I'm not meaning to cause trouble or to place blame

[Upthevibe]

but I'd really like DU'ers opinions of why President Biden didn't fire Merrick Garland after he was in office after the first year?

Once again, I'm being sincere with my question....

[SheltieLover]

1. I'd like to know why Dem presidents always appoint or allow

Rethugs to both positions of AG & FBI?

I wouldn't personally allow rethugs to pay me to pick up my dog poop in the yard.

I am not picking on Dems. I always vote blue, no matter who.

But I would like an answer to this.

[Think. Again.]

6. Good point.

[SheltieLover]

17. I just can't fathom why every Dem president entrusts DOJ/FBI to rethugs

Boggles the mind.

Must be some unwritten agreement. But why?

[Iggo]

2. Unless you ask Biden, you're not going to get a useful answer. Especially not here.

[Ocelot II]

3. Presidents (other than Trump) carefully stay away from trying to manage

or control the operations of the DoJ, as they should. I can't think of any other president who would have fired an Attorney General for a decision (or lack of one) to investigate or prosecute any case - they stay strictly hands-off and do not, or at least should not, influence decisions relating to prosecutions. It's a very fair criticism of Garland that he didn't move more quickly or aggressively re: Trump, but Biden acted properly by leaving those decisions to Garland. Maybe he shouldn't have appointed him in the first place, but having done so, Garland was thereafter in charge, not Biden. Trump wants his new AG to prosecute political adversaries, but I don't think that's the kind of AG we want either.

[allegorical oracle]

8. Agree. A couple other points are that a) he was viewed as a very even-handed judge and that's

why b) Obama nominated him to the SCOTUS. Garland was humiliated by Mitch McConnell in order to curry favor with TSF, so Biden may have been trying to make up for that ill treatment.

[Fiendish Thingy]

4. Because Garland isn't the villain of this story.

Scapegoating is easy, and requires minimal critical thinking; one only needs a single finger to point the blame…

[edhopper]

5. I think Biden was occupied

by passing very important legislation and Covid recovery. We didn't see how really bad Garland was until the last two years, and then it would start to look too political, especially with investigations of Hunter and the President/

But Trump does stuff that is obviously political or self serving, and nobody cares.

Because rules are only for Democrats.

[Think. Again.]

7. If some of the posts here on DU are any indication...

...many people didn't see through garland until very late in the game.

He did his job extremely well, unfortunately he wasn't working for the U.S. despite his paycheck.

[Ocelot II]

13. If, as you imply, he was a Russian asset, doesn't that make Biden one, too?

[Think. Again.]

14. I didn't imply any such thing.

[Ocelot II]

15. So, if "he wasn't working for the U.S. despite his paycheck," who was he working for?

[Think. Again.]

19. My implication is clearly that he was working AGAINST the U.S., not "for" it.

[Ocelot II]

22. But why? If he was working against the US he must have had a reason.

Why would a long-time, well-respected former federal judge, a centrist Democrat once considered by a Democratic president to have been suitable for a Supreme Court appointment, be working against the US? If he was, he had to be working for someone or something. Was he being paid to sabotage the Trump investigations? If so, why did he appoint Jack Smith? Was he secretly in league with Trump? I'm curious about his supposed motive and possible co-conspirators.

[Think. Again.]

24. You would have to ask him.

[Silent Type]

9. IMO, both Biden and Garland knew what a chitshow trying trump would be. trump deserved it, but it obviously didn't

help when it came to the ultimate court-- Nov 5th.

[brush]

11. I disagree. IMO Garland purposefully dragged his feet and delayed prosecuting and jailing trump...

the president who tried to overthrown the government. Garland should've taken that as job 1 when he first took office instead of delaying and going after the small frye rioters. He should've went after the top planners, with trump at the top, prosecuter and jailed them long before the corrupt SCOTUS gave him immunity and way before Nov. 5. A long-jailed trump, who we all saw his guilt on TV on J6, would've been of no consequence to voters to on Nov. 5th. Rethugs would've picked someone else, not the long-jailed convict.

