Merrick Garland is right to be wary of political prosecutions. But he needs to investigate Trump.

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
Max Boot
@MaxBoot
Garland needs to appoint a special counsel to thoroughly investigate and if necessary prosecute Trump’s abuses of power; indeed, he should have done so months ago.

Failure to act gives Trump a de facto pardon.

My column.

Opinion | Merrick Garland is right to be wary of political prosecutions. But he needs to investig...
It's time to appoint a special counsel.
washingtonpost.com
7:44 AM · Oct 26, 2021

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/25/merrick-garland-is-right-be-wary-political-prosecutions-he-needs-investigate-trump/

No paywall
https://archive.ph/jVZDt

*snip*


Trump faces even more potential exposure for his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection. New York University law professor Ryan Goodman, co-editor of the Just Security blog, told me that Trump may have, at a minimum, violated federal laws against impeding or disrupting “the orderly conduct of government business” or an “official proceeding.” It might even be possible to charge the ex-president with more serious offenses such as a seditious conspiracy “to overthrow … the Government of the United States” and “insurrection against the authority of the United States.”

Local prosecutors cannot investigate most of these crimes. Only the Justice Department has the power to do that. Of course, there is no guarantee that a Justice Department investigation would lead to indictment or conviction. But failure to investigate would offer Trump a de facto pardon — and an invitation to do even worse should he return to power.

That’s why I think Garland needs to appoint a special counsel to thoroughly investigate Trump’s abuses of power; indeed, he should have done so months ago. Naturally Trump and his partisans would describe any investigation as a “witch hunt,” but they will make the same accusations against local prosecutors who are also Democrats. That it would still be up to a jury to convict him would provide a measure of political insulation.

There are real risks — including more violence by Trump supporters — in the Justice Department investigating and potentially prosecuting the former president. But there are even greater risks in allowing him to get away with his assault on democracy without having suffered any consequences worse than the loss of his Twitter account.

*snip*

[BeyondGeography]

1. Laurence Tribe agrees

Link to tweet

[msfiddlestix]

4. I missed the news of DOJ defending Trump defamation suit

I wasn't aware of this until now... that's a really really significant indicator, apart from the apparent inaction/delays investigating Trump et al regarding Jan 6th. and so much else.

Don't know about anyone's thoughts on this matter, but this factoid confirms my growing doubts with regard to Garland's position and judgement as head of the DOJ.

[CrispyQ]

5. A lot of us are past "growing doubts" about Garland.

I can't believe he let that shit show in AZ go on. Not dealing with that is going to come back bite us on the butt, big time, I predict. And it will be interesting to see if they do anything about Bannon. I guess we'll just have to be patient & see if the folks on DU who believe that Garland's DOJ is working diligently in the background bringing Trump to justice are right. They better have something to announce before the midterms next year, cuz GOTV has been our biggest advantage & with all the voter suppression laws, even that may not be enough. Getting 81 million voters back to the polls won't be easy if it looks like Trump is going to get away with everything.

[HUAJIAO]

11. By mid-terms, I believe, will be way too late.

The DOJ needs to get on it like yesterday...

[msfiddlestix]

13. Absolutely correct. And it should be Obviously Common Sense, to anyone paying the least bit of

attention to merely the public machinations of the boot licking machinations of GOP/TFG just since last elections and long before and after.

To be in denial is to be an enabler.

[gab13by13]

15. You bet,

126 days until the Iowa caucus.

[msfiddlestix]

14. Yeppers, see my post #13

[wnylib]

20. I didn't know that the US AG had authority over a state's

election process. AFAIK, each state sets its own laws about registration, when voting starts and stops, use of voting machines, use of mail-in ballots, and decisions about recounts. As long as no one's civil rights are being violated, doesn't the federal government stay out of it? (Except in Bush v Gore, when the SC should have stayed out of it.)

[gab13by13]

23. Title 52 - Voting and Elections - Subtitle I and II

Ballots, voting systems and other election materials were no longer in the custody of election officials.

If the federal government had no jurisdiction over state elections why did Garland write a stern letter to the Cyber Ninjas?

[CrispyQ]

27. According to the guidance letters the DOJ sent to AZ,

the chain of custody on ballots was broken & the audit wasn't conducted in the manner it should have been. So why didn't we do anything? Are there no penalties for breaking election laws? Or did we just send a few letters of guidance and say, "Oh well, we tried."

What the other side accomplished was getting We the People used to the idea that a private entity can question election results, demand access to our ballots & voting equipment, perform their audit with whatever methods they want, & then have their "results" reported as valid by the media. I can't believe we let this happen. Next time they won't wait six months & it won't just happen in one state. Our elections are about to become shit shows of epic proportions because one party doesn't want to appear partisan or political. JFC, the fascists are this close to taking over & we're worried how it will look? IDK what we're worried about, but saving our country doesn't appear to be on the list. I hope that, at least, will get people to the polls next fall.

