Why isn't Attorney General Merrick Garland pressing charges against Donald Trump? Surely the 1/6 insurrection hearings in the House have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt just how deeply Trump was involved with the mob attack on the Capitol and the effort to stop Mike Pence from certifying the election results?
In the LA Times today, Harry Litman provides the obvious answer. It's one thing to convict Trump in the court of public opinion, but in a court of law you need ironclad evidence for a specific, serious crime:
Even assuming that the department could prove any number of offenses on the part of Trump, Garland would not take the unprecedented step of prosecuting a former president unless the charge involved a grave crime against the U.S. Most likely, that charge would be seditious conspiracy. It’s the most serious of any leveled so far against those involved in the insurrection attempt, and for most Americans, it captures the fundamental evil that Trump has wrought.
In the federal criminal code, seditious conspiracy is defined, in part, as two or more people agreeing to “oppose by force” the government’s authority or agreeing “by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States.” It doesn’t matter if they succeed; the crime is in the agreement.
So far, so good. So what happens if Garland charges Trump with seditious conspiracy?
Although with Hutchinson’s account, and that of other witnesses, the committee has presented ample, even voluminous, evidence of Trump’s role in the events of Jan. 6, to date it has produced only circumstantial evidence of the all-important element of an agreement between Trump and a co-conspirator.
The “will be wild” Trump tweet inviting his followers to Washington; Stephen K. Bannon’s declaration that “all hell” would “break loose” on Jan. 6; and Rudolph W. Giuliani’s statement to Hutchinson on Jan. 2 that Jan. 6 would be wild, seconded by White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, all speak to the likelihood but not the certainty that Trump conspired with one or more persons to “prevent, hinder or delay” Congress’ certification of the election.
"Likelihood" is not nearly enough. As Litman says, there's an important link missing in the case against Trump: concrete evidence of a second person with whom Trump conspired.
We might yet get that. But Trump has always been very shrewd in the sense of knowing how far he can go in conversations that might become public. "I just want to find 11,780 votes" is a classic example. We all know exactly what he meant. And Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger knew exactly what Trump was asking him to do. But the words themselves, especially surrounded by Trump's insistence that the election was marred by fraud, keep Trump a hair away from saying something he could be prosecuted for.
My guess is that the same is true about the things he said to his staff and friends about the 1/6 insurrection. When you put everything together, you can conclude that Trump had been hoping for something big; that he egged on the crowd; and that when the crowd attacked the Capitol he did almost nothing to stop them.
But can you find that all important second person who he clearly and distinctly roped into a conspiracy to make sure this would happen? So far we don't have it.
His father was a second rate slumlord, TFG never quite lived up to that. But he did do really good at weasel words to avoid giving direct orders. Everything implied, but nothing plainly stated. I read that his own lawyers in his "slumlord with dreams of glory" days would never meet with him individually - they always made sure they had a colleague on hand.
The family had a lot of buffers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uezhB-qJqDc
I think the reason is simple: the risk to reward balance is off.
In the court of public opinion, trump's actions appear horrid. However, in our hype partisan world, there is no certainty to get 12 jurors to convict Trump.
The trial would be a huge political event. An acquittal, or hung jury, would be a huge political win for Trump (I think but who knows!). So, I think the trial is not worth the risk...
This speaks to my point below.
A nation that watches what Trump did and is NOT untied behind putting Trump in prison is not a nation with a bright democratic future.
My hopes for this republic are close to zero at this point.
United, lol, oops.
It does seem like we're all tied up in knots...
What would be the practical difference between trying but failing to convict Trump and granting him impunity? You could use the same reasoning to avoid prosecuting all corrupt officials or gangsters since their acquittal would care the same implications as would Trump's being acquitted. I can't think of anything more destructive to civil society than the Department of Justice declaring that some people are above the law—perhaps because the department is afraid of them as with the right-wing militias or perhaps, like Trump, they're so powerful that they are above the law that binds the rest of society.
