Jump to content

Merrick Garland Must Resign


Recommended Posts

Things are heating up for Merrick Garland, and a lot of people, starting with 'Free Speech for People' are fed up. They are gathering signatures for his resignation, and this movement is gathering a lot of momentum.

 

Over the past thirty years, Merrick Garland served with distinction as a federal prosecutor and then as an appellate judge. Unfortunately, as Attorney General for the past eight months, he has failed to take any meaningful action to hold accountable former president Donald Trump and his co-conspirators for attempting to overthrow the government on January 6, 2021 and a flurry of criminal acts in the months and years leading up to that date. Instead, he has adopted indefensible positions of the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) to protect Trump from accountability. Since Garland is unwilling to step up, it is time for him to step down.

In January, we urged incoming Attorney General Merrick Garland to establish an independent task force to centralize and coordinate criminal investigations of Trump and his associates. To preserve the rule of law, we explained,
Garland should announce 
the task force’s formation, designate its leadership and mandate, and allow it to independently investigate. If Garland had created a framework for credible, impartial criminal investigations of a former president of the United States, DOJ would have affirmed that no onenot even a former presidentis above the law. Yet while DOJ has charged the low-level insurrectionists who broke into the Capitol, it has not moved against the highly- placed leaders of the insurrection, including Trump himself.

DOJ’s inaction—Garland’s inactionendangers the rule of law. Even before the 2020 election, Trump conspired with key aides to sabotage a free and fair election by extorting (or, viewed another way, bribing) the President of Ukraine to embarrass Joe Biden politically in exchange for military aid. (Although the Senate failed to convict him in an impeachment trial for this conduct, that has no impact on criminal proceedings.) And as the election approached, Trump bragged that he was deliberately sabotaging the Postal Service to limit voting-by-mail.

After his election defeat, Trump called Georgia’s Secretary of State and pressured him to “find 11,780 votes” to overturn the presidential election outcome in that state. (Two Members of Congress have already sent a criminal referral to the FBI regarding that phone call.) He also pressured another Georgia official to investigate counties where Biden received more votes. Since overturning Georgia’s election results alone wouldn’t yield a victory for Trump, it’s almost certain that he made or attempted similar conversations with elections officials in other states.

The culmination was Trump’s speech inciting an angry mob to march on the Capitol. His violent horde then stormed the Capitol, seizing the House and Senate chambers and forcing emergency evacuation of Congressall in an effort, spurred by Trump, to stop the certification of election results while Trump watched on television with obvious satisfaction and ignored pleas to intervene to stop the insurrection. In fact, recent news indicates that, even before January 6, his teamestablished a “command center” or “war room” to coordinate the events of that day,

         

Prepared by Free Speech For People

fsfp-statement-on-merrick-garland-202111

Link to post
Share on other sites

MIstake, IMHO

For one thing, you don't know what he's got cooking under all those pot lids.

Second, you don't know who he is likely to be replaced with.

IMHO it is very likely he's putting together some pretty air tight prosecution of some people that think they're going to skate. Maybe Trump, maybe Kushner, but certainly things that would get a fucking shit-load of political interference if he was carrying them out in plain sight.

Remember, the Republicans and everybody who takes their side within the federal bureaucracy, think that prosecuting Republicans NO MATTER HOW EGREGIOUS THE CRIME is actually treason. This stuff has to be wrapped up tight before coming out into the public ligt.

-IF- you had a solid replacement teed up, I'd only object to it half as much.

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

MIstake, IMHO

For one thing, you don't know what he's got cooking under all those pot lids.

Second, you don't know who he is likely to be replaced with.

IMHO it is very likely he's putting together some pretty air tight prosecution of some people that think they're going to skate. Maybe Trump, maybe Kushner, but certainly things that would get a fucking shit-load of political interference if he was carrying them out in plain sight.

Remember, the Republicans and everybody who takes their side within the federal bureaucracy, think that prosecuting Republicans NO MATTER HOW EGREGIOUS THE CRIME is actually treason. This stuff has to be wrapped up tight before coming out into the public ligt.

