supposedly would not be political.

So Special Counsels are just a sham and it's all controlled from the top down anyway?

I guess that means Aileen Cannon was right, Special Counsels should be confirmed by the Senate so there is at least some check on the President and AGs power to appoint political hacks a position with so much potential for abuse.

[Malika the Maiz]

This episode demonstrates that this notion of the Department of Justice as "independent" has always been a ruse.

You misspelled ideal.

Do people really want the DOJ to be a partisan tool? Should the military, the police, the IRS, etc., also be?

[Martinned2]

Josh does, but only when there’s a Trumpist in the White House.

[tylertusta]

No one wants that.

On the other hand, it should not be this difficult for people to recognize that the DOJ is run by politicians and is under the authority of the highest-elected politician in the nation.

People who pretend otherwise, as Prof. Blackman says, are just liars.

[bernard11]

No one wants that.

Trumpists seem to want it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Do people really want the DOJ to be a partisan tool? Should the military, the police, the IRS, etc., also be?"

Yes.

They also want the understanding that payback is a double unplussgood thing and hence the partisans in power now won't do anything they don't want done to them when the other side inevitably is in power in the future. THAT's the mistake that Clinton/Obama/Biden have made -- and they should expect the full partisan assault of all of these entities for the next twelve years.

It's called the "Executive Branch" and people elect the "Executive" with the beliefs (or biases) that they prefer. That's called "democracy." However, ever notice how railroads have a double set of rails when the tracks go over a bridge? Those are to catch the wheels of a de-railed train and keep the cars on the bridge. And our "rules" serve a similar purpose, except that the Democrats have spent the past 30 years ripping them all up, and now there is nothing to protect them.

They have cut down all the trees in England in pursuit of the devil -- and now the devil (Trump) has turned on them, and there are no trees left for them to hide behind.

The problem is not that these branches are partisan as much as we've evolved from a republic into a democracy.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Do people really want the DOJ to be a partisan tool? Should the military, the police, the IRS, etc., also be?"

I want all federal executive agencies to follow the instructions of the duly elected President.

"Independent" security agencies are bad, as shown in many many countries, you seem to be an authoritarian to wan this..

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Garland — a federal judge with a sterling reputation for independence and fairness "

We dodged a bullet -- that schmuck could have been on SCOTUS.

[tylertusta]

I agree. Holy cow. I don't agree with Senator McConnell on everything, but if I ever meet him I'm buying him a drink.

It'll probably be Ensure, but I like to think he'd appreciate the gesture.

[Noscitur a sociis]

This episode demonstrates that this notion of the Department of Justice as "independent" has always been a ruse.

Apologies if this is a dumb question: I didn’t get to study at South Texas College of Law.

How does the president regretting that the Department of Justice acted independently show that it isn’t really able to act independently?

[Michael P]

That's a false dichotomy. The DOJ sometimes acts independently, but mostly it acts to defend and perpetuate the DC swamp.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

So you want more AGs to act like Garland did? Umm, okay.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Fewer Presidents like Obama/Biden.

I'd like an AG answering to a different POTUS.

[Sarcastr0]

What a fuzzy standard, Michael!

Looks to me a lot like any DoJ that doesn't prosecute the politicians Michael doesn't like is 'perpetuating the DC swamp' and thus not independent.

Kowtowing to Michael is not, of course, what independence looks like.

[SimonP]

When your primary goal is to put out an unending stream of shit-posting, they can't all be bangers.

[RedheadedPharoh]

"president regretting that the Department of Justice acted independently "

Where is this coming from? Not from the article. That's just your inference.

This article is just hindsight is 20/20 nonsense. Garland appointed Smith in 11/22. Two years. Their smear strategy didn't work. It not working doesn't mean it was independent.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Where is this coming from? Not from the article. That's just your inference.

Prof. Blackman’s inference, actually, although it’s certainly one that anyone would reach who can read English and has even a nodding familiarity with the topic.

Did you perhaps study at South Texas College of Law?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Is it possible that Garland was acting partisanly but his strategy failed? Smith was trying to expediate the trial just like Biden had asked for, after all.

If your default position is that the people in authority when they're your political tribe are good and noble, then I can see where you coming from.

But if you're like many people who study history and know things about life and stuff and had your eyes open for the past 4 years then your default position would be to be skeptical. In that case, the obvious inference was that it was just another failed political hit job.

But maybe that's hard to come by if you're one of the former types. Because no matter empirical evidence is provided, those types also believe the people in government are good at doing things. So of course you'd believe if they were trying to be partisan they would've succeeded at it.

Wherever those people studied, it surely wasn't South Texas College of Law or anywhere else that exists in reality.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We need to establish a bi-partisan social consensus of where the line between political and criminal actually IS, and then agree that we will stick to it.

We had that before Watergate. Truman was *hated* and almost didn't win in 1948 (remember the "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline?) and he was hated worse after Korea (a very unpopular war) started in 1950. Kennedy likely wouldn't have *lived* until January 20, 1969 because of some serious health problems he had, and there were a lot of things going on in his administration. Lyndon Johnson was even worse, he was ruthlessly corrupt.

