Merrick Garland's Dilemma

[dutch508]

Star Member kentuck (101,852 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215516873

Merrick Garland's Dilemma

The Attorney-General is an institutionalist. He said he believes in the rule of law. Most folks consider him an honest and decent man.

With the latest revelations of the former president's use of the Justice Department to spy on reporters, and on Democratic Congressmen that were over-seeing his role in the Mueller investigation, Merrick Garland must make a decision.

Does he let the different State authorities continue to investigate and prosecute, and disregard the Federal crimes that may have been committed by Mr Trump? Or does he follow the rule of law?

He truly believes that no man is above the law. Most especially, the President of the United States. He should set the example for the rest of America.

Bribery, extortion, perjury, obstruction of justice, and sedition are still crimes, even if committed from the White House. They have all been investigated thoroughly. He was impeached for two of the offenses already.

If Mr Garland truly believes in the rule of law, he must protect it from those that would abuse it from the highest levels of our government.

Mr. Garlands dilemma is whether or not to prosecute for crimes committed while in the White House.

Should those be exempt? Or should they take priority over any crimes that may have happened before and after Mr Trump left the White House. The crimes committed during the four years in the White House cannot and should not be swept under the rug.

They are more important than anything that might have happened in New York before he became the President. The Presidency and the rule of law are at stake.

 

Star Member Scrivener7 (36,504 posts)

1. This is not a dilemma. There is no question about this. If this is not fully investigated and prosecuted, our Democracy is lost. If it is not prosecuted, this will be how republiQans ALWAYS conduct themselves in the future.

The Department of Justice is not "in the White House." Whether Donny bodybags can be prosecuted is a matter of debate, though only because republiQans have decreed tht it is a matter of debate.

But those who facilitated this were never "in the White House." They must all be prosecuted and if Garland does not do it, he will be complicit in the downfall of our Democracy.

 

[USA4ME]

Two things:

1) Was Bush prosecuted like the primitives thought he would be? No. Then neither will Trump.

It's for the same reason in that they didn't commit any crimes. But you can't tell the primitives that; they're not bright enough to comprehend it. But even in their screwed up worldview, there won't be any prosecutions, and that will drive them bonkers.

2) If democracy is as fragile as the primitives make it out to be, then maybe it doesn't deserve to continue to exist.

I say that realizing it's NOT as fragile as they claim, but in their world it's always on the edge of going away. If what they believe is in fact the case, then I suggest it should die from weakness.

.

[ADsOutburst]

Bribery, extortion, perjury, obstruction of justice, and sedition are still crimes, even if committed from the White House. They have all been investigated thoroughly. He was impeached for two of the offenses already.

And? What may I ask was the outcome of those impeachments? 

Also, he was impeached for obstruction of justice, but precisely zero of the other offenses listed. And the obstruction charge was the height of inanity. In the first case, if the democrats were confident in their ability to make the case for bribery or extortion, they would have charged that. But they didn't. Instead, they made up an offense and called it "abuse of power". In the second case, they claimed "incitement", which again required considerable mental gymnastics.

And I'm sorry, but any invocation of law and order by democrats just rings hollow.