Just curious - poll regarding Garland's speech

[NewHendoLib]

33 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	A. G Garland's speech was spot on
	19 (58%)
	A. G Garland's speech was too soft/didn't hit hard enough
	5 (15%)
	A. G. Garland's speech was too tough
	0 (0%)
	A G Garland's speech erred by including that bit about "both sides do it"
	8 (24%)
	Other - what would you have liked to see more or less of
	1 (3%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Kali]

1. didn't like the both sides thing, though I understand he couldn't do otherwise

and it was in contrast to the decent list of rightwing offenses

[Hoyt]

2. It was a speech because he had to say something. Mueller gave a few too.

Big nothing.

[dem4decades]

8. Yep, look at the pressure it took off him. Remember when Rosenstien announced Mueller

Would get to the bottom of the matter? What a joke, on us, not falling for it again. When I see the FBI interviewing Bannon, Navarro and the rest, then I'll start to think the DOJ is actually doing something.

[JanMichael]

33. Talk is cheap but effective at simmering down criticisms.

I hope that the words result in real world actions that make the January 6th planners and funders pay dearly. That includes the head of the MAGAverse.

Until then words are just that, words, ideas, or air. They tend to not sting the criminally minded although people here seem to believe that.

If real world consequences are meted out for crimes that we think have occurred, and are then confirmed/proven, then fanfuckingtastic.

[vanlassie]

3. When Laurence Tribe is upset.... And his voice was shaking

tonight when speaking with Lawrence… then we must not be pacified. He is particularly concerned (he called it “scary”) that Garland did not address the days BEFORE Jan 6. And he was adamant that there was no need to wait and much to lose by foot dragging. Very disconcerting.

[Beastly Boy]

13. Neither did Garland specifically address the days after Jan. 6

But Garland clearly stated:

"The Justice Department remains committed to holding all Jan. 6th perpetrators, at any level, accountable under law – whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy,"

Garland said, quite literally, that physical presence on January 6th or not, as long as they are found responsible for the assault, the perpetrators will be held accountable.

Saying that this quote only applies to a 24 hour period and discounts the events of January 5th or January 7th is a bit ridiculous.

[drray23]

14. The point Tribe was making was broader than that

He was talking about all the other crimes, not just those directly connected to the January 6th attack. For instance, Trump incessant attempts to pressure elected officials to change the count in Georgia and elsewhere.

[Beastly Boy]

18. And Garland addressed his point

He clearly stated that his investigation extends beyond the events of January 6, and the perpetrators presence or absence at the Capitol on Jan 6 is irrelevant to holding them accountable. This is as broad as Tribe can ever hope for. It doesn't specify in any way the physical or temporal boundaries to the investigation. It is beyond me how anyone can construe Garland's comment as being applicable to just a 24 hour period.

[Bayard]

22. Saw this

He really wanted Garland (his former student), to talk about the criminal conspiracy surrounding 1/6. And that we have to get this show a good ways down the road before next elections.

[Hamlette]

4. I didn't hear a both sides do it. At all. And I've listened twice.

I'd also add, he had to be careful because if he does charge Trump, they could point to anything Garland's said as showing bias.

It was a speech written by a lawyer.

[Ohio Joe]

19. It was the exact time and place to be subtle...

The head of the DOJ showing bias in a televised national speech would be stupid. It would cast doubt on cases already won and squash ongoing investigations.

[Chin music]

21. That's one persons opinion. I have one too.

The gop and trmp tried to overthrow our govt. Not one D was involved. Not one of these rare antifa has been arrested. The DHS says right wing white supremacist violence is the top threat to America....but articulate words that implicate Dems on an equal footing? I hear what you say, but, he shouldn't have said anything if the only alternative was that in that regard. Jmho.
Bothsiderism has been a trope the gop has hung their hat on. And theres little time for subtlety at this point imo.It's the first time he's spoken in a year. Either Merrick Garland is Bidens guy and working to stomp insurrectionists or not. WE WEREN'T there. They did this. 100%.
That's just an opinion.
I think tomorrow, Joe B is going to name names and it will be scathing. I hope he picks up where MG left off. I think it's meant to be a one/two punch. I sure hope so.

[dwayneb]

28. DOJ is focused on law not opinion

I thought this was one of the best statements I have ever heard from our Justice department. This has absolutely nothing to do with being "even handed"; this is about what evidence is available to bring charges, and whether that evidence is sufficient to reach a conviction.

What I heard loud and clear is that this investigation is still in full swing and will take a long time, as it should. That's a good thing because we can be confident that we will have in hand the very best evidence to use in criminal proceedings. I didn't hear anything about a comparison of whether these crimes are being committed by left versus right.

Main thing to understand is that Garland is not a politician or a representative. He is first and foremost in place to uphold our laws.

As far as being afraid? You should be. Because in my opinion, it is very likely that the fascist Right will "win" at the end of the day, whether it's the election of 2024 or some year beyond that. While Garland's speech was courageous and made everyone feel good, we should all remember that the DOJ and the AG are to a great extent under the control of the President; yet another weak underpinning of our Republic that a future autocrat can use to his advantage.

[uponit7771]

34. Garland was technically correct in context

[uponit7771]

36. "It's not to much to ask for reassurances." 👈🏾 !! I'm telling people this morning that Watergate

... had a special counsel less than 1yr after plumbers arrest where Garland is just now getting out and telling America that J6 terrorism was wrong and they're doing something about it.

Yep, Americans need assurances after a terrorist attack like J6

[leftstreet]

11. How do you interpret the quote?

“These acts and threats of violence are not associated with any one set of partisan or ideological views.”

