Regarding the impact of Alito's leaked draft opinion, one important group it appears to have energized is Democratic candidates. The Court's view and prospective additional horrible positions appears to feel immediate and personal to candidates in the way other issues have not.
I like that you use the term "MAGA" Robert. At some point it can take on a life of its own as a strong negative perjorative in the general population. And some research I saw yesterday supports using the term. But to bring it out more and for people who may know what it means, suggest we take a page out of the Republican playbook and routinely add the adjective "extremist". Thus "extremist MAGA" just as they would routinely use a phrase like "socialist left", etc. And they are clearly extremist.
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).
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.
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.
May 13, 2022·edited May 13, 2022Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
I am attending a protest on Roe V Wade this Saturday. I have to get involved somehow.
Every poll I see that shows Republicans surging on inflation makes me feel sick, but deep down I have a feeling that they will lose in the long term.
Louisiana caved to public pressure and messaging recently. They removed the part of their new abortion bill that would charge women and doctors with homicide.
I have a feeling that ordinary American people will not accept the GOP's policies no matter how the GOP tries to subvert elections. Even if they do get some crazy people in, and even if some Qanon secretaries of state take over, I have a feeling that there's only so much they can do to lift an increasingly unpopular party.
People who want inflation to go down aren't asking for social conservatism. I understand the danger we are all in, but authoritarian regimes have been defeated many times in history. Humanity has faced insurmountable odds before and I don't see how the current situation is a reason to surrender and give in to despair.
I'm not trying to spread "polyannish optimism." I know the threats we are facing. But the younger generations are more liberal and, if anything, these new draconian laws targeting them will backfire when they become of voting age. Any attempt to destroy gay marriage or contraception will make the protests now look like peanuts.
The GOP talks big, and they will probably win the house and senate. But it's our job to shoo away the doomsayers and stay strong as their policies tank their popularity. In order for autocrats to succeed, they need a lot of the population on their side. I know people bring up Hungary, but that is a country with a population that is 98% smaller than America.
They say "once democracy is gone, we will be fascist forever." But I don't believe that. I believe, like you said, that we WILL win and that it's just a matter of time. The GOP needs to keep its growing coalition of Hispanic, female and working class voters together. They are riding on the low approval of Biden and not by their own popularity. Even with their gerrymandering, Dems can absolutely still win the house in a blue wave year, which I believe will happen in 2026 is (God Forbid) Biden loses. And no, the GOP can't simply throw Democratic ballots in the trash if enough people vote.
I will continue to strive for a better future, even if it's "naïve" or "foolish." Because I refuse to spend the rest of my life depressed and worried. It's time to stop doomscrolling and start working for a future we can be proud of.
I agree with what you say except for the assertion that the GOP will win the House and Senate. That is just what MSM will have us believe, but every day I see the GOP painting themselves into their hateful little corner where they will eventually become powerless. It's true that the haters have a louder megaphone through our MSM, but I have faith that we have more lovers than haters in this country. We just need to get them out to vote. Thank you for going to the March. I hope to see marches all over the country covered by local media coverage, encouraging more to engage in our fight to maintain democracy.
It’s not the Fox typical viewer we need to reach its Independents fed up with their brand of Republicans and Republican women who wake up and realize the Republicans don’t respect woman or their rights. These folks are not all Fox viewers.
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.
May 13, 2022·edited May 13, 2022Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
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.
Trump’s every move has motivation in delaying/averting his own mounting legal morass — enabled by self-absorbed GOP members (and Manchin), his PAC money machine, and DOJ. Roy Cohn would be proud.
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.
In simple terms (non-lawyerly!) can you explain AG Garland’s strategy? Is he another Joe Manchin… an R in D clothing… or is he using a Muhammad Ali “rope-a-dope” strategy? Will he come out swinging once the investigation is concluded and issue indictments and knock out some of the arrogant, over-confident Republicans?
Hi all apologies for the delay in reading and responding to today's comments. On the road.I do not believe that Garland has a strategy. I believe that he is an institutionalist who is overly worried about appearing to be political. The Constitution demands more from him, but he is incapable of delivering.
Robert- what is our avenue for creating pressure on Garland to launch his own investigation of the Jan 6th coup and ongoing attempt to erode democracy?
The unfortunate reality is that the DOJ is set up in a way to avoid to avoid political pressure influencing prosecutions. If Biden were to fire Garland, he would never get another Attorney General confirmed. Lisa Monaco would then become the acting Attorney General. Like Garland, she is part of the problem. She is an institutionalist who is more worried about the reputation of the DOJ than protecting the Constitution. It is disappointing, but I do not believe the DOJ is part of the solution here. That is why the work of the house select committee is so important.
