Historically so. The worst AG since John Mitchell, and we've hasd some stinkers since then.

Period.

Last edited Tue Dec 31, 2024, 05:51 PM - Edit history (1)

convicted of an insurrection against the US government that we all saw his guilt on national TV.

Again, we all saw trump's guilt on TV.

and she has clearly done a lot of research on this topic. Too often, fingers are pointed in the wrong direction, and if we're going to be pointing fingers at all it does us no good to be jerking knees as well. It's very awkward and you can fall over.

And carry two thoughts as well. Garland will go down as a historic failure, and the task now falls to the resistance in the days to come.

Let his name be an example of weakness and cowardice for many, many years. May he rest uneasy through his nights and wander the halls looking for peace, unfulfilled. Sorry, but that's what he deserves.

Garland was/is historically bad.

Thanks for acknowledging that you didn’t bother to read the whole article.

At work I can't open a lot of website, luckily I can open DU. However, I can't imagine changing my opinion of Garland. My hot take: Garland was hoping Trump would just go away, and spent months wishing he wouldn't have to do anything. Well, don't take the job if you're not ready to take the heat.

Much of that evidence is summarized in the article.

Hope you choose to take the time to read the whole article when you get home.

How is it so offensive to you that a number of people view Garland in a negative light?

The point is this:

By accepting without question, critique or examination the “blame Garland instead of SCOTUS” CT narrative, Democrats’ capacity to effectively resist and hold accountable the incoming Trump administration is significantly weakened.

As Marcy says in her article, I could give a flying fuck about Merrick Garland.

It’s the abandonment of fact based reality that offends me.

A post about how people lied about Garland with absolutely no examples, nothing specific.

Garland shit canned the Ken Chesebro and Mark Meadows J6 criminal referrals.

Garland shit canned Dana Nessel’s criminal referral for the Michigan Fake electors.

Waiting on Garland to release the Mueller report.

I don’t expect Garland will release much of the Smith reports even though he did release all of the Hur report that slandered President Biden. Joe was so furious he had his White House counsel write a blistering letter to Garland.

Justice delayed was indeed justice denied.

... of failures. Failures of nerve.

Tremendous display of weakness.

Lots of specific examples , and links to more facts and evidence refuting the Garland-as-scapegoat CT in the linked article.

That's a weird thing to say.

Anyway, whenever someone leans on the accusation of "conspiracy theory!" as a defense, I tend to tune them out.

But here's the bottom line: after 4 years, garland's doj did not successfully prosecute the most flagrant crime in U.S. history (that we all watched live on tv).

And yes, the current supreme court sucks, we all know that, and we all know the Smith report (if we ever see it) will be meaningless since garland's doj did not successfully prosecute the most flagrant crime in U.S. history that we all watched happening live on tv .

She is right about one thing, once garland is out (unless trump decides to just keep him), he won't matter in the least anymore.

It's become clear that the immunity ruling of the Supreme Court does not reach so far as to protect Trump from being adjudicated as a felon insurrectionist.

So this is pretty much baloney. It's going in the trash where it belongs.

It gives me chills and thrills every time. So do horror movies. They are also fictional.

He's so bold at press conferences.

I read her sometimes. Got bored with her constant Garland defense. She's always calling out Greenwald and Taibbi. And she hated Obama. And the Fitzpatrick deal was disappointing.

They crossed over into kooksville long ago.

However for someone who said we shouldn't always talk about Trump, she gave them attention on a regular basis's. We all know they were traitors so it grated on me. I like her but she grates on me and seems a bit pompous

She isn’t afraid to challenge widely accepted myths, including myths accepted by MAGA, by Dems, and by the MSM.

She lays out her arguments with detailed, verifiable facts from trustworthy sources, including court transcripts that most reporters are too lazy to examine and analyze in any depth.

Following her reporting can be daunting and exhausting with the tremendous amount of information she provides, so I tend to focus on the stories that interest me the most, especially the Trump investigations and prosecutions. The Hunter Biden stuff and other legal scandals are just too much too absorb, so I generally pass on those.