On Indicting Trump

[H2O Man]

"Come what may, all bad fortune is to be conquered by endurance." -- Virgil; Toman poet


Rubin used to tell me that, with patience, the smallest creature can climb the highest mountain. Yet, there were numerous times he expressed frustration at the slow pace of the justice system.

I remember watching the Senate's Watergate hearings. Then the television reports on what Nixon administration officials were indicted. Agnew's resigning in utter disgrace. Media reports on the very real possibility of Nixon not only being impeached and convicted, but possibly facing criminal charges for his criminal activities.

I was not frustrated when Ford pardoned Dick -- I was furious! And that feeling lasted until I realized that, had he been indicted, Nixon planned to have his defense team demand highly classified documents that the DOJ would never have released. Thus, there is very, very little chance an indictment -- however just -- would have led to conviction.

Next came the House Committee's investigation of the Iran-Contra scandal. Watching these explosive hearings, it was apparent that this web of criminal activity posed a greater threat to the Constitution than Watergate. Yet fewer people tuned in to watch the evidence unfold. Still, there would be a new record for administration officials indicted and convicted.

The downside came when the felony convictions of Oliver North and John Poindexter were overturned on appeal. The pair had been given limited immunity before the House Committee, and the court ruled their testimony there may have influenced the decision of jurors. And yes, I was furious.

Many of us remember Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the Plame scandal. While Scooter Libby was convicted of five felonies, he refused to turn on VP Cheney. Thus, Fitzgerald openly stated that Congress should investigate Cheney's role, which should have resulted in impeachment and conviction. But that didn't happen.

We all remember Robert Mueller's investigation.Because of Bill Barr and DOJ policy, Mueller concluded he could not charge Trump with obstruction of justice. But his report and later comments made clear he thought Congress should investigate, impeach, and convict Trump. Though I found this frustrating, I hoped Trump would be impeached for obstructing justice, a very serious charge. He was not, of course, but as the two impeachments indicated, there was no way the Senate republicans would convict.

I've said all of that, to say this: I am frustrated that Merrick Garland and the DOJ have not indicted Trump. At the same time, I understand why there is a wait until the January 6 House Committee completes its investigation. There are really good former federal prosecutors who make strong cases for both indicting Trump now, or waiting for the Committee to finish. Most importantly, none of these former prosecutors says that there isn't a very good criminal case to be made against Trump. And when the Committee begins the next round of public hearings -- we did see four law enforcement officers testify last year -- the pressure on the DOJ to indict Trump will become even more intense.

[Walleye]

1. The grand jury in Georgia is due to start work soon

Wasn’t Agnew convicted by the state of Maryland or at least indicted?

[H2O Man]

4. Agnew was indicted,

and "nolo contrendere" (no contest) to the charges after he resigned. He was fined $10,000 and got three years unsupervised probation. Really not even a slap on the wrist, but more of a gentle stroke.

I like grand juries.

[chocolatpi]

2. "the pressure on the DOJ to indict Trump will become even more intense"

My question is: will the political pressure to "move on" come from within our party? I hope not.

Thank you for all your excellent essays.

[H2O Man]

5. Thank you!

Yeah, I'm sure that there will be some who utter the tired and weak "let's look forward" bit. And others who are afraid of the social unrest that will almost certainly follow any indictment of Trump. But I think there are more people -- including at DOJ -- who recognize that not prosecuting Trump criminally would inflict even more serious damage to the foundation of our constitutional democracy.

[cilla4progress]

13. Yes, as Obama's AG Eric Holder said -

even more so..!

[kentuck]

47. This point cannot be stressed enough, in my opinion.

"that not prosecuting Trump criminally would inflict even more serious damage to the foundation of our constitutional democracy".

I believe the damage that would be done from ignoring such a monumental crime would be much more serious than any repercussions of violence from the white supremacy or militia groups.

It would be an historical blunder, in my opinion.

