Biden has said Garland needs to prosecute Trump and stop being a judge

[Marius25]

Sounds like Biden isn't particularly happy with Garland either.

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=UcBOR3DecXI9zG-MWNlkBw

[hlthe2b]

1. Ditto, Joe, Ditto

[blm]

2. My view is that Biden should not be seen or heard as

Last edited Sat Apr 2, 2022, 06:34 PM - Edit history (1)

telling his attorney general what should be done to someone the nation sees as his political rival. Trump was dead wrong when he signaled what he wanted. Any president needs to stand clear in cases involving political enemies. The NEWSmedia will not show discernment. They’ll rake Biden over the coals for doing even .5% of what Trump did for 4yrs unpunished by them.

[CrackityJones75]

8. exactly.

[agingdem]

24. Biden isn't Trump/Garland isn't Barr

every day there's a new Trump revelation..Biden, like the rest of us, wants Trump muzzled...and that's not going to happen until/unless he indicted and under a gag order...we need a reckoning..as for the J6 committee..lots of tantalizing teasers..subpoenas served/subpoenas defied/contempt charges...only closed door "interviews" but no public hearings and no report..again, I know Trump crap continues to surface but I want to know what they know instead of "wait for it, wait for it"...it's way past time for the DOJ and the J6 to go public..

[Mr.Bill]

28. A gag order won't stop Trump from doing whatever he does.

And if he violates the gag order, how many years will we spend investigating it?

[agingdem]

35. as long the media allows him to "suck the air out of a room"

then he will continue spew his never-ending vomitus bilge.

[OldBaldy1701E]

97. Which they will do as long as it makes them money.

And, since his name makes that happen, regardless of whether or not he is crowing to them or being indicted for something, they are going to feature him. Stop giving the media any attention whenever that orange gibbon appears, start vocally boycotting any media that features him, and they will stop giving him platforms to use.

[oldsoftie]

62. Yes it is past time. Nov is just around the corner.

If the House goes R then the J6 committee goes away I'm sure

[agingdem]

68. Because memories are short I'm wondering

Last edited Sat Apr 2, 2022, 06:42 PM - Edit history (1)

if the J6 committee and the DOJ are waiting to release the report/indict Trump closer to the midterms...makes me nervous as hell

[oldsoftie]

79. Me too. I don't like the waiting! hope they can get the "smoking guns" needed

[PatrickforB]

40. I hear you, except that Trump is a traitor.

It has gone far, far beyond Trump merely being a 'political enemy.' The guy is a huge danger to the republic. A traitor who tried to overturn an election with an armed insurrection. A guy out to foment civil war.

Honestly, Garland needs to poop or get off the pot on this thing. Biden is right. Because we've never really been 'here' before. Not in our lifetimes.

[blm]

70. I agree, just don't want media saying that Biden

is telling the Attorney General what he wants to see happen.

Does anyone think the corporate media will treat Biden fairly on this?

[certainot]

91. there are 1500 prominent radio stations saying biden, who's son works for china, and other BS,

as long as dumbshit dem orgs continue to ignore rw radio, 1500 radio stations will keep blasting the country with the message that biden, who's son hid a whole apple computer up his ass, is a traitor

it just can't get stupider than dems ignoring rw radio

[TeamProg]

48. Agreed. n/t

[Evolve Dammit]

77. 45 did nothing of the kind and suffered naught for it. Joe has his own mind and can articulate it.

[soldierant]

83. Amen, amen, amen.

[NullTuples]

90. OTOH, if his AG isn't doing his job...two of Trump's crimes have already run out the clock

[stopdiggin]

100. 100%. and you can say it again (and again if needed) -(nt)-

[Buckeyeblue]

3. Biden is the one person who can do something about that

I know he doesn't want to go through another confirmation hearing for AG but better to do it sooner than later.

[CrackityJones75]

10. No he shouldn't

What does that signal? The AG isn’t going after political enemies (guilty or mot) she he gets fired? You know how that will be spun.

[Buckeyeblue]

14. Wasn't advocating for it. Just pointing out he's the one person who can change it

I think Garland wants an air-tight case if he's going to charge a former president. A long jury trial with the chance of a hung jury or not guilty verdict would be counterproductive.

He needs a stron case that would force Trump to admit guilt because conviction would be a no brainer.

A different AG might take a different approach.

