Can we hop off the Merrick Garland love fest train now?

[quote] the worst 2 AGs in history, Sessions and Barr

Obviously, they weren’t the worst, but you would probably get bipartisan support for assessing them both as bad.

OP: What worries me the most about the DOJ’s decision is that it expands the number of things that a sitting president is in fact above the law on. Now it’s not only indictments, trials, and convictions, but also what a president says in response to a detractor. It annoys me when congresspeople state, “No president is above the law,” because they know it's not true.

Also, the worst political cynic in me wonders if the DOJ ruling may be an insurance policy for Biden if and when the GOP brings forth women who state they were sexually abused by Biden in the past.

^^ “if or when” not “if and when”

R2 exactly. It's beyond outrageous that Garland has decided to defend Barr's assertion that Trump defamed E. Jean Carroll in a presidential capacity. His defamation of her had NOTHING to do with the role he occupied. He was doing it on a personal level. It is indefensible IMO

Democrats always try to play fair. They bring a pencil to the fight, and the Republicans bring a machine gun.

But do you really want to become like what you’re fighting against?…

R5 The DOJ’s opinion seems to be that a sitting president cannot be bothered by “anything” that might detract from his/her ability to govern. That is a dangerously wide most in a country that is meant to function with a balance of powers, in my opinion. But of course, the judicial branch has never been fully autonomous of the executive branch, which is perhaps a birth defect of the USA, like slavery.

^ moat not most. Damn these spell-checkers!

R7 no one is saying we want the Garland DOJ to break or bend the laws and policies in favor of Democrats or against repubs. It is unprincipled to defend Trump's defamation case or the anti-gay religious schools. Those are absurd decisions

R8 I just don't see how that's consistent with Clinton having to deal with the suit Paula Jones filed against him

R11 Good point, and it suggests the DOJ didn't go out on this limb as far in those days as it may be going now. Your point makes me realize in retrospect that Clinton had the decency to not have the DOJ protect him in that manner.

[quote] The DOJ’s opinion seems to be that a sitting president cannot be bothered by “anything” that might detract from his/her ability to govern.

Keep in mind that the alleged defamation occurred while he was “a sitting president” because of Carroll’s timing. She waited 23 years, until 2019, to claim he assaulted her and that’s when he claimed it didn’t happen. If she had made her claim before he became president, all of this could have been litigated a long time ago.

[quote]the worst 2 AGs in history, Sessions and Barr

Whew!

R7 Be careful who you choose as your enemy because that's who you become most like.

Rape is rape. Even if it was not sexual, the rape counts.