Elie Mystal is destroying Merrick Garland

[News Junkie]

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[SoCalDavidS]

1. Seems Like Elie Has Seen Some Of The "Just Be Patient" Posters On DU nt

[SMC22307]

230. The Just-Be-Patient Crew is all over Twitter.

Don Winslow is another who's had enough of them.

[tritsofme]

2. What a piece of shit.

Whoever this Ellie person is.

[iemanja]

6. You prefer Garland to Biden?

That you're so pissed off by the tweets?

[tritsofme]

11. Garland serves at the pleasure of the president.

I have no problem with him, apparently President Biden doesn’t either.

[iemanja]

14. Biden can't fire him now

Not without causing a shitstorm. I find your defense of Garland unacceptable. He's dragged his feet on the Trump case for two years, yet immediately appoints a Special Counsel to go after Biden. I support my president.

[brooklynite]

26. "Dragged his feet"

If only he had relied on the armchair prosectors in the blogosphere to prepare his cases.

[W_HAMILTON]

28. Well over a year (Trump) vs. less than two months (Biden).

[Bernardo de La Paz]

214. Not about investigating, that's ongoing. Its about separation from political conflict of interest.nt

[uponit7771]

35. how is Elie Mystal wrong? tia

[dchill]

157. "Fox News: Biden did something wrong..."

"Merrick Garland: GO GO GO GO. GET THAT SPECIAL COUNSEL APPOINTED NOW!"

Close enough for me.

[D23MIURG23]

225. He conflates the appointment of a special council with the existance of a criminal investigation.

Last edited Sat Jan 14, 2023, 12:34 AM - Edit history (1)

Mar-a-Lago was searched before Jack Smith was appointed. The Trump docs and Trump insurrection investigations have been ongoing since the beginning of Biden's presidency, so it's misleading to say "2 years for Trump and 2 months for Biden". Biden wasn't under investigation before the special council was appointed but Trump was.

Trump could have been indicted without a special council being appointed (I personally would have preferred that) but when Trump announced his bid for 2024 Garland felt compelled to appoint a special council to address the possible conflict of interest that comes from criminally investigating your boss's political opponent.

[iemanja]

77. We get you're his number 1 fan

with absolutely no evidence to suggest why. The man is not a good AG.

[we can do it]

179. +1000

[tritsofme]

27. Nonsense.

Appointing a special counsel is the quickest way to bring this matter to a conclusion. This is a fake controversy.

[W_HAMILTON]

32. If it's the quickest way to bring it to a conclusion, why didn't he do it in Trump's case rather...

...than wait well over a year before naming a special counsel?

[uponit7771]

34. +1,

[tritsofme]

36. Because Biden's issue is minor. Trump's is much more complicated.

This isn’t that hard.

[uponit7771]

59. We agree, Biden's situation doesn't need a SC because its minor and not an SC this quickly either.

The fact that it was assigned relatively quickly and for something so minor adds to Elie conclusion

[tritsofme]

63. No, it makes perfect sense.

It is the quickest way to remove any appearance of political interference, and end the matter.

[uponit7771]

67. That's being political on its face, something Garland said he wouldn't do. People who are doing ...

... their job aren't concerned with "appearing political" because for some they always will be just that.

So in order to appease that "some" the fuck the majority with stupid bullshit like this needless SC.

Like Comey Garland is not going to meet his "appearance" goals, he's failed those goals outright

[tritsofme]

71. This is just nonsense.

If you can’t understand why it is best practice for an AG investigating his own president to appoint a SC, I don’t think I can help you.

[jaxexpat]

149. If you absolutely want to damage a presidency and get 50% of the population......

who viscerally hate him really frothing up at the mouth, appointing a SC to investigate an overly reported, headline laden nothing burger is a good way to do that. When unverified but damaging details of the DOJ investigation start leaking onto Fox news, when rumors of a great and mysterious Grand Jury is marched out solemnly yet in full panoply, when it's way too damn late, the "nonsense" may finally become more sensical as the winds of the obvious carry the familiar scent of a sordid sauce simmering even to those of delicate olfactory for whom logic and observation is all surprise and unfathomable prescience. When that SC, at long last, comes up with a wishy washy, "despite the clumsy and questionable judgement for reckless handling of top secret government documents, there is insufficient prosecutable evidence for a conviction of wrongdoing", disclaimer that'll make the Mueller Report seem strident and pithy. Yet, the truly amazing thing will be how quickly that last bit of information becomes forgotten by the media and thus the masses. It stinks like the character assassination of Hillary and that shit cost years off the lifespan of democracy in America. The DOJ needs to get the word from whoever they actually work for to read and respond to the mood of the public with a bit less prejudice toward support for the lofty promises of totalitarianism. It would be a refreshing change to feel but a subtle breeze, a hint, which might intimate and suggest the genuinity of their claims to care for the wellbeing of our nation rather than some petty myth celebrating their currently unproven familiarity with justice.