[CrackityJones75]

15. I'd agree with that.

Trump would self incriminate himself almost immediately if he were under oath.

[Buckeyeblue]

22. Trump would a great defense attorney

The entire period between indictment and end of the trial would be a shit show. It would make OJ look like small claims court.

I think any AG has to make sure their case could hold up under such extreme conditions.

[jaxexpat]

53. The facts of their case will hold up simply because they're facts.

The problem is it's not a case about facts vs lies so much as it is about how well the general population will respond to the judgement, however it goes. Biden seems to have more faith in the goodness and common sense of people than "legal people" do. Thing about it is that there's NO AMOUNT of hand feeding irrefutable proof to the MAGA's which will guarantee there won't be violence in the streets if Trump's cause loses. If he walks, justice minded people will simply become more depressed and resigned to the end of democracy, but they won't riot. I think Joe sees that resignation as the greater threat because he, rightly, sees it as the prelude to a national hopelessness.
Meanwhile, this whole ordeal is like pulling teeth without pain medication. Best to get right to it and be finished. The least painful path is that with the least time for the dread of pain to dwell. However necessary it may be, this interminable delay is causing the stress of anticipation to further aggravate the whole nation while it's already prepped for major surgery.

[Buckeyeblue]

64. Well said.

I think what's interesting is how technology has allowed bogus information to be disseminated to the masses in a way it could never have been even 20 years ago.

Sometimes during discussions the person or group I'm talking to will try to recall a name or some other fact. I like to say, why debate or spend too much time trying remember something that you can googe.

But yet that same mechanism let's the lies flourish. It's baffling. It's aggravating. And sometimes I think I should give up and turn off the news. But I'm too damn curious about what's going to happen next.

[jaxexpat]

66. We're programmed to "stay tuned".

[LudwigPastorius]

21. "You know how that will be spun."

Sure, but for the safety and integrity of our Constitution and democratic system, Trump needs any future paths to power closed. Prosecuting Trump is the right thing to do.

Besides, how it would be portrayed is one of the least-worrying possible things to overcome if we want Joe, or any other Democrat, in the White House in 2024.

[CrackityJones75]

44. It isn't just about it being portrayed.

If we start firing people because we don’t like that their investigation into political adversaries isn’t moving how we want it to the we are completely fucked.

But whatever throw the norms and the institutions i to the fire so we can stay warm a little longer.

[helpisontheway]

37. It signals that he is not doing his job. It is obvious to everyone

that Trump was knee deep in everything that happened that day. Yet Trump gets off free..I don’t care that he is a former president. If they do not stop him now then our democracy will be over if Trump is elected again. People so pissed at Biden now they might hold their nose and vote for Trump again. I never thought Trump would win against Hillary so I’m not gonna be in the Trump would never be elected again bunch. He is a serious threat and would should not assume that people will do the right thing..

[bucolic_frolic]

4. Biden has said he will allow DOJ to do its job. How does he get out of that box?

Failure to support Congressional subpoenas come to mind .....

[CrackityJones75]

11. He doesn't get out of that box.

That is how ot is supposed to be. If we throw out our norms and circumvent how the government works then what are we doing? Aside for more normalization of the deterioration of our democracy. You can say “Well they and Trump did it” But that is a big reason why Trump wasn’t re-elected. People were fed up with the circus and the ineptitude and the corruption.

[bucolic_frolic]

31. Enforcing Congressional subpoenas is not corruption. Failure to do so is. /nt

[MyOwnPeace]

46. The PERFECT way to respond.......

Joe's support for the 'rule of law' and the right of Congress to subpoena witnesses is clear in the Constitution. There is a 'legal motion' sitting on the desk of the DOJ - awaiting action. It would be fair and proper for the President to 'encourage' the DOJ to DO THEIR JOB!

[bucolic_frolic]

96. Exactly, you've run with my point

Backing up the Constitution has little downside and a whole lotta weight

[Hekate]

5. My gods, yes. I found myself thinking about Atty General Bobby Kennedy & the Mafia...

I was just a kid then, but the general consensus was that he went after those thugs with, as his older brother would say, “with vigah.”

Please find us a real prosecutor, Joe.

[MichMan]

6. If that is what he believes, he needs to fire him asap

[Celerity]

17. +1

[Grasswire2]

7. a strategic leak from WH to NYT.

Here we go.

