Because his successor had committed a slew of crimes and he wanted to run as a Law And Order replacement. He gets to pick the AG and all the downstream USAs, so he’s got enormous influence in which prosecutions take precedence. And because he wants to make sure the guy committing all the crimes isn’t in a good position to campaign for public office in the next Presidential cycle because… you know… of all the crimes.
Imagine all you want, in reality he shouldn’t have final say regarding anyone’s prosecution… Its sort of a cornerstone of this supposed democracy experiment thingy that we’re doing.
he shouldn’t have final say regarding anyone’s prosecution
His entire purpose as head of the executive branch is to assign the nation’s chief prosecuting attorneys. If he’s not setting their prosecutorial agenda, he’s not doing is fucking job.
That’s kind of what Republicans are going for. The president prosecuted his enemies, with a rush job to make it look sort of good.
Personally I’m happier with going through all due process to prosecute this particular criminal, and that it is not in the hands of the sitting President
Breaking: Merrick Garland magically throws together a team and analyzes thousands of documents and gets search warrants for former presidents and analyzes all information, gets grand juries and indicts magically really quickly!
(… Later)
Breaking: Merrick Garland’s indictments thrown out on technicality because of rushing things; widespread animosity that this is a political witch-hunt thrown together.
Garland didn’t even start the process for two and a half years. He thought it would all just blow over and he wouldn’t have to prosecute Trump.
Never forget that Garland is a conservative. Always has been. Nominating him for SCOTUS was an olive branch that got smacked down by the GOP. Appointing him as AG was another olive branch that was lit on fire by the GOP. Democrats just can’t help themselves with all these fucking olive branches.
The right is coming to opress and exterminate the normal people. The Democrats are not fighters and cannot defend against it. We need people willing to meet force with force. Throughout history, there has never been a peaceful solution to an infestation of conservatives. Never.
First off, Garland was a Supreme Court Justice nominee By Obama and who the Republicans would block, right? I’m not remotely buying this olive-branch attempt to downplay this. I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t survive scrutiny from the left if he was a partisan hack for both being a SCOTUS nominee, as well as an AG under Biden. If Garland was that much of a conservative partisan hack, McConnell wouldn’t have blocked the appointment. So far I think he’s doing a fucking fantastic job and the only people I see complaining are people who are clearly not legal experts and think everything is so cut-and-dry and easy with a “if I was in there, it would’ve been done overnight!” mentality.
Second, I know exactly which WaPo article you’re discussing and it did not take 2.5 years for him to begin investigating. Nor does that article cover the OTHER investigations apart from January 6th, such as the classified documents case.
Forget the obvious fucking fact that goes completely unmentioned: Garland was busy building the case from the ground-up while handling — gee I don’t know — the largest criminal investigation in the history of the FBI.. So naturally, it would make sense if you wanted to make sure you eliminated ANY hole for accusation of bias to first build your case from the ground-up, charge the actual insurrectionists first, then let smaller fish turn on bigger fish which can then be used as evidence for the mega case that is taking down a former President.
Well according to my fox obsessed father all of that was “proven” to be false by 50someodd number of politicians/political appointees that has recently been brought to light…
I’m too depressed and angry to look into it because every time I do he’s wrong by some technicality thats too nuanced to explain to someone with their fingers in their ears “nahnahnahnah not listening, Hannity said fake news!”
Imagine if Biden has initiated prosection of Trump within his first 100 days, rather than waiting until his last year in office to press charges.
Why the FUCK would a president, the leader of the executive branch, initiate a prosecution?
Because his successor had committed a slew of crimes and he wanted to run as a Law And Order replacement. He gets to pick the AG and all the downstream USAs, so he’s got enormous influence in which prosecutions take precedence. And because he wants to make sure the guy committing all the crimes isn’t in a good position to campaign for public office in the next Presidential cycle because… you know… of all the crimes.
Imagine all you want, in reality he shouldn’t have final say regarding anyone’s prosecution… Its sort of a cornerstone of this supposed democracy experiment thingy that we’re doing.
His entire purpose as head of the executive branch is to assign the nation’s chief prosecuting attorneys. If he’s not setting their prosecutorial agenda, he’s not doing is fucking job.
That’s kind of what Republicans are going for. The president prosecuted his enemies, with a rush job to make it look sort of good.
Personally I’m happier with going through all due process to prosecute this particular criminal, and that it is not in the hands of the sitting President
(… Later)
We fucked up, but not because of this.
Garland didn’t even start the process for two and a half years. He thought it would all just blow over and he wouldn’t have to prosecute Trump.
Never forget that Garland is a conservative. Always has been. Nominating him for SCOTUS was an olive branch that got smacked down by the GOP. Appointing him as AG was another olive branch that was lit on fire by the GOP. Democrats just can’t help themselves with all these fucking olive branches.
The right is coming to opress and exterminate the normal people. The Democrats are not fighters and cannot defend against it. We need people willing to meet force with force. Throughout history, there has never been a peaceful solution to an infestation of conservatives. Never.
First off, Garland was a Supreme Court Justice nominee By Obama and who the Republicans would block, right? I’m not remotely buying this olive-branch attempt to downplay this. I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t survive scrutiny from the left if he was a partisan hack for both being a SCOTUS nominee, as well as an AG under Biden. If Garland was that much of a conservative partisan hack, McConnell wouldn’t have blocked the appointment. So far I think he’s doing a fucking fantastic job and the only people I see complaining are people who are clearly not legal experts and think everything is so cut-and-dry and easy with a “if I was in there, it would’ve been done overnight!” mentality.
Second, I know exactly which WaPo article you’re discussing and it did not take 2.5 years for him to begin investigating. Nor does that article cover the OTHER investigations apart from January 6th, such as the classified documents case.
Forget the obvious fucking fact that goes completely unmentioned: Garland was busy building the case from the ground-up while handling — gee I don’t know — the largest criminal investigation in the history of the FBI.. So naturally, it would make sense if you wanted to make sure you eliminated ANY hole for accusation of bias to first build your case from the ground-up, charge the actual insurrectionists first, then let smaller fish turn on bigger fish which can then be used as evidence for the mega case that is taking down a former President.
Man, if only there was a team at DOJ that had already been looking at Trump for years and had already come up with otherwise chargeable offenses
Well according to my fox obsessed father all of that was “proven” to be false by 50someodd number of politicians/political appointees that has recently been brought to light…
I’m too depressed and angry to look into it because every time I do he’s wrong by some technicality thats too nuanced to explain to someone with their fingers in their ears “nahnahnahnah not listening, Hannity said fake news!”
Golly, if only Barr wasn’t overseeing that aforementioned Department during that period of time.
For two and a half years, Garland was overseeing that department and also did nothing.