What's Garland's DOJ up To? Well, Blocking the Texas Vigilante Anti-Abortion Law...

[MineralMan]

Last night a federal district court judge put his foot down on the draconian and unconstitutional anti-abortion law, stopping its enforcement. How's that. The DOJ acted immediately, prepared a case and brought it to a district court in Texas. BAM!

Apparently, they did a good job in preparing the case, and the judge minced no words in his 100+ page decision.

As someone will no doubt point out, this decision will be appealed to a federal appeals court right away by Texas, but for now, Texas can't enforce that law, and the DOJ made an excellent argument against it, apparently.

Will that ruling stand? I can't say, of course, but it will, no doubt, be argued vigorously by the DOJ. On its face, the Texas law clearly oversteps the boundaries set by Roe vs. Wade. Also, in shifting enforcement to a very strange civil lawsuit by just about anyone who wants to challenge abortions, it did something that has never been acceptable in federal jurisprudence - vigilante enforcement.

So, if you're wondering whether the DOJ, under the leadership of Merrick Garland is taking action, there's your answer.

Thanks, AG Garland! You rock!

[Budi]

1. And they didn't blast it out to Corporate Media till the ruling was done.

Thank you AG Garland & your DOJ.

[MineralMan]

2. That's never the DOJ's style.

It argues its cases in court, not in the media. As it should.

Never show your hand before it is called.

[lagomorph777]

25. Except for Comey.

Technically, he was a DOJ employee when he sabotaged Hillary's campaign.

[RKP5637]

3. Great summary, I had been wondering. Thanks! K&R !!! n/t

[MineralMan]

6. Thanks. I wanted to make it clear in a simple post.

[malaise]

4. THIS

Rec

[MineralMan]

8. Yes, this!

This is what the DOJ is supposed to be doing, along with prosecuting the January 6 cases, and much more. We tend to be too impatient and forget that federal cases are complicated and must be well-presented and well-argued.

[JohnSJ]

5. I believe in September it was reported they were doing this. Obviously this will eventually get

to the SC.

What makes the Texas law even more obscene, is there isn't even an exception for rape or incest

Words cannot express the contempt I have for Abbott and the republicans legislators in Texas

[MineralMan]

7. It could well get to the SCOTUS.

However, if the appeals court upholds the decision, which it might, the Supreme Court will probably not hear it.

We'll see what happens, but the DOJ will represent our position vigorously, I think.

[JohnSJ]

10. Yes, and I meant in September was when the DOJ first announced they were doing this

[MineralMan]

12. Yes, but some weren't paying attention, apparently.

There has been too much criticism of Garland that is not based on any actual information. Again, we need to look more closely at how the federal government works than we often do. It is not his job to publicize the DOJ's plans before they are actually executed. In fact, it would be very bad practice that resembles the previous administration far too much.

[2naSalit]

16. +1

[NurseJackie]

9. If only he tweeted 12 times a day letting everyone know what he's doing!

So, if you're wondering whether the DOJ, under the leadership of Merrick Garland is taking action, there's your answer.

People who lack imagination probably find it difficult to understand what his job entails, others who are overtly resentful of Joe Biden are typically the ones who are cynically distrustful and suspicious of his administration and his motives. I see it all the time. It's almost always the same ones over and over.

Thanks, AG Garland! You rock!

Indeed!

[MineralMan]

11. TFG's AGs tended to do things like that, along with other acts

not typical of AGs. Garland is returning to the norm and doing his job without fanfare or publicity. Good decision!

Now, if we'd all pay attention to actual actions, rather than our wishes about what would happen, it would be far better.

I don't hold out much hope about that, though.

[PortTack]

13. Indeed! It's not hard to imagine how terrible it would be if cases were rushed and we lost!

[MineralMan]

14. Yes, exactly.

[Escurumbele]

23. Oh boy, this all reminds me of Muller, all the praise, the hope, the assumptions, and then what?

I am an optimist, have always been, but with "the rule of law" I have become an skeptic, there is the "rule of law" for some, and then there is "the rule of law" for others. It doesn't take too long to convict someone who doesn't have any money or power, but it sure takes a long time to convict the powerful and rich, and that is IF they are convicted at all...

I still have a little optimism regarding Garland and that he will do things right, but I have to say I only have very little. Rosenberg who many of us thought was on the level ended up being another trump stooge, Muller??? I have to say that his hands were cut by Barr, but then again he could have fought a little harder, or say more during his interrogation in front of Congress.

Lets see in a couple of months if we will be singing songs of praise to Garland...I hope so.

[Escurumbele]

28. With all the proof on video, audio, papers, witnesses that we already have I would think the

investigation should not take this long.