[tritsofme]

165. That's a lot of words to say not much of anything.

It is entirely appropriate for Garland to appoint a special counsel when there is an investigation regarding the incumbent president. Suggestions otherwise are just ridiculous, this will put the matter to rest.

[jaxexpat]

170. This SC will put nothing important to rest as time will surely tell.

[tritsofme]

174. Not sure what that is supposed to mean...but sure?

[sheshe2]

198. I agree with you.

It takes the wind out of the snarling RW MAGA's. MTG is pissed that an SC was appointed. She said oh shit, now we can't investigate (Read, Witch Hunt) all the records we have requested because it is another ongoing investigation that they will not have access to.


DOJ investigates then it is over and done with, behind us.

[iemanja]

86. Yet the same solution to both

Either it's the quickest way or not. You can't have it both ways? BTW, when is the Garland for President campaign happening?

[tritsofme]

89. They are completely different situations. This is not apples to apples.

And the snide “Garland for president” thing, give me a fucking break.

[iemanja]

94. You can't find a consistent argument

If the cases are so different, why should the solution be the same?

[tritsofme]

96. Both cases call for a special counsel for different reasons.

I don’t understand this idea that there should be some sort of parity between two very different issues.

[pnwmom]

175. That doesn't make sense. Trump's situation being much more complicated

is all the MORE reason to have appointed a Special Counsel long before Garland did.

Smith is able to focus on Trump's wide-ranging legal cases more than Garland ever could.

[we can do it]

180. It is for some people.

[bdamomma]

176. a quick

conclusion is something I can agree with.

Garland would have been a better SC Justice, but that's water under the bridge.

[AllyCat]

191. It's times like this I wish I could rec replies.

[iemanja]

83. The quickest way would be to say the President is fully cooperating

and there is nothing to see.

[agingdem]

121. that's exactly right..

Last edited Thu Jan 12, 2023, 08:55 PM - Edit history (1)

If Trump had returned all the classified documents when the National Archives asked, then a lot of crap could have been avoided..but Trump balked, delayed, lied, obstructed, threatened Garland, raged at the legal search and seize, and still not all of the documents were returned...then came Aileen Cannon and the special master charade and a multitude of appeals/stays/hearings, and to this day not all documents have been recovered...and that's why it took so damn long for Garland to appoint Jack Smith..

As to the Biden documents...once they were discovered they were immediately returned and the DOJ notified..and because everyone is equal under the law, Garland had no choice but to appoint a special counsel..and Garland reacted quickly because Biden did not balk, delay, lie, obstruct, rage or appeal...

this takes the heat off of Jack Smith to pursue Trump, his MAGA congressional enablers, complicit state officials, White House staff, outside advisors, and delusional crack pot lawyers for plotting a multi pronged coup to overthrow the government of the United States..

Mishandling classified documents is rare but not unheard of..a sitting president actively pursuing an avenue by any means necessary to stay in power is unprecedented in our lifetime..

[Joinfortmill]

137. 👍

[ShazzieB]

194. Well stated, friend. 👍

[uponit7771]

33. THIS !!!! ☝🏾☝🏾☝🏾

[MichMan]

97. President Obama nominated him for the SC and President Biden chose him as AG

Why do you think they found him to be well qualified for both of those positions?

[iemanja]

100. He may have been well qualified to be a SCOTUS justice

but his record as AG speaks for itself.

[Xoan]

112. To appease the GOP?

[Meowmee]

203. This

[Mr.Bill]

116. I would like to think Garland

is acting quickly because it's a nothingburger and he wants the distraction out of the way.

My gut tells me Biden will still be under investigation by the special counsel on election day 2024.

I hope my gut is wrong. Time will tell.

[LymphocyteLover]

163. exactly-- that's the key problem

[Bernardo de La Paz]

209. 2 weeks after tRump transitioned from private citizen to prez candidate, SC appointed

2 weeks after Biden documents discovered, SC appointed.

There was no political conflict of interest until tRump declared.

[AllTooEasy]

200. AGs do NOT serve at the pleasure of their governors/POTUS

That's what Trump and his supporters believe. AGs serve the people of their state/country.

[tritsofme]

202. It is a statement of fact.

The AG and all Cabinet officials serve at the pleasure of the president.

It is different in many states, where AG is an elected position.

[BComplex]

7. Elie is awesome.

That's who that "piece of shit" is. And he's absolutely correct.

[uponit7771]

31. +1, I don't notice anyone pointing out where Elie is wrong

[Dave says]

115. +1 for Elie from me, too

[LymphocyteLover]

164. Yes, and he truly tells it like it is

[bdamomma]

178. I like

his go get him stance, he doesn't hold anything back.

[markodochartaigh]

227. I always enjoy listening to Elie on Stephanie Miller

or any other show. I usually learn something from him.

[Silent3]

12. He's a frequent guest on MSNBC among other things, and a great guy

I always love listening to him. He cuts to the chase and does not suffer fools gladly.

[BComplex]

122. well said!

