I think you just posted my favorite story of the day.

Biden too

To defend the legality of the choice of Jack Smith as special counsel in the Trump / top secret files case. He should stand tall for releasing the results of Smith's investigation.

The notion of Garland being forthcoming is rather naive at best, who is Garcia playing I wonder?

Except for maybe the GOP and Federalist Society. Merr is a member of both, which his misguided devotees seem to conveniently overlook.

...by saying he's not only looking for information from Bondi and Trump's DOJ, but has an equal opportunity expectation of accountability.

It doesn't mean that Garland is hiding something or did something wrong. It's a position of non-partisanship, much more than some indictment of Garland as many of the replies here suggest.

He orchestrated the nabbing of Epstein and evidence at Epstein's NYC townhouse, island, and Zorro Ranch.

I think Barr was involved in Epstein's "suicide".

Not together of course. Not even on the same day. But they both need ot face the American people and answer our questions honestly and completely.

Yes!

and refuse to comment on anything that might implicate Trump in a crime.

You know----like he did for four straight years as Attorney General.

But he may refuse to comment on the ground that there is an ongoing investigation/litigation. It's the same reason Garland never discussed Epstein while he was in office.

....but let's just run with this fact-free innuendo against Garland.

Better yet, let's take focus off of this Trump controlled DOJ and their responsibility for presently violating the law just passed that mandates release of all files.

Let's focus on something that invites a 'both sides' deflection which has already been addressed by Merrick Garland.


Holder and Garland deny knowledge of Epstein files in letters to House Oversight Committee

"Although I cannot rule out that I ever received a status update on matters pertaining to Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell in my role as Attorney General, I do not recall any such update or any other kind of report," Garland wrote to the committee.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/holder-and-garland-deny-knowledge-of-epstein-files-in-letters-to-house-oversight-committee/ar-AA1NH0iG


...we can call Garland a liar on this without any proof presented at all, or, we can look at some facts:


julie k. brown* @jkbjournalist
Again...the Epstein case was still an OPEN criminal investigation during the Biden administration. They had an open grand jury ... And even after Maxwell's conviction, the case was on appeal -- anyone in law enforcement knows you don't open your case file when it's still under appeal. There were still victims going to the FBI with new information. That changed when Trump's DOJ reviewed the files and closed the case in July. · Nov 17, 2025

*Miami Herald journalist whose investigation led to the arrests of Jeffrey Epstein & Ghislaine Maxwell. Author, "Perversion of Justice."

JB quoted: "There were still victims going to the FBI with new information. That changed when Trump's DOJ reviewed the files and closed the case in July."
https://www.unilad.com/news/us-news/why-biden-didnt-release-epstein-files-377071-20251120

Like a moth to light

Imagine being that devoted to…Merrick Garland.

Garland didn't want to comment on Epstein because it could endanger the conviction, which was on appeal. Trump is constantly commenting on ongoing criminal litigation, like the lawless idiot that he is, and it has indeed hurt the prosecutors in those cases. Trump's hateful language about the defendants created evidence of selective prosecution, giving grounds for dismissal, as happened with Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

To bang this drum that Democrats could have brought up what's in the Epstein files during Biden’s administration, but didn’t, plays into the Trump/Republican narrative that Democrats are only bringing it up now for political reasons. That fact is, the Epstein files were the subject of ongoing investigations until July of 2025 when Bondi announced closure of all pending Epstein related investigations, and issued a memo announcing that no further investigations or disclosures were warranted. https://www.npr.org/2025/07/07/g-s1-76367/doj-jeffrey-epstein-memo#:~:text=Bondi%20has%20long%20promised%20to,let%20her%20speak%20for%20that.%22

Not impressed, moved, swayed etc. better question is why Garland devotees are so opposed to him testifying. Very odd.

As far as his handling of the Trump prosecutions, I think it is pretty clear the consensus is, even among the people you call the "Garland Society," that he should have moved faster and more aggressively. Hindsight is 20/20.

I don’t know any "Garland devotees," nor anyone here who opposes him testifying.

We should not repeat right wing talking points here.

“Merrick Garland dropped the ball,” were his exact words.

Ted Lieu is not one to parrot RW talking points. I would like to see him question Garland.

I believe the reference was to pace of prosecutions of Epstein co-conspirators. And he may have a point about that.

Suggesting that Democrats could have but didn't release Epstein files under Biden, and are only calling for it now because of politics (to try to damage Trump) is a right wing talking point. Liu is certainly not saying that. But some here are implying that, which is not helpful.

Trump is constantly commenting on ongoing criminal litigation, like the lawless idiot that he is, and it has indeed hurt the prosecutors in those cases. Trump's hateful language about the defendants created evidence of selective prosecution, giving grounds for dismissal, as happened with Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

...but more than that, it's a part of the frustration watching the republicans and Trump break every rule and law they want that's in their way, seemingly with ultimate impunity from accountability and judgment.

It's part of why dictatorships often have appeal to populaces who've been subjected to government failure to produce for the people.

When trust in the systems in place that are supposed to ensure and defend those things collapses, that appeal of 'extra-judicial' or similar disdain for laws and norms blocking interference or partisan political use of the DOJ can ignite in that vacuum of lawlessness in favor of a sort of righteous vigilantism which throws it all in a chaotic muddle of competing interests, instead of strict adherence to the law.

That's what people who are invested in the law are protecting when they, for instance, refuse to publicly reveal dirt of political opponents; especially in the midst of a political election in which one of the candidates is a subject of investigation.

