What kind of iirresponsible idiot was Merrick Garland?

[R0ckyRac00n]

To have been sitting on all this.

[Blue Owl]

1. There's milquetoast and then there's MILQUETOAST.....

[Think. Again.]

16. And then there's federalist society stoogetoast.

[LuvLoogie]

23. Yeah. Apparently the Biden administration was

effectively protecting trump.

I hope that the next Democratic. Administration and subsequent ones get over the notion we should hire GOPs for ANY position.

[brush]

29. Yes. Worst than Barr, and that's saying a lot. Burnt toast maybe who couldn't be scraped.

[Mr.WeRP]

2. Biden's biggest regret.

He had to pardon Hunter because of Garland.

[Rebl2]

7. Bondi

A close second

[brush]

32. She's bad, all right. trump bribed her for just 25k.

in pol bribery circles, that's considered a cheap date.

[MichMan]

24. Biden could have fired him at any time

[Bluetus]

102. Exactly. And Biden could have appointed Postal Governors

who would have saved the postal service.

Biden did some good things. But on the things that mattered, he was a C- at best. I'd give him an A on the COVID response, but not much after that.

[Trueblue1968]

135. I wonder why president biden didnt fire garland. If he would have, the world would be totally different now

[Hornedfrog2000]

148. People are comfy on their perches

Even dems dont see the forest. They are all doing fine, and will be fine.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

28. President Biden didn't have to do anything...

...he chose to pardon Hunter, after months of saying he wouldn't.

I'm a father, so I completely get why he did it, but he should have just not said anything, and done it on the way out the door.

[JoseBalow]

51. Has Biden expressed regrets about Garland?

Did I miss that?

[Sogo]

60. Yep, he has.

https://www.econotimes.com/Biden-Sparks-Outrage-Over-Merrick-Garland-Decision-Amid-Growing-Criticism-of-DOJ-Leadership-1698020

[JoseBalow]

67. "may have been a misstep."

Better than nothing, I guess. Thanks for the link.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

81. "Reportedly"

Hm. Reported by who? Not even the usual "sources close to," or "on condition of anonymity."

Just "reportedly."

[EdmondDantes_]

65. Yes, he has for multiple reasons

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/wake-up-call-biden-said-he-regrets-garland-as-attorney-general

For the Hunter Biden stuff, for being slow to go after Trump, and for not editing the Hur report.

[walkingman]

3. Garland Is America's Worst Attorney General. ... His failure to hold Trump accountable doomed us.

[ILikePie92]

11. Hell yes

Absolute worst

[Fiendish Thingy]

21. Pick your preferred AG

Now walk me through how that AG would have overcome the obstruction, delays and immunity ruling of the Roberts court and force a trial to happen before the 2024 election?

Reminder: judges set trial dates, not AG’s.

P.S. “faster” is not the correct answer.

[Skittles]

30. anyone but him

someone who would have TRIED regardless of the obstacles

[Fiendish Thingy]

39. Your lack of understanding of the facts aside...

Would the outcome have changed?

No, it would not.

There would still be no trial before the election.

[Skittles]

86. THEY SHOULD HAVE TRIED

where do you think the WHY DIDN'T BIDEN RELEASE THEM repuke talking point comes from?

sheer cowardice at best, complicit at worst

either way, DISGUSTING

[speak easy]

152. Appoint a Special Counsel ti investigate J6 in month 1.

[Fiendish Thingy]

153. You misunderstand the role and authority of a special counsel

Special Counsels are NOT:

Faster
More aggressive
More powerful…(how? To circumvent due process rights? Nope. To compel testimony regardless of claims of executive privilege or attorney client privilege? Nope, that is up to the courts)

The primary difference between special counsels and regular prosecutors is special counsels have an extra administrative layer between them and the AG/DOJ/Executive Branch to avoid legal and ethical conflicts of interest.

That’s it.

Jack Smith was appointed at exactly the right time - two days after Trump officially declared his candidacy, thus creating an ethical conflict with the Biden administration investigating and prosecuting Biden’s likely opponent in the 2024 election.

[speak easy]

155. The point is Jack Smith was appointed too late.

He ran out of time.

[Fiendish Thingy]

159. The point is you don't understand the rationale for appointing a special counsel

Go back and read my fact based post #153

[speak easy]

160. That is the legal redux.

The operational rational is to allow the special counsel to put a team together, to centralize planning and execution.

[Fiendish Thingy]

162. Nope

The bulk of Smith’s team, like 80%, was comprised of the investigative team Garland assembled back in mid-2021, and already had “centralized planning and execution”.

It was Trump’s declaration of candidacy that triggered Smith’s appointment; appointing him earlier would have been legally and ethically inappropriate, as well as useless.

[speak easy]

164. " already had "centralized planning and execution"..

The lost year: How Merrick Garland’s Justice Department ran out of time prosecuting Trump for January 6

“They wasted time, they were not strategic. It was a whole year of nothing,” said one former Justice Department official who was involved in the early portion of the investigation and who spoke to CNN on condition of anonymity in order to speak freely. “And they waited so long they ended up helping Trump in the primary and dividing the country.”

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/06/politics/doj-trump-jan-6-riot

The DOJ's planning and execution before Smith was woeful.

[Fiendish Thingy]

167. One anonymous source...

Compared to numerous on the record sources in the WaPo expose that debunked all of the myths and confirmed Garland proceeded with the investigations despite opposition and obstruction from pro-Trump career FBI and DOJ personnel.

[speak easy]

169. Why you are holding a Candle for Garland's DOJ is beyond me. Why?

History will record that they failed to bring Trump to justice for J6 in a timely manner. In the end that is what matters. And that is their epitaph.

[Fiendish Thingy]

170. Why you are giving the Roberts court, who had all the power and is the true villain of this story, a pass, is beyond me

I hold a candle for no one except for truth and reality

History will show that Garland and the DOJ did not fail, but that the Roberts court succeeded in protecting Trump and helping him escape Justice. Without the Roberts court’s interventions, Trump would have been tried and convicted.

[speak easy]

171. Alternative history is bunk. You know that.

[Fiendish Thingy]

172. Indeed it is the bunk

That’s why I stick with verified facts, and challenge the bunk opinions that others try to pass off as fact.

[Alpeduez21]

50. I think not waiting A YEAR before beginning any type of process is a good example of what another AG could've done

[Fiendish Thingy]

69. You're in luck!

Because the J6 investigation started before Trump left office, then continued after Biden took office, and became a dedicated team with a separate budget and resources in June 2021.

Hooray!

[PufPuf23]

124. Regardless Merrick Garland failed. nt

[Fiendish Thingy]

127. Did Garland actually fail?

Or did the Roberts court succeed?

[Alpeduez21]

166. Maybe I missed the part where Garland was in charge of that

Instead of waiting OVER A YEAR to start doing anything about the Trump criminal enterprise.

[Fiendish Thingy]

168. Go back and check your calendar

The J6 investigation began while Trump was still in office, and Garland formalized the team, it’s mission, and its resources about six weeks, not “over a year” from being sworn in.

[MLWR]

62. Bobby Kennedy (Sr)

[Fiendish Thingy]

70. Not even Bobby could have circumvented the obstruction of the Roberts Court.

Besides, if he was still alive, he’d be Former President Bobby Kennedy.

[electric_blue68]

117. Probably (Sigh, even after 57 yrs)

[walkingman]

76. Since the January 6th insurrection happened in 2021, the DOJ would/should have begun

Last edited Wed Jul 23, 2025, 09:51 PM - Edit history (1)

their investigation at that point. Meanwhile and concurrently the house committee started handing over evidence to the AG as early as Dec 2022. And yet Trump was not indicted until around August of 2023 - almost 2 1/2 years after January 6th. Leaving on 15 months until the 2024 election and the delays/appeals etc. Which I quite sure was anticipated. That is not even counting the other offenses.

