Why did Merrick Garland not get he had to act like his hair was on fire after the first attempted coup since the Civil War? Put aside legal considerations for a sec. Why didn't he immediately appoint Jack Smith, hold weekly press conferences giving scared Americans--many of whom were eventually tricked by Trump--updates on what happened & what he was doing (no, he didn't have to share case specifics, but after Comey & Barr's breach of protocol & GOP lies, don't tell me he couldn't share generalities narratives & what we all saw on tv--reinforcing that MAGA were traitors & seditionists).
Garland could've shaped the true narrative vs Trump & MAGA, prosecuted those not protected by law or supposed immunity (Kash Patel? Ginni Thomas?), made clear in regular briefings this was a crime tantamount to Pearl Harbor or 9/11 & not let Trump lie to fill in gaps in ppl's knowledge bc Garland was a mouse who wouldn't say a thing. Dems in general have this problem. Follow the ones that get it: Newsom, Whitmer, Lieu, Stansbury, Swalwell, Plaskett, Goldman, Crockett, Raskin & more who know if you lose a PR war, reality doesn't matter.
Enjoy my talk w John Fugelsang on this matter! And subscribe to Cliff's Edge for more great content like this!
