You are right, there is little to no similarity between Garland and Bondi, with the notable exception of their job titles. A rather obvious connection between the two which requires no effort on my part to note as well as considerable effort on the part of others to dismiss. The already glaring contrast between them is in how they approach their job, and that was my entire point.
Maintaining the appearance of non-partisanship which I referred to and which had been a major talking point among Garland's detractors for years, is but one example of the glaring contrast between the two. As I suggested, this is only the beginning.
It is not in Garland's job description. It is in the DOJ code of conduct. And this fact makes your reference to Garland's failure to do his job even more perplexing. It is certainly not what I was talking about: I only brought up one of the more common grievances against Garland as if it were a bad thing.
But not having replied to what I posted and bringing up Garland's perceived failure to do his job instead, you suggested that there is something you know of that Garland failed at in doing his job. By all means, list those job-related failures.
Hell, I will even give you a hand with it. Here is the entire job description of an AG as outlined by US Code compiled by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel which outlines every single function that the AG is expected to perform:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/part-II/chapter-31
Additionally, since some of the AG's functions have to do with supervising the US Department of Justice, here is the US Code that guides its functions: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/part-II
Find anything in this exhaustive collection that Garland failed to perform, and then we can talk.
= new reply since forum marked as read