I remember the "give him time, give him time" over and over by almost everyone thinking surely they would do something and yet nothing.

Of course, I am no lawyer but when I see how the DOJ is operating now, it begs the question...was it important to make sure that this psychopath would never get close to the WH again?

I do think that now as we witness the destruction of our Democracy, it is fair to say that Garland could and should have done a better job. Not to say it would have mattered, but might have?

[et tu]

89. they should have

braziled his butt

[BaronChocula]

93. You mean 2021, but YES! All YES!

I stopped giving the benefit of the doubt when J6 Committee members expressed discontent that they were doing all the work the DOJ should have been doing. And then the DOJ just asked for all the info they compiled. That was a dead giveaway.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/06/21/jan-6-committee-justice-department-transcripts-00040986

Last fall, committee member Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said that he “vehemently” disagreed with what he sees as the Justice Department’s overly cautious approach to its criminal investigation and to Trump in particular, and he blamed it on “a real desire on the part of the attorney general, for the most part, not to look backward.”

[MichMan]

99. I thought it was January 2021?

The election was in November 2020

[Fiendish Thingy]

126. Like I said, "faster" is not the correct answer

Neither is “sooner”.

The correct answer is:

Democrats should have killed the filibuster and expanded the court, but Manchin and Sinema would have sabotaged that vote.

A different AG, moving faster, indicting sooner, would not have produced a different outcome- the Roberts court would have ensured that (assuming a rushed investigation could have gotten an indictment, and that indictment would not have been dismissed outright)

Scapegoating is the quick and simple answer to a complicated question.

[walkingman]

128. The bottom line is people with power/wealth are not held accountable for their actions....very often.

[Fiendish Thingy]

129. Well, that is indeed true

And there’s a lot of people to blame.

My litmus test on who to support financially in any Democratic senate primary boils down to two questions:

1. Do you support expanding the Supreme Court?

2. Do you support killing the filibuster to do so?

Must be yes on both to get any money from me.

[LiberalLovinLug]

149. Strike while the iron is hot. The longer Garland waited the less public pressure to do his job

You do not know that the Roberts court could have delayed a court date for years. If instead, Garland would have done the opposite, and compiled evidence and facts immediately, and at least laid the charges of insurrection against the Constitution within months, Republicans like Graham and McConnell would still be in the early stages of waffling back to Trump. There would be public pressure still then on the SCOTUS to not delay it for years

The J6 committee embarrassed Garland into finally, and reluctantly, acting. But by then Trump and his cronies in the media had restored his position as a misunderstood man with and overly eager ambition to help America be great again, that got him into trouble once in Jan '06 where, unbeknownst to him, his supporters may have gone over the line a bit.

This tradition of Democratic Presidents appointing Republicans as some kind of appeasement move they can cash in later just doesn't work. Obama re-appointed Comey, how'd that work out?
Imagine instead if Elizabeth Warren was appointed?

[Fiendish Thingy]

150. Just because you can imagine something and type it on the internet

Doesn’t make that thing plausible, possible or probable. (Or true)

If instead, Garland would have done the opposite, and compiled evidence and facts immediately, and at least laid the charges of insurrection against the Constitution within months, Republicans like Graham and McConnell would still be in the early stages of waffling back to Trump. There would be public pressure still then on the SCOTUS to not delay it for years

Fact check: Garland did begin compiling evidence and facts immediately.

First, seeking an indictment for insurrection within months would have resulted in:

1. Likely failure to obtain an indictments from a grand jury
2. In the unlikely event an indictment was obtained, the charges would have been dismissed
3. In the slim chance the case proceeded towards trial…The corrupt Roberts court would have provided their immunity ruling earlier, resulting in, if not dismissal of all charges, then the expected back and forth delays on determining which crimes were actually “official duties”; any adverse rulings would, of course, be appealed all the way to SCOTUS. Lather, rinse repeat. (This process was just beginning last fall in the weeks before the election)

The J6 committee embarrassed Garland into finally, and reluctantly, acting.

That is a pernicious myth (really, just an outright lie ) that refuses to die.

If you want to make your feelings about Garland be counted and recorded for posterity, take my DU poll:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220509563

P.S. “public pressure on SCOTUS not to delay it (the trial) for years”?

🤣 😂 🤪

[LiberalLovinLug]

175. Agree to disagree.

Or rather I'll come half ways and agree that justice moves slowly. And the legal hurdles took time.

But that doesn't preclude the power of striking hard when the iron is hot. In the political realm, if not the legal one. If you own the political discourse, you make it easier to expedite the legal one.

First, seeking an indictment for insurrection within months would have resulted in:

1. Likely failure to obtain an indictments from a grand jury

I disagree here. The evidence was already evident. It was all on national TV. There was enough to start with what they had. Then add new charges as they became available. The public for the most part would be on board when it was fresh in the mind. And they'd also have a few elected R's, at the time, who would have backed them.
It wasn't all on Garland.. The Democratic party also could have been as belilgerant and obnoxious as Republicans are when they smell an opportunity.

The Nation said in 2023
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-indictment-merrick-garland/

Small excerpt.
From the outset of his tenure atop the Justice Department, Attorney General Merrick Garland evinced little interest in mounting any such investigation, fearing that the GOP’s permanently aggrieved MAGA base would view it as a weaponized, partisan effort to hound Trump into political irrelevance. As a blockbuster report by The Washington Post’s Carol D. Leonnig and Aaron C. Davis revealed this June, for a full year after the insurrection, Garland’s team looking into January 6 “consisted of just four prosecutors working with agents with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the National Archives and Records Administration.”

[Fiendish Thingy]

176. Cherry picking facts doesn't change the reality of the story

OK, so there were four prosecutors…along with a team of investigators and field agents and lower level DOJ lawyers, who worked to indict and convict over a thousand J6 insurrectionists, as well as gather data on Trump’s role.

Many Garland bashers conveniently ignore the numerous obstacles encountered-

Executive privilege claims (which Garland’s team finally defeated, getting a favorable ruling from SCOTUS in January 2023, IIRC. That opened the floodgates for subpeonas and getting testimony from crucial witnesses, like Pence’s chief of staff.

Claims of attorney client privilege- there were something like 40 lawyers involved or at least within the orbit of Trump’s J6 conspiracy, from John Eastman and Rudy to all of Trump’s personal and presidential lawyers. None could be interviewed until the privilege question was resolved, IIRC, in late 2023.

So, critical evidence in the form of those involved with Trump in the conspiracy was largely unavailable for 2+ years after the insurrection. That’s a HUGE reason why Garland couldn’t get an indictment against Trump sooner. I mean he could have rushed the “it was all on national TV” evidence and delivered it to a grand jury, who, on the judge’s instructions on the legally required elements that must be present in order to indict (intent, conspiracy, attempt to defraud), would have returned a “no bill” (no indictment).

Think about all the testimony we heard from the J6 committee witnesses detailing events and conversations on that day- none of that testimony was available for two years or more, and couldn’t be presented to a grand jury. Most of Those witnesses were also deposed by Garland’s, and then Smith’s teams, but not until the privilege claims were resolved.

Obstruction from within the DOJ/FBI - the WaPo article you reference also confirms that Garland proceeded with investigations into Trump’s crimes as soon as he was sworn in despite active resistance and interference from pro-Trump career employees at both agencies.

And then, there were all the delays encountered from the courts, especially SCOTUS.

“It was all on National TV” is a naive perspective likely formed from an incomplete knowledge and understanding of the facts.

[markodochartaigh]

98. All of that and

one third of the country, the crazy-ass, gun-toting third, might well have reacted violently. Even some of the one third who are too ignorant and apathetic to vote might have gone "to the dark side".