Trump would never have been prosecuted before 1970. Good, bad, or evil, that is a fact. As is the fact that there will now be zealous Republicans looking to nail every Democrat they can find for J-Walking. Hey, these are the new rules, and it isn't the Republicans who re-wrote them.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Is it possible that Garland was acting partisanly but his strategy failed? Smith was trying to expediate the trial just like Biden had asked for, after all.

It certainly is. But this article wouldn’t make very much sense on that interpretation.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Blame shifting, passing the buck and backseat driving by Presidential hagiographers doesn't make sense?

Sure it does. Biden's a piece of shit and butthurt about being pushed aside so on his way out the door and into the grave he's throwing people under the bus.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, someone sure is...

[Social Justice is neither]

You telling me Biden's DoJ didn't let the SoL run out for most of his crimes and weren't actively working for full immunity before the last shred of that got blown up by the judiciary? Holy shit, you commies really do live on another planet. And just because Biden's fully weaponized DoJ tried and failed is not somehow a negation of the attempt as you seem to frame this.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

This being the "Biden DoJ" Special Counsel, who was in fact a Trump appointee.

Pretty risky move, appointing a Trump guy to implement this elaborate conspiracy, dontcha think?

[Vryedni]

You sad hack.

[Frank Drackman]

Barry Hussein’s pick for the Surpremes

[not guilty]

Merrick Garland was too timid and reluctant to expose Donald Trump's perfidy in a timely manner. Who knows what would have happened if Jack Smith had been appointed as Special Counsel eighteen months sooner?

[RedheadedPharoh]

The same result. Trump '47. Jack Smith is a partisan hack. So his work after 24 months is probably the same as it would've been after 42 months.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Not even you believe that.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe if they had chosen Robert Hur there might have been a different outcome.
You know, a competent attorney rather than a political hack.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Whose side are you arguing?

[tylertusta]

Is that a hint of regret that I'm reading?

A year ago you were practically orgasmic over the charges against Trump. You were over the moon on Smith's plan to prosecute Trump's cases, and you were incredibly confident in the frivolity of Trump's immunity gambit.

I dare say that Mr. Guilty of 2023 would have done the same thing that Smith did: bring charges in summer of 2023 with trials and convictions consuming the 2024 general election calendar.

Mr. Guilty of December 2024, with the benefit of hindsight, now sees that this plan was a fools errand, but it's a mistake to say this was Garland's fault.

The real blame here is that far too many at the DOJ and in SCO Smith's camp were overconfident of their ability to bring this to trial on schedule just like Mr. Guilty of 2023 was overconfident.

Hubris, not Garland's timidity, is what brought the Trump cases down.

[Z Crazy]

Ill write this.

the charges of creating documents to look authentic when they're not (forgery) and making false statements under oath (perjury) and conspiracy to do the same, were legally defensible.

But conspiracy to defraud the United States? Thats never been interpreted to include lying for political gain.

And conspiracy against rights? There was no basis for it. Nothing alleged was a conspiracy against anyone's rights.

[tylertusta]

I think that of all of the charges against Trump, the only ones that were legally meritorious were the ones out of Florida. The rest were just ridiculous.

[bernard11]

And what do you think should have been the outcome of those charges?

[tylertusta]

Without sitting in the jury box after the presentation of evidence by the prosecution and the defense's rebuttal, I don't know what the outcome should have been.

My point is that the charges in FL weren't tendentiously drafted and didn't rely on novel, incredulous legal theories of criminality. They relied on straightforward applications of Federal law that have been successfully prosecuted in other cases of obstruction and of handling classified documents.*

* Successful unless you're a prominent politician not named Donald Trump, that is. It seems that everyone else gets a pass- Clinton, Biden, Pence, and others- in their mishandling of documents and the coverups where they try to hide that they had the docs. I would feel a lot more comfortable about prosecuting Trump for classified docs had we prosecuted cases for other politicians. Prosecutorial discretion my ass. They'd fry anyone in uniform for less than what Biden, Trump, Pence, and Clinton did.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I agree. Pretty much alone among the legal attacks on Trump, the Florida case was on sound legal ground.

The only problem with it was that half of DC were equally guilty, this was a law that was simply not being enforced against anybody important. And Trump knew that what he was doing was de facto, if not legally, legal.

It was remarkably stupid of Trump to expect that he'd share that immunity, though. By the time he left office he was certainly on notice that they were out to get him.

[David Nieporent]

Clinton, Biden, Pence, and others- in their mishandling of documents and the coverups where they try to hide that they had the docs.

What "coverups" were those?

[tylertusta]

As I said: the coverups where they tried to hide that they had classified documents.

Do you really want to talk about how magic fairy dust put classified documents in Biden's garage?

[MaddogEngineer]

Agree with this.

But to clarify, I don't think there was an allegation at the federal level of forged documents. Fake electors were state level crimes. That said (absent a conspiracy charge, which I guess Georgia was trying to make), Trump's fingerprints are not on that.

It depends on particular state law and their exact form, but as an abstract concept, presenting alternate elector votes is not fraud, could not be fraud, unless they purported to forge a state executive signature/seal on them. Merely preparing to submit to the Senate would be protected under the 1A right of petition.

Which is why attempting to criminalize the stolen election campaign was futile. Most all of it was protected by the First Amendment. The campaign itself was futile, because after the electors voted on Dec 12, the outcome was settled. No judge could order a do-ever. Federal law regulating the electoral college and the Constitution do not allow for that.

