I can appreciate your disappointment in M. Garland. So many of us had high, high hopes that he would stand up forcefully and publicly for the rule of law and, at the very, very least, be transparent. When he was nominated for AG I remember saying to myself, "Perhaps things work out for the best--he may be more effective as an AG than he might have been as SC justice." I really don't want to find myself saying: "What the hell happened to Merrick Garland?" (Thanks for your ceaseless efforts to keep our spirits up. I really appreciate you and your managing editor.)
Your chastisement of Merrick Garland is some of the strongest I've seen from you. Is there anything you would suggest that we, as citizens, do to push the Attorney General toward more transparency?
Garland is getting it from all sides in the media. if that doesn't get his attention, nothing will. There is hardly anything that private citizens can do to move the Attorney General. By design, he is supposed to be insulated from political suasion.
I'd give Garland a little more time to prove himself. He may turn out to be a bust, but important things often take more time than we'd expect, and that turns out to be justified when the details become known.
As for the infrastructure "deal," I doubt that there is a deal, and if there is it's much too narrow and too small. Biden's original plan was just about right. Every time it gets narrowed, it gets less good.
I agree that Garland deserves more time, but his silence is inexcusable. At the very least, he could say, "Give me more time to make things right." Moreover, the DOJ continued to conceal the seizure of cell phone metadata until the carriers provided notice to the subjects of the subpoenas. Why did Garland maintain the secrecy over those subpoenas, when the Department later admitted that the were inappropriate? Something doesn't add up. Either Garland is a poor leader/ communicator or his instincts to defend the institution are distorting his judgments. I am worried about his ability to make things right, but would be happy to be proven wrong on all counts.
How about giving Garland some breathing room. The person you want at DOJ is not the person who got the nod to be AG. He is not going to shoot from the hip or mouth off. If you don't see any positives from him sixty days from now then it will be time enough to start eating our own. I don't need to see us eating our own. My first choice was sally Yates I can't recall who Bob Hubbell should get the nod.
His closing sentiments are as positive, hopeful and uplifting as ever, acknowledging the challenges but heartening us that together we CAN and WILL do it! Treasure indeed!
I can appreciate your disappointment in M. Garland. So many of us had high, high hopes that he would stand up forcefully and publicly for the rule of law and, at the very, very least, be transparent. When he was nominated for AG I remember saying to myself, "Perhaps things work out for the best--he may be more effective as an AG than he might have been as SC justice." I really don't want to find myself saying: "What the hell happened to Merrick Garland?" (Thanks for your ceaseless efforts to keep our spirits up. I really appreciate you and your managing editor.)
Your chastisement of Merrick Garland is some of the strongest I've seen from you. Is there anything you would suggest that we, as citizens, do to push the Attorney General toward more transparency?
Garland is getting it from all sides in the media. if that doesn't get his attention, nothing will. There is hardly anything that private citizens can do to move the Attorney General. By design, he is supposed to be insulated from political suasion.
That's what I figured, but we live in "interesting times", so thought I would ask...
I'd give Garland a little more time to prove himself. He may turn out to be a bust, but important things often take more time than we'd expect, and that turns out to be justified when the details become known.
As for the infrastructure "deal," I doubt that there is a deal, and if there is it's much too narrow and too small. Biden's original plan was just about right. Every time it gets narrowed, it gets less good.
I agree that Garland deserves more time, but his silence is inexcusable. At the very least, he could say, "Give me more time to make things right." Moreover, the DOJ continued to conceal the seizure of cell phone metadata until the carriers provided notice to the subjects of the subpoenas. Why did Garland maintain the secrecy over those subpoenas, when the Department later admitted that the were inappropriate? Something doesn't add up. Either Garland is a poor leader/ communicator or his instincts to defend the institution are distorting his judgments. I am worried about his ability to make things right, but would be happy to be proven wrong on all counts.
How about giving Garland some breathing room. The person you want at DOJ is not the person who got the nod to be AG. He is not going to shoot from the hip or mouth off. If you don't see any positives from him sixty days from now then it will be time enough to start eating our own. I don't need to see us eating our own. My first choice was sally Yates I can't recall who Bob Hubbell should get the nod.
His closing sentiments are as positive, hopeful and uplifting as ever, acknowledging the challenges but heartening us that together we CAN and WILL do it! Treasure indeed!