Garland is hoping voters do his job for him. Risky at best. We can anticipate his tell all book in a log tradition of similar books on why he didn’t act even though trump was a clearly a danger to Democracy. On blue state abortions. I think it will backfire on blue states as usual. It protects red states from their own voting stupidity at the very least and adds liability for blue state providers.
Merrick Garland should and must be replaced. Drump did it with many of his Secretaries when they didn't produce the results he wanted. We need a US Attorney General who works for democracy.
Wait! Wait! I thought Florida Governor Ron DeSantis was the big "Mickey Mouse hater"! Are you telling me that Missouri Senator Josh Hawley is, too? Do clarify, Robert, as we must always give Ron proper credit! Always!
Robert, it was such a relief to read your reasoned and seasoned newsletter today. It was also a relief to read the comments of your subscribers. Beware of a new troll who has almost destroyed the comments on HCR's LFAA today. He (or it) goes by the name of Charles Blundon. His only purpose appears to attack the writer of the substack and attack commenters. Just FYI.
I do wish that we were able to get more information from Garland on what actually is happening? My only hope is that they are waiting to announce certain things in Sept / Oct before the midterms, but he's been a real disappointment thus far. Regarding Roe vs Wade, I think it's insane that 21% of American's are Catholic , yet they make up 6 out of the 9 Justices on the bench. It's hard to look at the law objectively when you have a moral obligation or belief that something is immoral. I do at this point believe that a 9 person Supreme Court is not big enough for our current population. Maybe 15 would be more appropriate.
@PhillyT, Considering in 1789, there were 6 Federal Appeals Courts and 6 Justices (1 assigned to each), compared with today’s 13 to 9 ratio, I imagine one could argue precedent for expanding the Court to 13.
Got today's newsletter, once again your mantra: Get Out The Vote must echo throughout the Democratic party guidance. We can outvote the shrinking MAGA crowd, many Republicans have been discouraged by the extremists and either will not participate or will vote for "optional" candidates. Focus on our Independent and low voter friends talk about the devastation threatened by Scott's 11 point plan: sun-setting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in 5 years for example and eliminating from education any historical truths that "damage" America's pure image. Focus on the strength of the infrastructure passed without Republican support, DEFICIT REDUCTION. And a rebuilding of the NATO alliance and SEATO by Biden's brilliant Foreign Policy team. Believe that inflation will peak this summer and that we will win in Nov.
When are we going to get organized and march on DC to demand the removal of the co-conspirators from Congress? Enough is enough. My wife and I marched there in March for Our Lives; to stop the KXL Pipeline and we have lobbied directly on this regard in each of several
Democratic Senators’ Offices (Manchin was one.) to tell them to stop demanding Obama approve the KXL PL. We have done all that while in our 70s and going by care on a fourteen-hour each way drive; and we are still willing, but we need a large contingency ready to “camp out” on the Mall until the House and Senate clean house of these traitors unfit for office and unfit for dog catcher,for that matter, because THEY ARE DOGS!
Ask yourself this; if GOP controls Congress again and their “Revenge Committees” begin issuing subpoenas to Dems on past Impeachment & Jan. 6 Committee members AND appoints a partisan AG again, will they enforce, through DOJ, anyone who protests their “Trumped up” subpoenas? Brown shirts optional!
Here’s the perfect example of why Dems can’t find their ass with two hands on messaging!
What did Madam VP Kamala Harris want to accomplish, this past week, by her comment on the vote to protect women’s right to chose? “This vote clearly suggests(!!!!????!!!!!!!!????!!!) that the Senate (excuse me, the entire Senate!!!!!????!!!!) is not where the majority of American people are on this issue.”
Let me tell you what Dem constituents were desperate to hear; what should have been in her video, played repeatedly across national news outlets, as I curled up in the fetal position every time I saw it!
“This vote clearly exposes that every single REPUBLICAN Senator, and the DINO from WV, Joe Manchin, has decided that they are against where the majority of American people on this issue!!”
There! Was that so hard! With all due respect, Madam VP, get the freaking politically correct, “when they go low, we go high” out of your DNA! Your getting played and a lot of voters a cringing at your ineptness!
Nailed it. Hearing absolutely nothing here in the most liberal state. There is NO messaging. These people have the funding, but are so inept with any type of media.