POTUS can't directly talk to Garland, but someone in WH can leak what his feelings are.

Let's roll.

[jalan48]

9. Why did he choose Garland in the first place?

[Marius25]

12. My guess is out of pity after he was blocked from the SCOTUS

[jalan48]

13. Given what transpired on January 6th I'd say Garland's experiences should not have been in play.

[FoxNewsSucks]

58. I really would hate to think that were true.

It would be an incredibly stupid reason.

Garland is no doubt qualified to be on the Supreme Court, and if pity were actually a big factor, making him the next nominee for that would have been a more understandable thing to do.

[Deminpenn]

93. Believe it

No doubt in my mind, being US Atty Genl was a consolation prize for Garland.

The easiest way to get Garland out of the way might be to renominate him for a federal judgeship. He could go back to the DC circuit, but it's handling the Jan 6th cases and he'd have to recuse himself from all of those. 3rd circuit might be a good landing spot for him. Or maybe he could be lateralled to another cabinet position.

I think Garland has integrity, but even though he was a prosecutor at one time, years of being a federal judge have made him way too slow. He seems to weighing every move like he's a judge. Prosecutors now have to make their case to two judges, the one who's their boss and the one who be assigned to their case.

[AlexSFCA]

16. I'm a bit puzzled with Garland. After years of corruptions, shouldn't he be light-speed agressive?

who knows how long he can remain AG, act to the fullest extent of the law possible to prosecute as many as possible. Let judges decide fate. I bet if Kamala was AG, she’d prosecute the shit out trump. She was extremely successful tough on crime prosecutor both at SF City level and as AG of California. Bold, strong, uncompromising leadership is so needed right now.

[FoxNewsSucks]

59. That was really the only disappointing thing about her taking VP

I wanted her for AG.

Careful, thorough and precise is certainly needed. But we also needed an AG that is a bold ass-kicker. I'm not sure Garland is that, but I have no doubt about Harris.

[Chainfire]

18. I would think that the local slip and fall shyster lawyer

could get a conviction on Trump if 10% of what I reasonably believe to be true is in fact true.

The end of this is preordained and nothing us mortals think or do about it will change that.

[Celerity]

19. ponderous

[liberalmuse]

20. Can Biden ask him to resign?

He's been a colossal disappointment as AG and may have been a better USSC justice since he's acting like one.

[Polybius]

57. Sure, but he doesn't even have to ask

Trump fired Sessions, among many others. I'm in no way defending Trump, btw.

[former9thward]

23. Where is that quote coming from?

It is not in the link.

[stopdiggin]

101. it's a second party

source - - "Biden has said in private conversation" (according to someone the reporter actually spoke to? and was that source a first party witness to this statement?)

And the "sounds like Biden disappointed" is purely the 'opinion' of the OP.

[WA-03 Democrat]

25. Paging Doug Jones

Come on down!

[Blue Owl]

26. C'mon Merrick, be a hero

Not a Slobfather-enabling zero...

[left-of-center2012]

27. Biden said that last year

I wish he would say something now.

[L. Coyote]

29. We know better than to trust the NY Times about someone said someone said, right?

The article isn't behind a paywall for a change, so we know this is the source: "... according to two people familiar with his comments." Familiar with? So, did they even hear the comment?

This article is based on interviews with more than a dozen people, including officials in the Biden administration and people with knowledge of the president’s thinking, all of whom asked for anonymity to discuss private conversations.

In a statement, Andrew Bates, a White House spokesman, said the president believed that Mr. Garland had “decisively restored” the independence of the Justice Department.

“President Biden is immensely proud of the attorney general’s service in this administration and has no role in investigative priorities or decisions,” Mr. Bates said.

.... Justice Department officials do not keep Mr. Biden abreast of any investigation ..........

...... Despite Mr. Biden’s private frustrations with the attorney general, several people who speak regularly to the president said he had praised Mr. Garland as among the most thoughtful, moral and intelligent people he had dealt with in his career.

The two men did not know each other well when Mr. Biden selected him for the job. .......

[agingdem]

36. This from the paper that employs Maggie Haberman

and Maureen Dowd..enough said...

[uponit7771]

43. +1

[True Blue American]

51. I do not believe Biden said that.

Not after what we witnessed out of Barr. Biden is much too smart to interfere.