-IF- you had a solid replacement teed up, I'd only object to it half as much.

- DSK

How would it hurt his investigation to actually show that the rule of law is going to be followed? Letting Bannon skate right now is signaling that the DOJ has no interest in said rule of law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

How would it hurt his investigation to actually show that the rule of law is going to be followed? Letting Bannon skate right now is signaling that the DOJ has no interest in said rule of law.

I'm as impatient as anyone, but it's usually the silent ones to be most afraid of.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

How would it hurt his investigation to actually show that the rule of law is going to be followed? Letting Bannon skate right now is signaling that the DOJ has no interest in said rule of law.

I think the difference between the Republicans who are defying Congressional subpoenas and the non-Republicans who have done so, is the marshals who run out to arrest them are much more right-leaning than left. If it were up to me, I'd have already lined up the ducks to streamline the process as it was obvious that the Trump-minions were going to try and skate.

The sooner a cell door slams on Bannon, the better, I agree.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I think the difference between the Republicans who are defying Congressional subpoenas and the non-Republicans who have done so, is the marshals who run out to arrest them are much more right-leaning than left. If it were up to me, I'd have already lined up the ducks to streamline the process as it was obvious that the Trump-minions were going to try and skate.

The sooner a cell door slams on Bannon, the better, I agree.

- DSK

A few weeks ago the DOJ announced that it could take months of negotiations to determine if they were going to enforce congressional subpoenas. That's ridiculous. It's also ridiculous that a member of the Federalist Society could be the AG under a Democrat government.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bannon skate? I think it's more like walking on increasingly thin ice. The larger the group of non-compliant people you have in a case, the stronger your case against them becomes.

 If Bannon caved, then he could tell a pile of BS that would exonerate the others. but when they all refuse to speak, they actually speak volumes. A single person isn't a  group conspiracy, it's a threat. a group of people becomes a conspiracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

The oversight and investigatory powers of Congress are 

getting weaker by the day. 

Watch how quickly that changes when the GOP takes the House.  "Lock him/her up" will be followed by swift action.  Evidence not required.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

Watch how quickly that changes when the GOP takes the House.  "Lock him/her up" will be followed by swift action.  Evidence not required.

It's handy that they won't even have to change the AG.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 11/7/2021 at 10:10 AM, Steam Flyer said:

MIstake, IMHO

For one thing, you don't know what he's got cooking under all those pot lids.

Second, you don't know who he is likely to be replaced with.

IMHO it is very likely he's putting together some pretty air tight prosecution of some people that think they're going to skate. Maybe Trump, maybe Kushner, but certainly things that would get a fucking shit-load of political interference if he was carrying them out in plain sight.

Remember, the Republicans and everybody who takes their side within the federal bureaucracy, think that prosecuting Republicans NO MATTER HOW EGREGIOUS THE CRIME is actually treason. This stuff has to be wrapped up tight before coming out into the public ligt.

-IF- you had a solid replacement teed up, I'd only object to it half as much.

- DSK

As long as the pots & lids aren't cooking ice cream in the freezer.

Otherwise I'm burning down my house & moving to Canada (Hi Sloops, Hi Ish & Rain).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, animeproblem said:

As long as the pots & lids aren't cooking ice cream in the freezer.

Otherwise I'm burning down my house & moving to Canada (Hi Sloops, Hi Ish & Rain).

It looks like it's going to get a lot more crowded up here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Too cold for my blood. If I check out I’ll be sailing south. 

It's the little things in life that make it bearable here. Like universal health care, no guns, good local food...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Actually Canadians own a fair amount of guns, they just don't shoot at them at people ;)

Generally true, but gun ownership in Canada is nothing like that in the USA.

Quote

The United States is the world's undisputed champion in firearm ownership, with more guns than people: 121 civilian firearms per 100 inhabitants. Canada has about 35 per 100.

Bolding not mine.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-08-06/is-there-something-wrong-with-us-new-story

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Generally true, but gun ownership in Canada is nothing like that in the USA.