Mitch Guthman - many political analysis hold that the failure to convict Trump after his impeachment (especially his first impeachment) made him politically stronger.
Accordingly, a failure to convict in a criminal trial would be spun by Trump as a vindication of his innocence. After all, he would be innocent before the eyes of the law.
In contrast, not charging Trump criminally make the January 6th hearing the final word, in the public eye, and the evidence is damming..
Yes, it made "team Trump" politically stronger for awhile, but the steam is coming out now.
I cannot imagine any legitimate basis such reasoning. The DOJ is supposed to uphold the law by prosecuting without fear or favor. It is not supposed to be a political organization, it is not supposed to make politically motivated decisions, and this politicization of the department has always been one of the major concerns about Trump and creeping authoritarianism.
You are advocating that we should explicitly have one law for the powerful and another law for the rest of us.
You're both right on the merits. No, we should not have two laws (one for "me" and one for "thee"). No, we should not take a political gamble on Trump's being found guilty or not. Both are terrible. We jumped into this pool when we elected Trump. But on balance, justice should be the priority. Even if we do end up in a "Time of Troubles"/civil war over it--which is very possible. Otherwise this entire showdown is for nothing. Hopefully Trump will just kick the bucket on his own before Nov 2024.
& just think: if this was what became of electing El Jefe in 2016, well, it would have been even worse with Hillary.
Hold the trial IN DC, there's nobody who would let Trump off the hook inside the city. Also true for a trial in Alexandria, VA Federal Courthouse.
Didn't Trump direct Giuliani to tell DHS to seize voting machines? That sounds like seditious conspiracy to me.
My concern is that seditious conspiracy for Republicans is not a bad thing. In fact, it's probably in their party platform in the more general term, anything Republicans do is fine and dandy. There just is NO bottom level of debasement and illegality that they won't sink to. None.
Ken Buck certainly thinks so.
He organized an armed force to attack the capitol and overthrow the government, which he intended to lead in person and would have except for the better judgment of one guy. If he had gotten there is there anyone who imagines who would not have been able to resist marching right into the building himself and then holding it and making an hours long extemporaneous from inside or on the stairs in front of it?
He is exactly in violation of his oath of office, and the crime the can charge him with is treason.
"Organized" is such a strong word.
/s
I'm beginning to think that our betters have resigned themselves to a suicide pact.
as god is my witness can get fucking edit button this damn thing.
As god is my witness can we get a fucking edit button on this damn thing?
I get what you are saying. But if what Trump did isn’t a felony, then we are a lawless nation and this democracy is on the way out.
Uh.... Yep.
I realize that nuance isn't popular; but, here goes: at this point, I don't really think there's any legitimate (reality-based) question as to whether or not trump committed a crime. I suspect the DOJ has no doubt on that point.
The question comes down to what sort of evidence can be mustered in court, before a jury, to not just prove that crime but to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Because, keep in mind one other point that may not be very popular at this point in time: our justice system is based on the presumption of innocence. We may have at least partly lost sight of that fact in the twitter age of cancellations where seemingly anyone's allegation against anyone else can lead to instant life and career annihilation; but,
if you actually show up in court, the accused is still presumed innocent until proven guilty.
And I'll take one more unpopular step, I'll look on a bright side: these layers of difficulty that the DOJ would have to climb in order to successfully convict trump are certainly frustrating from a certain perspective, but from another perspective those same bedrock fundamentals of the legal system are providing us all with layers of protection. Without the presumption of innocence and the right to due process, the TwitterSphere could easily become the real world.
Ultimately, the best we can hope for is balance. Some obvious crooks will indeed get off, and some innocents will tragically be found guilty of crimes they did not commit. No system of justice in the world will always be perfect at all times and in all places. But, hopefully, we can secure the most justice for the greatest number of people possible. And it seems that aiming for that goal might in fact mean making it easier for people like trump to escape justice sometimes.
