Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

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

I don't hate him but he's not that amazing.

The DOJ's recent decisions to defend Trump in the rape case and religious schools being exempt from anti-lgbtq discrimination laws really piss me off

Plus what will happen now that Don McGahn has testified confirming that Trump obstructed justice? The DOJ could bring federal charges against him but will they?

Obviously Garland is infinitely better than Sessions or Barr but he's a moderate, not a clear cut liberal. The only thing the recent DOJ decisions do is prove to the public he's not a partisan hack but I don't care about that. I want a partisan liberal AG to make up for all the shit we dealt with following the worst 2 AGs in history, Sessions and Barr

by Anonymousreply 1606/10/2021

[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.

by Anonymousreply 106/10/2021

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.

by Anonymousreply 206/10/2021

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.

by Anonymousreply 306/10/2021

^^ “if or when” not “if and when”

by Anonymousreply 406/10/2021

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

by Anonymousreply 506/10/2021

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

by Anonymousreply 606/10/2021

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

by Anonymousreply 706/10/2021

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.

by Anonymousreply 806/10/2021

^ moat not most. Damn these spell-checkers!

by Anonymousreply 906/10/2021

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

by Anonymousreply 1006/10/2021

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

by Anonymousreply 1106/10/2021

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.

by Anonymousreply 1206/10/2021

[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.

by Anonymousreply 1306/10/2021

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


by Anonymousreply 1406/10/2021

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1506/10/2021

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1606/10/2021
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.


Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!