[gab13by13]

34. Yes, absolutely,

Garland had the authority. Here in Pa. they want my driver's license number and SS number. They also got access to voter information, which could be very useful. I can imagine it could be used in redistricting.

[wnylib]

45. So since election laws were broken

regarding ballot chain of custody, Garland had the authority and duty to call them out on it. IF they had intended to declare an outcome for Trump, based on "election fraud," then the letter worked.

If AZ had intended to set an example for other states to follow in an attempt to "prove" that Trump was cheated out of a win because of voter fraud, they failed. Garland's letter was a warning, "Continue and I WILL take legal action."

So the shit show in AZ accomplished nothing except to make the ninjas look like clowns and become the butt of comedy routines.

[mrsadm]

43. I am so furious at Garland!

It is inexcusable to allow these crimes to slide!

[CaptainTruth]

37. As I understand it, Garland is representing the office of the President...

...which is his job. There's a difference between representing Trump, as a person, & representing a political office, in this case the office of the President.

[gab13by13]

39. Your statement is partially correct,

Trump needed to be performing his official duties in order for Garland to defend the office. Slandering someone who accused him of raping her doesn't seem to me to be an official duty of the president. Garland did not have to take the case.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Trump isn't a political prosecution.

It's federal and criminal.

Trump got a free pass while in the WH. He's not there now.

A meticulous case for prosecution can be made.

My question is jury nullification. Can you truly keep MAGA supporters off a jury panel. There is a risk of a hung jury, acquittal, or nullification (meaning the jury believes he's a victim of the criminal justice system, not that he's guilty of the charges).

[Nevilledog]

3. Jury selection would be a process.

MAGAts are too wrapped up in their delusions to NOT make it obvious they'd be biased.

Kinda like picking a death qualified jury. They are exhaustive is disqualifying people AGAINST the death penalty.

[lagomorph777]

6. This situation is a bigger danger than all the other problems facing us, combined.

We can solve NOTHING unless we deal with this existential threat.

Biden should have every branch of government working to root out extremists and prosecute them.

Meanwhile, Garland is letting Trump's terrorists walk free every day.

[Traildogbob]

18. I feel you

Last edited Tue Oct 26, 2021, 02:21 PM - Edit history (1)

It’s sickening. If I hear another pundit bitching about if we prosecute anybody in Trump world his cult will bring blood. Are we gonna let them run amuck because our snow flake asses are scared? Then all those that stormed beaches while being slaughtered was a waste of life. We should have just hunkered down after Pearl Harbor and Hitler because we don’t wanna poke a bear. They want blood, bring it to their doorsteps. If I took arms against the gov, I would expect to be killed. And they should know, they will be killed, citizens or not. Preachers are screaming from their pulpits, if Trump is not reinstalled we will bring violence. As Jesus would do. Time to put down the rabid raccoons. Bannon is a good start. Then Hannity, Sucker and the Screeching witch Ingram. They are opening attacking our country, our democracy. None will be on the front. None have ever served a second. Time for the REAL war on terrorism. Flush them out for the drones.
I fought before under uniform, I will again in civies. Damn if I will lay down for this shit. I owe it to my daughter. I will not and do not want to exist under their rule.

[Ligyron]

40. I'm right there with ya 'bro.

Wouldn’t hesitate for a min.

[Traildogbob]

42. 🤜🤛

[wnylib]

22. Does the AG normally override the decisions of judges?

Does the AG even have the authority to do that? Wouldn't that be the SCSC's responsibility, if they get a case?

[lagomorph777]

32. Heh heh.

The AG's employees decide what charges to bring and what sentences to recommend. If they bring misdemeanor charges against terrorists, and recommend "time served" or community service, that sets the upper limit on punishment for the terrorists.

But you knew that.

[wnylib]

46. Is it possible that DOJ is

willing to let the smaller fish go because it is focusing its time and effort into putting together a solid case against the big ones?

[lagomorph777]

47. That would be poor strategy; shows the medium fish they don't have to take DOJ seriously.

They won't be interested in cooperating if they can see they have nothing to fear.

So far, it looks like the plan is to do the bare minimum to claim there is somebody keeping the lights on at DOJ.

[wnylib]

48. Here's what doesn't make sense

to me about the complaints against Garland.

Biden is a liberal Dem. He chose people carefully for his cabinet to be sure that they were well qualified, vetted, and suitable for the way he (Biden) would govern. Biden is well aware of the dangers to democracy by the RW extremists. He gave an excellent speech on it at the 2016 Dem convention and last year throughout his own campaign. Why would he choose an AG who would not go after the J6 insurrectionists?