However. Trump and maga are a once in a democracy, so far, threat. Should we not have expected our government, our judicial system, our law enforcement system, even our corporate and religious leaders to respond in unprecedented and boundary stretching ways? And no, I have no suggestions. I'm just a working class person who prefers democracy. Brazil certainly seems to have figured something out. Maybe because they just have a lot more experience with authoritarianism. At any rate what we did didn't work. And if we are lucky enough to get a second chance I hope that our levers of power will stand up better against authoritarianism.

[SoFlaBro]

132. Fuck MAGA's feelings. I don't give a squirt of cat piss how the fuck they would have reacted. Fuck 'em.

[markodochartaigh]

134. If the magas begin to

commit acts of terrorism across the US, like the shootings in Minnesota, or the Oklahoma City bombing, or the power station attacks in several states it will lead to enormous problems. And the people who always suffer the most are the innocent.
It isn't about caring whether their feelings are hurt, it is about not striking a match standing in a pile of dynamite.

[durablend]

143. "OH NOES LET'S NOT DO ANYTHING THEN"

Because SOMEONE might haz a sad.

I agree with the other poster. FUCK THEM.

[edhopper]

154. He took office in March od 2021

did not appoint a Special Prosecutor until November of 2022. That was a bigger delay than any of the Courts.
He also violated DOJ protocol to appoint Weiss as SP for Hunter.

[Fiendish Thingy]

158. You misunderstand the role and authority of the special counsel.

See my post #153

[edhopper]

161. Don't agree

and the results show Garland failed.
Garland was lackluster in going after Trump and we are all going to suffer because of that.

[Fiendish Thingy]

163. Did Garland actually fail?

Or did the Roberts court succeed?

As I have said many times, pick your preferred AG, and the outcome would have been exactly the same- no Trump trial before the election.

[Wicked Blue]

88. John Mitchell is up at the top of the list too

Nixon's AG during Watergate

[mjvpi]

106. I agree with your points.

He was meek. He appears to not have wanted to amplify the deep divisions in our country. He just didn’t ever acknowledge how bad Trump was. What he did do well was keep a wall between the executive branch and the DOJ.

Barr and Bondie are/much worse in that they are not independent in the slightest.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

4. If the documents are released...

...which I'm hoping they will be, it's going to show one of two things:

1) Trump was up to his neck in the trafficking piece, either by helping Epstein or using the girls, in which case, yes, Garland was an idiot
or
2) Trump's name is in there because of his known association with Epstein, but nothing is there that ties him to Epstein in a criminal sense, in which case Garland wasn't an idiot, and we've been handed another Fitzmas.

I'm hoping for the former, but wouldn't be shocked by the latter.

[mzmolly]

10. They're hiding something

for a reason. I don't think being an associate would generate this kind of panic.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

13. You may well be right...

...and I hope you are. But I've seen the movie before, so I don't get my hopes up.

[mzmolly]

34. Good point. They'll try to cover it up and

bury it regardless. Hopefully they will not succeed, this time.

[brush]

38. Nope. Garland was an idiot or he was in on lettng trump skate.

IMO it's one or the other. No in between. Either way, he was the absolute worst AG, worst than Barr even. At least crooked Barr took care of his president.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

40. I guess that's where we may differ

I don't want an AG that will "take care" of their President - that's not what they're there for.

Garland was a weak AG, no question. The only question now is was he weaker than we ever imagined possible.

[brush]

52. Naivete. Tsk, tsk. Meek Garland could've stopped trump early on by taking charge of...

Last edited Wed Jul 23, 2025, 07:39 PM - Edit history (1)

prosecuting the crook right off after taking office without even waiting a year, or was it two, to appoint a special prosecutor. The obviously guilty trump, who we all saw his attempted J6 insurrection on TV, would've
been tried, convicted and jailed or sentenced to house arrest...either way he would've been ineligible to run again for president...see the 14th Amendment, Sec. 3 wording following: Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment states: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United …

It's right there in black and white. The incompetent Garland let trump run out the clock when he ran for president again.

The rest is our nations sad history which is still unfolding.

[Evolve Dammit]

41. Fitzmas. Yeah. Can't even see an un-redacted Mueller report. Transparency and

No one is above the rule of law is just a sad joke. Racist cops a good example as well as the rich elites.

[Bev54]

54. So the fact that the files were placed under seal by a judge until 2024 makes no difference then?

[hoffyburger]

61. I'm convinced it's the latter n/t

N/t

[misanthrope]

95. Granted, however it is abundantly clear

that Trump did something with Epstein that he fears may be included in the file. It is as tangible as humidity on a July night in New Orleans. He doesn't know his context of inclusion, just that there's something damnable that could possibly ruin him.

[jrthin]

5. Very, very, very irresponsible idiot!

[moniss]

6. Huge money transfers and failure of the banks to

file the required Suspicious Activity reports. But yet we had silence from Merrick the Meek and not one single bank held to account. That's likely just the tip of the iceberg.

[delisen]

8. Remember Garland was nominated to Supreme Court

Why ? Because a Democratic administration thought he would be acceptable to Mitch McConnell.

[ILikePie92]

12. Yes!

Excellent memory!

[Justice matters.]

56. In the spirit of the damn "bipartisanship" that never goes two ways...

See where that FEAR OF GETTING ACCUSED OF GODLESS COMMUNISM led... (ALL false accusations, BTW)

Answer: A Godlessly Cruel FASCIST Dictatorship.

[W_HAMILTON]

9. There are two parts at play: yes, Merrick Garland was too meek for the job, but also...

...the DOJ/FBI that screwed over Hillary, denied the many links between Trump and Russia and even that it was investigating them, and was called "Trumpland" by workers there -- this was also the same DOJ/FBI that slow-walked all the investigations under Trump until a special counsel was appointed.

So, not only was Garland not the man for the job, he had corrupt underlings beneath him "catching and killing" these investigations when they should have been fired the first week Garland was confirmed.

[ILikePie92]

14. What kind?

Google irresponsible idiot and his name immediately comes up!

[Fiendish Thingy]

17. Sitting on what?

What do you know that the rest of us don’t?

[lostnfound]

73. Sitting on records of 4700 wire transfers worth $1.1 B through Epstein russian accounts for sex trafficking, for one nt

[DSandra]

18. Weakness of a top official in a position of great consequence to the nation should both be criminal and treasonous

Merrick Garland is the posterchild for this.

[Kali999]

63. Fedralist type

[emulatorloo]

105. Garland's a moderate Democrat and is not associated with the Federalist Society. DU is fact-based and

should stay that way. Let’s leave it to other sites to make shit up, that’s not how DU operates

[asm128]

177. https://fedsoc.org/contributors/merrick-garland

Want to try that again?

[emulatorloo]

178. You're wrong. Reading is fundamental ASM:

From your link:

A person listed as a contributor has spoken or otherwise participated in Federalist Society events, publications, or multimedia presentations. A person's appearance on this list does not imply any other endorsement or relationship between the person and the Federalist Society.

Garland’s not a member of the Federalist Society.

A link that might interest you, from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse:

Summary - Federalist Society’s Leonard Leo’s group JCN spent SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS to keep Merrick Garland off the Supreme Court.

https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/speeches/the-third-federalist-society/

The Federalist Society as a 501(c)(3) organization is supposed to stay out of politics. The Judicial Crisis Network is a 501(c)(4), which can and does get involved in politics. The Judicial Crisis Network is led by a disciple of Leonard Leo’s, a former clerk for ultra conservative Justice Clarence Thomas. The Judicial Crisis Network has been described as, and I quote here, “Leonard Leo’s PR organization?—?nothing more and nothing less.” When it comes time to muscle a judicial nominee through Senate confirmation, JCN swings into action. Media campaigns. Attack ads. Big spending. That’s the JCN’s world.