[H2O Man]

48. Absolutely!

There would be severe consequences for a failure to act.

[Joinfortmill]

3. Thank you

[H2O Man]

10. Thanks!

[malaise]

6. Lock him up

Great read

[H2O Man]

14. Lock him (and them) up!

And throw the keys away!!

Thank you! I wrote this on one of my breaks from yard work in the 90+ degree weather here. Luckily, my younger son stopped in to do the harder work for me. But these are the thoughts that take up space in my mind daily.

I am likely to sit outside and have a fire tonight, so I might end up posting another OP around midnight, concerning whatever else crosses my mind! Ha!

[malaise]

16. I'll be waiting

Love your historical overview - and yes lock them all up

[sprinkleeninow]

36. May I put your place on my list of locations to run away from home to?

[H2O Man]

40. Sure!

[sprinkleeninow]

46. 😁

[fightforfreedom]

7. Good post.

At the very least we want Trumps inner circle indicted and convicted. Like Watergate dozens of people should be indicted. As you posted, indicting, then convicting a former president is very tricky. I want Trump indicted, but there is no doubt it would become a long drawn out freak show.

[H2O Man]

18. Thanks!

I would enjoy seeing Don Junior indicted and convicted. Matter of fact, I'd love to see that.

And there is a list of others around Trump that should be incarcerated.

I agree it would be tricky to indict and convict Trump, but I am convinced it is essential for saving our country.

[burrowowl]

41. At this point

I think our country is beyond saving, sadly.
Thanks for your essays.

[H2O Man]

54. It would/will be very hard.

And you might very well be right.

I think we are in the compost stage. Thus, I hope for new growth.

[EarnestPutz]

8. Well done. A nicely written compendium of 50 years of political malfeasance, and cause for hope.

[H2O Man]

20. Thank you!

I realized when I read "50 years..." that I am of an age that considers Watergate as being fairly close to a current event. For a president who ran as a "law and order" candidate, Nixon seemed to attract those who would willingly participate in his criminal schemes. I remember how my father, a life-long Democrat who considered Nixon to be crooked, was surprised with just how criminal Nixon and others were.

[EarnestPutz]

29. You've described my experience exactly, except in my case it was my Democrat mother. She was.....

.....a Depression era young adult and a life-long FDR Democrat, but she took a while to see how criminal Tricky Dick and his cohorts really were. Halfway through the Watergate hearings, John Dean had become her personal hero. Listening to her recount the day's hearing and talk about Tony Ulasewicz's "Kalmbach call-back calls" was a lot of fun for this (then) 26 year old.

[H2O Man]

42. My father was a

first generation American; his father came to the US in 1879. There were others who had come first. Stone-cutters on the canals, then railroad workers. Union activists, and FDR Democrats who loved Leland Olds.

My mother's people were Democratic Socialists, and union activists. She never had my father's interest in politics, but really liked HHH in 1968. She didn't like to even look at Nixon on the television.

[EarnestPutz]

45. My people came over later, Slovenians who first worked in WV as loggers then miners. My Grampa.....

.....worked for the railroad, was also a union activist and had a history in the Union riots in Cleveland later.
I still love Hubert, the "happy warrior". Thanks for bringing back some old memories.

[sprinkleeninow]

37. Dint nixon utter that he wasn't a crook. 🤔

"How do you plead?"
"Not guilty."

Of course not, lying liar.

[albacore]

9. I don't believe he'll ever be indicted.

The OP talked about Nixon.
Nixon didn't have an armed, bat-shit crazy cult backing him up and hanging on his every brain-fart.
Nixon didn't have the crazy media and Q backing him up.

I believe that the Powers That Be have decided that trump is "too big (dangerous) to indict". They are weighing the price of trump indictments against civil war, and the "rule of law" is coming in second.

"Nobody is above the law" is just a bumper-sticker slogan these days, anyway.
Unfortunately.

