For all of the people who still have their panties in a wad because Garland isn't a SCOTUS justice, maybe you should listen to what Claire McCaskill has to say.
Claire, an incredibly liberal long time politician, said that Garland could "Go down in history as one of the worst attorney generals".
Maybe it's a good thing that he's not a SCOTUS justice.
6 comments:
I can't find the full quote, but it looks like she said something like this...
"mentioned Monday that Attorney General Merrick Garland would “go down in infamy as one of many worst lawyer generals on this nation’s historical past” if former President Trump isn’t held accountable for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot."
If Garland fails to get a conviction and hold trump accountable come up perhaps he should go down go down as one of the worst AGs.
Do you disagree?
Also, the difference between an accurate quote and ALMOST an accurate quote is the difference between lightning and lightning bug.
A few things come to mind:
---Obama, the smartest guy in the room, nominated Garland. On what basis? Did he not truly vet the guy? Did Obama's poor understanding of the US Constitution confound his ability to know what a good justice should look like?
---McConnell's refusal to consider Garland's nomination...a wonderful example of using Dem tactics against them...may constitute Cocaine Mitch's greatest service to the nation.
---Garland's actions toward parents protesting school board policies demonstrates Garland's own poor understanding of the US Constitution. So does not releasing Jan 6 protesters who had done nothing illegal.
Dan,
If you can't find the full accurate quote, then posting what you did is no better than posting any inaccurate quote. A paraphrase isn't an improvement.
What's more, if your paraphrase is closer to the truth, then McCaskill's opinion is typically leftist. That is, her belief is based on her bias against Trump, not on the merits of Garland's ability. Trump did nothing for which he should be held legally accountable. Thus, just as Garland has failed to push for the release of most of those held, he'd be just as wrong to pretend there's any reason to hold Trump accountable.
"Do you disagree?"
Do I disagree with what? I disagree that Garland will be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump bears direct, legal, responsibility for the protest/riot on January 6. I actually don't agree that proving an impossible "crime" beyond a reasonable doubt is a good standard to Judge an AG by. The question is, or should be, what crime did Trump commit? What is the specific section of US penal or criminal code did he allegedly violate? How can you expect the AG to convict Trump without being able to identify what crime he's committed? Has anyone who participated in the events of 1/6 actually been charged or convicted of insurrection, rebellion, or attempting to overthrow the government? Have any of them even been convicted of a felony?
Art,
I'd agree that Garland's attempts to criminalize parents being involved in their local school boards, and in what is taught in their local school districts, calls his judgement into question. Further, to try to cast those parents as "terrorists" is unconscionable".
Art,
Excellent point about McCaskill and her partisanship. Claire was a long time MO politician who was extremely leftist. If her quote is simply anti Trump partisanship, then we can understand why Dan likes it.
Post a Comment