Like its Federalist Society partner, the JCN gets massive sums of dark money, and it spends massively too. It spent $7 million dollars on campaigns to block Merrick Garland from getting a hearing on his nomination to the Supreme Court and it spent $10 million to support the nomination the blockage enabled, of Neil Gorsuch. And $7 million dollars and $10 million and it received one anonymous donation of $17.9 million. One donor gave $17.9 million to this operation to influence our judiciary. I will say, we need to know who that donor was. Because we’re in the minority, we’re going to be spurned and rejected if we try to get that information. On the House side, where they have the power of subpoena, we need to pursue that. It ought to be public information when one donor can spend nearly $18 million to influence the selection of a United States Supreme Court Justice. JCN then got $23 million from something called the Wellspring Committee. You’ll have to forgive some of this because it’s very obscure. These are peculiar groups that aren’t involved in any ordinary business or regular activity. The Wellspring Committee is a Virginia-based entity with ties to?—?you guessed it?—?Leonard Leo; and JCN then promised to spend as much on the Kavanaugh nomination as they had for Gorsuch.

[Blue Full Moon]

19. Protecting pedophile billionaires

[Fil1957]

20. Sitting on that wasn't even the worst thing he did. Waiting 2 years to bring charges against Trump for trying to

illegally overthrow the 2020 election is much worse. Sometimes I wonder, was he nominated by Biden or Trump?

[bigtree]

22. how do you know what Garland had access to?

...you didn't provide one bit of anything he supposedly had at his disposal, much less any link to that info.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

36. You know that never matters

to the pile on.

[bigtree]

53. I'm wondering why this should matter as much to Democrats

...as it seems to be vexing Trump.

Trump asks why Democrats didn’t release Epstein files if there was ‘smoking gun’
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5408202-donald-trump-democrats-jeffrey-epstein-files/


...besides, there were all sorts of Maxwell appeals at the time that any normal AG or prosecutor wouldn't want to muck up by releasing evidence to the public.

Sep 17, 2024 -United States v. Maxwell, No. 22-1426 (2d Cir. 2024)

Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York of conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, and sex trafficking of a minor. She was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 60 months, 120 months, and 240 months, respectively, followed by concurrent terms of supervised release. Maxwell appealed her conviction on several grounds, including the applicability of Jeffrey Epstein’s Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), the statute of limitations, jury impartiality, constructive amendment of the indictment, and the reasonableness of her sentence.

The District Court denied Maxwell’s motion to dismiss the indictment, holding that Epstein’s NPA with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida did not bar her prosecution by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. The court also found that the second superseding indictment complied with the statute of limitations, as the relevant statute extended the time to bring charges of sexual abuse for offenses committed before its enactment. Additionally, the District Court denied Maxwell’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial, finding no abuse of discretion in its handling of a juror’s erroneous answers during voir dire. The court also rejected Maxwell’s claim that its response to a jury note resulted in a constructive amendment of, or prejudicial variance from, the indictment.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The appellate court held that Epstein’s NPA did not bind the Southern District of New York, the indictment was timely, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial, and the response to the jury note did not result in a constructive amendment or prejudicial variance. The court also found Maxwell’s sentence to be procedurally reasonable.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/22-1426/22-1426-2024-09-17.html

She's still in the process of appeals to the SC.

What would there have been available for any responsible prosecutor to release?

This op loses sight of the fact that it has been republicans who have demanded the release of a 'list' they claim exists. And, Trump isn't demanding anything be released now, quite the opposite. He's making a cynical argument about Biden which screams knowledge of guilt, as well a hypocrisy.

But here we're echoing this as if it's Merrick Garland or Biden who blocked something from being released, or even demanded it. They're not the ones who made the sweetheart immunity deals in Florida which precluded witnesses from pursuing other perps, and is the subject of the present Mazwell appeal to the SC.

I think the op is skating past the point of all of this, and needs to address what Trump's obsequious DOJ is doing in open collusion with the president; something that never occurred under ANY Democratic president.

So, I think all of this speculation that Garland was sitting on something ignores that the process of actual legal accountability doesn't run through the internet and the media before it runs through the courts, no matter how much Trump has debased the judicial process with this blatant interference and contempt on every level.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

59. Totally agree.

This OP seems to me to be just the annual Garland Hate Fest.

[iemanja]

68. Because it was an opportunity to put Trump away

and we could have been spared this authoritarian nightmare.

[bigtree]

72. no there wasn't

...google 2024 election.

Google the date when charges where brought and ask youself why Trump couldn't be brought to trial before the election.

Google Supreme Court and presidential immunity ruling.

[iemanja]

100. if you have evidence, it's incumbent on you to provide it

Last edited Wed Jul 23, 2025, 09:57 PM - Edit history (1)

You've gone to the mat to defend Garland too many times, most absurdly pretending that the AG didn't have access to the Epstein files.

[bigtree]

112. I've written extensively on this, providing receipts.

...zero of the critics that respond to me have provided anywhere near the same.

I daresay, none of them have provided ANY evidence to back up their claims, except to point to the time passed while Garland was AG.

It makes little sense to deride someone for an evidenced defense while, at the very same time, providing nothing at all to back up what you're saying.

I'm a completist. I've brought actual receipts to those discussions.

But tell us, do you believe delaying an indictment from trial which came down in Aug. 2023, more than enough time to try in court until it was made moot in Nov. 2024, is some normal and proper action by the judges and justices? In what universe?

Did you miss that the Supreme Court delayed their hearing for months, and delayed their decision for even more months until right before the election?

Are we supposed to ignore that treasonous interference in the election and the judges and justice's anti-constitutional immunity rulings and pretend it's actually the people prosecuting him are the ones at fault?

The expectation that I should be ashamed of stating facts in dispute of blaming the people working overtime to prosecute Trump is mindblowingly Orwellian.

I'm always surprised how people persist with these inanities with me, of all people. Curious. I'm always going to respond with facts.

We're talking about the man appointed Jack Smith, on his own, in the face of the very same critics who started out claiming he was appointed to slow the probe.

Claiming Garland could, or should have just come into office and prosecuted Trump for obstruction of justice in the Mueller case is so legally flawed that it's amazing that anyone would think this is a representation of how our justice system works, much less try to convince anyone with just a basic understanding of the law.

But this complaint that Garland was late to the prosecution of Trump, or didn't want to prosecute has been refuted so many times...

The man not only prosecuted thousands of Capitol rioters, convicted hundreds of the white supremacists of charges up to the sedition and interference of government that is directly associated with Trump's criminal efforts; the man appointed the SC on his own volition who brought two historic multi-felony indictments against a former president.

Pretending, as his critics do, that he was less concerned with the swift prosecution of Trump than than these backbiters who can't even be bothered to look at the details of the prosecution and discuss them is just silliness.

But let me make this perfectly clear. Almost ALL of the critics are drafting off of the SAME WaPo article by Carol Leonning, which talks about some internal dispute that someone leaked to her, a report which was so negligently false and incomplete that it's basically fiction.

receipts:

___ Jack Smith takes over a staff that’s already nearly twice the size of Robert Mueller’s team of lawyers who worked on the Russia probe.  A team of 20 prosecutors investigating January 6 and the effort to overturn the 2020 election are in the process of moving to work under Smith, according to multiple people familiar with the team.

Smith will also take on national security investigators already working the probe into the potential mishandling of federal records taken to Mar-a-Lago after Trump left the White House.

Together, the twin investigations have already established more evidence than what Mueller started with, including from a year-long financial probe that’s largely flown under the radar.

“Mueller was starting virtually from scratch, whereas Jack Smith is seemingly integrating on the fly into an active, fast-moving investigation,” said Elie Honig, a former federal prosecutor and senior CNN legal analyst.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/11/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel-high-profile-moves-trump-criminal-investigations/index.html


____the other investigative team, looking at efforts to block the transfer of power from Trump to President Joe Biden after the 2020 election, had even a year ago been given the greenlight by the Justice Department to take a case all the way up to Trump, if the evidence leads them there, according to the sources. Work that’s been led by the DC US Attorney’s Office into political circles around Trump related to January 6 now will move under the special counsel.