[David Nieporent]

The campaign itself was futile, because after the electors voted on Dec 12, the outcome was settled. No judge could order a do-ever.

Hence the attack on the Capitol on J6.

[Roger S]

We had an orderly and peaceful transfer of power. You are delusional.

All those arguments were made in court, and lost.

[tylertusta]

I think you meant to reply to someone else.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Try reading NG's comment again. He clearly indicated that Garland had been too "timid and reluctant to expose Donald Trump's perfidy in a timely manner."

Had Garland done so, Trump would now probably be in jail for obstruction in the documents case, where he belongs, instead of preparing to grab the country by the pussy, which he is doing now.

[not guilty]

"Mr. Guilty of December 2024, with the benefit of hindsight, now sees that this plan was a fools errand, but it's a mistake to say this was Garland's fault."

To the contrary, I was frequently critical of Merrick Garland's foot dragging regarding Trump prior to his November 2022 appointment of the Special Counsel. Jack Smith moved as expeditiously on both prosecutions as the courts (two of whom were in the tank for Trump) allowed.

I don't recall that you were commenting here at the time.

[MaddogEngineer]

The thing you are almost correct about is Garland dragging his feet, apparently despite Biden hectoring to do more earlier. This exonerates no one. Garland probably recognized it was the wrong thing to do, but couldn't resist the president forever. Because he was the president.

Jack Smith's timeframe was not crimped by hostile federal judges. It was crimped because he was not (purported to be) appointed earlier.

That Garland eventually agreed to authorize a political prosecution does not mean it wasn't a political prosecution, just because it was delayed.

What the haters can't reconcile is that if the evidence was so overwhelming, why was a special counsel not immediately appointed when Garland was confirmed? The appointment had nothing to do with any evidence or crime, it was about politics. If anything, the prosecution effort went ahead after it became clear that Trump still held sway over much of the Republican party. And therefore was a threat to return. Doesn't get any more political than that.

The cynic in me also wonders whether some campaign consultant thought it would be useful to repeat 2016 and let him become the nominee again, thinking he would be the weakest opponent in the general, wounded by multiple prosecutions, even as he became a martyr for MAGA voters to rally around in 2024 primaries.

[David Nieporent]

What the haters can't reconcile is that if the evidence was so overwhelming, why was a special counsel not immediately appointed when Garland was confirmed?

Because until Trump was running for office against Biden, there was no conflict of interest and therefore no need for a special counsel.

[RedheadedPharoh]

A bunch of hindsight nonsense from Biden down to the usual commenting clowns.

The Democrats failed in their political smear job because, like their policies and institutions, their smear strategy failed. Now they're looking back with hindsight as if they had perfect foresight.

[Martinned2]

Too many Americans don't care about a Presidential candidate being self-confessedly corrupt and authoritarian. Who'd have guessed?

[Frank Drackman]

enough about the Biden/Harris supporters

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

They failed because...they failed.

Well done.

[Commenter_XY]

Thank God (and Senator Mitch McConnell) Garland was merely an AG and never a SCOTUS justice.

Soon to be AG Bondi will clean house, after she is confirmed. No, that was not sexist.

I will say this...It is very easy to become personally corrupt in Washington DC (just think of some of the pictures that have been posted publicly of corrupt personal behavior, STOCK Act, etc). Merrick Garland had no personal legal or ethical or financial 'issues' while he was AG that I am aware of, and for that, I commend him. That is something as an American, I appreciate.

[Martinned2]

It is very easy to become personally corrupt in Washington DC

So your proposed solution to that (alleged) problem is to send people to Washington who are already self-confessedly corrupt before they ever set foot in the place?

[Josh R]

What would the problem be if Garland were a SCOTUS justice?

[JasonT20]

The problem would be having a Justice more independent minded, if perhaps left-leaning on some hot-button issues, rather than having a Federalist Society-approved Neil Gorsuch on the bench.

[Josh R]

I'm OK with Gorsuch.

What should have happened is Garland replaces Scalia, Gorsuch replaces Kennedy and Barrett (not Kavanaugh) replaces RBG.

[JasonT20]

I give Gorsuch credit for having some integrity, even if I disagree with his ideology. (As far as I've seen, he seems mostly honest and straightfoward, as opposed to Alito and Thomas.) I have the same general opinion of Barrett.

Also, the counter-factual that assumes that Trump still would have won in 2016 if Garland hadn't been blocked may not be valid. Knowing that Trump would immediately get a Supreme Court pick was part of his appeal to the evangelicals that enabled them to overlook his personal character. That election was close enough that any significant difference in the narrative could have led to a different result.

[Frank Drackman]

His name's Garfinkel, never trust someone who changes their name

[Mr. Bumble]

Like Bill Deblasio? To be fair the Wiki entry says the family changed the name "several generations ago".

[not guilty]

"His name's Garfinkel, never trust someone who changes their name"

You mean like James David Vance f/k/a James David Hamel and James Donald Bowman?

According to Wikipedia, Garland's family name had been changed from Garfinkel several generations earlier. He was born Merrick Brian Garland on November 13, 1952.

[JasonT20]

Soon to be AG Bondi will clean house, after she is confirmed.