[dwayneb]

29. It's a true statement - so what?

There are acts of violence being committed by people all across the spectrum - yes we know that here in 2021, 95% of these are from the Radical Right. Go back to 1969 and this might not be the case; there were plenty of violent left-wing radicals in those days.

From the point of view of law enforcement, they must all be pursued with equal vigor. So Garland's statement should be encouraging - not discouraging. It tells us that this DOJ under AG Garland is acting with integrity.

The problem of course is that the AG is appointed by the President. If a fascist President gains power either through direct election or coup, he can fill this position with a hand-picked goose-stepper. Then we will be in real trouble.

[uponit7771]

37. Good point, America is 3rd largest populated country on Earth of course there's going to be ...

... crimes from all stripes of people.

We DO know the amplitude and frequency of threats of officials is coming from MAGA world

[leftstreet]

39. Didn't realize he was investigating acts from the 60s

Huh guess I missed the part prior to "these acts"

Maybe he said "throughout history, these acts"

[applegrove]

5. Missed the both sides thing. I guess you have to say it even if one side is 85% responsible

for violence and threats.

[doc03]

9. I thought it was very good and he is going after whoever was involved

in the riot and the ones behind it. But after watching Rachel and others on MSNBC I feel pretty pessimistic.
Rachel especially is always gloom and doom. I should have watched Netflix.

[Beastly Boy]

15. None of the above.

Garland's speech, other than its commemoration of the events of Jan 6, was gratuitous and unnecessary. Garland had no obligation whatsoever to ingratiate the insecurities of his critics regarding his competence and commitment to do his job right. All he accomplished was feed the fears of the uninformed who will surely come up with even more ridiculous theories of why Garland is not to be trusted. Next thing you know, they will start demanding classified DOJ files from Garland as proof he really means what he says... or else.

[ecstatic]

17. Are you kidding? We were attacked and those of us who are still angry and traumatized

definitely deserved an update of some sort as we head into the one-year anniversary. It looks like he faced a lot of pressure to do so. A press conference is what one would expect with any crime or terrorist attack. You can't just leave everyone in the dark for a year with no answers.

[Beastly Boy]

20. The only people who "deserve" Garland's updates all work for DOJ.

Beyond DOJ, no information deserves to be disclosed.

The whole nation was traumatized. Most of the nation do not demand attention from Garland on this account. Others insist that Garland pay attention to their fears, real or imagined. But meeting the expectations of the public who are, out of necessity and by design, kept out of DOJ's internal matters, or addressing their perceived entitlements is outside of Garland's job responsibilities.

Garland caved where he shouldn't have.

[Beastly Boy]

38. I argued earlier that ultimately, January 6 is on America's voters. Same goes for DOJ staff.

DOJ is trying to clean up the mess we the voters created. The fact that there may be Trump's moles at DOJ and FBI complicates matters, but this doesn't create an obligation on DOJ's part to allow the public, who essentially created the mess in the first place (true, the voters who are most responsible for creating the mess are not the same voters who now demand accountability from DOJ, but this doesn't change the outcome or put any particular voter segment in a position to demand anything), interfere in their internal affairs.

DOJ is accountable to the voters for the outcomes, not for the process. The process, by its nature, is necessarily hidden from the public. This is to be expected and accepted if DOJ is to do its job properly and effectively. And no matter how much impatience the process is generating with the uninformed public, it is DOJ's duty and responsibility to deal with it (including dealing with Trump apologists within the department) internally, and as leakproof as can possibly be achieved. And until there are outcomes to be shared publicly, the public has no right to judge or interfere in the process.

[Beastly Boy]

41. Yes, the voters.

Don't plead ignorance. You know full well about the Electoral College. You may not like it, but unless WE vote for enough candidates to change the rules, we are all bound by existing rules. And when you go back to 2016, be mindful of ALL of the reasons Hillary lost. Let me help your recollection by reminding you of a few oft repeated phrases directed at Hillary I encountered here on DU: "neo-liberal", "third way", "incrementalist", "establishment". They were repeated as reasons to vote against her. And lo and behold, a full 12% of those who voted for Bernie in the primary, voted for Trump in the general election. The opposition to Hillary's candidacy from the left turned out to be incredibly near-sighted and incredibly damaging. And before you tell me this is ancient history, the way we the voters turned out (or didn't) in 2016 is directly responsible for the rise of Trumpism. Not our fault? I beg to disagree.

Oh boy indeed! Do you still insist that us outvoting the GOP, by whatever margin in popular vote, in any way absolves us the voters from responsibility? We failed to sway the electoral college, and that's the only thing that counts. You have an impossible argument to defend, and you are not even trying.

[dwayneb]

32. I completely agree with you

People are forgetting that the AG is not an elected representative, nor a politician. He is a law enforcement agent. It is Biden's job to address our national trauma, and to help keep the guardrails of our democracy in place. We will see what he has to say today.

Personally I don't believe he can do a damned thing. The stage is set for this country to devolve into some sort of autocracy - and then all bets are off.

[ecstatic]

16. None of the above. I don't care about a speech.

Actions speak louder than words. That said, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt for now. Cautiously realistic.

[Earth-shine]

24. +1 Very well said.

[ColinC]

23. Didn't watch it

But I trust his judgement in the matter overall. Just cause he isn't showing everybody all his cards doesn't mean he isn't acting.

[Emile]

26. I wanted to hear TFG is under arrest

[SKKY]

27. If you read between the lines, that are between the lines...

...I think he's on the right track. I would much prefer fewer flowery words and more substance, but I understand why he may not. Additionally, from everything I have read, that is pretty much in line with his personality.