Partly led by former Maryland-based federal prosecutor Thomas Windom, DOJ has added prosecutors to the January 6 team from all over the department in recent months. Windom and the rest are also expected to move over to the special counsel’s office. Some, like Mary Dohrmann, a prosecutor who’s worked on several other Capitol riot cases already, appear to be reorienting, according to court records of open Capitol riot cases.   

Another top prosecutor, JP Cooney, the former head of public corruption in the DC US Attorney’s Office, is overseeing a significant financial probe that Smith will take on. The probe includes examining the possible misuse of political contributions, according to some of the sources. The DC US Attorney’s Office, before the special counsel’s arrival, had examined potential financial crimes related to the January 6 riot, including possible money laundering and the support of rioters’ hotel stays and bus trips to Washington ahead of January 6.

In recent months, however, the financial investigation has sought information about Trump’s post-election Save America PAC and other funding of people who assisted Trump, according to subpoenas viewed by CNN. The financial investigation picked up steam as DOJ investigators enlisted cooperators months after the 2021 riot, one of the sources said.

In interviews with people in Trump’s orbit over the past several months, some of the DOJ focus has been on the timeline leading up to January 6 and Trump’s involvement and knowledge of potential events that day, according to a source familiar with the questioning.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/11/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel-high-profile-moves-trump-criminal-investigations/index.html

Before Jack Smith was appointed, Merrick Garland:

Seized John Eastman's phone
Seized Jeffrey Clark's phone
Seized Scott Perry's emails
Seized Eastman's emails
Seized Epshteyn's phone
Seized Mike Lindell's phone
Seized Mike Roman's phone
Seized Scott Perry's phone
Got Kash Patel's testimony
Appointed Windom
Appointed Cooney
Subpoenaed the fraudulent electors
Subpoenaed 7 state's election officials
Subpoenaed Sidney's PAC
Subpoenaed Rudy
Opened IG probe into Clark
Opened IG probe into DoJ response to 1/6
Negotiated subpoena for Meadows
Battled the 11th circuit for classified docs
Subpoenaed trump for classified docs
Subpoenaed trump for surveillance video
Executed a search warrant on trump
Convicted Bannon of contempt
Indicted Navarro for contempt
Subpoenaed the speakers from 1/6
Subpoenaed the organizers of 1/6
Secured seditious conspiracy convictions
Subpoenaed records for any member of congress involved in 1/6
Subpoenaed info on Jenna Ellis
Secured testimony from Mark Short
Secured testimony from Jacob Engel
Secured testimony from Philbin
Secured testimony from Cippollone
Subpoenaed info on trump's PACs
Won privilege battles for Short, Engel, and the Pats
Negotiated for Pence's subpoena
Seized the phone records of Meadows
Secured the 1/6 committee transcripts
Subpoenaed 7 secretaries of state


...show me ONE DOJ which has brought more charges against republicans than this one, and has opened more investigations into republicans than Merrick Garland's.

There isn't any one that comes even close.

[iemanja]

119. So you have no evidence on the point at hand

I must apologize for my typo. I meant to say you defend Garland, not Epstein. It seems you understood that.

According to your absurd analysis of the Epstein case, no perpetrator could ever be prosecuted because of so-called "sealed files." The FBI was working with the files. They had access to investigate men who had sex with underage girls but chose not to. It is not common practice for DOJ to refuse to prosecute sexual predators. There are many cases in which multiple prosecutions have taken place, and there is nothing prohibited about it.

You seem to take the view that the AG is the most inept person in Washington. In Garland's case, that's certainly true.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

113. That is a disgusting accusation

"Defending Epstein"?? No one has done that.

Too many people want to pretend that *rump would have been indicted, gone to trial, been convicted, sentenced and imprisoned all before the election. And since the pretty fantasy didn't come true, it's all because of one man.

[iemanja]

115. Sorry! I meant Garland. Will edit.

[iemanja]

120. It was a typo, and I profusely apologize

I meant Garland.

[bigtree]

121. okay

...can barely see now.

Appreciate the correction, but I'm not here for personal attacks for having a difference of opinion with someone.

[iemanja]

122. Noting that you defend Garland is not a personal attack

It is a fact. You behave like he's family.

[bigtree]

123. the AG who prosecuted Trump?

...whose interest is it to denigrate Trump's prosecutors?

What's the actual consequence to all of that?

People who spent the entire prosecution ragging on Garland without a wit of mention about the actual case didn't achieve anything from all of that derision except generate this false cynicism about what Garland should have done, criticism which doesn't even give heed to the things he actually did to make this prosecution real.

You've ignored the facts I posted, and are still going on with this innuendo and conjecture without any proof at all...

We're not doing this anymore. End.

[iemanja]

130. Your "facts" are not facts

and you've consistently ignored the issue in the OP, after your clearly absurd claims that he had no power to prosecute sex offenders related to Epstein, because you have neither evidence nor logic on your side. It's clear you'll defend Garland no matter what. I'm over your cheerleading, and I won't subject myself to it further.

[tulipsandroses]

136. I'm no fan of Merrick Garland but this is one thing I am not going to blame him for.

I do think he could have acted with more expediency in other trump matters.

"Being in the files" is not evidence of a crime. It just tells us that they were friends. Not news to us. News to MAGA. They ignored all the pictures and videos floating around with trump and epstein.
Based on what WSJ revealed last week and this week, none of that is evidence of a crime.
Michael Wolff interviewed Epstein before his death, he talked about his friendship with trump and their disgusting behavior with women. They were hunting women, it was a game to them. Literally. At one point even purposefully sleeping with the same woman. I don't mean at the same time, but they both were knowingly involved with the same woman because it was a game to them.
There's another story about trump having sex with the wife of a friend and calling the friend in the middle of all that so he could hear trump having sex with his wife.
He hasn't sued Wolff, so my guess is all of that is true.
If the information is more of an embarrassment, and not evidence of a crime, then what would be the reason to release anything?

Please note that I am not defending trump, not saying that there is no possibility he could have sexually abused minors. What I am addressing is - Why Garland/Biden did not release " the files" - Perhaps there isn't evidence of crimes. If that is the case, I don't think Biden would have been in favor of exploiting victims for political gain.
trump was already talking about Witch hunt for his actual crimes. No need to add what might have just been salacious details.
I could be wrong and there is evidence of crimes against minors. If so, a lot of folks, not just Garland have a lot of explaining to do.
Going back to Bill Barr and everyone else that worked on the case.

[bigtree]

141. that makes sense

...but isn't it suspicious though, why, after an army of Trump govt workers went through what files they had we've seen this dissembling.

Trump has hedged on the release since last year, worrying out loud about false info in the files; something he's never expressed concern about with others he's trashed.

At this point, the coverup is screaming guilt of something. It's not as if he's just worried his name is on an innocuous file because, it's all over the packet of files he gave maga media at the WH.

And why the effort to find out what Maxwell has to proffer for a pardon? They're not actually supporting her appeal to the SC.

There's something there which incriminates or embarrasses Trump (I think the former), otherwise they'd have already spread it all out on the WH lawn.

[tulipsandroses]

144. Oh I agree it is suspicious. I am just suggesting that unless there is direct evidence of a crime, Garland had no reason

to release the files to the public, or even investigate trump on this matter.
Michael Wolff said Epstein showed him pics of trump with topless girls. Wolff does not say the girls were underaged. He said there is one with the girls laughing and pointing at a stain on the front of trump's pants. He was at one of Epstein's homes when those pics were taken. Did the FBI locate those girls in the pics? Were they able to determine how old they were at the time?
Was there any discussion by the feds about asking the sitting president at the time, who were these girls? Did you know how old they were?
I also think this goes way beyond sex abuse. Money laundering and other financial crimes.