Robert, In my view, the work of the House Select Committee, no matter how effective, will be devastatingly diminished, if not altogether delegitimized, if the perpetrators at the top are not held criminally accountable. Hence, the idea that DOJ leadership, quoting you, “is more worried about the reputation of the DOJ than protecting the Constitution,” at least to me, is nonsense we can’t accept.
Lynn, While we wait for Robert to respond, I would note that if DOJ does not start issuing indictments, for which, I believe, there is sufficient factual predication, to the top-level perpetrators of the crime up to and including the former President, I fear both that our civic institutions will be dealt a devastating blow and also that voters, to varying degrees, could view the Select Committee hearings next month as principally political. Though I continue to deploy letters to Main Justice, some solicited by various grassroots organizations, I believe, given the stakes, that a more coherent, methodical, movement is called for.
Jon, Though I understand a number of White House staffers are frustrated by Garland’s “glacial pace,” considering the President pledged not to interfere with DOJ, a call for Garland’s resignation at this critical juncture likely would be viewed as political.
You know, EVERYTHING will be viewed as political--viz. Robert's note that Kevin (or should it be Qevin?) McCarthy claims that the January 6th Committee's subpoena is political. Time to get down from our high horse and say, "OK, it's political. And we've got the high ground."
Jon, In my view, only the hard core MAGA crowd would view the Committee’s subpoenas as political. Not quite so sure about a call for Garland’s resignation. As stated above, I would much prefer a resignation that appeared to be initiated by Garland and have not ruled out that possibility.
May 13, 2022·edited May 13, 2022Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
I think turn-out will be the pivot. If the Dems know that their candidates are better and saner, and assume that they and the majority of their state agrees with them (as in PA), then they may stay home. They may believe that the horror on the far right is so obvious that someone else will do the voting for them. Trump is a master at riling up the crazies. We need to be on guard. And VOTE!
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.
I'm beginning to wonder whether it was McConnell's genius that he blocked Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court. He now has an Attorney General he can truly admire!
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.
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".
Regarding the impact of Alito's leaked draft opinion, one important group it appears to have energized is Democratic candidates. The Court's view and prospective additional horrible positions appears to feel immediate and personal to candidates in the way other issues have not.
We will find out in November. The best we can hope for is huge voter turnouts.
I like that you use the term "MAGA" Robert. At some point it can take on a life of its own as a strong negative perjorative in the general population. And some research I saw yesterday supports using the term. But to bring it out more and for people who may know what it means, suggest we take a page out of the Republican playbook and routinely add the adjective "extremist". Thus "extremist MAGA" just as they would routinely use a phrase like "socialist left", etc. And they are clearly extremist.
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. . . .
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?
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.
Where's Waldo, I mean Merrick?
I am attending a protest on Roe V Wade this Saturday. I have to get involved somehow.
Every poll I see that shows Republicans surging on inflation makes me feel sick, but deep down I have a feeling that they will lose in the long term.
Louisiana caved to public pressure and messaging recently. They removed the part of their new abortion bill that would charge women and doctors with homicide.
I have a feeling that ordinary American people will not accept the GOP's policies no matter how the GOP tries to subvert elections. Even if they do get some crazy people in, and even if some Qanon secretaries of state take over, I have a feeling that there's only so much they can do to lift an increasingly unpopular party.
People who want inflation to go down aren't asking for social conservatism. I understand the danger we are all in, but authoritarian regimes have been defeated many times in history. Humanity has faced insurmountable odds before and I don't see how the current situation is a reason to surrender and give in to despair.
I'm not trying to spread "polyannish optimism." I know the threats we are facing. But the younger generations are more liberal and, if anything, these new draconian laws targeting them will backfire when they become of voting age. Any attempt to destroy gay marriage or contraception will make the protests now look like peanuts.
The GOP talks big, and they will probably win the house and senate. But it's our job to shoo away the doomsayers and stay strong as their policies tank their popularity. In order for autocrats to succeed, they need a lot of the population on their side. I know people bring up Hungary, but that is a country with a population that is 98% smaller than America.
They say "once democracy is gone, we will be fascist forever." But I don't believe that. I believe, like you said, that we WILL win and that it's just a matter of time. The GOP needs to keep its growing coalition of Hispanic, female and working class voters together. They are riding on the low approval of Biden and not by their own popularity. Even with their gerrymandering, Dems can absolutely still win the house in a blue wave year, which I believe will happen in 2026 is (God Forbid) Biden loses. And no, the GOP can't simply throw Democratic ballots in the trash if enough people vote.