[Silent Type]

20. Maybe, but Biden could have picked up the phone at any time and said get it in gear or you are fired.

[Rebl2]

23. Just not

Biden’s way. I don’t think Biden wanted to be seen as trying to influence garland in any way. I wish he had fired him though.

[JanMichael]

37. So they were afraid to act? Wow.

[Silent Type]

43. What good does it do to act when you can't get your target and you enhance their hold on

enough voters to win?

I just don’t think Biden or Garland felt the burn to prosecute trump. Personally, if Pence had ordered trump placed before a firing squad on Jan 6th, few would have said a word. GOPer Congresspeople were that pissed. I even think Sen Graham would have pulled the trigger.

But anger turned to reality of trump’s appeal to ignorant fools.

Obviously, I don’t know how election would have turned out had trump been convicted and actually sentenced to hard time, except that was never likely to happen.

[brush]

10. Federalist Society member Garland should've never been picked. Biden didn't owe him shit...

for McConnell's treatment of him. Too bad Joe didn't see it that way. Garland was the worse pick of Joe's admin. He fucked up so bad and was so late in prosecuting the fucker who TRIED TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT, that trump got away with every crime and got fucking re-elected.

GARLAND WAS THE WORST EVER. Being a Federalist Society member should've been the first sign to STAY AWAY. He's a republican mole who has operated the whole time like a fucking republican mole.

And the nation has suffered because of his failure to prosecute and jail a the traitor president who is trump. And we just maybe on the verge of a dictatorship and no longer a representative democracy.

Garland did his job like the republican mole he is.

[Ocelot II]

12. Garland was never a member of the Federalist Society.

[Think. Again.]

18. He certainly is a favored leader if his multiple speeches to them are any indication.

They even gave him his own permanent biography page as a "contributor"...

https://fedsoc.org/contributors/merrick-garland

[brush]

21. I was misinformed. Garland did, however, failed to prosecute and jail...

the president who tried to overthrow the government. A screw-up and fail for the ages.

[Ocelot II]

25. Prosecutors don't jail anybody. Judges jail, and only *if* a jury finds the defendant guilty

and if a prison sentence is indicated by the federal sentencing guidelines. There was never a guarantee that the prosecutions of Trump would have been successful. My fear was always that they would go to trial before the election and Trump would be acquitted, a very possible outcome given the uniqueness of the cases and the prosecution's heavy burden of proof. If Garland had moved as quickly as we wish he had done, it was still far from a done deal that Trump would have been convicted, especially wrt the 1/6 charges. There would have been plenty of time to try the Mierda-Lardo documents case if Judge Cannon hadn't thrown sand in the gears, and that was a stronger case - but even if Trump had been convicted he would have appealed and he still wouldn't be in jail by the time of the election.

[brush]

26. Please. I think you know what I mean. We all say trump's cirmes on J6 on TV.

The Manhattan DA and NY AG were able to win against trump with convincing arguments and evidence, a capable and timely effort by the DOJ with evidence the whole nation saw should've been able to do the same.

Massive fail by Garland.

[Ocelot II]

28. Oh, well, "we all say trump's crimes on J6 on TV."

That's proof beyond a reasonable doubt right there! The NY case was a completely different matter - it was a paper case involving crimes, established by incontrovertible documentary evidence, that did not involve presidentai acts under any analysis, having been committed when Trump was not president, and therefore did not raise SCOTUS' immunity issues.

[brush]

34. You must be an attorney, sees both sides of an issue.

In your opinion pls, did Garland drop the ball on trump or not, both the J6 and MAL?

[Ocelot II]

38. I don't know. I don't even know what that means.

Of course I wish it had all happened much sooner, but without knowing exactly why it didn't, I can't form an opinion as to whether it's all Garland's fault - or whether there were there other circumstances as well. Was he too careful or concerned about blowback? If so, why? Were there holdover saboteurs from the former Trump admin that slowed the process down? Appointing Jack Smith was a good thing, and it probably should have been done months earlier, but even if that had happened Smith still would have eventually come up against SCOTUS' stupid immunity decision in the 1/6 case and the obstruction of Judge Cannon in the documents case. I hope we'll learn the whole story someday.