At a time when prosecutors lacking adequate staff & funding to prosecute every criminal behavior are being threatened by the likes of Miyares in Virginia for not prosecuting every case (while those in his party have no problem with "constitution" sheriffs who choose not to enforce laws that they don't like!), it would be inexcusable that anyone taking an oath of office to protect & serve, upholding our laws & Constitution, would be given a pass on what trump fomented.
The president holds the highest office; he, above all, must do his duty or face the consequences, or we will lose the right to expect better & insist on it.
Miyares is just Enrique Tarrio with a better wardrobe.
We should just call then both Fulgencio.
So true Monty!
A serious issue otherwise is that older Democrats in DC are incapable of dealing with the idea that the entirety of the Republican party has devolved into traitorous conspiracy, and will not take action against Republicans presently in positions in the Federal government.
Their problem that they cannot face is that every Republican appointee or hire throughout the Federal government needs to be regarded as an infiltrator because that's how they think of themselves and they need to take them at their word and remove them immediately.
Particularly in agencies like the Secret Service and the FBI.
It irks me how any agency, group etc with a liberal tilt is a grave problem (teachers, colleges, the media [but this idea is nonsense]), yet any group with a much steeper Republican tilt (cops, firefighters, bankers, etc…) is a big shrug.
That sounds rather McCarthy-esque. Do you have a list?
Anyone who has voted for Republicans for the last ten years, the trivial number of anomalous anti-Trump Republicans notwithstanding.
Very true--but then you have the Secret Service not do an after action report on Jan-6 and delete the text messages....
Trust but verify....
OK, just fact-check everything....
older Democrats in DC are incapable of dealing with the idea that the entirety of the Republican party has devolved into traitorous conspiracy
Yep. That's what we're up against. It's not a small determined group of conspirators, like the Bolsheviks circa 1916. It's 48.9% of the country's political class. Or maybe 53.8%. I'm not sure. It's as if the Confederacy had decided that, instead of breaking away from the Union, it wanted to conquer the Union.
And they're pretty near to succeeding, from what I can tell. I think it's entirely possible we've already seen our last competitive presidential election for a while. And if that's the case, this November might be our last competitive midterm. Having the unelected alternate legislature (SCOTUS) in your pocket is a big advantage.
That former guy was an expert at mob boss-speak. "She's gonna go through some things", "find me some votes", "I'd like you to do me a favor, though". Basically every "order" he gave was couched to provide plausible deniability, counting on his syncophants to know what he actually MEANT.
The FBI is well familiar with this tactic, as practiced by organized crime. Which is what Familia Trump was all about. Well, let's hope they can use their Mafia and Cosa Nostra experience.
Sure. You don't run a criminal enterprise as long as Trump has done and as long as he avoided prison (not even a single charge, AFAIK) without being very skilled at mafia operations.
It strikes me now how incredibly stupid this law is, then.
It only takes one president to end our democracy.
Trump, of course, had millions of enablers and dozens of direct helpers, but he himself acting as he did should absolutely rise the level of the gravest of felonies.
Apparently another place where our system of law and order is completely unprepared for what Republicans are doing.
Even with a solid case, it'd be hard. You'd probably have to do a request for Jury Sequestration immediately, because all the Trump people have to do is get one juror to refuse to convict and the whole thing fails.
I get that completely. But the alternative is letting an attempted coup go completely unpunished.
I don’t see how we survive as a democracy if we do that.
Whatever the supposedly missing pieces might be, the way the DOJ has organized things, they won't find them because they aren't looking for them.
Maybe they are looking for the missing pieces [crosses fingers]. https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/07/20/what-lisa-monaco-said-about-charging-a-hypothetical-former-president/
I mean, yeah, that's all well and good to say in response to hypotheticals asked by a professor at a college talk. I have very strong doubts that such "we follow the law with no regard for politics or power" reasoning is true in practice, even for the most pure of heart at DOJ. but yeah, fingers crossed i guess.
