Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Top Oversight Democrat says Merrick Garland should testify on Epstein [View all]Mblaze
(972 posts)5. Merrick Garland also has standing
To defend the legality of the choice of Jack Smith as special counsel in the Trump / top secret files case. He should stand tall for releasing the results of Smith's investigation.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
17 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
67 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Top Oversight Democrat says Merrick Garland should testify on Epstein [View all]
Mr. Sparkle
Feb 25
OP
Great idea! And while they're at it, please subpoena whomever at SDNY requested NM to stop ranch investigation in 2019
SheltieLover
Feb 25
#3
I agree. As Attorney General, each of these men had inside knowledge as to the content of the Epstein files.
patphil
Feb 26
#61
Epstein-related files could not be legally released during Garland's term because Maxwell's case was still under appeal
bigtree
Feb 25
#11
There is certainly grounds for criticizing Garland for his slow prosecution of Trump, but not for this.
SunSeeker
Feb 25
#22
Those are not "rationalizations" about the handling of the Epstein files, they're facts.
SunSeeker
Feb 25
#39
When Bondi threw Garland's name at Ted Lieu he didn't disagree with her premise that Garland was delinquent on Epstein
BeyondGeography
Feb 25
#41
Exactly. Thank you bigtree. He didn't want to comment because it could endanger the conviction, which was on appeal.
SunSeeker
Feb 25
#16
You can't show something that is missing -- like higher priority, greater emphasis, etc. I don't isolate everything to
KPN
Feb 25
#45
we're only talking about points and processes of law. What does 'proof' have to do with all that, you say?
bigtree
Feb 25
#48
We need to have a GOOD answer to this or it will cost us in the election. Currently our answer is that
Scrivener7
Feb 25
#35
Garland won't tell us anything. Bring on Jack Smith to talk about his investigations.
Scrivener7
Feb 25
#33
The deep of corruption in the current and former DOJ is very enlightening. Pretty obvious
walkingman
Feb 25
#36
Yup. And also why he slow walked the prosecution of our nation's top criminal.
Clouds Passing
Feb 26
#57