When we (used to) drive or sail into Canada, the Mounties at the border 

always ask if we are bringing in gunz. 

Lots of USAeans try to bring them in anyway with "alarming frequency". 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/americans-crossing-into-canada-carrying-guns-with-alarming-frequency/article35899459/

And you better have the Covid pokes too - and don't try to fake it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, chum said:

I’m trying to find the list of unindicted people who ignored Congressional subpoenas under the Obama administration. I don’t seem to be able to find any info. I think Eric Holder and Janet Yellen were two of them, but there were at least a half dozen if I recall. Do you know who else is on the list?

Love your false equivalency. Go man!

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, chum said:

I’m trying to find the list of unindicted people who ignored Congressional subpoenas under the Obama administration. I don’t seem to be able to find any info. I think Eric Holder and Janet Yellen were two of them, but there were at least a half dozen if I recall. Do you know who else is on the list?

Have you tried Google?

It will work better if you take some Ivermectin.

Eric Holder complied with Congressional subpoena(s) to the tune of hours of testimony and thousands of pages of documents.  Janet Yellen referred them to the DOJ which provided some shielded info, as they were investigating her. https://www.wsj.com/articles/yellen-fed-advised-against-fully-complying-with-subpoena-on-leak-probe-1433523063

Meanwhile, let's compare the number of convicted felons from the various Administrations, shall we? Or would you just be content to repeat for the N,000th time DEMOCRAT=BAD

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, chum said:

I’m trying to find the list of unindicted people who ignored Congressional subpoenas under the Obama administration. I don’t seem to be able to find any info. I think Eric Holder and Janet Yellen were two of them, but there were at least a half dozen if I recall. Do you know who else is on the list?

Try researching WWII - the Imagninot Line.  It's got to be in there somewhere.  You have posted some really stupid stuff here. This is one of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chum said:

Lol your list is empty, like your skull. 

You aren't very good at this - consider getting the "Insults for Dummies"  for some material.  And I provided the complete list of things that don't exist, you just are unable to see them.  as Eva dent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, chum said:

Please show me where in SBs case.

Bannon? You mean, the guy that wasn't even part of the exec branch, that Bannon?

 

Patience grasshopper, the appeals court will get to you soon. Hahahaha

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, chum said:

Let's consider contempt charges, for example, that were demanded by a Republican Congressional committee member who resigned and became a Fox News commentator

Gotta be fair and balanced, nothing wrong here, huh?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Schedule bump for anxious bullshitters. The Archives' and Committee's Answer Brief was due today at noon. Someone will pay for it from PACER and put it online soon enough....  Reply Brief Wednesday, OA next Tuesday. 

 

On 11/12/2021 at 9:30 AM, Sol Rosenberg said:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Schedule bump for anxious bullshitters. The Archives' and Committee's Answer Brief was due today at noon. Someone will pay for it from PACER and put it online soon enough....  Reply Brief Wednesday, OA next Tuesday. 

 

 

Sounds like @chum's question will be answered soon enough. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, chum said:

Explain. Who decides that? Who decided in SBs case?

 

The President decides when Executive Privilege can be invoked.

The current President.  Not a former President.

So says U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan.

You're welcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chum said:
3 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

The President decides when Executive Privilege can be invoked.

The current President.  Not a former President.

So says U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan.

You're welcome.

Who decides on the merits of invoking executive privilege was the question, try to keep up bullshitter.

Bolded and size increased because you seem to have missed it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, chum said:

You're an idiot....RIF

 

He's right. The President (with restriction, like Nixon when under investigation during impeachment) determines what is Privileged. Not the Supremes, not the VP, not Congress. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, chum said:
3 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

That does NOT answer your question as to who decides it can be invoked.

that's not what I asked RIF

You're a teacher? Or a bus driver?

Really?

8 hours ago, chum said:

Explain. Who decides that? Who decided in SBs case?

 

Do you even REMEMBER what you post?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...