Elie Mistal is burning Garland to the ground on Ari right now. nt

[Atticus]

[Marius25]

1. For good reason. Merrick Garland is a disgrace.

He's so concerned about not appearing partisan, that he's empowered the very people who tried to overthrow the government with investigating Biden, while still using kids gloves with the people who took part in the coup.

He's not up to the task to protect Democracy or the rule of law. Give me a Preet Bharara or Glenn Kirschner.

I don't for one second believe any of the high ups who staged the coup will ever face justice.

[Sky Jewels]

4. Yep.

This is a situation that called for fast action, not hand-wringing and foot-dragging.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

7. Robert Hur is not part of the crowd that tried to overthrow the government.

That's a huge stretch.

[Marius25]

13. He was part of the Barr DoJ. None of them can be trusted

[BlueCheeseAgain]

19. So easy to completely trash someone's character based on the loosest of associations.

[liberalhistorian]

60. Anyone willingly associated with Trump

and/or the Barr DOJ deserves to, and should, have their character questioned and trashed!

[cilla4progress]

38. Glenn Kirschner, who I and many highly respect,

has also been expressing his disapproval of Garland lately on his podcast.

[tritsofme]

39. What utter nonsense.

Thank goodness we have a professional like Garland as opposed to these bozo pundits driving for clicks.

[Marius25]

43. Lol. Garland is refusing to hold the coup plotters accountable.

Nothing professional about that.

[Takket]

45. that's just completely untrue. stop peddling this bullshit

i'm as frustrated as anyone at how long this is taking but saying Garland is "refusing" to hold them accountable is a total lie you cannot support with a single piece of evidence.

[we can do it]

2. Thanks for the heads up, I'll wait 15 minutes to tune in.

[gab13by13]

3. I will no longer call Ari, Bothsiderism,

Fantastic segment with great questions. Mainly, why did Garland have to hire Mr. Hur as special counsel who served in the Bill Barr justice system just to show that he is impartial? Ari's great question; SHOW WHO?

Elie asked the question, why do we need Garland if he always needs to hire a special counsel? Elie's suggestion was for Garland to hire a special counsel to be Attorney General.

Elie's point is that Garland is setting a precedent for the next criminal to ask for a special counsel who worked under the Barr administration.

Ari's great question once again, who is it that Garland has to appeal to that he is nonpartisan?

[MOMFUDSKI]

5. Seems Garland has to appeal to

his peeps. What was Joe thinking? He probably based his choice on the fact that Obama wanted Garland for SC.

[dem4decades]

15. His peeps? Republicans are his peeps now? We're fucked.

[cilla4progress]

40. That's what I think. A f-u to Mitch.

A rare decision of Biden's that I disagree with, and see as an exercise in ego. Never a good driver for a decision!

[Sky Jewels]

6. Fox and Friends might accuse him of running a witch hunt!

Oh noes!!!

[gab13by13]

9. Hur is being attacked right now from the right, not the left.

Garland's strategy made no difference.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

20. He was attacked by plenty on DU.

Including in this very thread.

[Bev54]

10. Read this article to answer your questions on why he had to appoint a special counsel

https://www.lawfareblog.com/unpacking-biden-special-counsel-announcement

[gab13by13]

28. In other words Garland has already determined that there was criminal activity.

Wow, that Trump appointed Marshall didn't take very long to decide that what happened could have been criminal.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

35. It took about two months

That seems like a reasonable time frame.

[Bev54]

55. Not sure how you determined that from the article - exactly the opposite.

[dsc]

37. actually Ari's point wasn't that there should be an independent council but that the council

shouldn't be someone who worked for the Trump DOJ.

[Bev54]

8. He is full of bullshit and bluster. Read the article at Lawfare and it is made perfectly clear

Garland is following the law.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/unpacking-biden-special-counsel-announcement

[W_HAMILTON]

14. That author is completely incorrect in his very first sentence.

Garland absolutely did have a choice in whether or not to appoint a special counsel.

In his continuance of trying so hard to appear non-political, Garland made yet another boneheaded that was made solely due to perceived political pressures.

Garland has now inexplicably moved the sitting president's immunity bar from "can't be indicted by the DOJ" to "can't even be investigated by the DOJ," all because he is too weak-willed to simply do the right thing rather than doing what he thinks is politically """fair."""

[Bev54]

51. Sure, Ben Wittes has no idea what he is talking about

Benjamin Wittes is an American legal journalist and Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, where he is the Research Director in Public Law, and Co-Director of the Harvard Law School–Brookings Project on Law and Security.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

11. I guess for some people the problem with Trump's DOJ...

... wasn't that they were being naked partisans.

It was that they were playing for the wrong team. Partisanship at the DOJ is fine, if it's for us.

[W_HAMILTON]

16. Wrong.

You don't have to be partisan here to do what's right -- you just have to do what's right.

And what's right wouldn't be appointing a special counsel for Trump just because he declared his candidacy for political office (probably, in part, specifically looking to receive such special treatment) and you wouldn't make matters worse by then appointing a special counsel in the Biden situation just because you appointed one in Trump's.

