Posted on 06/15/2024 9:17:12 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
One of my best friends in high school had a habit of saying "Damn, son" when he thought one of our crew did or said something particularly spectacular — by high school standards, of course.
I had the same reaction to George Washington Law School professor and Fox News legal analyst, Jonathan Turley, and a new column in which he absolutely filleted embattled Attorney General Merrick Garland.
That is, if one can fillet someone with a meat cleaver.
In the Saturday column, titled "The Corruption of Attorney General Merrick Garland," Turley explains how he first "enthusiastically supported" Garland’s confirmation, only to come to the realization that after the Biden nominee was confirmed as AG, he was no more than another partisan political hack:
When he was nominated, I believed that claim and enthusiastically supported Garland’s confirmation. He was, I thought, the perfect man for the job after his distinguished judicial service as a moderate judge.
I was wrong. Garland’s tenure as attorney general has shown a pronounced reluctance to take steps that would threaten President Biden.
He slow-walked the appointment of a special counsel investigating any Biden, and then excluded from the counsel’s scope any investigation of the massive influence peddling operation by Hunter Biden, his uncle and others.
Turley also laid out the differences, as he sees them, between Garland's handling of Trump's criminal trial in Manhattan and Hunter Biden's so-called "gun trial" in Delaware.
Of Trump's trial, in which the jury returned a guilty verdict on 34 felony counts related to falsified business records, Turley observed (emphasis, mine):
Garland ... allowed Special Counsel Jack Smith to maintain positions that seem diametrically at odds with past Justice Department policies. This includes Smith’s statement that he will try Trump up to (and even through) the next election. It also includes a sweeping gag order which would have eviscerated free speech protections by gagging Trump from criticizing the Justice Department.
While Garland has said that he wants to give the special counsels their independence, it falls to him to protect the consistency and values of his department.
[...]
Garland’s most brazenly political act has been the laughable executive privilege claim used to withhold the audiotape of the Hur-Biden interviews. The Justice Department has not claimed that the transcript is privileged, but only that the audiotape of Biden’s comments is privileged. This is so logically disconnected that even CNN hosts have mocked it
Yet in Biden's trial, said Turley:
Garland’s tenure as attorney general has shown a pronounced reluctance to take steps that would threaten President Biden. He slow-walked the appointment of a special counsel investigating any Biden, and then excluded from the counsel’s scope any investigation of the massive influence peddling operation by Hunter Biden, his uncle and others.
However, it is what has occurred in the last six months that has left some of us shaken, given our early faith in Garland.
[...]
Special Counsel Robert Hur found that Biden knowingly retained and mishandled classified material. However, he concluded that Biden’s age and diminished faculties would make him too sympathetic to a jury.
It was less sympathetic than pathetic, given that this is the same man who is running for re-election to lead the most powerful nation on Earth. More importantly, Garland has not made obvious efforts to reach a consistent approach in the two cases by dropping charges based on the same crimes by Trump in Florida.
I'm not an attorney but is not a jury's job to decide how to vote in a trial and based on what factors — not a prosecutor's? And isn't it a prosecutor's job to ensure justice is served, by prosecuting individuals accused of crimes? Yes, and yes.
RELATED:
House GOP Clears Way for Merrick Garland Contempt Vote - but Does It Even Matter?
After DOJ Declines to Prosecute Garland, House Vows to Take Biden Audio Issue to Court
Finally, Professor Turley said he has long been a critic of Garland’s failure to order a special counsel to dig into the extensive evidence of corruption surrounding the Bidens — AKA "The Biden Family Business":
As I stated in my testimony in the Biden impeachment hearing, there is ample evidence that Biden lied repeatedly about his knowledge of this corruption and his interaction with these foreign clients.
Yet when it comes to Trump, it's almost like Garland's Justice Department has a 24x7x365 crack, special-alert unit dialed in on all things Donald Trump or anyone near him does, says, or tweets.
Nah, the arguably most corrupt attorney general in the history of the United States wouldn't do that, would he?
Would he? Hello?
A Truth:
“he was no more than another partisan political hack:”
The DOJ sent a hired gun [Matthew Colangelo] to New York to make sure that Trump was convicted.
George Washington owned slaves and was mean to Native Americans, so anyone who enrolls in GWU is a racist!/s
The Nazi’s had guys like Garland.
Good reference. Historical.
The Not Sees used it, particularly in the earlier days of that movement.
“And if you think tough men are dangerous, wait until you see what weak men are capable of.” ― Jordan B. Peterson, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos
In the case of Trump, by not prosecuting non-crimes, following the examples of DOJ SDNY, Bragg's predecessor, and an earlier manifestation of Bragg himself.
A Harvard Summa cum Laude is a gilt edged certificate that the awardee is as fine a leftist political hack as the institution has ever produced.
In a Saturday column,... Turley explains how he first “enthusiastically supported” Garland’s confirmation, only to come to the realization....
___________
Stunning how long it took for him to figure out what was so obvious to anyone smarter than a rock. Oh well, as my Dad used to say,”a wise man changes his mind.....a fool never does.”
I am an attorney, and the answers are "no" and "no". The jury decides facts, not law, and it is the judge's job to instruct the jury as to what facts constitute a crime. Bad instructions often result in bad verdicts.
A prosecutor's job is to promote justice, which many, many times involves deciding not to indict someone despite them being "accused" of a crime. They simply decide on their own they don't think the conduct is illegal, or that it isn't worth prosecuting, or that the facts don't support it.
Sort of like Bragg did before he didn't.
Garland operates on the Lavrenti Beria principle: “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”
Sometimes the head of the FBI pretends he is the AG and tells us why an individual was not indicted.
Amateur! He should have read that How To manual called
“Self Incrimination 4 Dummies” 3rd Edition.
Well, the problem w/ Turley, & others, was their opinion that Garland was ‘moderate’ & NOT an activist to begin (their faux ‘belief’ in govt (agents))
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.