I live in Florida, so I know Pam Bondi quite well. He will not "clean house", unless you meant that as a euphemism for installing a bunch of Trump loyalists so that she can ingratiate herself to Trump and MAGA to satisfy her own ambitions. You find out all you need to know about her once you know that she dropped Florida out of the Trump University lawsuit after getting $25,000 from Trump for her re-election campaign in 2013. (Having announced that FL would join the suit 4 days prior to getting that cash.)

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/florida-ag-drops-trump-u-lawsuit-after-trump-gives-her-25000/

[Mr. Bumble]

Pam Bondi is trans?

[JasonT20]

Any defense of her obvious payoff, or is an attempt at humor over my typo all you have to say?

[MoreCurious]

Mr. Bumble spends his waking hours worrying about being accosted by LGBTQ+ people. Please excuse his lame attempt at humor.

[Bob from Ohio]

obvious!

[Sarcastr0]

Are you saying there's another, innocent explanation?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sarcastro doesn't understand where the burden lies.

[bernard11]

TiP doesn't understand inference from hard facts. Or burden of proof, either.

His notion is that it is false to say that Bondi withdrew from the suit in exchange for the $25K unless there is a recording of her discussing it specifically with Trump.

OTOH, all he needs is some vague shit from known liars to accuse Biden of corruption.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As someone who knows a wee bit about Higher Education, I never saw exactly what Trump University did that everyone else isn't doing.

Trump University allegedly defrauded its students by using misleading marketing practices and engaging in aggressive sales tactics -- every college and university I am aware of does exactly the same things...

For example, UMass Amherst once ran TV commercials showing the Boston Seaport District at dawn without ever mentioning that Amherst is close to three hours away from the buildings they were showing. They interviewed a couple of very successful UM grads without ever mentioning that something like 60% of the students who entered as freshmen never graduated. That's not deceptive?

Take law schools -- every kid entering thinks that he/she/it will be getting a six figure salary upon graduating, and how many actually do? Again, that's not deceptive?

Trump University was "for profit" -- have you seen what the average administrator at a "non profit" private school is getting paid? What's the real difference?

And it wasn't accredited. A lot of skills-based training institutions (particularly in computer skills) aren't. It may have had shoddy instructors -- again, a lot of IHEs have shoddy instructors.

It's been said that campaign donations buy you an audience -- so maybe Trump's donation bought him an audience with Bondi and she realized that she didn't have a case.

[ducksalad]

60% of the students who entered as freshmen never graduated.

What do you think the percentage should be?

Using retention as a quality measure was a mistake. It's a main driver behind grade inflation and watering down of curriculum.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If only 60% of new cars passed inspection -- if 40% of car buyers wound up paying for a car they could not drive, what would happen next?!?

[bernard11]

Here you go, Ed.

Maybe reading the article will answer your question.

Some tidbits:

As one person who attended the program wrote on a feedback form examined by the authors, “Requesting we raise our credit limits on our credit cards at lunch Friday seemed a little transparent.”

These seminars often began with a free session to get people in the door. Once individuals arrived, salespeople often tried to upsell them the “Trump Elite Packages,” ranging from the Bronze Elite Package for $9,995 up to the Gold Elite Package for $34,995.9 Once these seminars began to flourish, the program became, in essence, a series of hotel ballroom consultations with salespeople rather than any sort of academic course.

And for those extolling Trump's business genius, this is interesting:

Over time, as Trump sought higher profits, the company’s model shifted to offering more in-person seminars. Former Trump University Chief Learning Officer Roger Schank argued that financial hardship may have pushed Trump to push toward the bigger profits. He said, “I think Donald Trump was in bad times … it changed because Donald Trump needed the money.”

[Life of Brian]

That's an interesting take on causality. Kamala Harris also declined to prosecute Trump U, also chronologically after receiving donations from Trump.

Makes you wonder if the merits might actually have factored in somewhere.

[SRG2]

So Josh is whining not that the DoJ isn't independent, but that apparently Biden wishes it hadn't been independent, and the cultists, to a man, are in favour of a Trump-politicised DoJ. (and I will stipulate, will be lying if they deny it).

[RedheadedPharoh]

> but that apparently Biden wishes it hadn't been independent

Where are you seeing that in the article?

But I love this cope you guys are doing. The DOJ was so independent in Getting Trump, they failed to Get Trump! But had they been partisan, they would've successfully GOTTEN TRUMP!

lmao it's retarded

[SRG2]

Where are you seeing that in the article?

In the article, from the headline onwards. Would you defend Henry II as well?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Biden says "I wish the DOJ hadn't been so independent"?

No, those are nonsense inferences made by delusional fools.

He says he wishes they would've gone after his political opponents sooner. That isn't the same as "been so independent".

[Krayt]

they say, the former president might have faced a politically damaging trial before the election

Another admission it was about hurting a political opponent, and not about disinterested concern for rule of law, which does not care about the political or timing aspects.

[SimonP]

Americans deserved a clear, adjudicated record of Trump's crimes, and closure on his culpability, before we went back to the polls to decide whether to send that crook back to the White House.

Trials and verdicts would have been politically damaging, but the politics weren't the point.

[Michael Ejercito]

Who were the victims of these alleged crimes?

[JasonT20]

Who were the victims of these alleged crimes?