[bigtree]

146. right

...the media has allowed Trump's abuse of authority and separation of powers to become normalized in many people's minds.

There's a correct desire to be as agressive as republicans, but adhering to the law and the Constitution, as well as some very well-considered norms, ensures that what we end up with at the end of what we hope is a successful political effort to reverse this republican rule is something that supports the ideals we're fighting for and doesn't just replace a republican autocracy with a Democratic one.

And we want actual prosecutions, not just some media show and tell. You don't get that as an AG by throwing out evidence in ongoing cases to the public, contrasting how Garland ran DOJ with the republican effort to derail investigations and prosecutions by muddling the public record and colluding with DOJ to reorder, delay and even eliminate cases.

I think Ron Wyden is leading the Senate Dems in following the money.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/17/business/epstein-banks-wyden-trump.html

[tulipsandroses]

147. Yes. While I want democrats to be more aggressive, there are certain lines we just should not cross.

Wyden has been going at this for a long time. Ever since " Russia Russia Russia" - long before the Epstein arrest.
He was looking into that deal that caused their falling out - the property that trump purchased 42 million and sold for almost 100 million to a russian billionaire. .
trump even told on himself back then - saying he knows nothing about russia except for bragging about what a brilliant business man he was for that deal - that looks like money laundering.

My brain hurts after going down the rabbit hole. When it is all said and done, the history books will reveal this era as one of corruption and lawlessness. Going down the rabbit hole brought up the case of another pedophile tied to trump - George Nader. Surely they had to have intel of his past. Why was he allowed to get close to the president? Again, follow the money.

[iemanja]

64. Because he was Attorney General

He had access to all DOJ files.

[markodochartaigh]

25. Well,

Garland is not an idiot. He went to Harvard. And "irresponsible" implies carelessness. I don't think that we can believe that he was careless, not after such a long career in law. But then, what does that imply?
Surely he knew that he would have a place in history. Surely he understood what his actions, and lack of action, was making likely. Why would someone at the pinnacle of their career, in such an exalted position in government, jeopardize their place in history in the manner that he did?

[Skittles]

87. Harvard

so did Dubya, and he is a fucking moron

[markodochartaigh]

91. I was going to make a snide comment about

Harvard. But, they have just this week stood up to Trump, so I'm going to cut them some slack for a while.

[Stargleamer]

165. I think it was Yale that Dubya went to. . .

as a Legacy

[msfiddlestix]

114. Good question, I kept asking myself. Speculating on a few theories that I dissmissed in short order,

Except for one theory, he was being threatened. I prefer this unproven theory over all other unproven theories because it is the only one which I can possibly forgive.

[markodochartaigh]

133. Threatening a public official, or their family,

is one of the crimes treated most seriously in the US. Everyone knows of officials and their families who have been injured or killed by reich-wing terrorists, not even including the Oklahoma City bombing. I'm absolutely sure that Garland was threatened.
Personally, I think that if we can ask an 18 year old kid to die in a country he has never heard of just for the chance to break into the middle class, I think that we can ask the extreme upper echelon in our government to put their lives on the line for democracy. Of course they should have the best protection possible. One thing that we do NOT need "on both sides" is another political martyr.

[UpInArms]

26. One word

Republican

[tritsofme]

35. Two words: Silly nonsense.

[UpInArms]

82. Whatever

Despite Garland’s nearly two decades on the federal bench, his views on some of the highest profile issues the Supreme Court wrestles with are largely a mystery.
Some advocacy groups close to the White House urged the Senate to hold hearings on Garland, in part so they could try to flesh out his outlook.

“Judge Garland does not have a public record on reproductive rights and Senate Republicans’ obstruction denies all of us our right to know where this nominee stands on core constitutional questions of women’s privacy, dignity, and equality,” NARAL Pro-Choice America President Ilyse Hogue said in a statement. “We look forward to learning more about Judge Garland’s views on the constitutional right to abortion and reproductive freedom as this process continues.”

“He does not have a clear record on the issue of the separation of church and state,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “We hope that more information will be revealed about his positions as he proceeds through the vetting process. What is clear, however, is that Judge Garland deserves consideration from the U.S. Senate.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/merrick-garland-who-is-he-220865

[tritsofme]

83. Uh...how is any of that related to your false smear of him as a Republican?

[emulatorloo]

107. Garland's a moderate Democrat. DU's a fact based site. We ought to keep it that way.

Let’s leave making shit up to the shitty websites.

[Nasruddin]

27. Turncoat

Republican operative; mole

[Cheezoholic]

31. All Presidents since Nixon until this one respected the independence of the DOJ. There's your answer.

Besides, I highly doubt there is any there there in any of this shit. But as long as it keeps MAGA running around like screaming meemies everyone should keep their feet on MAGA's tail and keep telling them "yo, you're right. What up?" I know I'm enjoying it (and stoking it) with the MAGAts around here lol

[flying_wahini]

33. I remember people trying to cover for him. I was too, at first.

What a worm he was.

[damifino10]

42. I'm just guessing.........

He just may be a very rich man.

[Ol Janx Spirit]

43. Both Biden and Garland were "institutionalists." Neither were equipped to rise to the moment they were faced with...

in DJT and January 6th. They both believed in the way politics of the past worked and had a misplaced faith in the American electorate. They did not believe they needed to deal with the problem that was coming down the mountain like an avalanche.

When Mitch F'ing McConnell said, "President Trump is still liable for everything he did while in office. He didn't get away with anything yet. We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation," it should have signaled Biden and Garland that the number one job they had was to pursue cases against Turnip and every one of his enablers.

They didn't... And so he got away with it.

Hell of a job Garlandy....

[LPBBEAR]

44. The lesson for the future

should there be one is NEVER.....EVER appoint, vote to appoint, or nominate a Republican for ANY position or office in the Federal Government. Should we regain control of Congress and the White House purge every single Trump/Republican appointee from any position in the Federal Government.

REMOVE EVERY ONE OF THEM.

(the same applies to any Fetterrman/Manchin types)

And if a Democrat appoints or votes to appoint one remove that Democrat too.

[AStern]

45. He's good friends with Trump's lawyers.

That's what happened.

[LymphocyteLover]

71. source for that?

[AStern]

74. My bad. His lifelong best friend and mentor is Jared Kushner's lawyer. Not Trump. But still

https://substack.com/home/post/p-138916583

[bigtree]

78. could the reason you didn't mention her name be because she was Clinton's Deputy Ag

...sure, let's stir up conspiracy theories about Democrats based on Democrats and others having relationships with Democratic appointees in past Democratic administrations.

Because this is about Democrats?

[Autumn]

96. Still. Kushner. Trump. It's all in the family.

[emulatorloo]

110. Then you should maybe delete that post, because it is totally false.

[AStern]

137. But it's not false.

Yes, it's been reported that Attorney General Merrick Garland is friends with Jamie Gorelick, who served as Jared Kushner's "ethics lawyer" during the Trump administration.

Here's more information about their relationship:
Friendship and mentorship: Gorelick is described as a close friend and mentor to Garland, having known each other since their undergraduate years at Harvard University.

Role with Kushner: Gorelick represented Kushner and Ivanka Trump regarding ethics and potential conflicts of interest during their time in the White House.

Concerns about potential conflicts: Some commentators have raised concerns about this relationship, particularly in the context of the Department of Justice's investigations, arguing it could potentially affect the perception of impartiality.