[GoCubsGo]

15. I can't stand him.

The only time I ever have to turn off Stephanie Miller's show is when she has him on. I have no use for his histrionics.

[tritsofme]

18. Not surprised. Good example of why I only watch cable news

for major event coverage only.

[uponit7771]

29. is he wrong? tia

[tritsofme]

40. Not just wrong. Seems to be just a grandstanding pundit.

Not that interesting.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

56. Gotta drive subscribers to his substack

Tweetstorms are good for that sort of thing.

[oldsoftie]

192. And ding ding ding! We have a winner!

[uponit7771]

65. How is he wrong on the two months vs two years contrast? tia

[tritsofme]

74. Why do you think it matters?

Two completely different cases and circumstances.

[uponit7771]

75. Not the question at hand, is Mystal wrong on the contrast of time it took for Garland to act? tia

[tritsofme]

79. Congratulations you can count. Now tell us how it is relevant.

[uponit7771]

84. My question first, thx in advance

[tritsofme]

87. What outstanding question are you awaiting an answer? lol

[uponit7771]

88. The one I asked before you asked about relevancy

[tritsofme]

92. And I congratulated you on your ability to count days.

I am still very proud of you.

Now, why is it relevant? Two very different cases and circumstances.

[uponit7771]

98. Your congragulations didn't answer the question, was Elie wrong? At this point I'll take this amount

... of deflection as a no, Elie wasn't wrong.

[tritsofme]

101. Perhaps not wrong, but definitely a non-sequitur

It is not relevant.

[Gore1FL]

91. Justice delayed is justice denied. nt

[tritsofme]

95. Rushing things along to please armchair pundits is just stupidity.

And quite Trumpy.

[Gore1FL]

123. So he is moving too fast with Biden? Or is moving too fast with Trump stupid?

Your point is unclear.

[tritsofme]

127. They are moving at an appropriate pace in both cases.

The circumstances of which are completely different.

[Gore1FL]

156. In what way is high speed appropriate for Biden, but not for Trump?

It seems like having and potentially selling/sharing shitloads of classified documents would be something that would take priority.

[tritsofme]

161. Trump's is a much more complex case, and they are stonewalling.

Biden’s case seems pretty simple, and his people are cooperating fully. The SC will bring the matter to a swift conclusion. There is much more work to be done for Trump.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

144. Also to please armchair lawyers learned in the law, and Twitter Court judges, who does that?

[Fiendish Thingy]

106. Mystal can accurately read a calendar

It’s the meaning he assigns to the difference between two months and two years that reveals his ignorance.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

147. It's a terribly bad, illogical, no context Twitter post...and that's saying something.

[ProfessorGAC]

135. He's Wrong

As the two situations are incredibly dissimilar the response should be expectedly dissimilar.
Also, the differences in severity suggests an impartial review is the best way to put it in rearview mirror.
In an investigation of serious offenses, the time to build a case to help ensure indictment & prosecution needs to be more meticulous & time consuming. The Biden situation can be resolved quickly, if only because of self-reporting.
Comparing the responses to the two events is silly & Mistal should know that. Apparently inflammatory tweets are better than rational thought.

[Joinfortmill]

142. 👍

[orangecrush]

105. Guess that makes me

A "piece of shit" too.

She's telling the truth.

[tritsofme]

107. Nah, sounds like just some schmuck looking for clicks.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

181. For whatever it's worth...

Mystal is a man.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

131. Agree. Another Twitter nobody with no legal training and no sense of the rule of law.

[padah513]

193. Actually he's a lawyer

Went to Harvard Law School. Just saying.

[Skittles]

201. no legal training?

come on...

[Meowmee]

204. He is a lawyer

AB & JD.


Mystal is the son of Elie Mystal Sr., the first African American elected to the Suffolk County Legislature.[4] He received a degree in government at Harvard College and a Juris Doctor degree from Harvard Law School.


Elie Mystal Jr. (born May 10, 1978) is an American attorney, writer, and political commentator.[1] He is the justice correspondent at The Nation, where he writes about the courts and the criminal justice system.[2][3] Mystal has described himself as a liberal.[1]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elie_Mystal

[Alexander Of Assyria]

231. Stand corrected. Must have been on the ganga then?

[Grins]

183. You ought to find out before you call him a piece of shit!!!

You are at a damn computer - use it!

[Kid Berwyn]

3. Thing is, if Garland doesn't appoint now...

…when Pisswig gets indicted for who knows what all the pukes and Corporate McPravda will sound the “Whaddabout?” trumpets.

[W_HAMILTON]

8. Spoiler alert: they're going to do that anyway.

How about just do the right fucking thing and stop worrying about Republican or """both sides""" outrage?

[Silent3]

16. Exactly!

I don't think anyone has ever gained an ounce of advantage by trying to avoid right-wing manufactured outrage. They can and will always find or invent whatever they need to stir up the MAGA rabble, no matter what we do.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

211. Not about RW outrage. About 2 weeks after tRump declared & 2 weeks after sitting Prez docs found

Until tRump declared there was no conflict of interest.