I think Garland is waiting to get all the facts together. He just hired 132 new Hudges. That tells me he is going full speed ahead. After he has the facts.

[stopdiggin]

105. This is a MUCH better picture

than the slant the article (and OP) is trying to spin. Biden has been strictly hands off - consistently - and that's precisely the way it should be.

(there are undoubtedly other people within the party - and perhaps the administration - who would prefer a more proactive stance - but it isn't coming from Joe)

[Pepsidog]

30. And that my friends is the problem. At a time in history that we need an Eliot Spitzer type

personality, we have an institutionalist AG who is polite and nice to everyone. We need a nasty SOB who knows how to play hardball. There is a time and place for Garland’s personality, and now, after an attempted coup is not the time for nice guys or gals. Love to Schiff or Yates as AG.

[L. Coyote]

50. I Support Democrats

Do not post support for Republicans or independent/third-party "spoiler" candidates. Do not state that you are not going to vote, or that you will write-in a candidate that is not on the ballot, or that you intend to vote for any candidate other than the official Democratic nominee in any general election where a Democrat is on the ballot. Do not post anything that smears Democrats generally, or that is intended to dissuade people from supporting the Democratic Party or its candidates. Don't argue there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. Why we have this rule: Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government, and as such we expect our members to support and vote for Democrats at election time. Rare exceptions are granted at the sole discretion of the DU Administrators. (Current exceptions: None.)

[jalan48]

61. I had no idea Eliot Spitzer was a Republican.

[FoxNewsSucks]

63. No one is supporting republicons,

Schiff, Yates and Spitzer are all Democrats.

In fact, if Spitzer hadn't been so effective, there wouldn't have been such effort to end his career. Like Al Franken, losing him was a big hit to the Democratic side of things.

[oldsoftie]

65. Oh for Pete's sake; he said "Spitzer-like". And then hoped for Shiff or Yates

both democrats.

[Marius25]

80. Several Democratic members of the 1/6 Committee, including Adam Schiff

criticized Garland too.

[Grasswire2]

85. Here we go again, eh?

Haven't we had enough of this on DU?

[Beastly Boy]

32. Biden is not particularly unhappy with Garland either.

From the same article:

While there is no indication that federal prosecutors are close to charging the former president, Mr. Biden and those closest to him understand the legal calculations. What Mr. Garland is confronting is anything but a normal problem, with enormous political stakes ahead of the next presidential election.

There is unrelenting pressure from Democrats to hold former President Donald J. Trump and his allies accountable for the violence that unfolded at the Capitol on Jan. 6. Federal prosecutors would have no room for error in building a criminal case against Mr. Trump, experts say, given the high burden of proof they must meet and the likelihood of any decision being appealed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/02/us/politics/merrick-garland-biden-trump.html

But this doesn't sound as catchy in a tweet as what Biden said privately to an unidentified person a couple of months ago, does it?

[True Blue American]

52. Why would anyone take the word

Of a writer publishing his opinion?

[Beastly Boy]

67. It's not even the word of a writer. It's a tweet quoting a very tiny part of the narrative

of a writer publishing his opinion, which is not supported by, and at times contrary to, other parts of the same narrative.

[True Blue American]

75. Like Somebody says?

[Beastly Boy]

82. I wish.

It's like somebody tells a long story and all I want to hear from it is a single short sentence.

[Lucky Luciano]

33. Someone needs to tell Biden to stop being so naive.

A tight lipped accurate prosecution takes time and has no margin for error.

[agingdem]

45. Biden is not naive..he's frustrated..

and forgive me if I don't trust anything that comes from the NYT

[Lucky Luciano]

69. That was sarcasm...

Some here defend Garland without question.

Adam Schiff was a credible critic of Garland. Now Biden is saying WTF too.

Time to get serious about threats to our entire way of life.

[former9thward]

71. Biden did not say it.

It is not in the story. A made up quote.

[agingdem]

72. They're serious..

however, both the J6 committee and the DOJ are still gather evidence…I’ll give them that but how about a little multitasking here, like collate the evidence AND hold hearings And indict Trump now…waiting!

[Lucky Luciano]

73. The lack of seriousness is the ignoring of subpoena s going utterly unpunished.

Throwing them under the jail instead of letting them laugh at us would be a great start.