A serious question for you, a true question, not pushing you to agree with something: President Biden has full power to remove Merrick Garland as AG, immediately and without consent from anyone and without giving a reason (if I am incorrect on this, please correct me). Garland's inaction on important matters, which troubles and puzzles you (and me also) greatly will fully cease with his removal. WHY DOES PRESIDENT BIDEN NOT REMOVE HIM AND WHY HAVE YOU NOT ADDRESSED THIS VERY OBVIOUS QUESTION? It occurs to me that president Biden MAY see some benefit in Garland's inaction. In political election matters TIMING CAN BE IMPORTANT. Is action by the AG after the primaries and before the general election in November better than now because it gives the people the full play out of the important forces, then THE PUBLIC VOTES. I hasten to say that I do intend to make an excuse for the AG's inaction; I am just trying to understand it.
If Biden removes garland, he will never get another Attorney General confirmed by the senate. At that point, Lisa Monaco would become the acting Attorney General. She is exactly the same type of inbred institutionalist as Merrick Garland is. They are both more concerned about the reputation of the DOJ than they are about protecting the Constitution.
I note that DOJ alumni strongly disagree with my viewpoint and argue that I am both impatient and unsophisticated when it comes comes to the DOJ. I have never worked for the DOJ. But I think we should all acknowledge it is already too late for the DOJ to have a meaningful impact. Even if an indictment were issued tomorrow, trump would be able to run out the clock on the 2024 election and Grant himself a pardon if he is elected again. Garland has squandered a year and a 1/2 wriging his hands About prosecuting a coup that unfolded in broad daylight.
One more word: Can Cabinet appointments be held up by filibuster? Does President Biden really have to have the 60 votes to prevent a filibuster before filling Secretary of State and of Defense? How did President Biden get his Cabinet in the face of the current behavior of the Rs? Does not seem like a workable governmental structure to me.
Have your reply and thank you. Looking back at Watergate, Nixon told AG Eliot Richardson to fire Special Prosecutor Cox and fired him when he would not do so. Asst AG Wm Ruckleshaus same thing. Then next Asst AG Robt Bork did fire Cox and became AG. Was Bork confirmed by the Senate? Has the Law regarding the AG been changed since Watergate? Do not mean to argue, just trying to understand what is going on.
Merrick Garland should be asked to resign. Biden should install an "acting AG" who will pledge to indict those who defy the legal right of the House Committee to require testimony. In other words, find an AG who will do his or her job and do it promptly.
If the roles were reversed, would a Republican President do any less? It is time for the Justice Department to serve up some justice. Its failure to pursue Meadows and crew is a dereliction of duty.
When reviewing our history years from now, will Biden be vilified for not having left Garland alone or because he failed to hold the conspirators accountable? Forget the fracking politics. Just do what is right for America and the future of our democracy.
Bill, I agree completely with your and Robert’s sentiments about how blasé Garland APPEARS. This waiting is infuriating. But I strongly suspect that he is actively investigating Team Trump’s crimes, and preparing to bring charges this year.
Why? Because otherwise we would have most likely heard leaks from a few frustrated DOJ staffers, &/or intentional WH leaks saying that Biden is “very concerned” about the lack of action. There surely have to be plenty of people in both those institutions that want to see the treasonous scoundrels pay dearly, and soon. And Biden/Harris must know very well how this issue is playing badly right now with Dems. and other progressives.
So I’ll be somewhat surprised if we don’t see some much more encouraging actions by Garland, come Aug or Sept.
Lastly, MSNBC legal analyst Joyce Vance said last night that the announcement of investigating Trump for breaking security laws finally sends a strong msg. that Garland is not afraid to charge a former Pres. for criminal actions - a daunting question she thinks has been hovering over the DOJ.
I’ve also read that Garland may have much bigger charges in the works for Meadows than contempt of Congress, on which he’s focusing his staff.
Is this wishful thinking? Maybe. But I think it explains what we see at least as well as “he’s just too slow/timid”. Time will tell.
Decent points except there has been nothing but utter silence w/regard to impaneling a grand jury or FBI investigating the leadership of the coup plot. Don’t you think if there were an ongoing investigation, there would have been leaks from either those who are prosecuting or those who face prosecution? Instead, all the public hears is crickets (if Garland was going to move up the food chain (as he said) looks to me like he’s still focused on the ants).
Thanks Tyler! Good and helpful perspective. You made my day. And it is a reminder that the world doesn't end with the midterms. If the GQP takes over the House, the DOJ will still be serving at the pleasure of a Democratic President.