She’s been saying that all along but I’ve never really understood the basis of her optimism regarding Trump and his inner circle. It seems to me that if the DOJ was genuinely interested in prosecuting Trump they’d be a lot more active and they wouldn’t be allow the statute of limitations expire on potential charges with making any effort to build a case against anyone who couldn’t fairly be considered cannon fodder.
It the same situation we saw with the Mueller investigation. The reality was that Mueller had decided right from the start not to prosecute and therefore not to investigate. The few prosecutions he undertook seem to have been based on evidence gathered by others such as suspicious transaction reports and a general sloppiness by powerful insiders who found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The reality is that investigations (particularly of what are essentially historical conspiracies) have certain basic characteristics such as questioning of people, gathering evidence, and vigorously pursuing cases against lower ranking members of the conspiracy or organized crime family. These are extremely difficult to hide, particularly since everyone affiliated with Trump or the Republican Party has been extremely quick to run to the media if they are visited by law enforcement.
The hundreds of January 6 prosecutions do not provide a path to a prosecution of Trump or anyone close to him. They are essentially a distraction to hide the fact that there’s no appetite for prosecutions of powerful people. The DOJ has all but officially declared Trump to be above the law.
My biggest fear isn't the lack of ironclad proof; the anecdotal evidence as well as testimony from Raffensperger and others on the receiving end is sufficient to convict. Happens with Mafiosos all the time.
The biggest fears are: "It's just political, I don't care about politics, and Both Sides are Equally Wrong" and "perjury during voir dire". The process of jury selection depends on potential jurors being honest about biases and prejudices. 1-2 MAGAts lying and insisting on being impartial could hang any number of juries forever.
Your point is irrelevant.
This has been said a billion times: Team Trump had no clue about the quickly thrown together plot(as poorly constructed as it was). Once Pence did his deed, it was over. Trump and his staff were shutting things down literally as the protest in general disbanded.
Um, what? Have you seen any part of these Jan 6 hearings?
To troll doesn't require any preparation or knowlege.
Nor sobriety.
The Georgia case to me -- not a lawyer -- sounds more powerful than you have described it here. Trump, on tape, asking for votes, is pretty straightforward. He seems, to me, to have slipped up in his usual very shrewd ability to avoid personal responsibility here. A possible explanation for that is that he thought that any Georgia Republicans, like Raffensperger, would be on his side, so he let his guard down a bit when speaking to him/them.
Yeah, but it's hearsay and frankly something all politicians do. Kerry blasting Ohio bean counters overnight after the election is well known. It's why he didn't concede until the morning.
It's not hearsay. Under the Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2) it's a party admission. Just about anything relevant Trump said is admissible.
I’m not a lawyer, but a taped phone call conversation directly relevant to the issue is not hearsay.
You're also not falling down drunk like Shooter2422.
It’s also absolute nonsense to pretend all politicians call Secretaries of State to try to overturn an election they don’t like.
That is an extremely dishonest debate tactic.
The main reason not to charge Trump is that it would lead to violence all around, against the juries, the court but also elsewhere.
This is terrorism, and in principle you shouldn't give ground to terrorism, but when the terrorists are 20 - 30% of the population it works differently.
Note that I am not saying that it is the right attitude by the administration. But this is the grounds for it. The discussion of legal details is completely irrerelevant.
You have to prove Trump lead a terrorist act, you cannot. More like the "Terrorists" lead Trump.
You can be part of a conspiracy without being the leader of the conspiracy.
He wasn't a leader. He didn't randomly plan this in a parking garage hastily the night before. If his idiot "supporters" had moved on, you don't even remember this.
The main reason not to charge Trump is that it would lead to violence all around, against the juries, the court but also elsewhere.
This is horrible reasoning.
MAGA dodged a bullet on 6 January 2021/b>. They got lucky. Full stop. The reaction of the country—and of the bipartisan political class—would have been vastly more forceful had that mob succeeded in killing several dozen lawmakers.