In trying to appear completely non-partisan, Garland has made some ignorant moves that have been roundly and rightly criticized.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

17. I guess you know by now that we disagree.

So I don't see any point in continuing this discussion with you, especially given our prior interactions. Have a nice rest of your day.

[W_HAMILTON]

24. That's fine, we don't have to interact, but I wasn't going to let your false claim...

...go unchallenged to anyone reading.



Some of us want a strong Attorney General that will do the right thing and not be pressured into bad decision after bad decision due to political considerations that should not be a factor here in seeking actual justice under the law.

That doesn't mean we want a left-wing version Bill Barr and, unfortunately at this point, it means we don't want Merrick Garland either.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

26. One last insult, huh?

Have a nice day.

[W_HAMILTON]

27. Where is the insult?

You said you didn't want to interact and I said that's fine, I responded to your post for others that might be inclined to think your claim was accurate rather than a false portrayal of what people like me actually want in an Attorney General.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

33. Look, I don't want to prolong this.

I wasn't referring to you in my original post. So I don't see why you think my comment was directed at you, and why the fact that you don't think it describes you in particular accurately means that it's false. Unless you think it doesn't describe anyone at all on Earth, which I doubt.

To be honest, I remember your name from some other interactions from a while ago. I don't remember those as pleasant or respectful either. In fact, I remember a bit of scorn and incredulity that anyone could possibly believe what I was saying.

I'm sure you're a nice person in real life. But this isn't going well, and I'd rather not continue it. I hope you understand.

[calguy]

12. The guy is such a blow hard, I have problem comprehending much of what he says.

[Cha]

21. And, EarlG Isn't.. I'm going with

his Analysis.

Not the damn hot heads.

[gab13by13]

31. So you agree with Garland that a crime likely occurred?

Was enough investigation done to determine if President Biden did not commit a crime? What happened with innocent until proven guilty?

[Just A Box Of Rain]

22. Huh, tuned into Ari to see a rapper "Ransom" defending the anti-Semitic tweets by Kyrie Irving

without any pushback from either Ari Melber or Elie Mystal.

Kind of sickening.

[Paladin]

59. Kind of typical, which is the main reason I avoid Ari's show. (nt)

[dem4decades]

25. It's too bad John Durham wasn't available, he'd have met Garland's criteria for not offending

The right.

I mean the right certainly has been the bellwether for fairness that we should strive for right?

Of course not. So why cater to them?

[Bavorskoami]

30. Is Durham still in good graces on the right?

Durham was not able to get the job done that the right was expecting.

[dem4decades]

32. The right is so stupid they still think Durham is going to take down Biden.

But it appears Garland is doing his best to appease the right.

[Bavorskoami]

29. Ari assisted Elie in his takedown of Garland

Wasn't it Ari who suggested that Hur - for whatever reason - wanted to be part of the Trump DOJ and accepted an appointment. Why, he asked, can't Garland, it he wants to bolster a reputation as non- or bi-partisan and have a Republican to be special counsel, at least avoid people who volunteered to be part of the Sessions/Barr DoJ?

[dem4decades]

34. I'll give Ari credit for saying that Garland was trying to "Comey" Biden.

Protect the institutions, screw justice.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

49. Yup, that's why he announced the findings immediately before the election in 22

Oh wait…

[Jose Garcia]

36. How many criminal cases has Mr. Mistal prosecuted?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

50. He bashes Democrats from the Left

Does it even matter if he knows what he’s talking about? The Rose contingent will eat it up.

[Jose Garcia]

54. Must be a well paying gig

[cilla4progress]

41. It seems the right is succeeding

in getting us to fight amongst ourselves.

FOCUS!

[Fiendish Thingy]

42. No he's not, actually, he is just exposing his own ignorance. Nt

[AZSkiffyGeek]

44. Yesterday he claimed Garland knew abou Trumps missing docs in Jan 21

At that point I knew his analysis was worthless.

[W_HAMILTON]

47. What date did he know about them?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

48. Later than that

Since he wasn’t even AG then. And the archives didn’t know they were missing yet.
Unless Garland is a Time Lord.
But keep pretending Mistal knows what he’s talking about.

[W_HAMILTON]

52. Give me the date.

I ask because Garland clearly laid out the timeline in regard to the Biden investigation, so, in his sense of fairness, Garland surely did the same for the Trump investigation, yes?

So, what's the date?

[Bev54]

56. Garland was not even in his position until March 2021

[W_HAMILTON]

57. What is the date when Garland was first notified, that is my question.

Because we know the timeline for the Biden investigation, since Garland himself laid it out for us.

If no one can give me the exact date of when Garland knew about the Trump issue, why is that? Because Garland never told the public like he did with Biden? And how is that """fair""" in Garland's warped sense of view?

[Bev54]

58. Firstly Garland had to come out with a statement on Biden because the information

of an investigation was leaked, when it should not have been. But if you want a full timeline it is easy to find on google, I found it in seconds:

Here it is

https://www.voanews.com/a/timeline-of-the-trump-documents-inquiry-/6734453.html

[calguy]

53. What does Mistal even do for a living besides showing up on tv with a whacky hair-do and talk?

[48656c6c6f20]

46. What! How dare anyone denigrate our lord protector of the realm!