More like he is a gormless figure head, people following along closely put the politicization of the DOJ more in Lisa Monacos court.
Going after parents as domestic terrorists for asking questions at a school board meeting, not prosecuting protestors outside SC justices houses because it fits in with here political view. That sort of thing.
Lisa Monaco was Barack Obama’s former homeland security advisor and former legal counsel in the White House. Monaco was the tip of the spear in using political activism under the guise of ‘homeland security’ to target political opposition. That type of political targeting is her specialty. Lisa Monaco is now the Deputy Attorney General of the United States.
Knowing what we know about how Main Justice is being operated in the era of Joe Biden, I would not be surprised to discover that Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco is actually the main character in this DOJ manipulation. AG Garland may be the front man giving what amounts to false testimony, but it is likely Lisa Monaco pulling the strings behind Garland that are making his congressional statements false.
It’s legal legal in the US to protest outside someone’s home, supported by Supreme Court ruling? (regarding judges there’s a caveat that it’s as long as there’s no intent to influence a ruling - intent is notoriously hard to prove.)
It’s “legal legal” is it? Is that like super legal? There are some hearings, one with Ted Cruz more recently and an exchange with Lisa Monaco regarding directives not to arrest people protesting outside of the SC Justices. Her default answer was to ignore the question about setting directives not to arrest protestors but to stress their number one goal was the safety of the Justices. It’s mostly political games they are playing, Lisa Monaco is well known for playing politics, as are some of the less known names who shuffle about the permanent civil service core, like Mary McCord who was up to her neck in just about every attempt to get Trump. Although I doubt most people have even heard the name.
These types of people are hugely consequential to what is going on but are routinely ignored, like Victoria Nuland, after Russia invaded Ukraine and her name came up most people hadn’t even heard of her.
They think Joe Biden is President so is in the loop with everything that happens under his watch, he get’s the big picture but the details are worked out below him as is the case with Merrick Garland and confirmed when I saw Merrick Garland testify. On a granular level he doesn’t seem that well informed although in similar testimony Lisa Monaco doesn’t seem as confused and is much more familiar at a granular level than Merrick Garland is.
That’s quite a loaded description of a memo about addressing “harassment, intimidation and threats” of public officials. You can ask questions without doing those things, eh?
That would be the correct directive when something is legal, no?
That’s because as Ted Cruz argues, what they were doing was not legal.
I’m no legal eagle, so that’s as far as I can go, Republicans claim the Justice department went out of their way to ignore the law because they were politically biased and wanted the protests for political reasons.
Right, intent is required for the protests to be illegal, as I mentioned before. Go ahead and believe Ted Cruz knows the intent, and believes DOJ can prove the intent of hundreds of those protestors .Compare that to the link to the SCOTUS case I linked to earlier.
It’s pretty clear why they were there, they were holding up signs and chanting non stop about what they were there for, the upcoming decision related to overturning wade vs roe.
I don’t need Ted Cruz to tell me anything, I watched the protestors doing their stuff in real time.
The decision was a close to final draft - ie essentially a done deal. You might think you’re a mind reader and they were there to change minds, but I’d guess most were there basically to basically tell the justices fuck you.
While Ted Cruz is objectively wrong about Monaco being objectively wrong – he doesn’t seem to understand the word “goal” – I sort of agree with the general argument here. If the protestors aren’t intending to influence the justices, what is their purpose in protesting outside their homes?
One of them was arrested with a gun, I believe with plans to kill one of the Justices, I’m sure plenty more would have assaulted them given the opportunity. All the DOJ did by telling the cops not to arrest anyone was to greenlight the protests and fuel the more crazy elements who might have been trying to inflict real harm.
It’s a pretty weird story, apparently his sister talked him out of it and he called the police himself. Not sure it’s really relevant to the other protestors, who have been peaceful AFAIK.
so… when actual illegal things happened, they arrested the people. right-o then.
The guy arrested called the police on himself. In this country with it’s ridiculously loose gun laws, nobody took so much as a random shot, so the claim plenty would do it and fuel more crazies trying to inflict real harm seems,.in hindsight, to be a nonstarter of an argument.
In the early hours of June 8, Roske arrived at Kavanaugh’s Maryland home with his weapons and equipment, but after being convinced by his sister through text messages, ultimately called the police on himself, telling them he was thinking of killing himself and Kavanaugh, according to law enforcement
It’s almost like your news sources are only feeding you a certain incomplete narrative that you would know one part of that story, but not the other (which was released very quickly).
Thanks for the link, unfortunately just about every political issue is being dialed up to 11 in terms of importance and what to be offended about and we are seeing more of these crazy types losing their shit.
Or more like I only was giving it partial attention as one incident that happens almost every day against the background of all sorts of incidents that happen every day.
Agreed. I also think people are losing faith in even the concepts of dialogue and compromise because they’re absent from political discourse these days, which makes violence seem like the only option.
My name is Andrew Lowenthal. I am a progressive-minded Australian who for almost 18 years was the Executive Director of EngageMedia, an Asia-based NGO focused on human rights online, freedom of expression, and open technology. My resume also includes fellowships at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center and MIT’s Open Documentary Lab. For most of my career, I believed strongly in the work I was doing, which I believed was about protecting and expanding digital rights and freedoms.
In recent years, however, I watched in despair as a dramatic change swept through my field. As if all at once, organizations and colleagues with whom I’d worked for years began de-emphasizing freedom of speech and expression, and shifted focus to a new arena: fighting “disinformation.”
…
Most important is to return to strong principles of free expression, including for ideas we dislike. The shoe will one day again be on the other foot. When that day comes free speech will not be the enemy of liberals and progressives, it will be the best possible protection against the abuse of power.
Rough edges are the price we pay for a free society.
More in the Twitter files on the infamous Aspen tabletop meeting that primed journalists and tech platforms to regard the Hunter Biden story as disinformation. All journalists attending decided to stay quiet about this very unusual set of circumstances. How wonderful of them.
