Will Garland appoint a SC for Pence?

[Marius25]

Classified docs found at Pence's home too.

[maxsolomon]

1. Established precedent.

When is the Cheney Ranch being searched? The Quayle McMansion? The Bush Painting Studio?

[prodigitalson]

30. Bush used his for painting canvases

[onenote]

2. If Pence declares his candidacy, yes.

That's the precedent set by naming a special counsel for Trump.

[W_HAMILTON]

10. Biden hasn't officially declared his candidacy.

So, what made-up special rule explains away Biden's special counsel?

[onenote]

11. He's currently more than a private citizen.

He appointed the Attorney General. The reason for naming a special counsel for Trump was that he had declared his president.

But I'm guessing you knew all that already.

[W_HAMILTON]

12. There's history of the DOJ/FBI investigating matters involving their president...

...without the need for a special counsel, so, yes, that's a made-up rule. Reno investigated allegations of campaign finance abuse against Clinton/Gore in the mid-1990s and Comey's FBI was investigating Trump's campaign ties into Russia (before he was fired, which is what prompted special circumstance for a special counsel).

But given that you tried to use that excuse, I'm guessing you didn't know that.

EDIT: PS - If a candidate running for office is what kicks off the need for a special counsel, why no special counsel for Hillary? Yeah. Like I said, it's all bullshit and made up as they go along. If Garland has any shred of integrity, he would continue to play by these silly rules he himself implemented and appoint a special counsel for the Pence investigation -- period.

[onenote]

14. Garland is being consistent

Which is what matters. Not what other AGs did.

[W_HAMILTON]

15. If he doesn't appoint one for Pence, he's not being consistent.

And if he isn't publicly enshrining all of these new rules into DOJ policy for the future, it will not be consistent treatment under the law for those under future investigation compared with those under current investigation. So, he should clarify whether these are just rules he is making up as he goes along that DOJ will never have to abide by once he is gone or if this is going to be DOJ policy going forward.

[onenote]

16. How so? He didn't appoint one for Trump until Trump announced for office.

How is not appointing one for Pence when Pence hasn't announced for office inconsistent? Garland made it clear when he named a SC for Trump that the tipping point was Trump's announcement of his candidacy.

[W_HAMILTON]

18. Hence the made-up bullshit rules as he goes along.

There is no reason a candidate should get special treatment just because they declare for office. And if that is the standard, Biden hasn't officially declared he is running again, so why the special counsel?

History needed a better man for the job than Merrick Garland. It's time to accept that.

And this isn't coming from some Garland hater; I defended him until just recently, when he's now shown to the world that he is a weak-willed man that doesn't have the character to simply do what's right and instead, in doing his best to appear non-political, is making ridiculous decisions that are very much politically driven.

[onenote]

20. Distinctions.

Biden: Actual President who appointed AG
Trump: Former President, AG appointed by another president, SC named when he became candidate
Pence: Former VP, AG appointed by another president, not yet a declared candidate.

[W_HAMILTON]

23. Distinctions.

- Never before has the DOJ stated it cannot investigate its own president and it has very much done so in the past.
- Never before has running for federal office resulted in appointment of a special counsel.

In a non-Garland world, Pence wouldn't need a special counsel, but neither would have Trump or Biden. But since he made the decisions to appoint one in each of their cases, it is incumbent upon him to lay out the flimsy rationale for why he won't name one for Pence. If he uses the same justifications as some on here have, he will be rightfully excoriated for it.

I'm actually looking forward to him going to the Hill and testifying before Congress at this point.

[inthewind21]

25. Incorrect

Nixon (Watergate) Regan ( Iran Contra) Clinton (Whitewater) Trump (Russia connections) It is indeed precedent.

[wnylib]

17. It was not just the fact that Trump announced

his candidacy. It's the fact that Biden is his presumed opponent in 2024. Biden has indicated his interest in running even though he has not officially declared.

That creates a conflict of interest for Garland since Biden is his boss.

[W_HAMILTON]

21. Pence has indicated interest in running as well.

So, special counsel please!

And the DOJ and FBI have investigated their presidents before without the need for a special counsel. If Garland thinks he and his DOJ is not up to task, then he should enshrine his decision into DOJ policy so it will be there forever going forward and we can expect every administration going forward to follow the same rules.

"If the DOJ has to investigate a sitting president, a special counsel should be immediately appointed to avoid any conflict of interest."

Done and done.

[wnylib]

32. When did Pence declare his candidacy? Trump made

a public declaration but I missed Pence's.

However, if Pence is seriously considering a 2024 run, then a SC might be necessary.

Meantime, having a SC for Trump protects investigations of him from interference by a hostile House. But the reason was conflict of interest.

[inthewind21]

22. No

Biden is Garlands boss. THERE is the conflict.

[W_HAMILTON]

24. It doesn't matter.

There is no DOJ policy saying that "you can't investigate your boss" or else we would have heard it, just like their "you can't indict a sitting president" policy. So, if Garland is now extending that ridiculous immunity even further and enshrining it into DOJ policy, he should go on the record and say so.

PS - If there is a conflict of interest in investigating Biden, there is also a conflict of interest in having the DOJ/FBI investigate Biden's son. I'm just saying... But it's Garland that's woven this disastrous web of nonsense, so it's up to him to explain himself. I look forward to his testimony before Congress.

[inthewind21]

27. Hunter Biden

is a private citizen not an elected Government official.

[inthewind21]

29. Huh

huh Trump admin appoints SP Muller to investigate the Trump Russia ties? Regan DOJ and Iran Contra? And Bill Clinton, remember Ken Starr and Whitewater? How about Nixon and Watergate,? You guessed it, SP. Again, there IS precedent.

[wnylib]

33. +1000

[KPN]

3. Has he announced yet? He's making all the typical moves, but until he announces, there's nothing

official.

[lame54]

4. That's an amazing question...

Can't wait for the answer

[DURHAM D]

5. I had a little fun earlier today -

https://democraticunderground.com/100217585904

[C_U_L8R]

6. Garland is reaching for the antacids.

What a pickle. Maybe he could have done things differently. There’s still a unique case of obstruction sitting before him.

[The Magistrate]

7. Only Fair, Sir

Can't seem to be moved by political concerns, after all. Not and be the bestest boy scout ever held office....

[GreenWave]

8. The SC should be a woman!

In your face fly landing field.

[Blue_playwright]

9. In all seriousness, I think he will...

… but I think the investigation of Pence and Biden should be joint and with a focus on how.

I wonder if all former Veeps and Presidents have people looking through their archives? Although W backwards, they would have likely found them when finishing the library …

The systemic problem has allowed the Trump problem to happen in my opinion. NARA needs some more processes and some teeth.

[Girard442]

13. My bet is that Garland will kick the can down the road...

...for {mumble, mumble} reasons until it's too close to election 2024 to do anything.

[Emile]

19. If he wants to come across as non partisan he will appoint someone!

[doc03]

26. No. nt

[48656c6c6f20]

28. Santos rule. So no.

[spanone]

31. I think he's boxed himself in. He has to or he's treating him and President Biden differently.

[madville]

34. No

There’s no reason for it since Pence is neither in office or a candidate for office, like Biden and Trump are.