Since Biden is currently President, there is a conflict of interest.

Hence SC appointed about 2 weeks after in each case.

[Kid Berwyn]

52. Appointing SC is the right thing.

Thanks for the kind reminder: the VRWC and it’s Mighty Wurlitzer press will sound off no matter what the truth is.

I’ll go on a limb and predict that Biden is not guilty of any crime. And that will shut them up.

[W_HAMILTON]

60. Biden won't be guilty of a crime and it won't shut them up.

Once again, see: Hillary circa 2016.

You are falling for the same thing, all over again.

And if appointing a special counsel in such a circumstance was the right thing, why did it take well over a year for Garland to do so in Trump's case?

[whathehell]

169. No, but it will make their BS much less believable. n/t

[JohnSJ]

210. What was done to Hillary speaks volumes, and as for the argument that a SC will speed things up,

That simply has never been true. Just look at how long John Durham took.

The reality of why Garland is doing this is simply for “political” considerations, not because of obstruction, or evidence that it was intentional

[Bettie]

212. Exactly, and they will be screaming for an indictment

of Biden next. Will Garland do their bidding on that too, just to make it look nonpartisan?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

213. It's not about RW outrage. It's about separation from political conflict of interest

Two weeks after tRump announcement, SC appointed because his announcement created a political conflict of interest.

Two weeks after Biden docs discovered, SC appointed because a sitting President is a political conflict of interest.

[uponit7771]

90. That will ***NOT*** shut them up, it didn't for HRC and it wont for Biden or Obama or any other

... democrat.

Hunter Biden taught us that seeing there's not one probable cause to even investigate anything about Hunter Biden but the DOJ did it anyway and found a grey area on a gun application in regards to a charge.

[onetexan]

128. Nothing will shut them up so its a moot point

They make mountains out of molehills

[summer_in_TX]

199. Garland DID do the right thing.

He is protecting the legal process in both instances, and by doing so he is serving the interests of the president. Biden stated from the beginning that he wanted to restore confidence in the DOJ. Appointing an SC, and especially someone not a Dem, serves Biden's higher priorities.

Biden modeled every inch of how a president committed to transparency should handle such a situation, making sure that his own home and car were searched, and disclosing it himself, then doing the press conference.

He's teaching those who expect subterfuge and obfuscation, that honorable people don't do that. They stand up and do the right thing.

He's also giving the most effective rebuttal to the FOX Noise attacks: He disclosed, he cooperated with the DOJ and SC process, he had his folks search his home for any more, disclosed those, and he was forthright and transparent in appearing before the press and taking their questions. Unlike tfg. Couldn't ask for a better contrast.

[uponit7771]

37. Sigh, MAGA will do that no matter what. Why do some still think MAGA are sane ?!

[Kid Berwyn]

43. Who cares if MAGA are insane? They are NAZIs.

My point is for the rest of the nation, and for all history, Biden will be seen as on the up-and-up.

[W_HAMILTON]

58. No, they won't.

Because it will be blown into a bigger story than it otherwise would (or should) be because of this. Now, it's easier to conflate the two.

Just look at Hillary's fucking emails. All the hoopla surrounding it didn't absolve her in the public eye -- it condemned her. Condemned her for a practice that pretty much *every fucking person* in government does. And which is not against the law. And yet it was PATHETICALLY the biggest fucking issue of 2016.

I mean, you speak about history, so can't you refer back to very recent history to see how this sort of bending-over-backwards to appease the unappeasable works?

[Meowmee]

205. This

It is very, very foolish to think otherwise. We have seen this time and time again but some people never learn.

[uponit7771]

73. 100% disagree !! The narrative is already out there that Biden is **NOT** on the up and up when ...

... it comes to these documents nothing legitimizes the publics view of something being amiss like a criminal investigation on such a minor matter.

[Bettie]

82. Cable news will ensure that most people only hear

"both sides are the same" and "Trump is being persecuted"

[Joinfortmill]

143. 👍

[iemanja]

4. and he didn't even wait two years

hardly parity.

[gldstwmn]

5. I agree with everything he has said here.

I understand the need for transparency but all of this seems like a pathetic waste of time to me. I'm disgusted by it.

[TomDaisy]

9. 1000% agree. Ridiculous.

[uponit7771]

38. +1,

[GenXer47]

10. we have zero to worry about here folks

Biden has served this country for his whole lifetime. Trump almost destroyed it in 4 years. THAT's the difference.
I hope with everything I have that the CIA has set up a sting operation to purchase classified info from Trump.

[Xoan]

113. Yet in Garland's eyes ...

They're equal.

[Joinfortmill]

148. Oh, wow. Nice thought

[Beautiful Disaster]

13. Eli is acting like a fool.

I'm really embarrassed for him. Why shouldn't the DOJ appoint a special prosecutor? If they did for Trump - how can they justify not doing it for Biden? I don't care if Biden handed over the documents and was pro-active. He still had them at multiple locations, including his garage, house and old campus office. If it's a problem for Trump to store classified documents at Mar-a-Largo, it's a problem for Biden. Trump lying about it was only part of the problem, the more egregious was what he was actually doing with those documents.

