One thing that could change the present paradigm.

[kentuck]

A prosecution and a trial in the January 6th attempted coup.

It would change the entire conversation, in my opinion.

It could change attitudes across the nation if someone close to Donald Trump, or Trump himself, were indicted, prosecuted, and taken to trial.

It would change the way we talk, the way we act, and the way we think.

The paradigm needs to be changed.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

1. I agree.

The longer it takes to charge anyone other than the poor saps who actually invaded the capitol building last year, the more it proves that the rich and well connected can get away with anything.

[gab13by13]

6. DOJ has to investigate them first,

Adam Schiff stated yesterday he doesn't believe that DOJ is investigating the higher ups. He also said, he hopes that DOJ isn't waiting for referrals from the select committee, DOJ should be leading the way.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

7. Exactly.

I have zero expectation of any of them being indicted, let alone arrested or brought to trial.

[Eyeball_Kid]

48. Any resistance to investigations of Trumpers is an act of fatal denialism.

The people at the DOJ are competent attorneys. They know the stakes. The stakes are existential: if they fail, the nation dissolves. It can't be more clear. The Trumpers' rhetoric and behavior demands a law enforcement response. Without it, we crumble to fascism.

So it's a good bet to expect indictments of Trump and his inner circle. All of the machinations are pointed in that direction. The DOJ may have some Trump loyalists among its ranks, but it is NOT ruled by them.

Either the Dems are strategically planning on Trump's demise, or a confluence of related factors are doing it for them. I'd guess that it's the former. The timing is right, nonetheless.

[msfiddlestix]

2. ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️

[Raven]

3. Exactly!

[gab13by13]

4. President Biden's recent speech changed the conversation,

he needs to continue doing that.

I'm just hoping that Garland indicts Meadows for ignoring a subpoena, day 24 since he received the criminal referral.

Bannon's trial isn't scheduled until the end of July, no way DOJ schedules a trial close to the election.

My hope is that the select committee can change the conversation with its public hearings. Where would we be without that committee, too bad they don't have any authority to indict.

I am not convinced that Garland believes a former president could be indicted.

[Gaugamela]

16. If Merrick Garland fails then Joe Biden fails. Ultimately, it all comes home to roost in

the Oval Office. An attempted coup is a legitimate national security concern, and a suitable topic for discussion between the President and his AG. If Garland just sweeps it under the rug with no investigation then it would be with Biden’s consent, which would make Biden’s speech on the 6th ring pretty hollow.

[gab13by13]

21. Regardless,

do not underestimate the power of the narrative. The speech that president Biden gave changed the narrative and it did put pressure on Garland. He should have given that speech a lot sooner. President Biden needs to keep pushing this democracy v autocracy battle. The narrative going into the 2022 election needs to be democracy v autocracy regardless what Garland does.

[dwayneb]

41. Too little too late?

We should have had this discussion 10 or 20 years ago when anyone that bothered to engage their brain could have predicted where this was going to go. At least then we might have had a chance to forestall the coup attempt from the RIght, and maybe kick the can down the road for a couple of decades.

Now the blood is in the water. The fascist Right has the roadmap, the momentum and the bully pulpit (the Internet) to complete the implementation of their autocracy (whatever that might look like).

The real question is where things are going to go after the coup, whether it succeeds in 2024, 2028 or 2032.

The problem is that Americans have been living in la-la land, some Disneyized fantasy world - not the real world where evil exists and is ready willing and able to take away their freedoms, their security and their future.

[Eyeball_Kid]

49. Without telling Garland what to do, Biden and Garland are working in concert.

Garland didn't pick the date of his speech out of thin air. He knew of the purpose and content of Biden's follow-up speech before 1/5/22. It was a one-two punch.

And yes, both changed the narrative.

[Solomon]

5. I have been saying this and saying this.

There is no such thing as an airtight case. Some evidence gets developed during the trial. This idea that we can't charge someone until we can prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt is nonsense. I was a criminal defense attorney for more than 20 years. Lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt never stopped arrests and prosecution of regular, poor and minority people. I hate seeing people confuse the concept with due process. Due process means you have the right to a jury trial after being charged. Not that they have to prove the crime before they can charge you.

