General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMerrick Garland is right to be wary of political prosecutions. But he needs to investigate Trump.
Link to tweet
Max Boot
@MaxBoot
Garland needs to appoint a special counsel to thoroughly investigate and if necessary prosecute Trumps 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.
Thats why I think Garland needs to appoint a special counsel to thoroughly investigate Trumps 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
(39,374 posts)msfiddlestix
(7,282 posts)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
(36,464 posts)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
(2,385 posts)The DOJ needs to get on it like yesterday...
msfiddlestix
(7,282 posts)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
(21,337 posts)126 days until the Iowa caucus.
msfiddlestix
(7,282 posts)wnylib
(21,452 posts)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
(21,337 posts)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
(36,464 posts)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
(21,337 posts)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
(21,452 posts)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
(1,198 posts)It is inexcusable to allow these crimes to slide!
CaptainTruth
(6,591 posts)...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
(21,337 posts)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
(46,103 posts)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
(51,104 posts)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
(30,613 posts)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
(8,739 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 26, 2021, 02:21 PM - Edit history (1)
Its 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 dont 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
(7,632 posts)Wouldnt hesitate for a min.
wnylib
(21,452 posts)Does the AG even have the authority to do that? Wouldn't that be the SCSC's responsibility, if they get a case?
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)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
(21,452 posts)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
(30,613 posts)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
(21,452 posts)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
(30,613 posts)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
(694 posts)lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)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
(13,865 posts)way of prosecutions for 1/6 except for the minor players.
edhopper
(33,579 posts)jalan48
(13,865 posts)Grasswire2
(13,569 posts)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
(21,337 posts)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
(13,569 posts)gab13by13
(21,337 posts)Grasswire2
(13,569 posts)gab13by13
(21,337 posts)recommend Garland to president Obama for SC?
Grasswire2
(13,569 posts)That's my recollection.
mjvpi
(1,388 posts)1/6 is still happening. The big lie needs to be put to rest.
dalton99a
(81,486 posts)Goodheart
(5,324 posts)"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
(21,337 posts)that Garland declined to prosecute the "individual 1" case.
wryter2000
(46,045 posts)the last special counsel worked out so well.
gab13by13
(21,337 posts)had Mueller followed the money.
Grasswire2
(13,569 posts)Rosenstein is likely somewhat to blame in that matter, too.
wryter2000
(46,045 posts)A lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.
colorado_ufo
(5,734 posts)by keeping Garland off the Supreme Court.
Polybius
(15,411 posts)Without him, we'd have Doug Jones as Attorney General, who I strongly favored.