Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

I don't know the answer to that, snood. When Garland first assumed the office I thought that not immediately acting like a rabid bulldog was the correct approach. And I think Jack Smith was a good choice for special prosecutor. There are now at least four investigations and another indictment (a more serious one) may soon follow in the Georgia case. Won't these cases work their way through the system without an outraged Garland raising the political heat even more?

I understand it’s too idealistic to think that everyone in government should ignore public opinion. Hell that’s politics by definition -constantly testing the wind to see where it’s safe to step and how far to go in any direction.

But we either have rule of law, or we don’t. And we expect the people who vow to enforce the law to do so without regard to popular opinion or concerns of personal safety (or reputation).

The reason Garland was so highly praised coming into the job of US AG was because he was reputed to be someone who went where the facts took him. Period.

To hear Schiff saying “He was concerned about causing controversy” is upsetting to me. And I do not understand why it would not upset everyone who’s interested in actual justice being done.

“Rabid dog” and “outraged” are added by you. It’s putting words in my mouth and assigning intentions I never conveyed and I don’t appreciate it.

I just want Garland to do his goddamn job.

last time i checked, Schiff was not the official spokesperson for the AG...

But his word is pretty good to most Democrats. What reason would he have for saying anything false about Garland?

I can find several statements of reputable people saying they think Garland has hesitated too long. But somehow I get the feeling that you won’t take the word of anyone but Garland. I don’t know why so many of you guys insist on giving him the benefit of all doubt. But I’m sure that if the time comes that he produces an excuse for not prosecuting Trump it will be accepted at face value.

Yes. It was my post. I wrote it. I was not quoting you nor trying to characterize your thoughts. I wouldn't do that; you are not an adversary. I was speaking for myself. I spent some time trying to make a good response because I thought the question deserved one, and I get accused of putting words in your mouth?

Look, I recalled my feelings when Garland was chosen and how he was respected within the legal profession. My thought at that time was that running a "non-partisan" Justice Dept would probably be a better tack than starting right in with an agenda – the way the rabid Republicans did with Clinton and Whitewater. After all, Biden started out by brandishing his bi-partisan credentials and basically inviting the GOP to a seat at the table. So I figured that Garland was in step with his boss. I think they really thought there was a chance that the Trump fever might break and it would be wise not to put the Republicans' backs up right away. We know how that worked out. I have more questions than answers.


I did a brief search of Justice Department sites for 2022 and there were plenty of other indictments so it's not as he's not doing anything. What steps would you like to see (or have seen) Garland take? I probably haven't been following the Justice Department as deeply as you have so I may not be as aware of Garland's failings on the job. Do you think he should have started earlier, spoken out more pointedly, opened up more investigations (like Saudi stuff), or have been more open about the investigations that were, and are, going on?

Understood. I've seen some of that polling as well. But I'm suspicious regarding the simplistic way that question is posed, thus answered.

The Nixon precedent is one I've thought of as well, even if a depressing number of Republicans dismissed/denied his guilt. But back then as you know, there really wasn't a dedicated and pervasive right wing media machine effectively cordoning off much of the Republican base. So this present period is far more explosive.

Because I don't know 1) that is actually going on and 2) if there is some truth to it what considerations have led to such a strategy.

Jack Straw is currently running the Federal Investigation into Trump.

You mean Jack Smith, right?

Jack Straw is a retired cabinet minister who served under Tony Blair.

Ok. But I don’t find anything about him being connected into the investigation into Trump. Was that some inside joke?

I don't know. I just recognised the name.

Last time I checked, he's an active paedophile, and regular customer of Jeffery Epstein.

I don’t suppose you could provide any sources that reveal those unsavory things about Schiff? Is that too much to ask?

He's on his friends and family list.

I'll cut you a deal, snood; when you provide sources that prove former prez Trump misused campaign funds, I'll provide evidence that Clinton's camp did exactly the same thing, but paid a fine and said sorry; won't do it again.

They accuse others of what they're guilty of.

In the same way Putin calls the Ukrainians Nazis, Builder calls everyone he disagrees with a paedophile.

That's how those creatures operate.

Wait… we were talking about proof of Schiff being a pedofile. Why you jumping around?