I don't want violence. Nobody does. But if committed pursuit of justice sends these Nazi motherfuckers over the edge, bring it on. That will be the beginning of the end for MAGA.
Yikes.
But point stands.
"This is horrible reasoning."
I don't actually have an opinion whether the reasoning is right or not. It is certainly not horrible, but it may be wrong.
But I was very suprised to see people discussing the legal details as if they ar erelevant to the question of whether trump is charged or not. They are not relevant, and people need to recognize it.
Nazi? ??? With all those jews???? Amazing people still don't get the con.
"Even assuming that the department could prove any number of offenses on the part of Trump, Garland would not take the unprecedented step of prosecuting a former president unless the charge involved a grave crime against the U.S."
And you can stop right there. Charge him with any crime he can be convicted of. It doesn't need to be somehow regarded as a "grave crime" -- he shouldn't get immunity from prosecution for any crime just by being a former president.
Exactly. So in summary, the only tool to deal with a lawless President while in office is impeachment, with the promise of potential criminal conviction after they leave office.
EXCEPT we've proven over the last 250 years that it's basically mathematically impossible to complete impeachment in the Senate, and it's apparently impossible to be indicted once you leave office, too.
So how is our system supposed to dissuade lawless tyrants again? Especially of they're backed by a propaganda machine keeping half of the country politically behind them?
I don't see why ALL crimes should not be rolled into a single prosecution effort. X counts of seditious conspiracy. Y counts of obstructing an official proceding of Congress. Z counts of dereliction of duty. D counts of throwing food at the wall. E counts of suborning perjury. F counts of threatening witnesses. G counts of destroying evidence. H counts of contempt of Congress.
And surely, many more. That's how trials go: it isn't just the one thing per trial. And the jury, if any, votes on each count, one by one. It's not unusual for the accused to get off on some counts, but be convicted AND SENTENCED on the rest.
Garland shouldn't sell this case short. It's too important. He will not get a second chance.
Aren't there lesser but still serious federal crimes Trump could be charges with, if seditious conspiracy isn't viable?
Also, question to the lawyers: could (or would) DOJ task a grand jury with coming up with an indictment, and does that make a difference?
I don’t think there are any crimes unrelated to ⅙ for which he can still be prosecuted. The DOJ has let the statute of limitations run on everything else. So they’ve already given him a pass on all of his other potential federal crimes.
Is this true? This is the first I have heard about statutes of limitation having run. Can you provide specifics?
"Aren't there lesser but still serious federal crimes Trump could be charges with, if seditious conspiracy isn't viable?"
Exactly. The Feds couldn't manage to nail mob bosses like Al Capone on the big stuff, like murder. So they convicted them on tax evasion and RICO. The purpose isn't necessarily to put Trump away for the rest of his life. It's to make him pay some kind of price, be convicted of some kind of crime, so he can never hold office again and so the precedent is set that no one is above the law.
This post is an example of what really irks me: speculation in the absence of data. The correct answer to the quesiont "Why is Merrick Garland holding back on Donald Trump?" is "I don't know," full stop.
He's old school, he believes in the myth of the "Institution," and he believes that status quo will maintain itself - and he couldn't be closer to wrong.
Actually what the prosecution needs to get a conviction in a case like this where everybody knows the defendant is a jury without a single jurist prejudiced in his favor. There was plenty of evidence of Trump's criminality (among other things) before the 2020 election and he still got 47% of the vote. Most people who swallowed what he did before November 2020 are not going to think that January 6 was really serious.
Even if a trial is held in Washington DC where only 5.4% voted for Trump the probability of excluding all Trump voters in a random selection is 0.946^12 = 0.51 or basically a coin flip. Realistically a jury is going to have some Trump supporters, who are known not to care about evidence. Expecting that some "critical" piece of evidence would convince such people is unrealistic - in a political case the verdict is not going to be rational.
In my experience that’s not strictly true. Once someone is on a jury and isn’t a fruitcake they tend to shift from “guy on a barstool” mode to trying to do a serious job. But, in any case, unless you only want to try the easiest cases, this really shouldn’t be some the DOJ should even be thinking about.
