What Garland actually said, from the body of the article:
That headline borders on an outright lie. Garland didn't refuse to do anything. He pointed out that the defendants can raise a speedy trial argument at any time. There's also a big difference between the truncated quote, "I don't know anything" and the comments Garland actually made."I don’t know the specifics of individual cases," Garland said. "The beauty of the 6th Amendment is that each of those people is entitled to a lawyer, has a lawyer who can make a speedy trial argument in the court."
"Oftentimes lawyers ask for more time, oftentimes they ask for exceptions for discovery," Garland added. "There was an enormous amount of discovery in those cases. But I don’t know anything about those particular cases."
When Clyde asked whether a two-year wait meets the "speedy trial" clause of the 6th Amendment, Garland replied, "It can if the exceptions to the Speedy Trial Act are met. Those are the responsibility of the lawyers for those defendants."
"I would like you to look into that, because to me, I don’t think waiting two years for your trial complies with the 6th Amendment of the Constitution," Clyde said.
"This is an argument to be made before the judge," Garland replied. "The judge has the authority to dismiss a case for a violation of the Speedy Trial Act."
So you read this and you tell me - is there right-wing media bias? Because it sure seems that way to me.
Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/garlan ... w-anything
