That's a GREAT idea....

slam Dems with the job NOT.

((We MUST learn how to make our case CIVILLY.))

to put together any federal criminal case, let alone cases involving former presidents and cabinet-level government officials. People are getting their panties in a twist because TFG isn't behind bars after only eight months - forgetting, apparently, that it took more than two years just to indict the Watergate defendants, and almost three before they actually were convicted. I doubt any AG would be able to move the process any faster.

Not so much love in the romantic sense, love in the sense of….what wtf was that monster previously in Garland’soffice?

The disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal matter and I know that taking the 5th in a civil case can be used and considered by the jury.

My trial experience has been limited to civil cases and I keep away from criminal cases.

as in a civil case - that is, that he doesn't have to incriminate himself but the tribunal can draw a negative inference about it. Clark might find himself in an uncomfortable spot - assuming that what he did was an actual statutory crime and not just Trump-instigated Machiavellian fuckery. There might be some kind of conspiracy or fraud charge in there, considering that Clark tried to get Rosen to send Georgia election officials a letter that falsely claimed the DoJ had identified fraud, and threatened to get Trump to fire him if he refused. Bad stuff. I don't think Clark will ignore the House subpoena, so it will be interesting to see where this goes.

Especially on DU, but when a decision by someone like Biden, especially when it is about personnel, appears to be "wrong", how does one advocate for their point of view? I was unhappy with Arne Duncan from the get go, and it only go worse. Obama would never "change his mind". He tended to be very "loyal" to his choices. I suspect it was a derivation of his "no drama Obama" philosophy. So to advocate for change was very hard. I wasn't actually thrilled with Garland for AG. But I'm trying to remember the last AG I did like. Holder could never find anyone to prosecute for torture, and couldn't figure out a way to prosecute those in GITMO in federal courts. What one has to realize at some point is that these people are probably doing exactly what their bosses want. I suspect Biden didn't want an AG that would go after political prosecutions of the previous administration.

And in presidents defense, they are loathed to fire A'sG ever. Look at Clinton who could never fire Reno despite apparently never being happy with her performance. It's only the Nixons and Trumps of the world that really consider firing A'sG. The bottom line is that congress should challenge Garland, especially the special committee on Jan- 6th.

We need to nail them HARD while we have the upper hand.

We do not know what the Garland DOJ is doing or what they are investigating because Garland is complying with DOJ guidelines and is acting ethically. The code of ethics for attorneys and DOJ policies are clear on this.

I am pleased that Garland was quick to allow DOJ officials and former DOJ officials to meet with the 1/6 Commission. The former acting AG spent over 8 hours with the 1/6 commission and many more hours with the Senate Judiciary Committee. That would not have happen if Garland was trying to tank this investigation. The Senate Judiciary interim report disclosed a great deal and I like the fact that Jeff Clark has been referred already to the DC circuit.

It takes time to build a case. Barr put some barriers in place before he left that had to be undone. The SDNY just got a US Attorney in the last couple of weeks. Again, we do not know what is being pursued by the DOJ and I have no problem with this.

I doubt that the leaks in the OP came from Garland but do remember that he has 600+ insurrection cases to prosecute and there has to be plea bargains accepted in order to have the resources to pursue the conspiracy cases.