Just because we like Biden doesn't mean he's above the law here. It's speedy just as it was fairly speedy once Mar-a-Largo was searched by the FBI. Once it became public, and that one investigating recommended a special prosecutor, Garland had little choice. And it would be ridiculous for him to not move when he announced one for Trump back in November. It absolutely would delegitimize the investigation into Trump.

Anyway, now Eli can match how ridiculous he looks whenever he's on TV with how ridiculous he sounds.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

21. Agreed.

It's a good thing, not a bad one, that the DOJ is acting professionally. We don't want Garland to be our version of Jeff Sessions.

[Beautiful Disaster]

30. It's scary how many on our side parrot the same talking points from the right...

I've seen people say the classified documents were planted...like what is going on here?

How can anyone get upset over Trump claiming everything is political and that documents were possibly planted and then turn around and say the same thing but with Biden?

[gldstwmn]

53. There are clear differences here.

This both sides bullshit needs to end. There is no parity when it comes to Trump et. al.

[Beautiful Disaster]

126. No there isn't.

When your have posters claiming these documents were planted, you're acting no differently than those who said the same with Trump.

[gldstwmn]

188. Trump obstructing justice and potentially violating the Espionage Act

Biden completely cooperating are the same thing to you? They investigated Trump for over a year and ever so gently kept asking him for the documents while he laughed in their faces. I don't give a damn if people are speculating that the documents are planted. Could you honestly put it past certain people?
Garland appointed a special prosecutor in Biden's case after documents were willingly turned over once their existence became known. Where is the crime here? Better yet, where is the evidence of a crime?
This is a complete and total waste of time and a political sideshow. He appointed a prosecutor that clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Get real. Garland should be fired. There. I finally said it after giving him the benefit of the doubt for way too long.

[Meowmee]

206. It's too late to fire him now

He should never have been appointed but should have been fired/ replaced a long time ago. Agree with your whole post.

[gldstwmn]

224. I agree. We're stuck with him. And yes, he was a terrible choice.

I wish Joe would've chosen Sally Yates.

[Meowmee]

229. Agree

We needed someone who cared about stopping these fascist criminals from destroying everything.

[Qutzupalotl]

22. Agreed. Mystal can be funny, but he often overlooks facts

that would undermine his preferred narrative.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

25. Like the fact that Garland wasn't AG in Jan. 2021

Big glaring error in his tweetstorm right there....

[uponit7771]

44. That doesn't negate Mystal's message that Garland did call for a SC the millisecond he became AG ...

... either.

The fact Garland knew about TFG and the docs **before** he became AG goes against Garland in this whole narrative.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

45. I've never heard that Garland knew about the docs in Jan 2021

Do you have a source?

[uponit7771]

64. Newrepublic

https://newrepublic.com/post/169994/attorney-general-merrick-garland-appoints-special-counsel-investigate-biden-classified-documents

[AZSkiffyGeek]

76. Your source for Elie Mystal's assertion that Garland knew about the docs in 1/21

Is Elie Mystal?

[uponit7771]

81. Tori Otten wrote the article I linked

[AZSkiffyGeek]

104. And the only reference to Garland knowing about the documents in 1/21

Is Mystal's tweet.

[Beautiful Disaster]

23. I'll also say that investigations of a sitting pres are much different than a citizen.

Trump wasn't president anymore - Biden is. Also, the special council was announced right after Trump announced he was running for president. So...

[uponit7771]

39. In regards to timing of counsel how is Elie Mystal wrong? tia

[W_HAMILTON]

41. "I don't care" about the reason why a special counsel shouldn't be appointed is what you are saying.

And Trump lying about it and obstructing their retrieval WAS the problem. It's why it he wasn't locked up immediately when they determined that he had a massive stash of classified materials lying around who knows what properties of his -- has he gone through and searched all his other residences like Biden has? Lemme guess... -- and why they worked with him and gave him the benefit of the doubt until it was obvious he was still WILLINGLY withholding government property even though he had been given multiple opportunities to simply hand it over.

Fact of the matter is, had Trump done what Biden had done, Trump would not even be under investigation now, much less had a special counsel appointed.

And THAT is why it is bullshit and you "not caring" about the differences is exactly why you fail to comprehend that.

[uponit7771]

69. " Trump would not even be under investigation now" 👈🏾👈🏾👈🏾 THIS !!!

[temporary311]

17. Wasn't one of the reasons Garland was picked

for the Supreme Court was because he was deemed conservative enough to appeal to Republicans in the Senate? That'd have to be pretty damn conservative.

[gab13by13]

42. Mike Lee of Utah recommended Garland to President Obama.

[Xoan]

114. 👍

[newdayneeded]

158. I said this very thing in a post months

back and got hammered on here. Yes, Obama's thought process was to name someone that the right would be ok with.