We can start with the ~140 officers injured in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. The 535 Congresspersons and their staff that had to hide or barricade themselves in their chambers. VP Mike Pence that had to be evacuated and was at one point ~40 feet from insurrectionists that had been part of a crowd heard chanting, "Hang Mike Pence!" Then there is every U.S. citizen deprived of a orderly and peaceful transfer of power, that respected the official results and thus the "will of the people", breaking a tradition that had held since 1880.

The victims of the classified documents he was indicted over are all U.S. citizens put at completely unnecessary risk by a narcissist that prioritized his own sense of entitlement over national security. I shouldn't have to link to the prosecutions of people that had active security clearances and authorization to view documents for illegally bringing those documents to their homes and keeping them there. Or the jail time they were sentenced to after pleading guilty. A former President, VP, Secretary of State, or any other government official, no longer has any reason to have sensitive documents in his or her possession. Prosecuting someone that resisted returning those documents to the proper authorities, had their lawyers sign off on documents saying that they had (finally) returned everything when that wasn't true, and otherwise obstructed efforts to return them is perfectly reasonable. Unless, of course, you're talking about Trump. He is being persecuted any time someone tries to hold him accountable for something he does.

[Dan Schiavetta]

+1

[Dr. Ed 2]

Jason, how about such creative accounting for anyone of the BLM/ANTIFIA incidents over the past 8 years? This is from 2016:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HahVcBoyGzk

(Look at how much younger Trump looks.)

[Bob from Ohio]

"A former President, VP, Secretary of State, or any other government official, no longer has any reason to have sensitive documents in his or her possession."

So you want Biden prosecuted?

[JasonT20]

So you want Biden prosecuted?

I wanted to see Trump face trial because of how he resisted returning documents that didn't belong to him for over a year, and that it finally took a search warrant to get everything when a subpoena wasn't enough.

For anyone else, Biden, Pence, or whoever that acknowledged having failed to follow the law and cooperated fully once the documents were discovered? Well, I think that they should be treated the same way that any other government employee or servicemember that held a security clearance would be treated. There does seem to be a long history of letting elected officials and high level political appointees off the hook for things that others get jail time for doing. That is going to take a systematic change to how those cases are approached. I don't see anyone of either party changing that status quo, however, since they would be the ones at risk.

[David Nieporent]

There does seem to be a long history of letting elected officials and high level political appointees off the hook for things that others get jail time for doing.

No; that's a pro-Trump framing. The history is this: you can basically sort things into four different scenarios. The first, and most common, is mishandling of classified documents with no other criminal intent or act. Those situations are typically handled — for high and low level alike — administratively. The person is fired and his or her security clearance is revoked.

The second is mishandling plus: you may have taken it without any criminal intent, but you lie when you're caught. That was the Kristian Saucier situation, that so many MAGAs seized on when whining about Hillary: he (innocently, but knowingly) took photos of classified submarine equipment, but when the FBI interviewed him, he lied to them and destroyed his laptop, camera and memory card. They prosecute you for this. Saucier got a year in prison.

The third is whistleblowing/leaking — deliberately taking classified material with the intent to reveal it to the media or the like. This is treated very seriously as a criminal matter, but it's not Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. The Reality Winner situation. (She got 5 years in prison.)

The fourth is actual espionage — deliberately taking classified material with the intent to sell or deliver it to foreign countries. That one they throw the book at you. Decades in prison.

Neither Biden, Pence, nor Hillary did anything beyond the 1st category. Trump was well into the second category. Biden and Pence voluntarily disclosed what they had done, turned the documents over, and cooperated. Hillary did the same. Trump lied and enlisted his minions to try to hide the documents and destroy the evidence.

[JasonT20]

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdga/pr/former-federal-employee-faces-five-years-prison-mishandling-classified-materials

I don't see any mention in this statement that the DoD employee being prosecuted had lied to investigators. The only charge mentioned is "Unauthorized Removal/Retention of Classified Documents."

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/01/politics/retired-air-force-officer-classified-information/index.html

This guy got 3 years. No mention in the article or charges that he lied to anyone about having the documents in unauthorized locations.

That 1st category you mention seems to include at least some people that end up serving jail time, rather than having it handled administratively.

[Roger S]

We had an orderly and peaceful transfer of power. You are delusional.

All those arguments were made in court, and lost.

[JasonT20]

We had an orderly and peaceful transfer of power. You are delusional.

In your alternate reality where the insurrection, riot, or whatever the fuck you want to call didn't happen, maybe.

[Mr. Bumble]

Biden was certified as the winner of the election and was inaugurated on Jan.20, 2017.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don’t think anyone is disputing that there was a transfer of power.

[Mr. Bumble]

Was there any unrest on Jan 20, 2017 or was it peaceful, unlike when Trump was inaugurated?

[Noscitur a sociis]

That seems like a fairly artificial way of looking at things. If there was an attempt to assassinate Biden to stop him, you don’t think that could be considered as long as it stopped by 11:59 on the 19th?

[not guilty]

"Biden was certified as the winner of the election and was inaugurated on Jan.20, 2017."

Is that as true as everything else you have said, Mr. Bumble?

