115

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

submitted 9 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

[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Yes but McCain didn't do it to keep millions from losing access. He literally did it out of spite to get back at his own party as they turned against him. It wasn't out of some principle he held. He literally voted against the ACA in the first place.

And yes everyone remembers that one time he meekly corrected one of his lunatic voters. That doesn't make up for everything else. Or make him a good person.

Mccain feingold wasn't a horrible piece of legislation either. It was surprising to see Mr. Keating five attached to it. But again, it does not neutralize or negate everything else regardless.

Liz Cheney, Dick Cheney's daughter. Attacked her own sister. She's a piece of shit just like her father. Mary Cheney may have been the only one to escape the family reputation. Liz only went against Trump again out of spitefulness because Trump had been attacking her because she did not capitulate to him completely. At one point, Liz Cheney bragged that sheed voted with Trump 100% of the time. In reality she hadn't. But the only times she hadn't were things particularly relating back to Trump himself. Because it wasn't out of principle, it was out of spite.

I never said that everyone Trump attacked turned on him. Yes, Ted Cruz is a despicable submissive little husk. That doesn't change any of the other points. It just goes to show how sad and pathetic people like Ted Cruz are. And why they're in the Republican party.

Either way, either points still don't stand.

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world -2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Maybe you're right; maybe they're not stellar people. However:

These weren't my main points.
Regardless of their motives, their actions are what matter; for as I said, there were many Trump supporters who were spited by Trump but who still kissed his ass. For whatever reason that you and I cannot elucidate, these individuals broke with the rest -- often to their own downfall -- unlike other individuals, again such examples being DeSantis or Cruz. If enough people in the Republican party at least had this level of self-respect, then perhaps we wouldn't be where we are today (though an argument can be made such people enabled Trump to be created like Frankenstein's monster.)

My main points:

Obama didn't have Senate control; he was never going to get an idyllic progressive into the Supreme Court under a Republican Senate; he couldn't even get a formerly-bipartisan supported candidate like Garland into the Supreme Court -- This point remained untouched.
There is substantively NOTHING Garland is doing wrong and every complaint I've thus far seen has been pure speculation from people who are not legal experts and are just impatient -- This point, too, remains untouched.

this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2024

115 points (96.7% liked)

politics

19089 readers

3963 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.

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

Example:

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. 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.
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