Special Counsel Says No Charges Warranted In Biden Documents Case

You would think the headline was GOOD NEWS. Well, sorta, how it is being reported and spun. The line is as much as Democrats in disarray. This includes the usual suspects who rail against MSM, the Village, or whatever overall cutesy labels are tossed around. 

And, some more Garland bashing. For instance, Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo says this bit of Garland bashing is "about right":

First off, Merrick Garland is a disastrously bad AG.  He has appointed special counsels he never should have.  And he had no business allowing a report to be released that violated DOJ guidelines.  Most of all, his two years of fruitless propitiatory delay moving on the elite insurrectionists has America and the world on the doorstep of disaster.

I will correct myself here to note that who he chose in one or more cases was problematic. If that is the idea. But, I still think the responses have been unfair (including a later one calling out his "cowardice"). 

Take this "gotcha" from one online person:

Always remember: It took Garland TWO YEARS to appoint Smith. It took Garland two WEEKS to appoint Hur. 

They aren't the same thing. Hur was appointed as special counsel because Biden himself was being investigated. Smith was appointed when Trump ran for POTUS. There was much less of a reason to appoint one early though 

Elizabeth Warren's idea of a special investigator upfront was a good idea. Like with Watergate, however, I think that would have required a joint effort. Biden could have announced he wanted it. Democrats in Congress too. But, did they? It's not on Garland alone. 

"Always remember" is a tell. It's like "So you are saying." Often, no, I'm not saying that. 

Also, what the hell with this "two years of fruitless propitiatory delay" business? A single murder case can take years. The delay was far from "fruitless." I don't bow to Empty Wheel and others, but they spell out what was involved here, and what was obtained. This includes actual convictions of top leadership, if not (to cite one online critic) top Republican leaders. 

Garland is supposed to be a victim of the "elite lawyer brain" (to quote the weak link of that blog) for following standard policies. I will not give him a total pass here. 

But, who appointed him? President Biden knew who he was. He is acting as advertised. People like finding scapegoats, when the situation is wider. This is not (see another picture on that blog) Comey and the perennial Republicans for the FBI and similar jobs. 

It is logical to have a special counsel not of the same party. The problem is that the rules are not played the same there. Mueller investigated Trump; both are Republicans. 

The focus should be that President Biden did not do anything worthy of prosecution. Instead, we are focusing on the special counsel gratuitously saying the guy is an old man with a poor memory. 

Repeating it over and over, complaining about Garland in the process. Charming. Reports Biden was angry and festy about it isn't that helpful. Sure Grandpa. 

The commentariat will argue they are being truth-telling critics. But, how much are they helping? The basic line should be that Biden is not guilty. Oh? Some Republican hack is going after his memory? We saw how he is doing his job. The details are bullshit too. And, again, the guy says Biden should not be charged. 

Is this what multiple people are leading with? Nope. More horse race stuff about how this will affect the race. More Democrats in Disarray stuff about Garland and company. More doom comments. One said Garland should have charged Trump the day Garland came into office. Before an investigation? This is the mindset of too many people. 

Again, I'm not taking Garland totally off the hook. The background of Robert Hur does not make it surprising he mixed some partisan bullshit in his report here. OTOH, how much worse is it to keep on promoting his message? 

But, I think the system as a whole was at fault. If we wanted a speeder trial for Trump and others, it would have taken a system-wide shakeup and speed-up. Problems in the FBI alone were part of the problem. 

Was it possible to select someone who would be a big reformer to upset the apple cart? Maybe, though in real life systematic reforms of major departments is a very uphill battle. 

Is it likely Biden, an institutionalist, would pick such a person, even if they were available? That it might not somehow backfire in some way?

Biden had reason to trust a long-term judge and former top deputy in the Clinton Justice Department. To remind:

In the 1990s, Garland was working for the Clinton administration as Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick's principal associate deputy attorney general. In that role, Garland supervised several high-profile domestic terrorism cases, including the Oklahoma City bombing, "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski, and the Atlanta Olympics bombings.

Ultimately, count me as supporting (more or less) this Slate take:

Going forward, this could also set Biden up to stride easily over a low bar; if undecided voters are primed to expect someone who is literally senile, and then see him mixing up a name or two but otherwise describing various issues coherently and with evident emotional engagement, they may decide that the whole thing has been overblown.

As multiple people noted in response to the claims, the average witness in the situation, including those decades younger, would have done the same or had a much worse time of it. I would include myself.

Let the blather go. 

ETA: Again, focus on what is right. Biden did not obstruct or act in ways otherwise culpable. Put aside the scope of misuse is just not comparable. A 340-page report spells this out. Don't latch on, even just to bash Garland or whatever, to Republican talking points.