[Michael Ejercito]

We can start with the ~140 officers injured in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. The 535 Congresspersons and their staff that had to hide or barricade themselves in their chambers. VP Mike Pence that had to be evacuated and was at one point ~40 feet from insurrectionists that had been part of a crowd heard chanting, "Hang Mike Pence!" Then there is every U.S. citizen deprived of a orderly and peaceful transfer of power, that respected the official results and thus the "will of the people", breaking a tradition that had held since 1880.
Trump was not even there.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That's like saying Osama Bin Laden wasn't even flying the planes.

[hobie]

You forgot to mention the millions of voters, both Dem and Rep, in 5 battleground states that would have had their votes nullified at the whim of Trump's 'republican congressmen'

[Michael Ejercito]

So what?

Hillary Clinton tried the same thing in 2016.

[ReaderY]

I find myself curious. How do you explain these curious videos that seem to show Hillary Clinton conceding the election on Election Night itself in 2016?

What’s your take on them? Are you saying they’re fakes? Or is it a matter of just saying “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain” and carrying on as if they weren’t there?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=khK9fIgoNjQ

[SimonP]

Who were the victims of Hunter's?

[SRG2]

Presumably you would oppose all prosecutions for leaking confidential or classified documents via email provided there was no actual damage to national security, and would likewise oppose all prosecutions for conspiracy where the underlying act had not taken place - because in none of these cases would there have been a victim.

[Roger S]

The Trump cases have been mostly adjudicated. The Florida documents case was dismissed. The Georgia prosecutor was dismissed. Much of the evidence in the DC indictment was ruled invalid, and that case is being dropped. The supposed NY conviction is not really a conviction, because the judge cannot find grounds for sentencing. The voters of both parties were mostly satisfied that these cases were meaningless, and the cases did not appear to influence votes.

[SimonP]

Well, this is a sack of pointless and easily rebuttable lies.

[Mr. Bumble]

OK, start with the easy ones.

[JasonT20]

The burden of proof is always on the one to make a claim, not the person that doesn't accept it as being true. And on top of that, there is ample reporting on all of those events that anyone of us has had access to for a long time. If someone like Roger wants to spew nonsense that we know isn't true, we are under no obligation to even listen, let alone debunk it. Especially when we have seen how such people never acknowledge being wrong. It is just a waste of our time.

It is just Pigeon Chess that he is playing.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...The Florida documents case was dismissed. The Georgia prosecutor was dismissed. Much of the evidence in the DC indictment was ruled invalid, and that case is being dropped. ..."
These are all true statements. Apparently you and SimonP have trouble with reality.

[David Nieporent]

Okay, here's an obvious one: none of the evidence in the DC indictment was ruled invalid.

[Noscitur a sociis]

1. The Georgia charges remain pending, and thus have not been adjudicated.

2. Precisely none of the evidence in the DC case was “ruled invalid”.

3. To the extent the fact that Trump has not been sentenced calls into question the finality of the New York conviction, that would mean it hasn’t been adjudicated.

[Mr. Bumble]

Florida documents was dismissed.True
GA charges may be pending but the claim was that the prosecutor (and her office) were disqualified.True
Unsure about the the effect of the SC ruling on the DC case.
Judge Javert and Alvin Bragg are trying to treat Trump as if he had died to keep the guilty verdict on the record.

[SimonP]

I'm not interested in constantly repeating a detailed summary of the actual facts, for an audience that will disregard any such summary and repeat the same lies another day.

So you can suck a dick, Bumbler. You've lost the privilege of my treating you like an adult.

[Mr. Bumble]

"I'm not interested in constantly repeating a detailed summary of the actual facts,..."
Then stop making unsupported comments.

[not guilty]

"The Trump cases have been mostly adjudicated. The Florida documents case was dismissed. The Georgia prosecutor was dismissed. Much of the evidence in the DC indictment was ruled invalid, and that case is being dropped. The supposed NY conviction is not really a conviction, because the judge cannot find grounds for sentencing. The voters of both parties were mostly satisfied that these cases were meaningless, and the cases did not appear to influence votes."

Not true at all. The only case which has been adjudicated on the merits is the New York prosecution, which awaits sentencing.

The District of Columbia prosecution and the appeal from dismissal of the Florida indictment have been dismissed without prejudice and may be reinstated when Trump leaves office as president (unless he dies in office).

The Georgia prosecution can proceed upon remand against all defendants other than Trump. It may take a while for a successor prosecutor to be named, but the trial is likely to take place while Trump is still in office. That will fully (and publicly) ventilate Trump's misconduct. When Trump leaves office, he will again be subject to prosecution in Atlanta.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"In private, Biden has also said he should have picked someone other than Merrick Garland as attorney general, complaining about the Justice Department's slowness under Garland in prosecuting Trump, and its aggressiveness in prosecuting Biden's son Hunter, according to people familiar with his comments."

So Biden's main two concerns about the Justice Department during his term were his political opponent and his son? Did the DoJ do anything else during the four years?

[JasonT20]

I don't see anywhere that those where his "two main concerns about the Justice Department during his term...." That reporting selectively quoted by Josh, and then by you is specifically about his current thinking. I'm sure that there are plenty of things to dig into about what the DoJ did for four years and how Biden felt about all of it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I'm sure that there are plenty of things to dig into about what the DoJ did for four years and how Biden felt about all of it."

Perhaps, but none of those things appear to have affected how Biden felt about having picked Garland.

[David Nieporent]

Perhaps, but none of those things appear to have affected how Biden felt about having picked Garland.

