I am perplexed, troubled, and yet unsurprised by all the vitriol being directed at Garland and Hur
over the Biden investigation report. Here we have a record of a thorough and exhaustive investigation examining serious allegations against a POTUS, leaving no stone unturned, no facts varnished, no details overlooked, no room for for doubt and completely exonerating POTUS of all the unfounded charges.
Isn't this the definition of "no one is above the law" and "justice being served"? Isn't this the reason why an AG is strictly bound by the laws that define the grounds for appointing a special counsel and an SC is strictly bound by the scope of the responsibilities he receives from an AG?
If Garland were to appoint, say, Hillary as SC and she were to come up with an identical report, she would no doubt be praised to high heaven for it, and so would Garland for choosing her.
Instead, every Garland basher across the political spectrum, each pushing their peculiar talking points that often conflict with each other, is lamenting Garland (more so than Hur, BTW) as an existential threat to democracy. And the grievances that are presented to justify the branding of Garland as a threat to democracy are often, upon closer examination, trivial, partisan, tendentious and antithetical to democratic principles themselves.
... What is going on here???
I see neither the purpose nor the pleasure in portraying Garland as a comic strip villain. Doing so undermines the authority of the Office of the US Attorney General and, perhaps ironically, is contrary to the fundamentals of democratic principles of our government.
= new reply since forum marked as read
I don't think Garland's been a total washout but what the ever loving fuck with this bullshit report?? Has anyone come out to rightfully lambaste Hur? Prez Biden should not have to be the only one calling out this crap and cheap shots against him.
I won't hold my breath waiting for the suck up media to do its job. Hunter Biden's genitals on the House floor not bad enough? These fuckers are goddamn ghouls! 
Just another example on why this place seems pretty foreign to me lately and I spend far less time here.
commentary (with clear political aims) included as the very FOCUS of an official legal report whose findings GRUDGINGLY must admit to a lack of evidence against Biden? Your post does not make it clear one way or another.
I could not agree more with Andrew Weissman:
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Most days the most inciteful conversations I have in this time of turmoil--come from those with my beloved dog. 
I am working on book 3 (will be self published) and have 25 speaking garden events, a second garden to help tend...hiking - kayaking - as the years pass by, one can only be pulled in so many directions! 
And I like you and enjoy your posts. Heart to you!!!
I gave Garland the benefit of the doubt and I shouldn't have done so. Hearts for you!!!
We are first of all Democrats, and we have seen this before. Several times if memory serves me. The last time with devastating consequences. Thank you for the hearts reporting on it and then come here to defend it--and that includes Hur and Garland. Clearly, 99% of DU feels quite differently than you. Maybe there is an answer to your question examining the reasons for THAT? Perhaps you've forgotten the context of Comey. I would suggest you think about the grotesque similarities in what happened then and yesterday.
and fully defend. 
GOP lawmaker calls on Cabinet to ‘explore’ removing Biden under 25th Amendment
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4457661-gop-lawmaker-calls-cabinet-explore-removing-biden-25th-amendment/
In a letter obtained by The Hill, Tenney wrote to Attorney General Merrick Garland on Thursday night to share her “grave concerns.”
“After concluding that President Biden knowingly and willfully removed, mishandled, and disclosed classified documents repeatedly over a period of decades, Mr. Hur nevertheless recommended that charges not be brought against him,” her letter said. “Special Counsel’s reasoning was alarming.”
How damned predictable (at least for those of us paying attention)
Selective quotes, this is a joke right?
"In addition. Mr. Biden's memory was significantly limited, both during his recorded interviews with the ghostwriter in 2017, and in his interview with our office in 2023. memory was significantly limited, both during his recorded interviews with the ghostwriter in 2017, and in his interview with our office in 2023. And his cooperation with our investigation, including by reporting to the government that the Afghanistan documents were in his Delaware garage, will likely convince some jurors that he made an innocent mistake, rather than acting willfully-that is, with intent to break the law-as the statute requires." p.9
The use of "memory was signficantly limited" is a deliberate and condescending use of words.... not too unlike you wrong assumptions about my position.
"We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. Based would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt." p. 10
Again "elderly man with poor memeory" is condescending. Biden could easily argue that he was simply unaware that the documents were there, not that he is an "elderly man with poor memeory"
"In his interview with our office, Mr. Biden's memory was worse. He did not remember when he was vice president, forgetting on the first day of the interview when his term ended ("if it was 2013 - when did I stop being Vice President?"
, memory was worse. He did not remember when he was vice president, forgetting on the first day of the interview when his term ended ("if it was 2013 - when did I stop being Vice President?" , and forgetting on the second day of the interview when his term began ("in 2009, am I still Vice President?" .839 He did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died.81rn And his memory appeared hazy when describing the Afghanistan debate that was once so important to him. Among other things, he mistakenly said he "had a real difference" of opinion with General Karl Eikenberry, when, in fact, Eikenberry was an ally whom Mr. Eiden cited approvingly in his Thanksgiving memo to President Obama."
Uh huh. So there ya go.
Unless, of course, you want to argue that Biden really does have a problem?