[Meowmee]

207. Yes

I think Hatch and M also recommended him to O whi didn’t want him at first but then later nominated him, possibly when liberal candidates were clearly not going to have a chance.

[malaise]

19. If Eli is correct them why did Obama select Garland

for the Supreme Court - the Slobfather is going to be indicted. I concede it is taking way too long

[BlueTsunami2018]

24. Because he was trying to give the Pukes someone they could vote for.

Or at least pretend to so he could call them out on their hypocrisy, for whatever that’s worth.

If he was allowed to nominate who he wanted, it wouldn’t have been Garland.

[W_HAMILTON]

48. And look how well that worked.

Look how well it worked for Obama retaining Comey.

Look how well it worked for Biden appointing Garland.

And the worst part is, did ANY of that stop Republicans from being disingenuous partisan shitheads? OF COURSE NOT.

I long for the day when we will have a strong Democrat in office that will happily fucking clean their house of shitty Republicans and weak-willed """both sides""" types. Republicans aren't going to nominate people to appease us, so why the fuck do we keep bending over backwards to do the same for them? Fuck them. Appoint hard-nosed, strong and loyal Democrats and fucking dare them to thumb their nose at the legal and law enforcement arm of the United States.

[malaise]

72. THIS n/t

[uponit7771]

78. +1,

[gldstwmn]

80. You could say the same for other things in the Obama presidency as well.

There were things that could have and should have been done, especially in that first term that weren't because the Dems were being far too hesitant, IMO. We see now where that got us. Mind you, I have the utmost respect for President Obama but mistakes were made.

[Bettie]

93. Obama was a great president, but

the big weak spot he had is that he expected the Republicans to behave honorably and he kept hoping for that long past the time when it was reasonable to expect anything approaching even basic humanity from them.

They are never going to be even marginally decent. Never.

[gldstwmn]

102. You are right on the money.

And this is a ridiculous waste of time on the part of Garland.

[Meowmee]

228. This

And it is LONG past time to wake up to that fact

[BlueTsunami2018]

119. Because Moscow wasn't going to approve anyone President Obama nominated.

They even said “there’s no way Obama will nominate a moderate like Merrick Garland…” so he turned around and did. Proving they’re full of shit and weren’t going to accept anyone.

It didn’t help anything or matter that he did that of course. Americans are generally idiots.

[Meowmee]

208. Agree

Comey and Garland were the two worst mistakes ever.

[Justice matters.]

54. Bingo.

Last edited Thu Jan 12, 2023, 09:51 PM - Edit history (1)

The Federalist Society probably didn't want him as an 'official' member because, maybe he answered a question about 'Roe vs Wade' that made him seem like he was 'pro-choice' so that's why they opposed his nomination so forcefully????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[tritsofme]

155. What is this nonsense even supposed to mean?

Wow.

[ShazzieB]

195. Mitch McConnell blocked Garland's appointment to the Supreme Court.

He wanted to keep the seat empty in case the next potus was a Republican, so he made up a bogus excuse to keep the nomination from being brought before the Senate for a vote.

I don't know if the Federalist Society was directly involved or not, but I do know McConnell was hellbent on getting as many conservatives on the court as possible, and he achieved his goal.

[Earth-shine]

61. Garland was recommended to Obama by Orrin Hatch.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-hatch/republican-would-back-garland-for-supreme-court-idUSTRE6456QY20100506

[Marius25]

140. Because Obama tried to get a moderate that Republicans were ok with

Garland was not chosen because he's a progressive fighter, but because Obama mistakenly thought he'd be an acceptable option to the Republican Senate.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

20. I sometimes like what Mystal says, but in this case he's wrong.

Trump was a private citizen for two years. That's why the DOJ was investigating him in-house. It's not that the DOJ waited for two years to investigate Trump at all.

And of course Garland didn't take questions. He's said many times that the DOJ communicates through its work and its cases. That doesn't make him a coward.

I really don't like this personal trashing of Garland just because he's not acting like a partisan.

[uponit7771]

50. The DOJ was investigating missing docs in house when Garland became AG? Thx in advance, my ...

... understanding DOJ didn't start investigating until they got push back from TFG on giving up all the docs.

[grantcart]

111. The FBI is still part of the DOJ. They have been investigating as a security issue

The DOJ prosecutors only got involved after they got push back from Trump.

[Mister Ed]

46. Elie Mystal is harshly criticizing Merrick Garland.

Sometimes the hyperbole of the subject lines on DU kinda gets to me.

[Shrek]

57. At the very least I expected "eviscerating"

The whole operation is falling apart.

[Fiendish Thingy]

109. Click bait culture. Nt

[Alexander Of Assyria]

133. Which is essentially ether in the Twitter wind.

When will journo people with media platforms write actual articles explaining their opinion…but ofc Twitter is there for lazy ranting.