On another note: I really want someone from the Secret Service put in prison for evidence tampering.
We have Trump and his attempted coup, many people ignoring Congressional subpoenas, the Secret Service blatantly destroying evidence with flimsy and constantly shifting explanations, etc.
We have lost the thread. We are no longer a nation ruled by laws.
When was this nation ever ruled by laws????? It's mob rule. It's always been that way.
Ronnie James Dio was never president.
I think that Pence’s suspicion is probably correct - Secret Service agents loyal to Trump were intending to remove Pence from the Capitol and prevent him from returning, in order to disrupt the counting of the electoral votes and prevent the certification of Joseph R. Biden as President-elect. There are some number of agents who need to be terminated and referred for criminal investigation.
The opening premise is a problem:
"Garland would not take the unprecedented step of prosecuting a former president unless the charge involved a grave crime against the U.S."
If Garland doesn't think he can get a conviction on a "grave crime against the U.S." then Trump is off the hook for his myriad other crimes?
They should throw the book - no, scratch that, the whole frickin library at him.
Like +15.
They have already allowed the statute of limitations to run on all of the possible crimes of which we’ve become aware. That includes various frauds, money laundering, and obstruction of justice (per the Mueller report). It’s either 1/6 or nothing. Since they allowed the statute to run on everything else without even opening an investigation, presumably the answer is “nothing”.
I understand failing to charge trump if garland and the DOJ don't think they have a good chance of conviction, but much of what I've read makes it sound like charges against trump have barely been discussed, much less actively and aggressively investigated. Of course the truth of what's actually going on at DOJ is not clear and what the public knows is all reporting on background or just plain conjecture, but I can't say I'm confident in DOJ or Garland on this.
CSPAN clip, just for you: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5024491/user-clip-garland-j6-investigation
Garland is going to make a failproof case or he's not going to bring a case.
The difficulty with that argument is that you can’t build such a case without an investigation and there is no indication that such an investigation is being undertaken. What’s more, it looks very strongly that everyone close to Trump or who might be able to implicate him has been given a ‘get out of jail free” card.
My impression is that this is an excuse being put forward by Garland and his apologists. But in the absence of evidence that anyone with potential evidence is being interviewed or documents and other evidence being gathered it seems like a feeble excuse. This is particularly true as we learned that the DOJ wasn’t aware of key witnesses or what they had to say and evidently hadn’t bothered to get the communications of the Secret Service agent who were involved in something (possibly protecting Trump but also possibly conspiring with him to overthrow the government).
You have indications that DoJ is investigating Trump, by nature of Garland's statement that they're conducting one of the largest investigations in the history of the DoJ, on J6 and everyone involved. If you need specific "Trump is a target" letter, you're solely relying on the public confirmation by DoJ or Trump, which may never come, on account that neither side may be inclined to make this public.
There are hints that Trump knows he's being investigated by the fact that news outlets have reported close associates of Trump have disclosed that Trump is trying to short-circuit any prosecution by announcing he's running for office, long in advance of the normal window.
No one's been given a get-out-of-jail-for-free card. But if they had gotten them, they could be compelled to testify on account that 5A is no longer on the table, though lying and contempt are.
A "second person" could be the Secret Service agents who tried to hustle Pence out of the Capitol. If they had done that, that could have prevented the ballot certification, giving the rest of the coup time to mature. Pence knew this, and that's why he refused to go with them. Given the violence already present, they could have been taking him off to imprison him.
That's why the "deleted" Secret Service texts are so important. Those could be the orders to take out the VP. They could be the smoking gun. That could also be why they were deleted.
There’s two possible explanations for the Secret Service trying to get Pence into the car. One is the explanation that they wanted to prevent him was certifying the election. In and of itself, not really their call to make.
