Why neither my wife nor I will vote for Trump or Biden

[NationalTitles18]

I am referring to the Hur report.

There is no way on this earth Merrick Garland didn't know and fully bless the content and publication of that report.

Are you saying Garland agreed with the contents or is it more likely that he did not want to give the appearance of interfering with the report, as seems like his style historically?

 

[92tide]

Are you saying Garland agreed with the contents or is it more likely that he did not want to give the appearance of interfering with the report, as seems like his style historically?

this is from the day before the report was released

Biden won't seek redactions in special counsel report on his handling of classified documents

White House counsel's office spokesman Ian Sams says the White House had notified the Justice Department that it has completed a review of the report and that Biden "declined to assert privilege over any portion of the report."

www.pbs.org

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden will not seek any redactions in a report by the Justice Department special counsel investigating his handling of classified documents, the White House said Thursday, clearing the way for its release.

White House Counsel’s office spokesman Ian Sams said the White House had notified the Justice Department that it had completed a review of the report Thursday morning. “In keeping with his commitment to cooperation and transparency throughout this investigation, the president declined to assert privilege over any portion of the report,” he said.

 

[NationalTitles18]

this is from the day before the report was released

Biden won't seek redactions in special counsel report on his handling of classified documents

White House counsel's office spokesman Ian Sams says the White House had notified the Justice Department that it has completed a review of the report and that Biden "declined to assert privilege over any portion of the report."

www.pbs.org

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden will not seek any redactions in a report by the Justice Department special counsel investigating his handling of classified documents, the White House said Thursday, clearing the way for its release.

White House Counsel’s office spokesman Ian Sams said the White House had notified the Justice Department that it had completed a review of the report Thursday morning. “In keeping with his commitment to cooperation and transparency throughout this investigation, the president declined to assert privilege over any portion of the report,” he said.

Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a letter to Congress Wednesday that he was committed to disclosing as much of the document as possible once the White House review was complete.

 

[Tidewater]

Isn't that less a function of being a republic and more a function of having our constitution as the basis of law.

After all, is it not the constitution that prevents congress from establishing a religion?

Otherwise, could the voters not vote in representatives who would do just what you stated? Indeed, some wish to do it now and it isn't always their representatives that keep it from happening.

That is a good point.
Yes, I think the Constitution is a key distinction (probably the key distinction) between a democracy and a republic.

 

[crimsonaudio]

And for those people who don't vote in heavy red or blue states. You are silently assenting to the autocracy already in place if it's not your chosen philosophy. When does any political engaged party or candidate get up off their ass and do more to garner your vote if literally nothing they do will encourage you to get up off your ass and participate? The engaged candidates and the engaged voters are winning and will always win unless and until a confluence of others get engaged to turn the tide.

FTR I still vote, I just refuse to vote for people I believe are bad for our country.

 

[Bazza]

-snip-
someone like Joe Manchin
-snip-

I've always liked Joe. Like any other politician, he's not perfect and will have his share of critics. Some of that is probably even justified.

But he does seem a WHOLE LOT more level-headed and less divisive than other potential candidates mentioned thus far.

There's a lot of time left and something will happen.

Joe's the kind of guy I think many in the country would and could get behind. Even conservatives, like me.

@4Q Basket Case has won the Internet for today......

 

[Jon]

Holding two poliSci degree, the argument does matter.
Merriam-Webster (selected because it if readily available) defines democracy this way:

• government by the people, especially rule of the majority.
• a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

The same sources defines a republic in the following terms:

• a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president.

• a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.

By these, it is impossible to be a republic without democratic principles, but to distinguish between the two concepts, if the voters of the United States were to go to the polls and choose Roman Catholicism as the established religion of the United States, in a democracy, that would be final, and Catholicism would be the established religion of the United States. In a republic, such a vote would be meaningless.
The same would apply if Congress were to adopt, and the President sign, a bill establishing the Catholic Church.

sure but this isn't a nuanced political argument describing the minor differences that are debated between PoliSci nerds. I was alluding to the argument often used on the right that intends to shut down any argument anyone makes who dares to use the colloquial use of "democracy". Now I may have only one PoliSci degree but I know a bs argument when I see it.