[agingdem]

74. I'd say send the US Marshall Service after them

with lots of media in tow….escort them to the hearing room and if they refuse a sit-down then arrest them…

[Deminpenn]

94. No action on the criminal referral against Meadows

is what's rankling Dems on the Jan 6th committee.

But, now we know there's a GJ investigating the planning and financing of the rally, then riot. Meadows would be a very, if not the, key witness for them because he obviously knows a lot from just the text messages he turned over to the committee and that the parts that have been publically released by them.

Maybe DoJ doesn't want to indict Meadows because they have bigger plans for him to be supoenaed and to testify in front of the GJ. Maybe Meadows is to Trump as Dean was to Nixon.

[stopdiggin]

107. Nope. Thing is, he DIDN'T say it

Schiff is entitled to his opinion (and in fact has a little more freedom there than POTUS) - but by all credible accounts the president doesn't share it - and is making no move into that corner.

It's all spun like so much cotton candy.

[48656c6c6f20]

34. Rebuttal

Because Pootin might use nukes.

[KPN]

38. So much for all the "have patience, trustee"ers.

Bout time reality struck.

[FakeNoose]

39. Welcome to the executive branch of government, Mr. Garland

It's a different world when you have to answer to the people. Also you have to answer to your President.

[tavernier]

41. That sounds like a "people say" comment.

[True Blue American]

54. Agree!

[uponit7771]

88. +1,

[stopdiggin]

108. exactly what it is. -(nt)-

[Raven123]

42. Typical NYT reporting. This is gossip. Ignore the Biden administration's accomplishments

Go to the juicy stuff. Geez.

[usaf-vet]

47. I Biden said that. But it needs a timeline. Prosecute by MM/DD or I will replace you....

.... with someone who will!

I feel like we are heading to another Mueller laughing catastrophe.

If TFG is not prosecuted, why should I or anyone believe the laws are meant for everyone.

When he asked an official in Georgia to "find me 11,780 ballots." HE BROKE THE LAW!

Prosecute him on that to start!!!!! There is a tape of him saying that, period!
Here is the link: https://tinyurl.com/Trump11780

[stopdiggin]

109. this is precisely what Biden will NOT do

and has made clear (quite publicly and pointedly) on a number of different occasions. You can disagree with that position (vigorously if you so choose) - but he's been pretty straightforward about his role as POTUS.

Tweet media not withstanding ...

[TeamProg]

49. Trump, Barr and Co. have ruined the DOJ's impartiality forever.

No one will ever say that the A.G is unbiased again.

It’s open season on the DOJ.

[calimary]

55. That's a big, fat, wide, deep, and LOUD "Amen!" from me!

C’mon, Mr. President! You’re well-known and widely-acknowledged for doing the right thing.

Get your A.G. to do the right thing here, dammit! Surely BY NOW he’s got enough solid evidence to seek formal redress!

[Lonestarblue]

56. The DOJ has had 15 months to investigate Trump and his planners and funders.

When considering insurrection and an attempted coup to overthrow the US government, 15 months is a lifetime. I’m glad Garland is finally investigating, but if he proceeds at the same pace, it will be 2024 before any serious charges are brought.

Garland has also lost the news cycle, and as a federal judge he probably had no need to think about the need to communicate. He didn’t need to announce details, but Garland spent months saying nothing while Republicans changed the narrative from an attack to patriotic rights. We might all hate the 24/7 news cycle we live in, but it’s reality and when you ignore it false narratives are allowed to take over.

[Emile]

60. Someone needs to tell President Biden to be patient!

SARCASM

[Novara]

76. I understand that they want to build an airtight case

I get it. But if the J6 committee and the DoJ don't give Democratic voters SOMETHING to show that they will hold ALL of the traitors responsible, the Dems are going to be wiped out this November. If the Dems lose the House this fall, there will be no accountability because the J6 committee will be shut down.

And what if Garland decides he doesn't have a tight enough case to indict? All of these traitors walk free to take over our government.

[dchill]

81. "Justice delayed is justice denied."

Just a quote I feel is being ignored. It IS true, by the way.

[soldierant]

84. It's a funny thing

After the revelation (I suspect an "authorized leak" that there's been a grand jury for two months working (up to now with NMO leals) I kind of ecxpected to come here snd see a few mild apologies. But it's as if the news never happened.



I personally would not have used the term "Garland haters." I don't see hate for Garland here. Just lack of faith.