Based on what do you make that assertion? Your many conversations with him?

[Roger S]

Garland's main job was to prevent Trump from being elected. That failed.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Garland was appointed in March, 2021. At that time, due to his involvement in J6, Trump was considered done and dusted. At that time, Trump had himself seemingly ensured he would not be re-elected.

Your belief that Biden appointed Garland for that specific purpose (which, by the way, contradicts the thrust of the WaPo article) is both irrational and unfounded.

[Brett Bellmore]

I personally think that what happened is that Trump became the Democrats' white whale, they couldn't NOT go after him, even though if they'd refrained, he might have simply gone into retirement.

As it is, they made getting reelected his only viable defense against the endless lawfare.

So, no, I don't think Garland was selected to handicap Trump's reelection campaign. He was selected to endlessly hound Trump.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"As it is, they made getting reelected his only viable defense against the endless lawfare."

The same would apply to any common criminal.

It's just that few of them have the same opportunity to become President.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Josh reminds me of the wiseass world-weary, cynical conservatives who would argue in the cafeteria at lunchtime. In eighth grade. He's got that much real life experience and that much historical understanding.

[MoreCurious]

You're dissing the one shining light at South Texas College of Law? Shame on you.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Lunchtime?

[Drewski]

"that much historical understanding."

Are you kidding? He knows the birth *and* death dates of virtually every major figure in American legal history. What more could you ask?

[JasonT20]

He knows the birth *and* death dates of virtually every major figure in American legal history.

Would knowing the birth and death dates of every major figure in the history of science mean that I understand the history of science?

If you've never heard of Bloom's Taxonomy, you should familiarize yourself with the basic ideas. Knowledge (such as names and dates) is the lowest level of learning. It is required for higher levels of learning, but understanding is the next level. They are not the same.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Your sarcasm detector is not working.

[JasonT20]

Moreover, Biden expressly viewed the criminal prosecution of Trump as a way to harm his primary political opponent.

Or...Biden could have shared the view that I have, which is that no one is above the law, and Trump should have been prosecuted in a timely manner because he broke the law repeatedly and flagrantly.

That isn't mutually exclusive with Biden and other Democrats receiving the political benefit of Trump being exposed at a trial for his criminal actions. The motivations of prosecutors are always worth considering because they can impact the fairness of the proceedings and rights of the accused. But the truth and political advantage can line up, so knowing that a prosecution provides political advantage is not enough on its own to doubt the charges.

[Roger S]

After the Hunter pardon, no one thinks Biden has that view.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Oh, so now you think he's unquestionably lucid?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Biden could have shared the view that I have, which is that no one is above the law,

That view seems difficult to reconcile with Biden’s second grievance about Garland.

[JasonT20]

Fair enough. Perhaps it is reasonable to guess that he thinks the way you and Josh are claiming. But it is a guess, not a fact, unless someone read Biden's mind.

My purpose here is that I was merely illustrating the possibility that something other than partisanship and political self-interest could be important to anyone that decided that Trump should be prosecuted for his actions. Blackman is clearly trying to paint all of the prosecutions of Trump as being entirely about politics and not at all about Trump's own actions and the law.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

But Biden embraces that arch-crook ERIC HOLDER
stop the presses....this is proof he is a lying disgusting hyporcrital bastard.

Eric Holder Quoted By White House To Justify Hunter Biden's Presidential Pardon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6ccaRUnNUk

Do you even read the newspaper????

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That's not a newspaper. It appears to be a link to a video?

[Mark Regan]

>This episode demonstrates that this notion of the Department of Justice as "independent" has always been a ruse.

The word "ruse" means something like subterfuge. You're using it to mean something like "self-evident falsehood."

[silverpie]

Not mentioned: picking Jones would probably have turned the Senate over to the Republicans. (It was 50-50 so controlled only by Harris’s tie-breaking vote, and the governor of Alabama was/is R. Even if a special election were required, there was no guarantee of another disastrous candidate win in the GOP primary.)

[Roger S]

That's right. Picking Jones was impossible. Whoever suggested it was a fool.

[bernard11]

Seems like you're the one who is a fool.

[Bob from Ohio]

"picking Jones would probably have turned the Senate over to the Republicans"

Not correct. He won his special election in 2017. He lost in 2020 so left the Senate before Ole Joe took office.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I imagine the main reason it was t mentioned is that it isn’t true. (Insert Washington Post joke here.) Jones lost his reelection (rather decisively) to Tommy Tuberville in 2020, so he was out of the senate before Biden even took office.

[Please, Daivd, Seek Help]

This is like your 100th post about your theory that Garland, professionally embarrassed by Biden hurting his feelings, should have resigned. He didn't. Rather than update your theory to "well, I guess his feelings weren't hurt" [or any other explanation], you seem to want to keep making fetch happen. It's not weird to imagine Garland might have resigned -- nothing is crazy about floating that as an idea -- but it's weird to lack the cognitive ability to imagine a world where he didn't, even when he didn't. You are in a bubble world.

It makes it very hard to take your ideas about significantly more important things seriously because it is just really clear you have a problem with intrusive thoughts that inhibits your ability to think about things generally.

[Social Justice is neither]

An AG that sees half of Americans as terrorists is unfair for the job and should resign if they have any decency. I understand why you don't understand this.

