115

White House frustration with Garland grows (www.politico.com)

submitted 7 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The president believes the special counsel investigating his handling of classified documents went beyond his remit. And part of the blame is being placed on the AG.

Joe Biden has told aides and outside advisers that Attorney General Merrick Garland did not do enough to rein in a special counsel report stating that the president had diminished mental faculties, according to two people close to the president, as White House frustration with the head of the Justice Department grows.

The report from special counsel Robert Hur ultimately cleared Biden of any charges stemming from his handling of classified documents that were found at Biden’s think tank and his home. But Hur’s explanation for not bringing charges — that Biden would have persuaded the jury that he was a forgetful old man — upended the presidential campaign and infuriated the White House.

Biden and his closest advisers believe Hur went well beyond his purview and was gratuitous and misleading in his descriptions, according to those two people, who were granted anonymity to speak freely. And they put part of the blame on Garland, who they say should have demanded edits to Hur’s report, including around the descriptions of Biden’s faltering memory.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Unpopular opinion here but I think Garland is doing a fantastic job. That Biden felt Garland could or should rein in the Special Council suggests ignorance to the entire point of appointing a special council.

Biden is off the hook and Garland set Smith up for success on Trump. People expecting justice of this magnitude to happen overnight do not understand the legal system and the complexity of these cases.

Some of you may not be aware that Merrick Garland was a Supreme Court nominee of Obama's that Republicans (McConnell) blocked. He's not some plant lol.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world -3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Garland is the best Republican Biden could have hired for this job.

What he should have done is hired an aggressive progressive. His lack of foresight could be the undoing of America entirely if he loses to trump.

Obama and Biden are right of Reagan. They are not progressives they are not aggressive. In any other country they'd be far right.

[-] Econgrad@lemmings.world 8 points 7 months ago

That's an absolutely bonkers take. I'm sorry but it's unhinged.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world -5 points 7 months ago

Facts done care about your feelings. There's nothing unhinged with a realistic political analysis.

I noticed you provided no evidence to the contrary just an ad hominem.

[-] Econgrad@lemmings.world -5 points 7 months ago

I agree that facts don't care about feelings. What's a woman? I'm just curious can you tell me what your definition is?

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Sorry I don't agree. I think Garland was the perfect pick given the zeigeist. People act as though the entire country is just itching for a progressive when the unfortunate reality is that a large swath of this country is (a) ignorant, (b) apathetic, and (c) conservative. Within the purview of a massive right-wing and corporate propaganda machine that controls the national narrative with soundbite talking-points and BoThEriSm still running strong, it was wise to find someone who both caters to the traditional notion of conservatism and yet who actually has a strong conviction for true Justice.

I promise that anyone criticizing Garland for not moving fast enough knows not the first thing about law or the ramifications of doing this half-assed. In other words, Dunning-Kruger Effect is on full display for such critics. To that, I say Garland's careful investigation and subsequent deferral to Jack Smith to ensure no arguments of political bias hold weight has been masterful. Dot your i's, cross your t's; take as long as you need to ensure a tight case in what will be the most important trials perhaps in our entire history. After all, we know there is likely going to be a lot of money and intimidation on the right funneling into Trump's defens.e

Center-right? Yeah. Far-right? I can't agree with that. That would suggest Obama and Biden are in the AfD camp of Germany, which would be absurd.

this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2024

115 points (96.7% liked)

politics

18870 readers

5526 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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.
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.
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.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
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.
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