But I can’t let go of the fact that Pence refused to get into the car, telling his SS agent “But you're not driving the car. If I get in that vehicle, you guys are taking off. I'm not getting in that car.” It seems to me that Pence concern, like that of any other mafioso is you don’t get in the other guys car and be driven away to be killed. And I think that could be white pants had in his mind that trumps Secret Service agents would essentially tell him either refused to certify the election or be handed over to the mob to be executed I think that’s a realistic possibility particularly in light of the fact that the Secret Service has now “lost” all of its text messages and possibly the rest of its communications from that day. Which is highly suggestive, don’t you think?
Pro-tip: never use the dictation function on your iPhone.
He absolutely is a white pants Republican.
No, there is only one explanation. The other, nefarious claim, is purely speculation based on selective reading.
Leonnig and Rucker made clear what Pence's thinking was at the time. People choose to selectively pick that quote without the additional context provided by Leonnig and Rucker.
Pence may not have expected to be kidnapped and held, but that doesn’t mean that that wasn’t the plan. Why did the Secret Service delete text messages from January 6th and 7th? Wouldn’t a competent, objective Director have immediately ordered all records to be preserved, to serve for an internal review of the situation, actions and responses, as a lessons-learned effort.
My suspicions also!
I am SO SO sick of this. If any other American with a big public following had gathered a crowd in or near Washington and told them to march to the Capitol and "stop the steal," adding that the VP doesn't have the "courage" to reverse the election, he or she would have been arrested within days and charged with sedition (or inciting to riot) within a month. If it had been shown that the person doing that would BENEFIT PERSONALLY from an attack on the Capitol, the case would have been even MORE airtight.
And yet, somehow, our institutions dither and dick around.
Back in November 2016, I said that if trump completes even one term without being driven from office in disgrace, our democracy would be finished. Now there is one last chance, hanging by a thread, and we are blathering about "how high the bar is" to prove the crime.
We didn't just come to the edge of the cliff under trump; we went over it the day he took office. We have been in free fall ever since, and we close to going splat on the rocks below. Merrick Garland has the parachute. If he doesn't indict, we will hit the rocks at terminal velocity, but at least the parachute will remain neatly folded.
Merrick Garland has the parachute. If he doesn't indict, we will hit the rocks at terminal velocity, but at least the parachute will remain neatly folded.
And if he indicts and Trump is found not-guilty, Trump will very likely emerge stronger, more influential and more popular with his base than ever. And he'll have momentum heading into 2024. I want him charged no matter what, mind you, but don't kid yourself there's any guarantee an indictment won't help Trump. It's entirely possible it will.
The problem, of course, was that his people were in charge--at least until inauguration if not longer.
Exactly. Moreover, the more conscientious of "his people" had either been resigned or tweeted out, and replaced with syncophants shortly before Jan 6.
If some of the principals in the J6 insurrection knew in advance that Trump was going to surprise everyone at the last minute by going to the Capitol, they heard it from someone connected to Trump. That's the missing piece between Trump and the insurrection.
First, we don't know what DOJ is actually doing. We know they are, and have been, investigating January 6 for some time. Beyond that, we're in the dark.
Second, Litman is right about the difficulties of proof. For example, Hutchinson's testimony about what happened in the SUV is entirely hearsay. She claims Engels and Ornato said these things, but were they true? Engels and Ornato say they weren't.
Third, DOJ would be nuts to do much public while the congressional hearings are going on. They have to know what these people have said on the public record, and THEN get their statements for themselves.
Sure, all true, but America had an attempted coup* on Jan 6 and it sure as hell looks like we are going to do… nothing about it.
I’ll be very surprised if charges are brought, and even more surprised if a conviction is made.
There has been literally zero political price for Trump’s actions, as well. Even if he wasn’t intending for Jan 6 to happen (he was) it is still utterly disqualifying that it did happen.
This… is not how functioning democracies behave.
*this is the best language to describe this succinctly and I really don’t care about semantics or legalities of what term is used
but America had an attempted coup* on Jan 6 and it sure as hell looks like we are going to do… nothing about it.