It's important to note that Gorelick's role with Kushner was focused on ethics compliance, and she also brought in another lawyer, Abbe Lowell, to specifically represent Kushner in inquiries related to the Russia investigation after Robert Mueller, a former partner at Gorelick's firm, became Special Counsel.

https://prospect.org/justice/garland-has-yet-to-detrumpify-his-office-of-legal-counsel/#:~:text=The%20OLC's%20obsequiousness%20to%20Trump,New%20York%20Times%20op%2Ded.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/26/jared-kushner-lowell-legal-team-239973#:~:text=Kushner%20adds%20powerhouse%20lawyer%20Abbe%20Lowell%20to%20legal%20team%20%2D%20POLITICO

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/27/trump-son-in-law-kushner-hires-prominent-trial-lawyer-nyt.html#:~:text=President%20Donald%20Trump's%20son%2Din,denied%20any%20collusion%20with%20Moscow.

[emulatorloo]

140. Yes what you wrote in #45 is false. You wrote "He's good friends with Trump's lawyers."

You yourself admitted you made a mistake. So why not delete the false post?

[AStern]

156. You should be more upset that he didn't hold MAGA accountable rather than with DUers negative reactions

nt

[BannonsLiver]

46. It's amazing to see people still defending him.

But on the bright side, they out themselves and their lack of good judgement, so that's a silver lining.

[Orrex]

48. The most important thing is to avoid the appearance of a political agenda

The. Most. Important. Thing.

[BannonsLiver]

49. Yes. And nobody has done that better than Garland. He's all-world at that one thing. In a class of his own.

[Escape]

66. True....

Defending the indefensible acts of the inept and spineless Merrick Garland seem to be the sole reason for some DU members to post on this site. You have to wonder if they are related to him?

As for Biden being responsible for Garland's overwhelming failure and vast incompetence, Joe was in office at a time when a president didn't interfere with the actions and decisions of the AG or the DOJ. Obviously, that era is over now.

Biden's only failure was in not realizing that Merrick wore a red MAGA hat and a "Let's Go Brandon" T-shirt at home when he barbecued with his corporate Republican buddies..

[BannonsLiver]

75. I think some of it is out of loyalty to Biden.

There’s no way garland could inspire that from any human. But they also seem to be unaware that Biden is reportedly regretful over Garland’s appointment.

[Oopsie Daisy]

47. Oh heavens! Merrick Garland!

Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!

[The Wizard]

55. Why didn't Biden replace him

and Louis DeJoy?

[bigtree]

80. well, he didn't have one bit of authority to replace DeJoy

...so there's that part of your complaint.

[BradBo]

57. Garland enabled this shit.

[emulatorloo]

108. Um Roberts Supreme Court enabled this shit more than anyone else. They made Trump a King.

[LexVegas]

58. Garland is complicit. nt

[Warpy]

77. I saw him as the wrong man for the job

He was a pettifogger who created a logjam at the DOJ

[republianmushroom]

84. Merrick the Meek

Attorney General Garland: "We will not allow this Department to be used as a political weapon..."
CSPAN
Attorney General Garland: "We will not allow this Department to be used as a political weapon...we will not allow this nation to become a country where law enforcement is treated as an apparatus of politics."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219452975

House Oversight Dems demand answers why DoJ looked the other way during Egypt bribe scheme
Rep. Jamie Raskin
It's no secret Donald Trump fancied the DOJ his own personal law firm. Now, new reporting alleges he accepted millions of dollars in bribes from the Egyptian government while his DOJ looked the other way. Oversight Dems are demanding answers.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219439544

Any Garland Defenders Watching Rachel [View all]
Witnesses watching Gaetz having sex with the 17 year old, plus the 17 year old testified under oath that Gaetz had sex with her when she was 17.We are supposed to believe that the witnesses weren’t reliable. Give me a fucking break, Garland is complicit.CREW is suing to get Garland to turn over the investigation file of Gaetz.

https://mail.yahoo.com/d/compose/3809654924

An article by The Washington Post reported that U.S.Attorney General Merrick Garland showed hesitation in investigating former President Donald Trump's potential connection to the January 6 Capitol riot.This cautious approach, attributed to concerns about the political sensitivity and implications of probing a former president, allegedly caused delays and frustration within the Department of Justice (DOJ).Critics argue that this reticence might have impacted the thoroughness and timing of the investigation.
The report highlights a broader debate within the DOJ about balancing legal accountability and political neutrality.

However, Garland has maintained that the DOJ remains committed to pursuing justice impartially.

https://www.vanityfair.com› news › 2023 › 06 › garland-doj-resisted-investigating-trump-january-6
A.G. Merrick Garland Resisted Investigating Trump’s Connection to January 6: Washington Post | Vanity Fair

The Post investigation revealed that "some prosecutors" below Garland and Monaco "chafed, feeling top officials were shying away from looking at evidence of potential crimes by Trump and ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com› investigations › 2023 › 06 › 19 › fbi-resisted-opening-probe-into-trumps-role-jan-6-more-than-year

FBI resisted opening probe into Trump’s role in Jan. 6 for more than a year - The Washington Post
21. Juni 2023 - In the DOJ’s investigation of Jan. 6, key Justice officials also quashed an early plan for a task force focused on people in Trump’s orbit.

https://newrepublic.com› post › 173774 › doj-resist-investigating-donald-trumps-role-january-6
Why Did the DOJ Resist Investigating Donald Trump’s Role in January 6? | The New Republic
19. Juni 2023 - ... Post found that the DOJ resisted looking into Trump or members of his inner circle, even as evidence of an organized scheme to overturn the 2020 election piled up. Instead, newly sworn-in Attorney General Merrick Garland and his team opted for a “bottom-up” strategy, focusing first ...

https://www.nytimes.com› 2024 › 03 › 22 › us › politics › trump-jan-6-merrick-garland.html

Let's Compare How Hunter Biden & Jared Kushner Were Treated By DOJ
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218976119

[Montauk6]

85. Some say he was a pitbull in the court room

[lostincalifornia]

90. What kind of irresponible IDIOTS were those who refused to vote for VP Harris by either voting third party,

or not voting?

What did they think would happen under trump?

Most of these were most likely the same folks who refused to vote for Hillary in 2016.

THAT IS WHERE THE PROBLEM IS, because of that we LOST the SC, and had judges such as Canon.

[et tu]

92. i feel it is more

just a hunch- no link but the pedos
were business partners, both had ties to
putie and their friendship might have ended
if-big if- epstein started to put the moves on
krasnov's daughter- again just a hunch

[orangecrush]

94. I ask myself this daily.

For many more reasons.

[Polybius]

97. Maybe there was a reason

It might not have been incompetence.

[Buzz cook]

101. Democrats have a sad tendency to appoint republicans.

I blame the media for a lot of it with heal the wounds, reach across the aisle, mantras.

Of course Biden made the appointment as a political gesture. But it was just "owning the cons".

[emulatorloo]

104. Except Garland's not a Republican. We should keep DU fact-based. Even if it feels good to make stuff up.

[Emile]

109. Has he ever ran for political office? AI says he is

a moderate.

[Buzz cook]

174. No he's always been in the law

In one form or another.
Given where the Overton window has placed us, "moderate" means Dick Cheney.

[Buzz cook]

173. Conservative then.

.

[BannonsLiver]

145. Biden regrets picking Garland.

Which only the most hardcore Garland stans seem to be unaware of. There’s literally no other explanation for the unbridled, passionate and endless devotion to Garland.

It’s not unlike the Japanese soldiers who continued to garrison on islands years after the war because they didn’t know it ended. Bless their hearts.

[Kid Berwyn]

103. Bullshit. He was following the President and precedent.

By the book and to the letter.

[ecstatic]

111. it's infuriating! I thought he was just sitting on the coup. Didn't realize he was sitting

on pedophilia/rape as well. wtff?! smfh.

Meanwhile, rethugs are convinced that if trump had done anything wrong with Epstein that Democrats would have gone after him.

Unfortunately, Biden trusted the doj to do their job independently and it turns out that was a very bad assumption.