[getagrip_already]

47. The only thing he got wrong.....

He said garland waited two months. Apparently garland had someone look into whether a sc was needed within days of hearing about the documents.

He made up his mind in minutes, or at least hours. It just took him time to find an sc the gop would salivate over.

Think about it. He had to review candidates, interview them, and then recruit one. He had to have everything in place, including office space and staff, before announcing it. No way he could do all that since it became public. The leaks were probably from hur's people.

This was a VERY fast decision.

[uponit7771]

55. +1, ... also, couldn't an SC be called for Benedict Donald when Garland became AG? My understanding

... its the privy of the AG to call a SC when he wants to on any citizen gov or non.

[MOMFUDSKI]

49. We learned that it IS possible

to light a fire under Garland. It is a start. Sigh . . . .

[gab13by13]

51. An important fact that everyone is missing.

A special counsel is only to be appointed because of criminal activity. Short period of time for Garland to conclude that someone committed a crime related to the Biden documents.

If Garland only appointed the sc to appease right wing Magats then he is breaking his promise to not be partisan and not using the sc as it is intended.

[W_HAMILTON]

62. Spoiler alert:

Garland only appointed the sc to appease right wing Magats and he is breaking his promise to not be partisan and not using the sc as it is intended.

[uponit7771]

66. +1,

[Alexander Of Assyria]

136. Completely wrong and unsupported by anything other than speculation. Garland has the rule of law.

[Justice matters.]

68. Another possibility (re: criminal activity).

What if (anytime during those two months, even if only Monday/Tuesday) 'informants' signaled a lead about trumpy SS agent(s) 'planted' docs? (Just asking...)

That would be a criminal act in itself. Let's leave it to insiders to come up with the truth (hopefully).

[uponit7771]

70. +1, I'm praying this is the outcome ... reasoning for supporting Garland grows thinner and thinner

[Justice matters.]

99. The fact is, we don't know and Garland is not going anywhere (else).

True that I think IMHO he should have appointed a SC to investigate the organizers of the insurrection a LOT sooner.

You don't 'move' thousands of MAGA insurrectionists from all over the country without a coordinated 'effort' to organize it and FUND it.

But now that it's done for both cases, we have no choice but to 'wait' and 'see' the conclusions. Biden is not interfering in the DOJ's ongoing investigations and that's why he won't 'fire' him, no matter what pressures from DUers to do that will apply.

[orangecrush]

108. +1

[newdayneeded]

160. Do you think this trump backing

SC isn't gonna find some miniscule piece of dirt to bring up charges? Oh, and in a matter of weeks, to boot .

[NewHendoLib]

85. Garland is a republican. nuff said.

[Meowmee]

118. This

And so was mueller

[emulatorloo]

129. That's a lie. Which makes you a liar.

[NewHendoLib]

132. Really? When he was selected he was considered on the moderate/ conservative lean

If I recall

[emulatorloo]

134. A 'moderate' Democrat is not a Republican. So yeah, it is ----a lie---- to say he is a Republican.

[NewHendoLib]

154. I also recall many of us unhappy he was Obama's choice.

I know I was.

[emulatorloo]

177. He's still NOT A REPUBLICAN.

[LymphocyteLover]

168. What? Show us otherwise. I always thought it was understood that Garland is a Republican

[muriel_volestrangler]

219. See #218 (nt)

[Emile]

130. Yep, he really is!

[Alexander Of Assyria]

138. Compelling argument...but so is Liz Cheney, etc. etc...not to mention generalized to the extreme.

[NewHendoLib]

153. And I agree with her on only one thing

[tritsofme]

159. This is a lie.

He was appointed to the federal bench by President Clinton. He has never identified as a Republican.

Stop lying on DU, please.

[muriel_volestrangler]

218. If that were true, then his Court of Appeals vote wouldn't have had 23 Reps against, and 0 Dems

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1051/vote_105_1_00034.htm

You're making things up. This does not help the conversation.

[LymphocyteLover]

232. I don't think it is that simple, particularly if Garland was an Obama appointee

I mean, is this really the best evidence we have for Garland being a Democrat?

It's weird though, now everyone is saying he's a liberal but when Obama appointed him to SCOTUS, I distinctly remember people calling him a centrist who is probably a Republican.

[LymphocyteLover]

233. Garland was considered to be the most conservative of the various candidates Obama considered for

SCOTUS, although he was not "a conservative".

Clearly he's gone out of his way to have any party affiliation.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2010/04/the-potential-nomination-of-merrick-garland/

[muriel_volestrangler]

235. Thank you - I think that clears it up - not a Republican (nt)

[muriel_volestrangler]

234. No, it's not evidence for him being a Democrat

It's evidence that many Republicans have always opposed him. If he were a Republican, then that wouldn't be the case. Surely you know that Americans aren't divided up into only Democrats and Republicans?

Those who claim "he is a Republican" need to actually show some reasoning. And no, "I remember an unknown person said he was probably a Republican" 7 years ago is not evidence. You can dig up the media reports from then, if you think they happened. For one, we'd need to know who the person who said it was, so that we can judge whether they had a clue what they were talking about.