You're right about those GOP candidates who offer nothing but hate but, to be effective, the Democrats will have to offer positive programs and an approach other than "I'm not the Republican".
Consider these situations if Roe v. Wade is reversed and if the Red States prohibit abortions:
1. Your 17 year old daughter gets drunk at a party and gets raped. She will now have to carry the child to term. If she aborts, she will be charged with murder. If the father or a neighbor) (drives her to another state, they will be charged with murder also.
2. You and your wife have 4 children and you are both now over 50. Your contraceptives didn't work and she is pregnant. She will now have to carry the child to term or be charged with murder.
3. An uncle impregnates his 12 year old niece while she is visiting on a holiday. She will now have to carry the child to term.
4. A woman with terminal cancer gets pregnant. She will now have to carry the child to term, even though the health of the mother and the child will be impaired.
Put these questions to Ron Johnson (who, because he is seen as a "полезный идиот" (useful idiot,) was selected by the Russians to be the diseminator of disinformation in the last election cycle).
Simple solution, require the father of the fetus to assume responsibility at it’s birth. Downside, the mother’s body will have been required for this outcome. How does the male participation NEVER get addressed.
These scenarios are exactly what we need to be talking about. We can also elaborate on them. For example, in #1, the teenage daughter now has to decide how to raise that child. Will she be able to go to the college to which she has already been accepted? How will she afford to provide care and get educated - what choices will she make? Who will REALLY raise that child? Its grandparents? What about the other half of that equation - the rapist? Does he now have rights over this child? I submit that Johnson is too much the idiot - useful or not - to have any coherent answer to any of your questions above, nor does he care about the ones I just added.
Garland is hoping voters do his job for him. Risky at best. We can anticipate his tell all book in a log tradition of similar books on why he didn’t act even though trump was a clearly a danger to Democracy. On blue state abortions. I think it will backfire on blue states as usual. It protects red states from their own voting stupidity at the very least and adds liability for blue state providers.
Merrick Garland should and must be replaced. Drump did it with many of his Secretaries when they didn't produce the results he wanted. We need a US Attorney General who works for democracy.
May 14 and no newsletter? Everything okay? Stephen
Chump has always been a weathervane. Rush and the Reagan nuts paved the hateful way…
Wait! Wait! I thought Florida Governor Ron DeSantis was the big "Mickey Mouse hater"! Are you telling me that Missouri Senator Josh Hawley is, too? Do clarify, Robert, as we must always give Ron proper credit! Always!
Robert, it was such a relief to read your reasoned and seasoned newsletter today. It was also a relief to read the comments of your subscribers. Beware of a new troll who has almost destroyed the comments on HCR's LFAA today. He (or it) goes by the name of Charles Blundon. His only purpose appears to attack the writer of the substack and attack commenters. Just FYI.
I didn't see any posts from him, but I came late to her LFAA today and have not gone through all 541 comments. Could they have been taken down?
I do wish that we were able to get more information from Garland on what actually is happening? My only hope is that they are waiting to announce certain things in Sept / Oct before the midterms, but he's been a real disappointment thus far. Regarding Roe vs Wade, I think it's insane that 21% of American's are Catholic , yet they make up 6 out of the 9 Justices on the bench. It's hard to look at the law objectively when you have a moral obligation or belief that something is immoral. I do at this point believe that a 9 person Supreme Court is not big enough for our current population. Maybe 15 would be more appropriate.
@PhillyT, Considering in 1789, there were 6 Federal Appeals Courts and 6 Justices (1 assigned to each), compared with today’s 13 to 9 ratio, I imagine one could argue precedent for expanding the Court to 13.
Absolutely agreed
Less than 23% of West Virginian voted in the Republican Primary. How does that constitute a Democratic crisis. Let’s see PA results next.
Most interesting. No cause for complacency though.
Got today's newsletter, once again your mantra: Get Out The Vote must echo throughout the Democratic party guidance. We can outvote the shrinking MAGA crowd, many Republicans have been discouraged by the extremists and either will not participate or will vote for "optional" candidates. Focus on our Independent and low voter friends talk about the devastation threatened by Scott's 11 point plan: sun-setting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in 5 years for example and eliminating from education any historical truths that "damage" America's pure image. Focus on the strength of the infrastructure passed without Republican support, DEFICIT REDUCTION. And a rebuilding of the NATO alliance and SEATO by Biden's brilliant Foreign Policy team. Believe that inflation will peak this summer and that we will win in Nov.
