New Rule: Attorney Genial | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)
News & Politics
Introduction
In recent discussions surrounding the federal government, a significant critique has emerged regarding the appointment of Merrick Garland as Attorney General. Critics argue that selecting someone for a high-profile legal position merely to compensate for past grievances—specifically, Garland's unsuccessful bid for a Supreme Court seat—is not a sound approach, particularly in an era that demands a robust and effective Attorney General to tackle serious criminal activity.
Merrick Garland, who previously was nominated by President Obama for the Supreme Court but did not receive a hearing, was chosen as Attorney General by President Biden as a form of political payback. This decision, some argue, has resulted in a lackluster performance reminiscent of a “purse dog” rather than the “pitbull” people hoped for in the role. This choice reflects a persistent issue within the Democratic party when appointing top law enforcement figures, where they prioritize nonpartisan optics over decisive legal action, ultimately allowing for unpunished crimes.
Reflecting on past figures like Robert Mueller, who was expected to hold Trump accountable during the Russia investigation but ultimately failed to do so, the comparison to Garland is evident. The article highlights a significant distinction in prosecutorial standards between Republicans and Democrats—for instance, how Republicans appoint dedicated prosecutors while Democrats seem to follow a pattern of appointing Republicans in critical investigations.
Furthermore, the article delves into the ongoing hush money case involving Trump, labeling it as a form of election interference. The piece emphasizes the questionable nature of Trump’s legal standing, contrasting it with Michael Cohen's guilty plea and prison time for similar actions, and questions why Trump has escaped significant consequences.
Additionally, the article examines incidents regarding classified documents, contrasting Trump's handling of seized documents with Biden's cooperation in a similar situation. The author notes that while Biden returned the documents immediately, a lengthy investigation process was initiated for Trump, with special counsels appointed that only served to dilute accountability.
In closing, the article criticizes Garland for his slow approach to justice, likening him to the stereotypical liberal judge from 1970s cop movies: ineffective and ultimately allowing serious offenders to evade just consequences. This slow response raises concerns, especially with pivotal upcoming trials that require expedient resolutions.
Keywords
- Merrick Garland
- Attorney General
- Political payback
- Robert Mueller
- Trump
- Hush money
- Election interference
- Classified documents
- Special counsel
- Justice system
FAQ
Q: Who is Merrick Garland?
A: Merrick Garland is the current Attorney General of the United States, appointed by President Biden. He was previously nominated for the Supreme Court by President Obama.
Q: Why was Garland criticized in the article?
A: Garland was criticized for being appointed as a form of political payback rather than being qualified for the role, which critics say has resulted in a lack of decisive legal action against real criminal activity.
Q: What comparisons are drawn between Garland and Robert Mueller?
A: Both are described as failing to deliver timely and effective actions against significant criminal figures—in particular, criminals connected to former President Trump.
Q: What is the significance of the hush money trial mentioned?
A: The hush money trial is considered an election interference case involving Trump, alongside ongoing concerns about selective prosecution versus non-prosecution.
Q: How do the handling of classified documents by Trump and Biden differ?
A: Trump is criticized for resisting the return of documents, leading to a lengthy investigation, while Biden reportedly cooperated fully and returned documents immediately.