For example, how more do you need to investigate in the Georgia call where the buffoon asks specifically to the secretary to "find" 11,780 votes, "one more than we need to win" for the State of Georgia to go his way, and so the presidency?

There is audio, witnesses who were in the room, calls from Graham, etc. What is there to investigate? Did trump mean what he said, or not? How do we investigate if there was clear intent? Bull! It was an hour long conversation where the intent was clear, the words were clear...

Sorry but, too much investigation for something that is clear as clean water...He is not being impeached, there are no lap dogs in the Senate to clear him, he will be in a court of law.

[MineralMan]

38. Here's the thing, though:

Indicting and trying a former POTUS has never happened in this country's history. Expect a long wait for it to happen, if it happens at all. The case will have to be absolutely air-tight, and a single incident will not be enough for an indictment and a trial of a former President. Assembling such a case and preparing to actually take it to court is not in any way a trivial undertaking, and you can expect that everyone but people who don't understand the gravity of charging and trying someone who has been President.

I don't know what your background is, but you're being very naïve if you think that there will be any charges or trial without a very, very long period of preparation. This is not a typical case...it is a history-making case.

You will need more patience, I can assure you. Any charges will not happen this year, and probably not next year either, with a mid-term election on the horizon. Maybe in 2023. Maybe, if it appears that a conviction will be the outcome. Then, count on a long, long series of appeals on grounds that will appeal to the Constitution. Such a case will probably end up in the Supreme Court before it is really over.

History will be made if charges occur and a former President faces a trial. It won't be taken lightly.

[Escurumbele]

46. I would agree 100% with you if there wasn't so much evidence of wrongdoing by trump

Last edited Thu Oct 7, 2021, 05:27 PM - Edit history (1)

To begin with, two impeachments, multiple videos, audios, witnesses, there are tons of evidence against the guy, I do understand that they have to make the case airtight, there can be no doubts of his criminality, but as we all know there is already no doubt of his criminality, it is comparable to the video of George Floyd where there was no doubt of the intent and criminality. I mean, the guy keeps doing it, there is no doubt of his intent.

By the way, my background is Engineering, which I understand makes me unfit to truly judge any legal cases or processes. And you are correct, I am frustrated about the pace of the investigation, in part because there is a fear that it will end up like the Muller investigation.

I also understand that it has never happened in the USA that a former POTUS has never been indicted, but that should not be an excuse, if the guy is a criminal it doesn't matter what his position in government was, he must be treated like any other citizen would be treated. Also, if they want to continue with the rhetoric of "the rule of law", and "no one is above the law" then something better happen sooner than later, otherwise it is just false rhetoric.

Even Glenn Kirschner agrees with me.

Glenn Kirschner
@glennkirschner2

Just look at Trump’s statement from the newly released Senate Judiciary report, “Subverting Justice: How the Former President & His Allies Pressured DOJ to Overturn the 2020 Election.” For gosh sakes, indict him already! The criminal conduct is beyond dispute. And #JusticeMatters

[mcar]

15. kick!

[wryter2000]

17. Very true

And I’m more than happy and grateful. But one has to wonder why they could move so quickly on this and still no indictments against the Trumps. Their crimes are pretty obvious.

[MineralMan]

39. See my #38 above. Truly, this is not a simple matter.

It will be a history-making event, if it ever happens.

[wryter2000]

41. I'm thinking tax fraud

We know he valued his properties differently for taxes than he did when applying for a loan.

I know charges for trying to get the election thrown out and/or inciting an insurrection are very complicated, but there are other crimes we know he committed. I'm guessing that, if they ever get him, it will be for taxes and fraud, like the mob boss he is.

[MineralMan]

43. Yes, and perhaps that will come in the New York courts, rather than

in federal court.

Some people, of course, will never be satisfied with anything less than a death sentence for Trump. That would require a charge and conviction for Treason, which will not happen.

[wryter2000]

44. I don't mean to argue because we're largely in agreement

Bank and insurance fraud could be in NY, but if it's federal taxes, it would have to be a federal charge. Or course, I'm eagerly awaiting the state of GA to get going, too. They have him recorded, for pity's sake.

[MineralMan]

45. Charges could come from several jurisdictions, along with federal charges.

In every case, however, the investigations and case-building is going to be slow and painstaking. Too much is at stake for that not to be the case.

The NY state cases might well be the closest to being ready to bring. That's all I meant. Yes, there could be many indictments in many jurisdictions. Who will be the first? We'll see. I'm sure everyone is checking with other jurisdictions, as well.

[Javaman]

18. I can't understand why this fucked up law isn't, on it's face, sexual harassment and

a violation of privacy right off the bat.

[wryter2000]

42. Privacy is the ultimate issue

RWNJs contend there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. Charlie Pierce has opined their ultimate goal is Griswold v. CT. That was the case that established a right to privacy.