When are we going to get organized and march on DC to demand the removal of the co-conspirators from Congress? Enough is enough. My wife and I marched there in March for Our Lives; to stop the KXL Pipeline and we have lobbied directly on this regard in each of several
Democratic Senators’ Offices (Manchin was one.) to tell them to stop demanding Obama approve the KXL PL. We have done all that while in our 70s and going by care on a fourteen-hour each way drive; and we are still willing, but we need a large contingency ready to “camp out” on the Mall until the House and Senate clean house of these traitors unfit for office and unfit for dog catcher,for that matter, because THEY ARE DOGS!
Ask yourself this; if GOP controls Congress again and their “Revenge Committees” begin issuing subpoenas to Dems on past Impeachment & Jan. 6 Committee members AND appoints a partisan AG again, will they enforce, through DOJ, anyone who protests their “Trumped up” subpoenas? Brown shirts optional!
Here’s the perfect example of why Dems can’t find their ass with two hands on messaging!
What did Madam VP Kamala Harris want to accomplish, this past week, by her comment on the vote to protect women’s right to chose? “This vote clearly suggests(!!!!????!!!!!!!!????!!!) that the Senate (excuse me, the entire Senate!!!!!????!!!!) is not where the majority of American people are on this issue.”
Let me tell you what Dem constituents were desperate to hear; what should have been in her video, played repeatedly across national news outlets, as I curled up in the fetal position every time I saw it!
“This vote clearly exposes that every single REPUBLICAN Senator, and the DINO from WV, Joe Manchin, has decided that they are against where the majority of American people on this issue!!”
There! Was that so hard! With all due respect, Madam VP, get the freaking politically correct, “when they go low, we go high” out of your DNA! Your getting played and a lot of voters a cringing at your ineptness!
Nailed it. Hearing absolutely nothing here in the most liberal state. There is NO messaging. These people have the funding, but are so inept with any type of media.
Exactly. Dems are dim on messaging. They just don’t get it. Incapable of blaming Sigh.
1. State the common Values. 2. Name the Villain. 3. Show the Vision.
Voila! The "3-V sandwich"! Effective messaging. How hard is that to do?
it's been beyond the Dems for my lifetime -- and I'm old
❤️
I completely agree!
A serious question for you, a true question, not pushing you to agree with something: President Biden has full power to remove Merrick Garland as AG, immediately and without consent from anyone and without giving a reason (if I am incorrect on this, please correct me). Garland's inaction on important matters, which troubles and puzzles you (and me also) greatly will fully cease with his removal. WHY DOES PRESIDENT BIDEN NOT REMOVE HIM AND WHY HAVE YOU NOT ADDRESSED THIS VERY OBVIOUS QUESTION? It occurs to me that president Biden MAY see some benefit in Garland's inaction. In political election matters TIMING CAN BE IMPORTANT. Is action by the AG after the primaries and before the general election in November better than now because it gives the people the full play out of the important forces, then THE PUBLIC VOTES. I hasten to say that I do intend to make an excuse for the AG's inaction; I am just trying to understand it.
If Biden removes garland, he will never get another Attorney General confirmed by the senate. At that point, Lisa Monaco would become the acting Attorney General. She is exactly the same type of inbred institutionalist as Merrick Garland is. They are both more concerned about the reputation of the DOJ than they are about protecting the Constitution.
I note that DOJ alumni strongly disagree with my viewpoint and argue that I am both impatient and unsophisticated when it comes comes to the DOJ. I have never worked for the DOJ. But I think we should all acknowledge it is already too late for the DOJ to have a meaningful impact. Even if an indictment were issued tomorrow, trump would be able to run out the clock on the 2024 election and Grant himself a pardon if he is elected again. Garland has squandered a year and a 1/2 wriging his hands About prosecuting a coup that unfolded in broad daylight.
One more word: Can Cabinet appointments be held up by filibuster? Does President Biden really have to have the 60 votes to prevent a filibuster before filling Secretary of State and of Defense? How did President Biden get his Cabinet in the face of the current behavior of the Rs? Does not seem like a workable governmental structure to me.
Have your reply and thank you. Looking back at Watergate, Nixon told AG Eliot Richardson to fire Special Prosecutor Cox and fired him when he would not do so. Asst AG Wm Ruckleshaus same thing. Then next Asst AG Robt Bork did fire Cox and became AG. Was Bork confirmed by the Senate? Has the Law regarding the AG been changed since Watergate? Do not mean to argue, just trying to understand what is going on.