 

[Tidewater]

sure but this isn't a nuanced political argument describing the minor differences that are debated between PoliSci nerds. I was alluding to the argument often used on the right that intends to shut down any argument anyone makes who dares to use the colloquial use of "democracy". Now I may have only one PoliSci degree but I know a bs argument when I see it.

Well, in my experience PoliSci guys tend to specialize in BS arguments.
My point is this, words matter. Meanings of words matter.
The founders of the Democratic Party (Jefferson and his friends) chose that name to distinguish themselves from the Federalists, who tended to be more elitist than Jefferson. Democratic-Republicans worked to expand the franchise that had heretofore been restricted to freeholding male citizens. Later, Democratic-Republicans under Jackson dropped the "Republican" part and just called themselves "Democrats" in that every white citizen could vote, regardless of freehold status. Later Republicans added black citizens, and both added female citizens, but the distinction remains, if the majority of voters (however defined) voted to establish Roman Catholicism (or Hinduism or whatever) as the official, state-sponsored religion of these United States, such a vote would be meaningless, because the United States is not a democracy.
A professor once advised me, "Use precise words precisely."

 

[Crimson1967]

FTR I still vote, I just refuse to vote for people I believe are bad for our country.

May I ask who you voted for in 2020?

 

[AWRTR]

I've always liked Joe. Like any other politician, he's not perfect and will have his share of critics. Some of that is probably even justified.

But he does seem a WHOLE LOT more level-headed and less divisive than other potential candidates mentioned thus far.

There's a lot of time left and something will happen.

Joe's the kind of guy I think many in the country would and could get behind. Even conservatives, like me.

@4Q Basket Case has won the Internet for today......

I would take a hard look at Manchin if he goes third party. I’m not sold he does, but I would be open to him.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

Are you saying Garland agreed with the contents or is it more likely that he did not want to give the appearance of interfering with the report, as seems like his style historically?

I am saying that Garland didn't disagree enough with the substance of the findings or their wording to edit them.

Garland is a political animal, having been successfully swimming in Washington DC's swamp for decades. He knew full well what the fallout would be. He didn't get where he is by making politically stupid decisions.

Here's an article from that well-known MAGA rag, Politico. It has nothing to do with the Hur / Biden report. I'm linking it because it illustrates how his mind works.

The Merrick Garland You Don’t Know - POLITICO

Merrick Garland meets with the President on a regular basis. If he believed that Biden is in fact mentally sharp, I just don't think he would allow the DOJ (of which he is head), to publish a report significantly impugning Biden's mental faculties.

If Garland had been the author of the Hur report, he might not have phrased the findings as Hur did. But he clearly didn't think Hur was wrong. Guaranteed, someone as politically astute as Garland would have pressed for details and verification of the characterization of Biden's mental state.

I have no doubt that Garland knew what was in the report and didn't think it warranted further editing.

 

[NationalTitles18]

I am saying that Garland didn't disagree enough with the substance of the findings or their wording to edit them.

Garland is a political animal, having been successfully swimming in Washington DC's swamp for decades. He knew full well what the fallout would be. He didn't get where he is by making politically stupid decisions.

Here's an article from that well-known MAGA rag, Politico. It has nothing to do with the Hur / Biden report. I'm linking it because it illustrates how his mind works.

The Merrick Garland You Don’t Know - POLITICO

Merrick Garland meets with the President on a regular basis. If he believed that Biden is in fact mentally sharp, I just don't think he would allow the DOJ (of which he is head), to publish a report significantly impugning Biden's mental faculties.

If Garland had been the author of the Hur report, he might not have phrased the findings as Hur did. But he clearly didn't think Hur was wrong. Guaranteed, someone as politically astute as Garland would have pressed for details and verification of the characterization of Biden's mental state.

I have no doubt that Garland knew what was in the report and didn't think it warranted further editing.