[H2O Man]

22. Valid response.

There are many, many reasons to think Trump will not be indicted. Absolutely. And for exactly the reason that you point out -- the potential for even wider-spread violence than we have witnessed since January, 2021.

And that bumper sticker you correctly point out has become faded and tattered.

[quakerboy]

33. Unfortunately I think "they" are fools

Or maybe they are just old enough that they hope to stave off for their lifetimes and dont care what comes after.

The violence is coming. The civil war is coming. Barring something worse than the specter of china, the war with russia, and covid combined that somehow shocks Americans into uniting in opposition, violent confrontation is where we are irrevocably headed.

The only real question is does it happen while lawful people are at least theoretically in charge of the levers of governmental power. Or wait till the cult again controls them.

[H2O Man]

43. I agree.

I was in Buffalo a week ago today. I think the violence is on-going, and will increase no matter if Trump is prosecuted or not.

[cilla4progress]

11. As Glenn Kirscner alludes,

J6 is doing the background gathering of evidence that DOJ can rely on.

Kirschner says there are stellar fed prosecutors - including a specialist in RICO - doing the J6 comm investigating, not "merely" low level Congressional staffers.

[H2O Man]

24. Glenn Kirscner is outstanding.

I have the greatest respect for him. And he is obviously well informed. I enjoy watching him all the time.

[cilla4progress]

28. And

well-connected.

As in, he is personal friends with some of the J6 comm prosecutors...

[H2O Man]

30. Right.

Honest people respect him; criminals fear him. Just an outstanding human being. He could be relaxing and enjoying life, but he knows what a danger the Trump cult poses.

[cilla4progress]

31. Very

cool.

I bet legions of young prosecutors are great fans!

Badass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Kirschner

[sprinkleeninow]

39. Laying down one's life for brothers and sisters in humanity.

Scripturally, meaning simply 'laying aside' one's daily, busy-filled 'life' to assist/correct wrongs others are experiencing or may eventually.

Slava Ukraini! Slava Na Viki!

🕊🌻💙🇺🇦💛🌻🕊

[DENVERPOPS]

12. Excellent summary

Thank you for commenting H2O

[H2O Man]

25. Thank you!

[Poiuyt]

15. And, like Watergate, Iran/Contra, Fitzmas, Mueller, you will be furious after Garland

declines to prosecute.

There are two justice systems in America, and if you're rich and famous, you will most likely go free.

[KS Toronado]

21. Bernie Madoff did not get off scot free

and he was just like IQ4.5......rich and famous, but only rich on paper, lot in common like ripping people off.

[H2O Man]

27. The only area

where I disagree is about the justice system. I think there are more than two tiers. The first is exactly what you noted for the rich and famous. But there are levels below that, also based on economic class, that involve racism.

My father used to say that if you plant corn, you will grow corn. And I think that the crop of a failure to prosecute the rich and famous was planed long ago. Thank you for your response!

[KS Toronado]

17. I'd love to see

the Jan 6th Select Committee to ask Agolf Twitler to voluntarily come in and prove once and for all
how the Democrats stole the election, when he refuses subpoena him, when he files lawsuits against
the subpoenas because of (fill in the blank), make sure MSM is watching every move & broadcasting.

[H2O Man]

44. Yes!

Definitely!

[SoCalDavidS]

19. I Think You Laid Out Exactly Why He WON'T Be Indicted, Nor Will Other High Level Folk

You listed several far less than satisfying instances over the past decades, where there was insufficient accountability.

In fact, you demonstrated how each time there wasn't accountability, the next instance of criminal activity, was FAR worse than the previous one.

For that reason, not only do I not expect Any accountability, I expect that the next time there is such an attempt to overthrow the government, it will be even worse, and we'll look back in comparison as to how much less significant this last occurrence was.

[H2O Man]

50. Can't argue with a

thing you said. And that concerns me more than the negative things that Trump does and inspires. The failure to act in unacceptable.

[spanone]

23. ...K&R...