Be of good heart. The tide is turning. Oh, yeah, and do all you can to help the tide turn.
Merrick Garland should be asked to resign. Biden should install an "acting AG" who will pledge to indict those who defy the legal right of the House Committee to require testimony. In other words, find an AG who will do his or her job and do it promptly.
If the roles were reversed, would a Republican President do any less? It is time for the Justice Department to serve up some justice. Its failure to pursue Meadows and crew is a dereliction of duty.
When reviewing our history years from now, will Biden be vilified for not having left Garland alone or because he failed to hold the conspirators accountable? Forget the fracking politics. Just do what is right for America and the future of our democracy.
Bill, I agree completely with your and Robert’s sentiments about how blasé Garland APPEARS. This waiting is infuriating. But I strongly suspect that he is actively investigating Team Trump’s crimes, and preparing to bring charges this year.
Why? Because otherwise we would have most likely heard leaks from a few frustrated DOJ staffers, &/or intentional WH leaks saying that Biden is “very concerned” about the lack of action. There surely have to be plenty of people in both those institutions that want to see the treasonous scoundrels pay dearly, and soon. And Biden/Harris must know very well how this issue is playing badly right now with Dems. and other progressives.
So I’ll be somewhat surprised if we don’t see some much more encouraging actions by Garland, come Aug or Sept.
Lastly, MSNBC legal analyst Joyce Vance said last night that the announcement of investigating Trump for breaking security laws finally sends a strong msg. that Garland is not afraid to charge a former Pres. for criminal actions - a daunting question she thinks has been hovering over the DOJ.
I’ve also read that Garland may have much bigger charges in the works for Meadows than contempt of Congress, on which he’s focusing his staff.
Is this wishful thinking? Maybe. But I think it explains what we see at least as well as “he’s just too slow/timid”. Time will tell.
and the clock ticks
Decent points except there has been nothing but utter silence w/regard to impaneling a grand jury or FBI investigating the leadership of the coup plot. Don’t you think if there were an ongoing investigation, there would have been leaks from either those who are prosecuting or those who face prosecution? Instead, all the public hears is crickets (if Garland was going to move up the food chain (as he said) looks to me like he’s still focused on the ants).
Thanks Tyler! Good and helpful perspective. You made my day. And it is a reminder that the world doesn't end with the midterms. If the GQP takes over the House, the DOJ will still be serving at the pleasure of a Democratic President.
Absolutely!
You're right about those GOP candidates who offer nothing but hate but, to be effective, the Democrats will have to offer positive programs and an approach other than "I'm not the Republican".
Consider these situations if Roe v. Wade is reversed and if the Red States prohibit abortions:
1. Your 17 year old daughter gets drunk at a party and gets raped. She will now have to carry the child to term. If she aborts, she will be charged with murder. If the father or a neighbor) (drives her to another state, they will be charged with murder also.
2. You and your wife have 4 children and you are both now over 50. Your contraceptives didn't work and she is pregnant. She will now have to carry the child to term or be charged with murder.
3. An uncle impregnates his 12 year old niece while she is visiting on a holiday. She will now have to carry the child to term.
4. A woman with terminal cancer gets pregnant. She will now have to carry the child to term, even though the health of the mother and the child will be impaired.
Put these questions to Ron Johnson (who, because he is seen as a "полезный идиот" (useful idiot,) was selected by the Russians to be the diseminator of disinformation in the last election cycle).
https://www.justsecurity.org/71947/how-sen-ron-johnsons-investigation-became-an-enabler-of-russian-disinformation-part-i/
Hey Republican Warship. . . .
Simple solution, require the father of the fetus to assume responsibility at it’s birth. Downside, the mother’s body will have been required for this outcome. How does the male participation NEVER get addressed.
These scenarios are exactly what we need to be talking about. We can also elaborate on them. For example, in #1, the teenage daughter now has to decide how to raise that child. Will she be able to go to the college to which she has already been accepted? How will she afford to provide care and get educated - what choices will she make? Who will REALLY raise that child? Its grandparents? What about the other half of that equation - the rapist? Does he now have rights over this child? I submit that Johnson is too much the idiot - useful or not - to have any coherent answer to any of your questions above, nor does he care about the ones I just added.
All good points. And Democrats need to be asking them?