[brush]

41. Never mind. I see you remain an attorney who sees both sides instead of the elephant in...forget it.

[Ocelot II]

42. What did you want from me? I gave you my honest opinion,

based not on my knowledge but on my lack of it.

[uponit7771]

16. I don't think Biden is that disappointed, Garland and Biden are both institutionalist but there comes a point where ...

... norms and institutions are being placed above the needs of the people and democracy and I think that's where both crossed the line.

Garland more than Biden though

No president is going to be perfect, Biden still is in the 10% good guys ... the stepping out with Unions was generational change IMHO

[OAITW r.2.0]

27. Republicans allowed Trump to skate twice on the impeachments.

I blame Mitch and all of the sanctimonious Senate Republican hypocrites to allow this clown to run in 2024.

[ForgedCrank]

29. Because he

was doing his job as expected.
The job isn't "prosecute people who I point at", the job is to prosecute for crimes that can be proven in court and justify the time and resources spend in doing so. Garland would have gone after Trump for crimes that he knew he could pin in court and could be justified in the context of reward v/s cost to taxpayers. In his opinion, those conditions didn't exist and would have likely ended in failure.
That's my 2 cents worth.

[Think. Again.]

31. Obviously, 100% certainty of conviction is not a requirement for the DOJ to prosecute...

...just ask Jack Smith.

[ForgedCrank]

32. I never

said that it was a requirement.

[Think. Again.]

33. Your words...

"... the job is to prosecute for crimes that can be proven in court and justify the time and resources spend in doing so"

[ForgedCrank]

36. ALSO "my words"

In his opinion, those conditions didn't exist and would have likely ended in failure.

The context matters, that is unless conflict is the only real goal.

[Think. Again.]

39. Your assumption of what his opinion might have been is noted.

[ForgedCrank]

40. I believe

it's a pretty solid theory based on the outcome. I'll have tl also review my communication approach. I did not realize that theory now translates into assumption. I wonder if anyone has yet contacted Websters to let them know.

[Think. Again.]

45. Another pretty solid theory that seems to be well accepted...

...is that garland did not have the best interests of our nation in mind and intentionally slow-walked and/or even willfully ignored his duties as Attorney General in favor of some other, unknown loyalties.

That assumption is also well supported by the outcome.

And yes, assumption, theory, suspicion, even the currently popular 'conspiracy theory' are very closely related terms, even interchangable in common language a lot of the time.

[ForgedCrank]

47. They are

certainly not interchangeable. "Assumption" is based on an asserted position based entirely on presumption without evidence.
"Theory" is simply an idea based on observations and is presented as such, with no definitive position ever presented.
Two entirely different concepts.

[Think. Again.]

48. nah.

[ForgedCrank]

49. Ok

[yellow dahlia]

30. I have a theory....a concept of a theory.

I think Pres. Biden was gun-shy regarding replacing or firing Cabinet Secretaries, because the grifter fired at will. The grifter had a revolving door of Cabinet Secretaries and Dept Heads....and "Actings". It's almost (direct or indirect) manipulation, on the part of the chaos makers, that as a collateral effect others will alter their own behavior (wrongly), because of the bad behavior of others.

There are other Cabinet Secretaries that I believe he would have benefited from replacing, such as Majorkas. As an onlooker, it looked like Majorkas was not a forceful Cabinet Secretary - if he was doing things effectively behind the scenes, I apologize for that observation. But! He was certainly a terrible messenger when a strong messenger was needed.

I thought the times demanded powerhouse Department Heads, but Pres. Biden did not tend that way. I thought Garland and some others were too milquetoast.

[Polybius]

35. I don't think he likes to fire people

And was likely worried about a "bad look."

[GiqueCee]

44. That has baffled me, too...

... He was originally a Casper Milquetoast SCOTUS candidate chosen to mollify the Constipated Tortoise, who still turned around and denied Obama's compromise choice even so much as a hearing. Appointing him as AG was seriously questionable; keeping him there was not Biden's wisest decision.

[Beastly Boy]

46. I am not biting.

Implicit in your question is the presupposition that there was cause to fire Garland.