First off, Garland was a Supreme Court Justice nominee By Obama and who the Republicans would block, right? I’m not remotely buying this olive-branch attempt to downplay this. I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t survive scrutiny from the left if he was a partisan hack for both being a SCOTUS nominee, as well as an AG under Biden. If Garland was that much of a conservative partisan hack, McConnell wouldn’t have blocked the appointment. So far I think he’s doing a fucking fantastic job and the only people I see complaining are people who are clearly not legal experts and think everything is so cut-and-dry and easy with a “if I was in there, it would’ve been done overnight!” mentality.
Second, I know exactly which WaPo article you’re discussing and it did not take 2.5 years for him to begin investigating. Nor does that article cover the OTHER investigations apart from January 6th, such as the classified documents case.
Forget the obvious fucking fact that goes completely unmentioned: Garland was busy building the case from the ground-up while handling — gee I don’t know — the largest criminal investigation in the history of the FBI.. So naturally, it would make sense if you wanted to make sure you eliminated ANY hole for accusation of bias to first build your case from the ground-up, charge the actual insurrectionists first, then let smaller fish turn on bigger fish which can then be used as evidence for the mega case that is taking down a former President.
Edit: the silence of the anonymous down-votes without substantive rebuttal couldn’t be more deafening.
First off, Garland was a Supreme Court Justice nominee By Obama and who the Republicans would block, right? I’m not remotely buying this olive-branch attempt to downplay this. I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t survive scrutiny from the left if he was a partisan hack for both being a SCOTUS nominee, as well as an AG under Biden. If Garland was that much of a conservative partisan hack, McConnell wouldn’t have blocked the appointment. So far I think he’s doing a fucking fantastic job and the only people I see complaining are people who are clearly not legal experts and think everything is so cut-and-dry and easy with a “if I was in there, it would’ve been done overnight!” mentality.
Second, I know exactly which WaPo article you’re discussing and it did not take 2.5 years for him to begin investigating. Nor does that article cover the OTHER investigations apart from January 6th, such as the classified documents case.
Forget the obvious fucking fact that goes completely unmentioned: Garland was busy building the case from the ground-up while handling — gee I don’t know — the largest criminal investigation in the history of the FBI.. So naturally, it would make sense if you wanted to make sure you eliminated ANY hole for accusation of bias to first build your case from the ground-up, charge the actual insurrectionists first, then let smaller fish turn on bigger fish which can then be used as evidence for the mega case that is taking down a former President.
Edit: the silence of the anonymous down-votes without substantive rebuttal couldn’t be more deafening.