[Fiendish Thingy]

103. Something tells me Garland doesn't GAF what Mystal thinks. Nt

I’m OK with that.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

141. Yes, ofc he doesn't. That anyone thinks he does is delusional. Mystal is Twitter ranting...to

me does not contribute to the journos credibility at all.

[emulatorloo]

146. IMHO DU was just looking for an excuse to have a meltdown.

[yaesu]

110. Be careful, there are some on du who think Garland is THE MAN!, Untouchable

A warrior for the common good

[Meowmee]

117. I think it's safe to say we are now

A sh country. Ugh

[ecstatic]

120. I'm done with Garland's ass. It took him almost 2 years to do something about a COUP ffs!

Now he's moving at lighting speed because the clown car wants him to. Really? Done.

[Snackshack]

124. He is rt to criticize.

I am not the only one who thinks AG Garland has done this country a horrible injustice by the slow walk or just straight up ignorance of anything related to DT or his actions.

Todays action clearly shows how broken DOJ is…when it comes to holding the GOP accountable not so much when it comes to Dems.

[Genki Hikari]

226. Argument ad populum

It doesn't matter how many people "think" something. People think a bunch of stupid stuff. Lots of them believed that frogs came from rain, and that never was so.

You have no evidence that anyone you do not know personally is ignorant of, well, anything.

DOJ is working like it always does when it's not being partisan, a la Bill Flintstone Barr. Just because you're only now noticing that it sputters along like a Model T with a bad carburetor doesn't meant that it's anything new.

Because it's not.

That fact is older than the Model T.

[infullview]

125. After reading through this thread, I can only say..

...WOW! Who knew Garland could be so polarizing

[emulatorloo]

139. Yeah I am sure Garland feels 'destroyed' by Elie Mystal.

[Hekate]

145. He does not look "destroyed" & is still employed

[emulatorloo]

150. When DU isn't over-reacting, it isn't DU.

[Hekate]

151. Yup

[bdamomma]

182. Yes

we can be very passionate about certain topics.

[GoCubsGo]

197. Yup.

The smell of burning hair is becoming overwhelming.

[Beastly Boy]

162. How so?

Nothing but judicious statements in total disregard of DOJ rules.

You don't need a law degree to do that. Just a fair amount of pompous ignorance will do.

[Kaleva]

166. And the reason we are supposed to care what Elie Mystal thinks is?

[48656c6c6f20]

167. Well.

Can't say I am surprised. When they show you who they are, believe them.

[Catherine Vincent]

171. I agree somewhat, but

Maybe when Treasonous bastard Trump is finally indicted, his cultish fans won't bitch as loud.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

172. Merrick Garland has been called to serve under Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Biden.

Which Democratic Presidents wanted Elie Mystal to serve for them?

[iemanja]

184. I'd wager that most would prefer him to Garland at this point.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

185. I sorry if i don't understand, but

Which Democratic President are you referring to that asked Mr. Mystal to serve them?

[iemanja]

186. Let's start with Joe Biden

Mystal never appointed a special counsel to go after Biden, something for which you seem to hold Garland in high esteem.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

189. MKay

Merrick Garland is the Attorney General of the United States, appointed by President Biden with the consent of a Democratic majority Senate.

Mr Elie Mystal is a Harvard educated lawyer, author, and media personality.

Both are respectable, but one has obligations under our constitution, and one does not.

[iemanja]

190. And one has shown himself to execute those obligations exceedingly poorly.

[Earth-shine]

196. Garland came to Obama highly recommended ...

by Orrin Hatch, as a supreme court nominee that Republican senators would vote for.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-hatch/republican-would-back-garland-for-supreme-court-idUSTRE6456QY20100506

[Emile]

220. Senator Orrin Hatch was for Garland. Jesus

[OneCrazyDiamond]

222. Got it.

So called to serve under Clinton, Orin Hatch and Biden. My bad.

[republianmushroom]

187. Interesting e-mails to say the least.

[Dustlawyer]

215. The one area I disagreed with Obama.

He appointed socially progressive but business friendly conservative justices. Was never a fan of Garland.

[News Junkie]

216. I think he knew no nominee was getting approved

And thought the GQP stonewalling would look even worse with a moderate/conservative pick. The unforseen result was Garland becoming something of hero to the left. Hence, the Biden selection for AG.

[lark]

217. Garland is a huge fuckng disappointment, so scared of R's he throws Ds under the bus.

Or he's a secret R? We really don't know what's going on but it sure seems to be a get dems scheme when he gives the thief 2 years and Biden 1 day. I'm officially on the distrust Garland bus and am now thinking this was done to avoid indictment of tfg. It makes me fucking sick.

[msfiddlestix]

221. I think the term "destroyed" is overstating just a bit.. :) n/t

[Mosby]

223. The winners in all of this are the lawyers

Making $500/hr writing tomes no one will ever read.