[H2O Man]

51. Thanks!

[Mr.Bill]

26. The major difference between Trump and Nixon

is Nixon had been elected to a second term, and still posed a great danger to the United States because of that. With Trump, the people at least showed they can do something about him. That something was voting for Biden. Trump can still shoot of his mouth, but he no longer has the power of a president.

I would like to see him convicted, though. If he never is, he or someone worse could return. Our best hope is that he just drops dead.

[H2O Man]

52. That is definitely a

difference. I wouldn't say it was the biggest difference, but respect that you & others can think that way. I think a more significant difference is that Nixon, as damaged a human being as he was, with a huge amount of personality pathology, had a degree of respect for the federal government. Not enough to prevent him from being a criminal, but enough to eventually resign -- though one can correctly hold that he had very little in the way of an option at that point.

Trump is the definition of a sociopath, and cares even less about the federal institutions than he knows about them. He enjoyed damaging everything good about the government as he possibly could. I am concerned that the failure to prosecute him could result in his being elected again in 2024.

I appreciate your response. And I agree 100% with your final sentence.

[onetexan]

53. Agree. My concern is should the other party win the House they will shut down the J6 investigation

completely if DoJ/Garland don't do anything before then. There's not much time left.

[H2O Man]

56. Valid point.

In fact, essential point. While I believe the Committee will complete its work this year, if republicans regain control of the House, we will see more e-mail and Benghazi type investigations. These would include more than Hunter Biden.

[Mr.Bill]

59. That and they will probably impeach Biden

on a weekly basis. They can't undo Trump's impeachments but they can dilute the gravity of them
by being frivolous with them.

[H2O Man]

60. Great point!

You are right.

[viva la]

32. I watched the Watergate hearings AVIDLY

And I'm going to be there in front of the TV with my popcorn next month when these hearings start. I know it's not the same as Trump in an orange jumpsuit. But I like to think of him screaming at the screen and then keeling over from rage.

[H2O Man]

58. The Watergate hearings

were intense.

Just my opinion, but I think the January 6 Committee may be the best congressional investigation committee I've ever seen. I think the June hearings will be outstanding.

[viva la]

62. i'm hoping for a great moment like the Alexander Butterfield revelation

Fred Thompson is the questioner! (He later played the district attorney on Law and Order.)

"Are you aware of any taping devices in the Oval Office?"

[sprinkleeninow]

34. Being 'patient' is a hard nut to crack at times.

You do good and then it's like, okay I'm done with this.

All you expressed in your outline is wise and true.

At the least, J6 committee is what we have to depend on presently. And then the DoJ. Perhaps. [Remains to be seen.]

[H2O Man]

65. Thank you!

I agree!

[Girard442]

35. If the Rs do well in the midterms...

...it will be time for those who can to flee the country. I can't, but at least I'm in NY, a deep blue state.

[H2O Man]

66. Right.

I'm old and in NYS, too. But rural upstate has a lot of Trump cult members.

[Justice matters.]

38. "evidence of his corrupt intent" - Glenn Kirshner

Trump ‘Waged War On The Democratic Process’ Says Kirschner

:


How ironic would it be that no other than (well, many other also) bill barr's testimony

Would prove to be the "evidence of corrupt intent" needed to:

[H2O Man]

67. Yes!

Glenn K is outstanding!

[lees1975]

49. If Trump is not indicted and convicted

then what purpose does constitutional law serve? This is a spoiled, rich, egomaniac brat who has bought and bribed his way through life by ignoring the law, cheating on taxes, victimizing women and lying through his teeth.

Indict, put him on trial, convict with the evidence and send him to Guantanamo.

[kentuck]

55. There are many that fear that he will not be convicted if he is charged...

...and that would only embolden him further and make it more dangerous for our country.

Personally, I do not believe that would be the case. If nothing else, it would put them on notice. The next time they would not be so lucky. They would be very hesitant to try something so blatantly criminal again, in my opinion.