[Randal]

We already knew that you live in a bubble world, but thanks for reminding us.

[Bob from Ohio]

Garland, no SCOTUS seat and dissed by his"friends". I like it!

[Commenter_XY]

BfO...It is enough that Garland leaves as a distinguished political non-entity.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe he can change his name back to Garfinkel and start over

[Sarcastr0]

Blackman's fan fiction is not really something to have strong feelings over.

[Bob from Ohio]

It was a WaPo report. Maybe they also write fan fiction.

[Sarcastr0]

That’s an overhead of what’s quoted in the OP. It does see how Blackman took it, but as I said that’s not saying much.

[Roger S]

In other news, Biden regrets dropping out of the 2024 race, according to reports.

[Bob from Ohio]

He can't recall his debate with Trump. Sad!

[Frank Drackman]

I don't understand what Sleepy Joe regrets, I don't think Sleepy Joe does either

[Randal]

Of course he does, duh. Why would he drop out knowing that Kamala would lose anyway?

[hobie]

You hayseeds should be a lot more charitable towards Garland. He tried so hard not to be political that all your fascist heroes never had a finger laid on them. On Jan 7, a normal AG would have arrested and thrown into military detention Trump, his lawyers, Sens Hawley and Johnson and Trump's 'just leave the rest to my Republican Congressmen' congressmen. Perhaps the new AG won't be such a pussy

[Mr. Bumble]

Hey nigger. He wasn't the AG on Jan. 7.

[hobie]

Kindergarten deflection. You got anything else?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Bumble: muted. Shame on you.

[Mr. Bumble]

New screen name but still the same old captcrisis.

[hobie]

Yeah, Bumble. It's never appropriate to us the 'N' word under any circumstances. Shame on you indeed

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yep, he went from harmlessly nonsensical to offensive, in one word. Bu-bye!

[Randal]

The nice thing about muting Mister Bee is that you know you're not going to miss anything interesting.

[Commenter_XY]

Perhaps the new AG won't be such a pussy

I think we might agree here, hobie. Between Bondi and Patel, the DOJ and FBI will have their houses cleaned. They won't be pussies. 😉

[hobie]

Well, then I'm sure he's going to bring charges. At least on Sen Johnson. Because he coordinated to take the fake electors documents to the national archives and to Pence. If anyone should be guilty for trying to overthrow the government...it's Johnson

[MoreCurious]

How about a year-end quiz: When was the last time Mr. Bumble said anything intelligent? This year? This decade? This century?

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

Yet he treated the despicable Eric Holder as a saint.
Ignore Fool President.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

I followed him for 40 years. He's always been known to LAZY, a very poor speaker, and not bright at all. People are excusing their own lack of attention by focusing on the 'decline', it was not a fall from any great height.

[Brett Bellmore]

Shortest Zulu in the room, really; To have gotten that far in politics you need to have a lot on the ball, relative to the average man.

[loki13]

Huh. Been a while! Anyway, hope everyone is keeping their blood distinctly unangry this holiday season, and everyone had a very merry Christmas and holiday season, and is looking forward to spending New Year's Eve with their significant other, or, at a minimum, a candidate for that position.

For the New Year, I will be imparting the following pieces of advice. All of them are ones that I am aware of, and I even follow most of them successfully... well, some of the time.

1. You can disagree with people without being disagreeable. You don't win the internet. There are no points awarded. Those endorphins you get from dunking on someone? Well, you're probably not as clever as you think you are, and it doesn't matter.

2. People can have different and valid opinions about what is best for themselves and the country. Differences in policy opinions doesn't make people commies and fascists.

3. Facts matter. If you find yourself reading something that tells you what you already wanted to believe, why not ... you know, dig a little deeper before you start breathlessly sharing it. And if you regularly consume a source that has provided you incorrect facts in the past, why are you still using it?

4. Most people, in day-to-day life, in person, in America are not monsters. They are pretty good people. If you have a sour disposition regarding 50% of Americans, why not spend more time in real life and less time on-line?

Finally, I will repeat the same thing I always try to do- if you want to feel good, do actual things in your local community to help. The words you spend here do nothing. But seeing the positive impact that you can make- mentoring, coaching, volunteering, whatever it is? Not only will you have a more accurate view of how things are actually working and the people that you are talking about, but you will feel good about the positive things you are doing!

Anyway, hope everyone has a safe, happy, and healthy 2025.

[loki13]

Heh. It HAS been a while. Wrong thread!

[River]

In this case, we had a former president who genuinely committed gross crimes for which he ought to have been convicted. He not only willfully stole classified documents from the government, he showed them off. And, whether or not you characterize it as an "insurrection", he did attempt to commit election fraud in 2020. If you doubt this, just listen again to the recording of his call with the Georgia Secretary of State. A justice department that was both unbiased and competent would have acted with at least a minimal amount of urgency and brought both cases at least to a verdict in the four years they had. Whether Garland was biased or incompetent, he has shown that an attorney general cannot be trusted to act independently. They must have the same accountability to the president as the head of any other executive branch agency, if not more so. I'm sure every president and AG going forward will hold this view.

[Kords]

"Biden expressly viewed the criminal prosecution of Trump as a way to harm his primary political opponent."

Define "expressly" and provide an example of where Biden "expressly" made that view.