[Marius25]

86. Mild apology for what?

[soldierant]

87. Oh, I don't know ... for thinking that, and speaking as if, he was lying?

Perhaps you didn't. But there have been some.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

89. We seldom talk about the affect of losing a case or

not having enough concrete evidence has on all this. No one wants to lose. No one wants the wrath of trump with the allegations of partisanship. These are realities that wouldn't be so important were it not an x-prez and the craziest horror of a human ever.

[Emile]

92. I saw enough evidence on Jan 6 when Trump orchestrated the insurrection. Why Garland

didn't start at the top and work his way down has me and millions of other folks very concerned. There's enough evidence to handcuff him and lock him up for trial.
.

[stopdiggin]

110. that is you opinion (and you're fully entitled to it)

It is not universally shared. There's a good deal of opinion (legal and otherwise) that the prosecution of TFG is not the slam-dunk prospect that many imagine it to be. (particularly for actions taken on Jan 6th) And the post you responded to pointed to the substantial damage that an 'unsuccessful' prosecution might bring. These and other things are points that others are taking into account - in forming their own opinions.

[Emile]

111. Since you brought it up and you think you are in the majority, maybe

you should start a poll?

[stopdiggin]

114. did I say anything about majority?

believe I said that your opinion was not universal ...
does that somehow chafe?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

118. Me too. But these people are masters at not getting

legally nailed. Hence the burner phones. Hence the cover of thousands of the non violent yahoos. Hence the cover of a rally.

1,000,000% they are guilty as hell in planning and organizing this 1-6 travesty. Does that translate to successful legal prosecution?, we can only hope.

As for his financial crimes, don't know if this is true, but read sources saying that the issue is that FG used valid FS's when it mattered? ( See how well the criminal plays chess?). Hope that's not true.

Have a haunting memory of post impeachment II... They asked the legal panel at the time about prosecution. I remember them saying there wouldn't be one. Because if they couldn't nail FG et al in a political procedure then they wouldn't in a legal procedure where the rules of evidence were much tougher

[bucolic_frolic]

95. AG role requires many aspects of managerial skills

I wouldn't expect a long-time federal judge to necessarily excel at all aspects of that role. From a managerial perspective, a former large state AG would have more experience at managing a large bureaucracy. Don't know if that is any part of the slow path we're on, but thought to mention it.

[BlueWavePsych]

98. Kick

[mudstump]

99. Fire him!....

And replace him with someone who understands we are fighting a real battle for our democracy.

[Orrex]

102. Wait! Wait! Someone scold Biden for his lack of faith in "the system"

When I have expressed impatience at the lack of apparent forward motion in the investigation of crimes obvious to every conscious human on the planet, I have been chastised for failing to believe that The System is working inexorably behind the scenes toward justice.

Perhaps those same thoughtful message-managers can explain to Biden why they think he's wrong.

[Emile]

103. Looks like they are avoiding this thread!

[Orrex]

104. Funny how that works, right?

They didn't have much to say last week when Schiff likewise commented on the DoJ's conspicuous lack of forward movement, either.

[Novara]

115. That told me everything.

When even Adam Schiff is frustrated and says he isn't seeing movement, that tells me that everything I suspect about Garland hiding in the corner hoping we don't notice him may be true. I mean, don't you think we'd be hearing from the shitty lawyers the former administration uses if their clients are being subpoenaed? If their records are being subpoenaed? Maybe Garland's people can keep their mouths shut and lot leak anything (but I doubt it), but the other side? They can't wait to cry victim. Their raison d'etre is to cry victim. To me, the fact that they are silent means nothing is happening.

I hope I'm wrong. But the last five years have taught me to be completely cynical. One thing that mfer knows how to do is to evade justice.

[stopdiggin]

113. this thread is chalk full

of people going directly at the OP (from a number of different angles - including a gross misrepresentation of Biden's position)

there's been no avoidance, my friend ...

----- -----

[Kablooie]

106. Sound like Garland may be Bidens biggest mistake.

And our country may be in serious danger because of it.

[llashram]

112. only thing I hope

is AG Garland knows he has a case and is waiting to lower the boom at a moment trump and his lawyers CANNOT slither out of being prosecuted to the FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW... otherwise...

[Stargleamer]

116. He should have said this 9+ months ago

Better late than never.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

117. Guess Donny just soiled his Depends again