I will continue to strive for a better future, even if it's "naïve" or "foolish." Because I refuse to spend the rest of my life depressed and worried. It's time to stop doomscrolling and start working for a future we can be proud of.
I agree with what you say except for the assertion that the GOP will win the House and Senate. That is just what MSM will have us believe, but every day I see the GOP painting themselves into their hateful little corner where they will eventually become powerless. It's true that the haters have a louder megaphone through our MSM, but I have faith that we have more lovers than haters in this country. We just need to get them out to vote. Thank you for going to the March. I hope to see marches all over the country covered by local media coverage, encouraging more to engage in our fight to maintain democracy.
It’s not “ naive or foolish it’s patriotic.
You neglect to mention the elephant in the room,, Fox propaganda machine. It grinds on in Texas ANZd all over the land. Otherwise, I would agree
It’s not the Fox typical viewer we need to reach its Independents fed up with their brand of Republicans and Republican women who wake up and realize the Republicans don’t respect woman or their rights. These folks are not all Fox viewers.
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.
Absolutely!
and the clock ticks
Trump’s every move has motivation in delaying/averting his own mounting legal morass — enabled by self-absorbed GOP members (and Manchin), his PAC money machine, and DOJ. Roy Cohn would be proud.
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!
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
❤️
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.
I completely agree!
Be of good heart. The tide is turning. Oh, yeah, and do all you can to help the tide turn.
Mr. Hubbell
In simple terms (non-lawyerly!) can you explain AG Garland’s strategy? Is he another Joe Manchin… an R in D clothing… or is he using a Muhammad Ali “rope-a-dope” strategy? Will he come out swinging once the investigation is concluded and issue indictments and knock out some of the arrogant, over-confident Republicans?
Hi all apologies for the delay in reading and responding to today's comments. On the road.I do not believe that Garland has a strategy. I believe that he is an institutionalist who is overly worried about appearing to be political. The Constitution demands more from him, but he is incapable of delivering.
Robert- what is our avenue for creating pressure on Garland to launch his own investigation of the Jan 6th coup and ongoing attempt to erode democracy?
The unfortunate reality is that the DOJ is set up in a way to avoid to avoid political pressure influencing prosecutions. If Biden were to fire Garland, he would never get another Attorney General confirmed. Lisa Monaco would then become the acting Attorney General. Like Garland, she is part of the problem. She is an institutionalist who is more worried about the reputation of the DOJ than protecting the Constitution. It is disappointing, but I do not believe the DOJ is part of the solution here. That is why the work of the house select committee is so important.
Robert, In my view, the work of the House Select Committee, no matter how effective, will be devastatingly diminished, if not altogether delegitimized, if the perpetrators at the top are not held criminally accountable. Hence, the idea that DOJ leadership, quoting you, “is more worried about the reputation of the DOJ than protecting the Constitution,” at least to me, is nonsense we can’t accept.
Lynn, While we wait for Robert to respond, I would note that if DOJ does not start issuing indictments, for which, I believe, there is sufficient factual predication, to the top-level perpetrators of the crime up to and including the former President, I fear both that our civic institutions will be dealt a devastating blow and also that voters, to varying degrees, could view the Select Committee hearings next month as principally political. Though I continue to deploy letters to Main Justice, some solicited by various grassroots organizations, I believe, given the stakes, that a more coherent, methodical, movement is called for.
Perhaps writing to the White House to call for Garland's resignation.
Jon, Though I understand a number of White House staffers are frustrated by Garland’s “glacial pace,” considering the President pledged not to interfere with DOJ, a call for Garland’s resignation at this critical juncture likely would be viewed as political.
Jon, The foregoing notwithstanding, I wholly would support a resignation that appeared to be initiated by Garland.
You know, EVERYTHING will be viewed as political--viz. Robert's note that Kevin (or should it be Qevin?) McCarthy claims that the January 6th Committee's subpoena is political. Time to get down from our high horse and say, "OK, it's political. And we've got the high ground."
Jon, In my view, only the hard core MAGA crowd would view the Committee’s subpoenas as political. Not quite so sure about a call for Garland’s resignation. As stated above, I would much prefer a resignation that appeared to be initiated by Garland and have not ruled out that possibility.
He—or the DOJ—is investigating, but at a glacial pace.
I think turn-out will be the pivot. If the Dems know that their candidates are better and saner, and assume that they and the majority of their state agrees with them (as in PA), then they may stay home. They may believe that the horror on the far right is so obvious that someone else will do the voting for them. Trump is a master at riling up the crazies. We need to be on guard. And VOTE!
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.
I'm beginning to wonder whether it was McConnell's genius that he blocked Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court. He now has an Attorney General he can truly admire!
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.
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".