[WiVoter]

118. A Complicit One

[Faux pas]

125. He's just a HUGE

chicken shit bawk bawk

[Initech]

131. I'm starting to wonder what Rupert Murdoch has on Merrick Garland.

[ancianita]

138. For a year I've told DU detractors this, and I'll say it here again: AG Merrick Garland was not waiting.

Last edited Thu Jul 24, 2025, 08:55 AM - Edit history (1)

Nor was former AG Garland guilty of not prosecuting and trying to meet the "speedy trial" standard as it applied to Trump's criminal cases.

Before ANY DOJ indictments and court filings can be made, a thorough investigation and collection of evidence must take place -- none of which DU'ers saw while it was happening.

Because the FBI is DOJ, Garland's FBI began arrests ON Jan 6 2021 -- two months before his confirmation -- and Garland DOJ convictions continued until the week after the 2024 election.

During the months of FBI arrest actions, Garland was prosecuting new AND outstanding cases,
all while trying to rebuild the Barr DOJ personnel, trying to place Senate confirmed assistant AG’s, deputies, and 8 Division heads. ANY delays in Senate confirmations in Garland’s first year were caused by Republicans, not Garland.

1. Again. Before Garland’s investigation and prosecutions work could begin...

Garland himself wasn't confirmed with Republican votes until TWO months after Biden's 2021 inauguration;
Republicans STILL made Garland wait months for his division heads' confirmations;
Republicans did not confirm Kenneth Polite to head the DOJ's Criminal Division until July 2021 -- SIX MONTHS after Biden's inauguration;
Because they knew the Criminal Division would handle both federal cases under Garland.

2. Here's the Garland DOJ evidence gathering timeline -- BEFORE Jack Smith made any indictments.

By January 6 2022 (10 months after his confirmation): Garland states:
“So far, we have
-- issued over 5,000 subpoenas and search warrants,
-- seized approximately 2,000 devices,
-- pored through over 20,000 hours of video footage, and
-- searched through an estimated 15 terabytes of data...
-- received over 300,000 tips from ordinary citizens, who have been our indispensable partners in this effort.”

Garland actions above contributed to Special Counsel investigations.
In other words, Garland handed off all the documents case evidence to Jack Smith.

Jan 2022
— 15 boxes found in the storage area
— the FBI found more than 11,000 government records at Maralago — of those
— 184 unique documents bearing classification markings, of those:
— 67 docs marked Confidential
— 92 docs marked Secret
— 25 docs marked Top Secret
markings reflected that docs were subject to sensitive compartments and dissemination controls
used to restrict access to material in the interest of national security, including
HCS(Humint Control system),
FISA(Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act),
ORCON (originator controlled),
NORORN (could be NOFORN, no foreign national), AND
SI(Special Intelligence)

May 2022
— The first 100 documents marked as classified totaled over 700 pages [National Archives letter to Trump attorney, May 10, 2022]
May 11 2022: Garland convenes four DOJ Grand juries, one for Jan 6 convened until March 2024 -- 6 months before Jack Smith walked in the door
— Grand Jury subpoenas Trump for documents

June 3 2022
— Trump lawyer hands over 40 boxes from Maralago storage room
— 38 docs marked Classified


June 3 2022:
Garland's DOJ Grand jury subpoenas Trump for remaining docs in Maralago;
lawyers for Trump "certify" that there were no more;
Trump stole 11,000 government docs, 300 classified docs — the Garland DOJ's FBI found more than Trump's lawyers certified as recovered.

July 22 2022: G
arland's Grand jury testimony by Marc Short, Mike Pence’s Chief of Staff, & Short's counsel Greg Jacob

August 8 2022
— FBI warrant search of Maralago
— 103 marked Classified
— 18 marked Top Secret

The law violated: —- 18 U.S.C. 793— Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information.
Penalty: Fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
More on the indictability of these stolen defense-classified documents:
https://www.justsecurity.org/83034/tracker-evidence-of-trumps-knowledge-and-involvement-in-retaining-mar-a-lago-documents/

Sept 2 2022:
Garland's Grand jury subpoenaed testimony by Pat Cipollone,
a) one of the participants in WH meeting Dec 18 2020, that included Giuliani, Powell, Flynn, Patrick Byrne of Overstock,
b) Cipollone sat in on Jan 3 2021 DOJ official meeting with Trump, and
c) Cipollone was in direct contact with trump on Jan 6 during capitol insurrection, and did nothing when Meadows told him Trump didn’t want to interfere with rioters calling for hanging Mike Pence)
AND with Patrick Philbin

Sept 15 2022:
Garland's Grand Jury subpoenas Mark Meadows for testimony and documents
the month of Sept 2022: Garland's DOJ issued over 40 subpoenas to people close to Trump, some of whom are
— Bill Stepien, DT’s campaign mgr; part of team to prevent certification
— Sean Dollman, DT’s campaign CFO
— Ben Williamson, Deputy of Mark Meadows,
— Boris Epshteyn, Trump's lawyer -- phone demanded; part of team to prevent certification
— Mike Lindell -- phone seized
— William Russell, WH special asst to Trump, THEN special aide to Trump in Mar-a-lago

Oct 6 2022: Garland's Grand jury calls back Greg Jacob
Oct 13 2022: Garland's Grand Jury calls back Marc Short, Pence's chief of staff

Nov 4 2022:
classified docs found in Biden’s
-- Wilmington home (garage, library), (no docs in Rehoboth beach home) and
-- Penn Biden Center in DC (Richard Sauber is spec counsel to Pres Biden)
Nov 14 2022: Garland asks John Lausch (Trump appointed US Atty, Chicago) to review found Biden documents

3. Nov 18 2022 Garland appoints Jack Smith (3 days after Trump announces his candidacy for 2024), who inherits the records of the Garland DOJ's work.

Jack Smith took charge of over 20 Garland prosecutors and integrated his work into what was described as a 'fast moving investigation' which had already gathered more evidence than Special Counsel Mueller ever had.

By that very day, Nov 18 2022, Garland's DOJ had convicted more than 323 Jan 6 insurrectionists.

All of the above documents case evidence AND DC grand jury evidence gathered -- all that is what AG Merrick Garland and his DOJ did before his appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith.

Garland himself could not possibly know how long it would take SC Jack Smith's team to file indictments.

But the first documents case indictment was filed June 8 2023, based mostly on work previously done by Garland's Criminal Division/FBI investigators and Garland's grand juries.

ANY delays by the courts -- entertaining defense motions, hearings, more motions -- are not the fault of AG Garland or his Special Counsel, Jack Smth.

For DU'ers triggered by the mention of Garland,
-- this timeline of his work will forever remain the facts of Garland's Jan 6 investigations and evidence collections during his first 20 months in office...
-- this timeline, posted at least 10 times over the last year, also establishes DU's Garland haters' willful ignorance and therefore stupidity, of the fact of AG Garland's work, and AG Garland's wisdom in choosing Jack Smith from the Hague as Special Counsel to carry on his work.

[edhopper]

157. You don't call waiting a year and a half

to appoint a Special Prosecutor a delay?

So how did that great bottom up strategy to get Trump work out?
Still think it was great?

[Cetacea]

139. Mueller was not "permitted" to indict a sitting president.

Garland could have indicted the former president. Multiple counts.

[Scrivener7]

142. Patience, grasshoppers. This isn't a Law & Order episode. Garland is working very hard behind the

scenes. He's got this.

Or so I was told in superior tones, ad nauseam, for years, by the Garland apologists. In statements always accompanied by walls of cut and paste words that, when read carefully, were essentially meaningless.

Though we have ample proof that the Garland apologists were simply wallowing in hubris and idiotic wishful thinking.

[popsdenver]

151. Didn't Mueller

have somewhat the same kind of problem with his prolonged and white washed investigation.........