However, it would satisfy the rule of law. There is never a guarantee that someone will be convicted in a jury trial, regardless of the evidence. The necessary thing to do is to follow the law. If there is enough evidence to indict, then he should be indicted. That is the proper way to go.

[H2O Man]

69. True.

In the combined experiences of my teen years and then work in forensic social work, I learned that those not charged are much more likely to be emboldened. Cycles of violence tend to gather strength from a lack of being confronted. But there are those who worry about the potential threats of confronting violent criminal behaviors. And, to be fair, there can be a violent reaction. Yet, exactly as you note, confronting Trump is the proper way to go.

[H2O Man]

68. I agree.

If the crimes of Trump are not prosecuted, it would mean that the rule of law is a sad joke.

[Solly Mack]

57. K&R

Then there's the Bush - Cheney administration. The lack of prosecutions which should have forever exposed the feel-good phrase "No one is above the law" as the lie it is. Should have forever stopped the phrase from ever passing the lips of anyone paying attention.

I watched the Iran-Contra hearings and at the end of it all came away a bigger cynic than I was already. I thought Ford was wrong to pardon Nixon.

Nothing quite did me in as the collective shrug over war crimes though.

Whenever people now ask, "How did we get here?", I wonder if it's just a habit, born out of the need to believe that whatever horrible thing taking place is an aberration and this time will be different than all the other times before or if they're just so accustomed to denial they don't know even know they are in denial.

Because of course they know how we got here. It's just too painful to think about - I guess. I don't know. Maybe it's my lack for being unable to compartmentalize like so many others seem to be able to do.

How quick atrocities and abuses are relegated to a past that is neither distant nor even the past at all.

I find myself with a wait and see attitude about any possible justice being served to Trump and his administration. I'm neither impatient nor patient. I'm neither angry at, nor comforted by, what Merrick Garland will or will not do. I see no percentage in speculating.

We've been here before many times. Feels very familiar.

So, we'll see.

I don't know that justice will be served.

I don't know that it won't.

I wouldn't put money on it, to be honest. But it could happen.

It's certainly within the realm of possibility.

Again, we'll see.

A nation can be conditioned to accept crimes from their leaders, no matter how heinous the crimes. Just convince them that prosecuting a corrupt and criminal President is worse for the country, that it would drag the country down, and cause people to no longer trust their government. (And for some all it takes is to deny any crimes were committed.)

And they say this like all of the people are somehow unaware of the crimes committed.

They say this like the crimes themselves aren't the reason for dragging the country down.

They say this like the crimes themselves aren't the reason people become disgusted.

They say this like the lack of justice, the lack of prosecutions, aren't the primary reasons people lose trust in their government.

It all reminds me of Rumsfeld saying the cameras were the problem because the photos of U.S. soldiers committing war crimes were worse than the act of torture. Because knowing the truth was somehow worse for the country. That it was more dangerous for the country for the truth of the crimes to be known.

Which reminds me of all the people wanting to deny America's history by banning books and facts that show the truth.

[H2O Man]

70. I just watched

film of Bush ralking somewhere, about Russia, where he had a slip of his forked tongue while saying a sictator alone can start a war "in Iraq." Before remembering to say "Ukraine."

The failure to prosecute Cheney and him has made it that much more difficult to go after Trump.

[Cosmocat]

61. The trend is that they have gotten increaingly worse and suffered less consquences

over time.

I would throw in Bush II lying the country into Iraq, and literally nothing happened with that, either.

Until such time as justice actually hits these assholes in a real and meaningful way, I am running from the assumption nothing of any meaning will happen to them.

[H2O Man]

71. You are right.

Absolutely right.

[Saoirse9]

63. Do you think Merrick Garland is stonewalling? Or waiting for public hearings? Or is just a weenie?

I wish I had some insight into his strategy with the former guy.

Nothing is leaking and that can make us feel like nothing is happening.

