this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2023
87 points (93.9% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3965 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General Merrick Garland said in an interview that aired Sunday that he would resign if asked by President Joe Biden to take action against Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump. But he doesn’t think he’ll be put in that position.

“I am sure that that will not happen, but I would not do anything in that regard,” he said on CBS “60 Minutes.” “And if necessary, I would resign. But there is no sense that anything like that will happen.”

The Justice Department is at the center of not only indictments against Trump that include an effort to overturn the 2020 election and wrongly keeping classified documents, but also cases involving Biden’s son Hunter, the aftermath of the riot at the U.S. Capitol and investigations into classified documents found in the president’s home and office. Garland has appointed three separate special counsels.

Garland has spoken only sparingly about the cases and reiterated Sunday he would not get into specifics, but dismissed claims by Trump and his supporters that the cases were timed to ruin his chances to be president in 2024.

“Well, that’s absolutely not true. Justice Department prosecutors are nonpartisan. They don’t allow partisan considerations to play any role in their determinations,” Garland said.

Garland said the president has never tried to meddle in the investigations, and he dismissed criticism from Republicans that he was going easy on the president’s son, Hunter, who was recently indicted on a gun charge after a plea deal in his tax case fell apart. Hunter Biden is due in a Delaware court this week.

“We do not have one rule for Republicans and another rule for Democrats. We don’t have one rule for foes and another for friends,” he said. ”We have only one rule; and that one rule is that we follow the facts and the law, and we reach the decisions required by the Constitution, and we protect civil liberties.”

Garland choked up when talking about his concerns over violence, particularly as judges and prosecutors assigned to the Trump cases got death threats.

“People can argue with each other as much as they want and as vociferously as they want. But the one thing they may not do is use violence and threats of violence to alter the outcome,” he said. “American people must protect each other. They must ensure that they treat each other with civility and kindness, listen to opposing views, argue as vociferously as they want, but refrain from violence and threats of violence. That’s the only way this democracy will survive.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 56 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

He's 100 percent correct that prosecutions should not be politically motivated or at the discretion of the president.

HOWEVER, what Garland has shown us is that his prosecutions are very heavily politically motivated, in that he opted not to go after Trump for fear of appearances. That was totally unacceptable.

Remember the Mueller report? Remember how it painstakingly detailed how Trump committed the crime of Obstruction of Justice in many ways, up to and including firing the Director of the FBI for the express purpose of halting the investigation into Trump's dealings with Russia?

Do you recall that the underlying investigation that Trump stopped was to find out if the CONFIRMED Russian interference in our election and the CONFIRMED Trump campaign communications with Russians rose to the level of Conspiracy?

Remember how Trump's DoJ wouldn't prosecute Trump because of nonbinding Nixonera DoJ memos saying you can't indict a sitting president?

REMEMBER HOW WE ALL THOUGHT THAT MEANT HE'D BE PROSECUTED THE DAY HE WAS NO LONGER PRESIDENT?!

Yeah, Garland CHOSE to ignore this... The greatest case of obstruction of justice of all time... And let the statute of limitations run out, so that now Trump can never be prosecuted for these crimes, which he committed in broad daylight, and which were caught on tape.

The problem with Garland isn't that he would not prosecute Trump at Biden's hypothetical request

The problem with Garland is that he is grossly incompetent for not prosecuting Trump on the bases of the OVERWHELMING evidence.

It's 100 percent Garland's fault that Trump, insurrectionist-inciting traitor, is walking free, and that the cases that were filed against him in federal court came so late that he may be a sitting president again before they conclude.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

You nailed it

Garland was bidens biggest mistake: he is a spineless partisan ass.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Seems like a sitting AG knowingly acted against the best interest of the united States for personal motivations.

In my neck of the woods, we have a word for that, but for some reason beyond my comprehension , it eludes me.

Starts with a T, sounds vaguely like a father discussing vegetation with his male child....hmmm.

Oh well, guess we should just move on as a society and ignore blatant crimes...