Garland has experience in dealing with RW domestic terrorism from the OK City bombing. Why would Garland not pursue the fascist terorists who pulled off the J6 coup attempt? Why would Garland not pursue the many Trump crimes as well as J6 and the Trump accomplices in and out of Congress?

It just doesn't make sense that he would not follow through. But to do that, he must rely on FBI investigations to gather concrete evidence that would hold up well in court and get convictions.

I would mistrust Wray before I would mistrust Garland. Wray could be stalling, dragging his feet on investigations. AFAIK, Garland cannot fire Wray, but Biden can. If Biden fires Wray for not adequately pursuing the investigations, that ratchets up the claims of politically biased harrassment. It might be necessary to do that and then deal with the consequences considering the alternative.

Or, a way around that could be using other intel agencies.

I just find it hard to believe that Garland and/or Biden are giving the fascists a pass. I do wonder sometimes if there are "influencers" amping up the mistrust of Garland in order to fuel dissatisfaction and division among Dems. I am NOT accusing you or any DU poster. I just wonder if any RW operatives have seen an opportunity to get. involved.

[lagomorph777]

50. Yes, Wray can't be trusted. But that doesn't excuse Garland's prosecutors letting so many

terrorists just walk away scot free.

Decades ago, he may have been a stronger man. But at this point, he does not seem up to the job.

[johnthewoodworker]

7. How many Republican/Nazis are in jail?Answer; 'zero'. Republicans giggle at justice.

[lagomorph777]

33. Well, be patient. Look at all the Wall Street thieves we jailed after 2009.

Look at all the people who went to jail for lying us into the Iraq war.

Look at all the people we jailed for putting babies in jail.

Look at all the Wells Fargo top management who went to jail after they ripped off millions of their customers.

Patience will be rewarded. Keep your powder dry. Real justice takes time. Maybe magic is happening behind closed doors at DOJ.

Oh, wait.

[jalan48]

8. If the infrastructure debate is any indication I think it's doubtful we will see much in the

way of prosecutions for 1/6 except for the minor players.

[edhopper]

9. I fear we will not see prosecution for the MAJOR players.

[jalan48]

10. I agree. Paper tigers until the issue loses steam then it's time to move on.

[Grasswire2]

12. John Dean says so, too.

The Federalist Society membership of so many in positions of law enforcement and justice hierarchy tends to tilt the agencies in one direction. Public confidence in the work product of those agencies is important, too, and so it's important not to lean one way to coddle the insurrectionists' fee fees while telling the MAJORITY of citizenry to (basically) butt out.

[gab13by13]

17. The lawyer who wrote up the coup plan,

John Eastman, is a member of the Federalist Society and worked for Clarence Thomas.

I have posted here a dozen times crying for Garland to appoint a special prosecutor who can't be shut down if the GQP takes back the House. Bill Barr appointed John Durham to be special prosecutor to investigate the Russia/Trump investigation aka/ find dirt on the Bidens. Barr set up guiderails, Durham is still getting paid, still looking for dirt on the Bidens. Did you see Garland admit that last week when he went before Congress?

[Grasswire2]

19. Hell's bells, the head of the FBI is a Federalist Society member! nt

[gab13by13]

24. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph.

[Grasswire2]

30. LOL probably they are members, too!! nt

[gab13by13]

35. Didn't Mike Lee of Utah

recommend Garland to president Obama for SC?

[Grasswire2]

41. Garland was considered acceptable to Republicans.

That's my recollection.

[mjvpi]

16. The only way to effectively "look to the future" is deal with the present.

1/6 is still happening. The big lie needs to be put to rest.

[dalton99a]

21. Absolutely.

[Goodheart]

25. Garland ALREADY has two prosecutable cases, even without some investigation into insurrection.

"Individual One"

plus

Ten counts of obstruction of justice detailed by Robert Mueller.

Garland needs to get off his ass and affirm the principle that no man is above the law, regardless of whether or not trump is a danger to democracy.

[gab13by13]

28. I'm pretty sure

that Garland declined to prosecute the "individual 1" case.

[wryter2000]

26. Yeah, because...

the last special counsel worked out so well.

[gab13by13]

29. It would have

had Mueller followed the money.

[Grasswire2]

31. and had Barr not knee-capped him.

Rosenstein is likely somewhat to blame in that matter, too.

[wryter2000]

44. If we had another Mueller type, we might get the same

A lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

[colorado_ufo]

36. McConnell may ironically have done us a favor

by keeping Garland off the Supreme Court.

[Polybius]

38. I doubt that

Without him, we'd have Doug Jones as Attorney General, who I strongly favored.

[markpkessinger]

51. I suspect he is a better judge than prosecutor n/t

[Shellback Squid]

49. all roads lead to Rome