But in his public remarks Garland always says he will follow the evidence wherever and to whomever it leads.

I wish I could read his mind.

[H2O Man]

64. I think that he

is waiting for the Committee to start the hearings, which likely marks the beginning of the end of their investigation. I anticipate the book(s) to come out in early to mid-September. The DOJ generally tries to avoid potentially influencing an upcoming election; however, in the current context, either indicting or not indicting those close to Trump will definitely influence the election in at the very least the context of the voter turn-out.

[Saoirse9]

74. How do you feel about

Garland specifically? Based on what you know?

[H2O Man]

75. Fair question.

I think he is a good man. I think he would have made a solid Supreme Court Justice. I'm not sure about him as Attorney General .... in normal circumstances, he would be good, but we are not in normal times. I know the DOJ has to be "above politics," but that seems impossible to avoid today, as events include violent political conspiracies and movements. I do not know what is background education in sociology and history might be, but can say for sure a firm grasp of both are required today.

Can you guess who my favorite Attorney General was? That's the type we need today.

[Saoirse9]

76. Let me take a wild stab in the dark

Bobby Kennedy.

[H2O Man]

77. Amazing!

It's as if you know me like an older brother!!!!!!

Robert went after organized crime, and we need that approach today.

[Saoirse9]

78. Yes we need a Robert Kennedy

We have a Merrick Garland and I sure hope he's up to the job.

[Septua]

72. "A federal judge on Monday denounced efforts by former president Donald Trump and his allies to...

..undermine the 2020 election, describing them as “a coup in search of a legal theory” and finding there was evidence that Trump “more likely than not” committed felony crimes.

US District Judge David Carter’s analysis of Trump’s potential criminal exposure was part of an order about whether the congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the US Capitol could pry loose emails sent and received by conservative attorney John Eastman. Eastman had worked with Trump and his legal team in crafting a strategy to fight election results both in court and in Congress. Carter found the committee presented enough evidence at this stage that Trump and Eastman conspired to obstruct Congress to overcome a legal privilege that normally might shield Eastman’s communications...

“Dr. Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history. Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower — it was a coup in search of a legal theory. The plan spurred violent attacks on the seat of our nation’s government, led to the deaths of several law enforcement officers, and deepened public distrust in our political process,” the judge wrote.

Carter found that the committee had cleared the bar for showing Trump likely tried to obstruct an official proceeding — a felony crime that hundreds of people are charged with who descended on the Capitol on Jan. 6 — and that Trump, Eastman, and others conspired to defraud the United States by interfering with the election certification, also a felony carrying up to five years in prison. The judge focused on Trump’s “pressure campaign” to convince Pence to take steps to block the certification of Biden’s win.

Trump likely knew that his claims of widespread voter fraud were bogus given the evidence of public and private pushback he encountered from various advisers, plus the dozens of losses in court to legal challenges raised by Trump and others, the judge wrote. He noted Trump’s widely reported call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger focused on what Trump identified as the roughly 11,000 votes he believed he needed to win the state, not concerns about fraud. Trump was entitled to argue about the law in court, Carter wrote, but his efforts with Eastman to undermine the federal Electoral Count Act went beyond that.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/judge-trump-eastman-coup-crimes


"..an action unprecedented in American history."

And the sonofabitch is still trying to overturn the 2020 election as well as, making plans and taking actions to overturn elections to come.

There's an indictable crime in all that some where and Garland knows it. Whether or not Trump himself, ends up on trial, I don't know, maybe not just because he's an ex-President. But Meadows, Giuliani, Eastman, Jordan, and whoever the hell else helped him have got to be held accountable so next time it comes up, it won't be considered an option.

[H2O Man]

73. Thank you!

That's a powerful statement by the judge.

I would expect those you named to be more likely to be indicted before Trump. Not that the DOH needs to turn them, especially not before they are found guilty. But there appears to be more than enough to convict him.