Yes, this is likely. A constitutional republic would easily unite in indicting and convicting a violent political faction that engaged in insurrection. But the GOP isn't a faction as such: it's half the political class. Our constitution and our legal traditions aren't designed to allow 51% of our political power to prosecute the treasonous 49%.
The parallels with the Weimar Republic in the early 30s are striking. Unlike Lenin or Pinochet or Mussolini, Hitler didn't gain power because he controlled a small but violent militia trained to seize power. He became Führer by steadily accumulating more and more legitimate, electorally-won political power, until he had enough to bend the country to his will. MAGA's not far from there, especially with the Supreme Court in their pocket.
Nope, your wrong. Nazis came to power because of the great depression. Learn history idiot.
Ornato said he would come to the committee to testify under oath that Cassidy Hysteria, also having testified under oath, had perjured herself.
He has yet to testify.
Hutchinson was a direct witness to the statements of Tony Ornato in the White House after the President returned - her recollection of his narrative is not hearsay. All we have is the unsworn statement of some anonymous person that Ornato and Engel will deny that Ornato said what she reported him saying. Neither Ornato nor Engel has said anything since. We will say what they say under oath. Let’s think about this for a moment: what incentive would Hutchinson have to make up this incident? And to testify under oath, under penalty of perjury? Whereas, the anonymous source faces no consequences whatever for his/her claim.
To believe that Trump was NOT involved in the conspiracy to overthrow the government, you would have to believe all the stuff we have witnessed, both in audio and in video, happened without the consent, approval, and direction of the ONE PERSON WHO WOULD BENEFIT.
That strains credulity far beyond its breaking point. As a criminal defense lawyer, I can tell you that all it takes to be involved in a conspiracy is one- yes, ONE- overt or covert act.
The real problem is Garland is afraid for his life and the riots that will occur should he charge Trump. However, Trump will end the decision by declaring his run for prez and then Garland will say he cannot charge because that would be political.
The reason that Trump won't be charged is the same reason that the coup attempt failed: He was too vague.
It's my worry that, even though the Justice Department eventually will file charges, the former guy is so adept at delays, and legal wrangling, and exploiting every legal loophole for further delay that he'll either be in the White House -- or dead -- before this thing can come to trial.
I do hope I'm just being too cynical here.
I don’t think we’re going to get justice. So I’m hoping for a more permanent form. I would laugh ???? ????????
The layers of the onion have to be peeled back. You've got Proud Bois, Oath Keepers, Alex Jones. You've got Roger Stone, Steve Bannon. You've Willard Hotel folks. You've got Giuliani, Clark, Eastman and Meadows. You've even got Jared and Don Jr. You've got Secret Service folks. You've got Pence. Make them all testify under oath. See who cracks. Then start indicting whether they declare they are a candidate for office or not. The election is over 2 years away. There is time to do this and comply with DOJ policy.
I feel like Don, Jr., in the wake of his mother's death, is going to spiral out of control. They say he was very close to his maternal grandfather, & losing that link to paw-paw, I expect him to drown his sorrow in COCAINE!! Catch him in between binges & once him give up everything.
"But can you find that all important second person who he clearly and distinctly roped into a conspiracy to make sure this would happen?"
They should hurry up and find those deleted secret service text messages. It's a problem that they're lost. Surely someone could produce the messages that prove seditious conspiracy there. Not sure exactly what the crucial message would say but something along the lines of "president grabbed my throat saying 'Take me to the Capitol. I'm the fucking president'. Grabbed the steering wheel. President now trying to take phone from my hands. ... president subdued. Returning to White House."
Maybe the texts are on Hillary's homebrew server.
I hope they can find the bulk of the texts, but I have no particular reason to think they'll be found. It's not physically impossible to destroy data, and it seems to me entirely possible data destruction has been successfully carried out in this case. Certainly that's what the early reportage seems to indicate.
Would love, in the end, to be proved wrong on this, of course.