There's also an unhealthy expectation that the Garland DOJ should have been more concerned with winning the election for Democrats, instead of following the evidence and defending it against appeals and challenges in the grand jury process which all federal prosecutions first rely on to bring forth charges on the jury's recommendation.

Absolute power corrupts. absolutely.

had burned totally to the ground. Just sayin …

Justice for All? Oh, suurrrrre!

...understanding that the DOJ is engaged in myriad similar investigations in which the AG does not personally involve themselves.

The fact that Trump's name was all over it would be cause for more restraint by the AG from interfering with the FBI's efforts, not less, in any planet earth DOJ ever.

deadlines and so on — not to mention strategic planing, management by objectives, identification of mission critical purpose and goals. You know, the basics of organizational management.

...it's s fishing expedition, at best, on a dry lake bed thousands of miles from the muddy creek where Epstein lived.

was seeking full accountability for J6. They should have been higher priority than they ultimately were especially knowing the risk and foreseeable consequences of another run for the Presidency by the criminal in chief.

...and you haven't shown that their priorities were wrong, much less evidence them at all.

Your assertion made, not mine.

I'm eternally bemused by those who base their criticisms of what Garland did or didn't do on their own projections, instead of showing some actual proof other than their insistence that he's done something wrong.

From all appearances, his DOJ was still interviewing witnesses who were coming forward , up until Trump took office. There's absolutely nothing in any record or report to suggest his FBI erred in their prioritization of the cases they were tasked with.

Indeed, many of his same critics would also argue, at the same time, that Garland should have similarily 'prioritized' the other investigations he wasn't directly responsible for presenting to grand juries.

It's a profound misunderstanding of his role, and a misplaced belief, I think, that he should have made some special effort to insert himself into the decision-making because it involved Trump - something completely antithetical to the justice that's professed to be sought, notwithstanding the desire of some to throw all of that prosecutorial integrity to the wind in a partisan effort to win an election.

Garland as you seem to assume. But he did in fact oversee the DOJ, and there's absolutely no question that enough was not done to avoid the absence of accountability that threatens our democracy as well as national and global security today. Foreseeing the possibility of what we are now faced with is and was not rocket science.

What strikes me as contributory is all of the Dems who unfailingly defend every single past failure by blaming rather than taking responsibility. There's plenty of that to go around right here in fact. Though I suspect some will see this statement as just projection -- as usual.

Unbending defense and loyalty couched as objectivity is a recipe for repeatable disappointment.

Oh, and objective proof? Please show me the objective proof of economic betterment and strengthening of the working middle class over the past 45-plus years. Show me the record of success; our record of success in that regard.

...as I pointed out, the FBI handles myriad sexual assualt and trafficking cases.

You can want them to priotitize something, but the Biden DOJ didn't operate around a partisan or political agenda. I'd expect they applied the law correctly, until shown otherwise.

I get that the impetus behind this posting is to assume they didn't, but I think it's extremely fraught with stuff that likely has nothing to do with what's occurred.

In this case, no one who respects the process of investigation and law should have ANY expectation that Garland needed to, or should have inserted himself into that decison making (which is the actual posit of the op).

And the strawmen you threw up in place of actual proof about someone reflexively defending something or the other does not withstand scrutiny of your own converse reflexiveness to suppose Garland's DOJ did something wrong - all in the face of zero evidence to the contrary.

At some point critics and accusers (especially of our own party's administration) should be made to put up or shut up, but I do understand the appeal and efficacy of projections and assertions made in support of one's opinion that eschew proof.

how about answering my question? Maybe then I’ll engage further.

...and you got my answer, as if you actually responded to MY query about proof with something substantive, and your answer wasn't void of personalizations, going on about 'unbending loyalty.' Talk about projections.

You dodged providing proof of what you complained about, and now you've moved on to demanding things of me.

Give it up. This convo is toast.

looks like the Garland family has arrived..

Merrick Garland is responsible for Donald Trump being president today instead of Inmate 47.

I won't ever be OK with that.

Made up of those who are slavishly devoted to protecting the legacy of the most ineffectual, weak, mealy mouthed dipshit to ever lead the DOJ.

that the members of the Garland Society, as you call them, don't believe that Donald Trump committed any crimes over the past 9 or 10 years that could or should be investigated by a Department of Justice?

Could be that. But I’ve always attributed it to naïveté or misplaced idealism of folks who haven’t changed with the times. People who don’t understand that the “my honorable friend across the aisle” era is dead and gone forever. They’re still fighting by the rules of the last war.

Who blocked justice and why?

The go-to post from nearly every MAGA is something like, "why didn't the Dems do something when they had power?!!?11"

I doubt MAGAs would believe anything Garland has to say, but it would be nice to have it on the public record.

there was a investigation and when that was over there were appeals, and therefore Democrats didn't release the information.

Well, there are still appeals going on, and we aren't hesitating to ask for their release despite that.

We need to make that make sense.

Even if someone has the balls to say, "You're right. We should have" it would be better than the current illogic.

...how about subpoenaing Maurene Comey? When I hear about a person "being familiar with the contents of the files", my mind immediately goes to her. She might be glad to testify.

that we have a justice system that has a different set of rules for different people. USA USA USA

Excoriating Merrick Garland.

Probably there wasn't anything else for the fractured DOJ to focus on, right. The first grifter administration wouldn't even cooperate in the transition of power to the Biden administration.

"This formal, legally mandated process (under the Presidential Transition Act of 1963) ensures the orderly transfer of authority, intelligence, and agency control..."

That was probably Garland's fault, too.

And darn it, why won't Garland make it spring already!

No thanks to that weasel, Merrick Garland. 😉