Share this @internewscast.com
One of my best friends in high school had a habit of saying “Damn, son” when he thought one of our crew did or said something particularly spectacular — by high school standards, of course.
I had the same reaction to George Washington Law School professor and Fox News legal analyst, Jonathan Turley, and a new column in which he absolutely filleted embattled Attorney General Merrick Garland.
That is, if one can fillet someone with a meat cleaver.
In the Saturday column, titled “The Corruption of Attorney General Merrick Garland,” Turley explains how he first “enthusiastically supported” Garland’s confirmation, only to come to the realization that after the Biden nominee was confirmed as AG, he was no more than another partisan political hack:
I was wrong. Garland’s tenure as attorney general has shown a pronounced reluctance to take steps that would threaten President Biden.
He slow-walked the appointment of a special counsel investigating any Biden, and then excluded from the counsel’s scope any investigation of the massive influence peddling operation by Hunter Biden, his uncle and others.
Turley also laid out the differences, as he sees them, between Garland’s handling of Trump’s criminal indictments involving classified documents in Florida and election interference in Washington D.C. and Hunter Biden’s so-called “gun trial” in Delaware.
Regarding the differences in the way Special Counsel Jack Smith approached Trump’s cases versus Hunter’s, Turley observed (emphasis, mine):
While Garland has said that he wants to give the special counsels their independence, it falls to him to protect the consistency and values of his department.
[…]
Garland’s . The Justice Department has not claimed that the transcript is privileged, but . This is even CNN hosts have mocked it
Yet in Biden’s trial, said Turley:
However, it is what has occurred in the last six months that has left some of us shaken, given our early faith in Garland.
[…]
Special Counsel Robert Hur found that Biden knowingly retained and mishandled classified material. However, he concluded that Biden’s age and diminished faculties would make him too sympathetic to a jury.
It was less sympathetic than pathetic, given that this is the same man who is running for re-election to lead the most powerful nation on Earth. More importantly, Garland has not made obvious efforts to reach a consistent approach in the two cases by dropping charges based on the same crimes by Trump in Florida.
I’m not an attorney but is not a jury’s job to decide how to vote in a trial and based on what factors — not a prosecutor’s? And isn’t it a prosecutor’s job to ensure justice is served, by prosecuting individuals accused of crimes? Yes, and yes.