[George II]

19. 3...2...1...but why didn't he do that months ago? Oh, that's right, the law went into effect....

....about 2 weeks ago.

[Escurumbele]

20. That is all nice and good, but I don't want to be distracted about where Garland needs to place his

time and efforts, which is getting trump and all those crooks indicted, prosecuted and in jail.

Yes, thank you Garland for that, much needed, but there are pressing issues and questions regarding trump and gang on why there are no indictments on these people, why are they not in a court of law trying to defend their evil deeds, and why are not some of them already in jail.

Too much time being spent on "investigations" when we have a ton of proof on video, audio, etc. What will it take? Another insurrection is coming, and it will be more violent than the first, they are preparing for it and the crazies who support the buffoon will carry it out, so Garland needs to spend more time making sure it doesn't happen and those guilty go to jail.

I am very happy they stopped the Texas draconian law, but the danger on Democracy still persists, and Garland needs to heavy hand this to remove the criminals involved. I am afraid that this win in Texas will become nothing if republicans get away with the crimes they have already committed.

For example, I want to see the four who were subpoenaed in jail if they don't comply.

[Evolve Dammit]

21. Agreed.

[usaf-vet]

22. Let me be the first to eat my own words from this post yesterday. Frustration is exhusting.

This DOJ intervention is very welcome. There is a pulse at DOJ.

My words from yesterday with a little seasoning to makes them easier to eat.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15928501

[lagomorph777]

27. If his prosecutors could bring equally-well prepared cases against the Jan 6th terrorists to court,

instead of letting them off, I'd be pretty happy with him.

It's not all about the lack of public announcements or even the lack of visible actions; many of us are angry about the publicly-visible actions that DOJ is taking..

[lagomorph777]

30. Yup - this is not a scholarly study of ancient history.

It is a battle for the survival of the nation. It must be treated as such.

[lagomorph777]

32. It's a shamefully bad record.

I'm sure DOJ is far more successful in run of the mill Federal cases. I sure as hell hope so, anyway.

[ancianita]

26. Thanks, MM! I'll repost this, too: Wanna know what Merrick Garland has done to save democracy?

Merrick Garland, Republican that he is, is doing a FUCKTON to save our country.

By my count as of October 4 2021, thanks to seditiontracker.com, Merrick Garland has

1.
CHARGED = 623 in 45 states (by prosecutors)
2.
INDICTED = 297 in 26 states (by grand juries)
3.
SENTENCED = 11 in 8 states (by courts)
AND
4.
CONVICTED = 91 IN 28 STATES.

Merrick?
Even though you're a Republican, YOU ARE A BADASS AMERICAN PATRIOT!

Long may you run!

[lagomorph777]

33. So they failed to get indictments in 52% of cases. They failed to get ANY sentence in 98% of cases.

This is terrifying.

Thanks for sharing.

[ancianita]

48. Seriously? It's a process. There's NO failure until all charged are adjudicated. How can you

just up and call "failure" when hundreds have to go through the legal enforcement system. Seriously.

What's terrifying is that THEY know that if they pull anything else during this PROCESS, they will have charges added and their apprehension will go faster.

[Justice matters.]

36. So Garland, with thousands of DOJ prosecutors under his watch, did that all by himself...

or did he just approve the work done by thousands of them?

Does he have to approve (or not) every single one of these or is it the job of direct underlings?

[ancianita]

49. LOL kinda like Biden, right? With thousands under his watch, does it all by himself, right?

Where does the buck stop?
Should the buck stop with Garland for Jan6 prosecutions, and Biden for democracy?

Is there a problem with a good leader letting his people take the credit, and still say the buck stops with him her? That s/he takes the blame?

Seems like common sense leadership to me.

[bluboid]

35. Thank you, Mineral Man...

for your clear-headed/astute evaluation of DOJ - we that more than ever right now!

[Justice matters.]

37. Yes, thanks to everyone involved and Garland to approve doing it.

It's their job to protect Constitutional rights.

Garland has thousands of DOJ prosecutors doing their jobs. It's a big country.

Now, until the appeal is decided, there's the following other job that needs urgent work:

Link to tweet

Glenn Kirschner
@glennkirschner2

Just look at Trump’s statement from the newly released Senate Judiciary report, “Subverting Justice: How the Former President & His Allies Pressured DOJ to Overturn the 2020 Election.” For gosh sakes, indict him already! The criminal conduct is beyond dispute. And #JusticeMatters

When Bank robbers run away after everybody in the streets saw them flee, is it too much to expect LE to jump start running after them immediately?

Why not immediately when they tried to overthrow a Democratic Republic using a big lie and criminal coercion?

[Demsrule86]

50. Thanks MM...you rock for posting this... K&R