I'm curious as to what you see in that article that informs you that Garland agrees with the contents of the report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/02/10/biden-special-counsel-james-comey-clinton/

The appointment of a special counsel is intended to make high-profile, sensitive investigations as independent and apolitical as possible. But current and former Justice Department officials said the increasing reliance on special counsels to handle such investigations has upended a central principle of the agency: to avoid prejudicing the public against people who are not charged.

“Special Counsel Hur report on Biden classified documents issues contains way too many gratuitous remarks and is flatly inconsistent with long standing DOJ traditions,” former Attorney General Eric Holder, a Democrat, wrote on social media Friday. “Had this report been subject to a normal DOJ review these remarks would undoubtedly have been excised.”

Hur was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland, who promised Congress even before he saw the report that he would make as much of it public as he was legally allowed to do.

Under department regulations, a special counsel submits a confidential report to the attorney general, explaining his or her decisions whether to prosecute (Justice Department policy precludes charging sitting presidents). It is up to the attorney general to decide whether to make that report public.

When Garland received Hur’s report Monday, he could have made redactions before he sent it to Congress. President Biden could have also exerted executive privilege and made redactions. But neither did. Had they wanted to, legal experts said, they would have had to inform Congress, and likely would have received intense backlash from Republicans.


Congressional leaders are likely to ask Hur to testify about the report. Lawmakers have already asked the Justice Department to release the transcripts and records of the interviews that were part of the investigation.

Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general under President Barack Obama, helped craft the special counsel regulations in the 1990s, as a young Justice Department lawyer. Katyal said officials at the time expected that most special counsel reports would not be made public, given long-standing Justice Department guidelines to not comment when prosecutors decline to indict someone.


But that’s changed in recent years. In 2019, special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into possible Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election helped establish a new norm: Reports would be made public, in an effort to demonstrate transparency and that an investigation was thorough and fair.
Katyal, citing his own role in creating the special counsel rules, wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post that year saying Mueller’s report should be released so that the public would “have confidence that justice was done.”
On Friday, Katyal questioned Hur’s decision to include Biden’s alleged mental lapses during hours of interviews, including that he could not remember the year his son Beau died of cancer and struggled to recall the years of his vice presidency (Biden angrily denied those characterizations after the report was released).
“Perhaps there was some justification for special counsel Hur to comment on the president’s age and mental fitness, but I severely doubt it, and the report is not reassuring in this regard,” Katyal said in an email. “It seems gratuitous and wrong.”


Justice Department declination memos — which prosecutors write when they decide not to pursue charges, essentially ending an investigation — are virtually never made public. That’s in part because Justice Department guidance says that prosecutors should be sensitive to the privacy and reputation of people they are not charging. When charged, criminal defendants have the chance to defend themselves in a court of law. But when a person is publicly accused of problematic behavior but not charged, they have no opportunity to present evidence and mount a defense.
Legal experts said that what’s so striking about the Hur report.
“It would have been sufficient to say that we did not have sufficient evidence that he was acting willfully,” Barbara McQuade, a law professor at the University of Michigan Law School and former federal prosecutor, said at a public roundtable on Friday. “To instead besmirch his reputation struck me as going a bit above and beyond what you would expect from an ordinary prosecutor.”
As a special counsel, Hur’s “legal outcome is indeed fair and appropriate,” said Anthony Coley, a former Justice Department employee who was the agency’s top spokesman when Garland appointed Hur last January. “But the editorializing — the excessive, unnecessary commentary about an uncharged individual — does not reflect DOJ’s best traditions.”

Now, given that if Garland or Biden had redacted parts of the report that Garland would have had to inform Congress does that change your thoughts on the matter?

Republicans would have gone nuts over any redactions and the wild accusations would have been endless.

And this is more likely involved in any political calculus Garland may have used in deciding not to edit the report than any thought that he agreed with it.

And going into it, Hur knew that Garland had promised to make it public and knew Garland would have to tell Congress if he made edits to it.

Hur knew it would become public and that both Garland and Biden were squarely in his vice.

And that the public would read every word in his report.

