After watching the Sunday shows I have a question: Why are we hearing about Hur but NOT about . . . . .

[Stinky The Clown]

. . . . . the person who had the ability to excise Hur's personal opinions - one Merrick Garland?

In my personal view, Merrick Garland needs to go, ideally by resignation.

[Walleye]

1. I want to know what the salary for Hur was in this job

Did he make more money by dragging it out for a year?

[Eliot Rosewater]

2. I listen to experts like Dean Obeidallah and others

Who have pointed out since almost day one of the Biden administration why Merrick Garland was the wrong choice and why delaying the appointment of Jack Smith as long as it was is very problematic for our survival now, our literal survival.

But if a person wanted to wonder why people on the left didn’t criticize Garland more which should have been done all they have to do is look around places like here where as soon as they do they are jumped all over.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. The jumper-on-ers here are the same few. Loud, fast, and posting looooong defenses

I don't think there is any large crowd in support. I DO think people don't criticize Garland more forcefully - at least in part - because of the DU rule against bashing Democrats. It is a good rule that I fully support, but in the case of Garland, the backstop of lots of defense and stifling justifiable criticism. One need only whisper a criticism and his defenders are alerting very fast and shutting down conversation.

[Eyeball_Kid]

9. Censorship...

I'm not taking sides on the Garland issue, but it all reminds me of Raw Story's recently rescinded prohibition against using the word, "Hitler" in any of its threads. For awhile, it was maddening because Trump was repeating behavior and statements that were strongly suggestive of emerging fascism and Nazi ascendency, yet RS was censoring any discussion of these phenomena. When "fascism" finally became part of the lexicon within mainstream media, RS relented, but it took a while.

As for criticism of Garland, I'm puzzled. I thought it was true that Garland was NOT a Democrat, and would therefore NOT be protected from criticism by DU policy.

[Comfortably_Numb]

11. Raw story censored Hitler, and didn't someone censor magat? That's the nicest term I use for those cretins.

[Eliot Rosewater]

10. Yeah, for instane when another Dem runs AGAINST BIDEN as a couple are doing and I speak

out, I get in trouble.

We should speak out, this is NOT DONE by honorable Democrats and yes I remember the famous one with Kennedy. While I was a supporter he was wrong also.

The funny thing is there is not a bigger Hillary supporter here. I will tell you anytime you want WHICH group elected trump on the left including ...ooops, cant go there.

[Mr. Evil]

20. It's because

former President Obama chose him as the next SC justice after the death of Antonin Scalia and that President Joe Biden chose him as AG. Some people cannot fathom questioning the choices of these two democratic presidents. How dare some insinuate that President Biden made a bad choice! Well, Merrick Garland is no Democrat. He's associated with the Federalist Society. That doesn't explain everything about his actions or inactions but, is a good starting point. He's stated that he didn't want to appear partisan. If crimes are committed you prosecute them regardless of that person's political affiliation. You're prosecuting people for crimes, not trying to pass some test of how biased you may be. It's called justice.

My opinion, he needs to go.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

3. K & R!

[Fiendish Thingy]

5. My understanding is Garland could only redact, not edit, the report.

As Barr did with Meuller, and then issued his own slanted “summary”.

Biden also could have asserted executive privilege and redacted the report, but neither he nor Garland chose to.

[moondust]

15. Or maybe not.

Andrew Weissmann was on Jen Psaki's show this morning and pretty much laid the ultimate blame on Garland.

[Fiendish Thingy]

18. Blind trust in TV lawyers only leads to disappointment and heartbreak. nt

[RandomNumbers]

6. Why are we still talking about Hur, and not TFG wanting to start WW III?

I reference, of course, TFG's comments that he would "encourage Russia to attack" some countries of NATO that he feels aren't pulling their weight.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. I think we are. Lots of threads about that.

Hur is still in the nooze, too

[RandomNumbers]

8. The best thing re: Hur

would be for people to stop talking about it. Plenty of time for electoral amnesia between now and November.

TFG / TSF handed us the means for that on a silver platter.

Imma stop kicking this thread now

ETA: TFG's comments are indeed quite scary, considering where he is in the polls, and the apparent insanity of approximately 50% of the US electorate. We should be screaming regardless of any need to quell something else.

[PortTack]

19. Nailed it!!

[Codifer]

16. According to tsf's recent gaffs,

is that WW III or WW II?

[Elessar Zappa]

12. This will go away by November.

Merrick Garland likely won’t be leaving until Biden gets re-elected.

[Farmer-Rick]

17. I think that's a mistake

Garland is being pressured by Sen. Hawley to use the 25th amendment against Biden.

Now they have these gratuitous comments in an investigative report on Biden's memory.

Come 11 days before the election, Garland may just decide to send a letter to Congress or act on this pressure he's getting.

Is this report the set up for later Garland action against Biden?

[jalan48]

13. Has Garland released a statement or appeared in public to talk about this?

[dsc]

14. As a practical matter what good would removing the comments have done?

He would have had to go to Congress and explain why he redacted the comments and Congress would have released the explanation piecemeal. I don't see how that would have helped.

[ananda]

21. Right on!

!!!

[edhopper]

22. You are not alone in that view.