Latest Breaking News On - Under merrick garland - Page 1 : vimarsana.com
it i think we're all saying the same thing, the timeline would be very helpful. i would say one more thing we're going to cover the threat environment in these united states, we talk about political violence tragically, it's become a new normal we talk about paul pelosi as someone who was the victim of a heinous crime that could happen to the family member of anybody in the arena that is because of donald trump. and alvin bragg has a back story to it. that is that doj, under merrick garland, did not pick up cases for which they found criminality on donald trump's part i will never stop asking where doj is, and i guess my last question, catherine, would it be helpful if doj brought this case >> well, they're not going to
prices he's paid, and again, that's how you ultimately make progress you do it bit by bit by bit and the whole thing crumbles like a jenga game >> i want to ask you, i'm aware of the fact that we have two very different world views from mary and harry mary pointed out that alvin bragg's framing is elmental to democracy. merrick garland may have decided this was too trivial or may have been too busy. maybe may were too busy. how does that feel, and just
>> well, you know, merrick garland has said many times that the department of justice speaks through its court documents, its pleadings, indictments, motions, briefs, and it hasn't spoken on this i'm not going to hold my breath and wait for a.g. garland or the deputy attorney general or anyone else at doj to speak out about this i do think it's probably something that was the subject of high-level discussions. there probably were meetings with the muter there is to -- with the prosecutors there to talk about the evidence. relying on someone like michael cohen, which would have probably been necessary, is always something of a risk. but on the other hand, the department of justice relies on cooperators who pled guilty to serious crimes, including in many cases violent crimes, all the time so it's a risk that we're -- we,
relatively just to try to describe possibly garland's mindset when he comes into office and is considering a menu of crimes possibly to investigate against trump. separately from that, it's important, and i 100% concur that the basic notion is not about the payout or the affair, it is precisely about the very serious matter for just the reasons mary says, it could have altered a presidential election that entire scheme beginning, as they now have the ability to made it, but it's not in the indictment with the agreement with the "national enquirer" in 2015 and going into the white house that is not trivial, nor have i said anything close to that for the last several weeks >> and i was asking you to try to explain to us why merrick garland might have passed on it.
let me raise two points. first, as to the commentary by doj, remember part an parcel what mary was just citing, when you decide not to bring a case, you don't talk remember who did talk? james comey. it is prejudicial to defendants and it's a good reason for it. let me just say, i wasn't there, nicolle -- >> let's talk about comey, though that's a great parallel. comey would say that he talked about it because there was a national interest. don't you think -- >> he said he was wrong and he dirtied up the process >> are we worry about dirtying up donald trump? >> it's not something that merrick garland would be doing, even if we might like it salaciously. but one other point, i just urge everyone to think about this in its time it is now march 2021, garland
or attempts to pay them off, that could have been all the more damaging. this effort to influence elections started before 2016. it continued to 2020 it's continuing today. and it's going to continue into the 2024 lelection we have to be vigilant and talk about those efforts. and hopefully he will be held accountable. not just for this but so many other things that are being investigated right now >> mary, i don't mean to defend or explain away doj's actions, but you are probably the most senior former department official we have been given access to. your framing and pointing us accurately to alvin bragg's framing begs the question, is it not an equal obligation that the united states department of justice, in service to our democracy, follow up on this case, or at least shine a light on why they declined to prosecute it if that was merrick garland's decision when he took over in march of 2021.
could mean a lot of special counsels. how do you explain to the public why your former boss uses more special counsels than in the past? and just to throw another at you, mike pence is very close to running for president. he's on his media tours. we have the look at this, if you compare trump and biden here, they got special counsels. if pence announces, by that standard, he's got to get one too, right? >> so, thank you for the opportunity to talk about this. because i think the main objective that merrick garland had going into this hearing is to communicate his unwavering commitment to do justice. what do i mean by that, ari? i mean doing the right thing, the right way, for the right reason over and over again. the other point i want to make, and i guess specifically to your point, you saw him today talk a lot about the rule of law. that's important in dissecting your questions.
the pence example raises that. since you're here, you might be in your office going, there they go again. now you're here. so i'm going to play some of this of your former boss, attorney general garland. let's take a look. >> i think the department of justice can do both of these investigations with the men and women who have worked there for years, and with integrity. >> i disagree pretty strongly with the decision by attorney general garland to seek a special counsel. i don't think it's needed under the regulations, and i think it risks delaying this investigation needlessly. >> i have an idea, merrick garland should appoint a special prosecutor to become the attorney general of the united states. because apparently he can't do the job. that's not me saying it, that is merrick garland saying it. >> you get the benefit of responding. >> so thank you for the opportunity to do that. these are extraordinary circumstances, and extraordinary times. and i think what we saw merrick
him and the people that he has around him. >> are people in the fbi afraid of trump? >> i will say very broadly again, i don't want to talk about an ongoing investigation, but i will say, when i was at the justice department, there were a number of stories like this, that would pop early in the morning. ly say broadly, some of those stories, and this goes to your earlier question, some of those stories were broadly right, that had some minimal inaccuracies. and some of those stories were broadly wrong, and had some minimal things that were right. this was a part of my frustration, if you will, working at the justice department. because there were certain times when we actually could correct the record. i remember in the first week of august, there was a news report that said that merrick garland did not know about the fbi search at mar-a-lago. that, of course, was wrong. the attorney general himself said that some days a of the search. and, you know, "the washington post" in its story today