Hur made it political by including gratuitous, superfluous opinions about Biden's mental acuity. Comments about supposedly not remembering the death of his son are beyond the pale and not in any way relevant to the investigation.

It was a political hit job and he knew the president and the AG were in a position of weakness to prevent such salacious garbage from being published.

Hur knew exactly what he was doing.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

Well they showed a RFK Jr commercial during the Super Bowl.

 

[JDCrimson]

But what would Garland gain by allowing that narrative revive about Biden? Its not like he is vying for a future run as President.

I am saying that Garland didn't disagree enough with the substance of the findings or their wording to edit them.

Garland is a political animal, having been successfully swimming in Washington DC's swamp for decades. He knew full well what the fallout would be. He didn't get where he is by making politically stupid decisions.

Here's an article from that well-known MAGA rag, Politico. It has nothing to do with the Hur / Biden report. I'm linking it because it illustrates how his mind works.

The Merrick Garland You Don’t Know - POLITICO

Merrick Garland meets with the President on a regular basis. If he believed that Biden is in fact mentally sharp, I just don't think he would allow the DOJ (of which he is head), to publish a report significantly impugning Biden's mental faculties.

If Garland had been the author of the Hur report, he might not have phrased the findings as Hur did. But he clearly didn't think Hur was wrong. Guaranteed, someone as politically astute as Garland would have pressed for details and verification of the characterization of Biden's mental state.

I have no doubt that Garland knew what was in the report and didn't think it warranted further editing.

 

[Moro Creek]

If RFK Jr is on the ballot in Florida, I will more than likely vote for him unless something changes my mind before the election. I am like many others, I can't vote for either POS running for the parties.

Well, here I am one day later and I see where Mr. Kennedy is in favor of reparations. Just lost my vote. Now I will look for someone to write in.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

But what would Garland gain by allowing that narrative revive about Biden? Its not like he is vying for a future run as President.

I hadn't really considered that point until your question. The more I think about it, the more I think he neither gains nor loses anything -- which is more incentive to just tell the truth.

I think you're right in that Garland probably doesn't have any ambitions for higher office. He's 70. He's been Attorney General of the US. He's been nominated to SCOTUS and got railroaded out of the job. This is probably his last public-sector job. He's made decent money as a federal judge for a long time, and will have a nice pension. Should he want to work part-time, his resume will get him a partnership at any number of white-stocking law firms who would pay handsomely to have his name on their letterhead.

He could also become a legal consultant and talking head.

So unless Garland has massively mis-managed his personal finances (which would be a major departure from everything I've read about his personality), he'll be financially comfortable. He probably doesn't aspire to another political office and has lots of other options should he want to stay active.

Sounds to me like no incentive to do anything other than tell the truth.

 

[CrimsonNagus]

In TN my vote literally doesn't matter - it's going red no matter who is on the ticket.

100% why I will not be voting for president ever again until the electoral college is tossed out in favor of the popular vote.

 

[AWRTR]

100% why I will not be voting for president ever again until the electoral college is tossed out in favor of the popular vote.

Get ready to never vote for that office again. The hill to climb to amend the constitution will not be overcome. The small states will never approve and amendment.

 

[mrusso]

100% why I will not be voting for president ever again until the electoral college is tossed out in favor of the popular vote.

I agree the electoral college is not perfect, but I worry about the popular vote argument. It would radically change how the candidates lie campaign. They would focus on the larger, more populous areas. New York, LA, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, etc would decide our elections. I don't know, maybe it would work...maybe not. It would not however change who is running for election and we most likely would still be stuck with two clowns.

 

[Bamaro]

Get ready to never vote for that office again. The hill to climb to amend the constitution will not be overcome. The small states will never approve and amendment.

I agree the electoral college is not perfect, but I worry about the popular vote argument. It would radically change how the candidates lie campaign. They would focus on the larger, more populous areas. New York, LA, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, etc would decide our elections. I don't know, maybe it would work...maybe not. It would not however change who is running for election and we most likely would still be stuck with two clowns.

So, focusing on the people is bad?