Arrest the fucker and get it on!

[gab13by13]

9. One does have to have some evidence,

if DOJ isn't investigating that tells me it isn't indicting. I know, the select committee and reporters have already uncovered a lot of evidence, but I see what I see and see what I don't see.

Garland's speech was just a request to give him more time, something we don't have in an election year.

[kentuck]

10. However, it did not take them very long to indict Bannon...

Granted, the judge postponed his judgement until July but all of them may not be so lucky or may not get the same judge?

[gab13by13]

11. Remember, Bannon was low hanging fruit,

not a member of Trump's cabinet, not affiliated with Trump, not a politician. The people behind the coup planning are all going to claim executive privilege which will drag everything out.

It took 21 days to indict Bannon, it is day 24 that DOJ has received Meadow's referral.

[Escurumbele]

17. Thank you, that needs to be yelled everywhere, you are 100% correct, there is plenty of evidence

of his culpability. It blows my mind when I hear about "the Georgia investigation about the one plus phone call asking for 11,780 votes to be found for him to win." Tell me, what investigation? They have the audio of trump and Meadows, they have witnesses, the secretary of state being one of them...I don't get it, it is infuriating.

[gab13by13]

23. I don't think that is a cut a dry case.

The prosecution needs to prove intent, needs to prove that Trump really didn't believe that he lost the election. I do believe that DOJ should be helping the Fulton County DA prove that case.

[TiberiusB]

30. I don't think that is quite right

I'm no lawyer, so someone more qualified would know better, but I think they clearly have intent. The phone call by a major elected official, in this case, Trump himself, is enough. The question then is if that is evidence of a crime or simply a breach of ethics. As for the question of whether Trump actually didn't believe he lost, that would be irrelevant. The question would be, "would any reasonable person, given the evidence, believe that?" Beyond that, even if Trump thought he had good reason to question the Georgia results, there are established mechanisms to investigate that concern (and he's tried 60 times in various states). Calling election officials and asking them to "find" votes is not one of those.

[gab13by13]

34. You may be right, it seems reasonable,

what I posted was something I heard from one of the former, expert, prosecutors on cable TV. I forget who it was, he claimed that it would make a difference if Trump believed he won in Georgia. Actually, your explanation makes more sense.

[dwayneb]

43. Criminal defense attorney - not a prosecutor

I don't think Garland is an inept AG. To me he is an effective prosecutor. The further you get up the food chain, the more evidence prosecutors usually want before they bring charges.

I guess the analogy might be using all your available ammunition in the first attack or battle, only to lose the war. When it might be better to gather more ammunition (evidence) before D-Day.

Either approach may be moot in any case. What Trump began in his first term will continue in the next fascist Administration, whether it is gained via direct election or by coup. That is, the destruction of the DOJ as we know it and the rule of law.

[Solomon]

56. "Criminal defense attorney - not a prosecutor". You say that like I don't know anything about

prosecutions or prosecutors. My best friend was a prosecutor (now a judge). And obviously I know a lot of them. According to how a lot of du-ers think, there will simply never be enough evidence to prosecute Trump for anything even if he commits a crime in plain sight. If prosecutors always waited until they have proof beyond a reasonable doubt before charging a case defense attorneys would never ever win a case.

And I never said that Garland is inept. In the meantime let's just keep waiting to charge the guy until the republicans steal the midterms and squash the whole thing.

[Emile]

8. Like before the Civil War when they expelled 14 lawmakers for supporting the Confederacy,

the same should happen for those who supported the insurrection!

[dwayneb]

46. Snopes analysis of the expulsion

In case anyone was wondering about the accuracy of this bit of history.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/congress-expelled-lincoln-election/

What's True

In 1861, the House and Senate expelled a combined total of 14 members for taking part in Southern secessionist efforts or supporting the Confederacy.

What's False

None of the House and Senate motions to expel the 14 members cited their attitude toward Lincoln's election, which — since the men were attempting to secede from the Union — was of little relevance anyway. Comparisons with present-day political events were therefore stretched.

[Emile]

54. What's true

There was a significant degree of truth to Gaddie’s claims. Exactly three members of the House and 11 Senators were indeed expelled from those chambers in 1861. All of them had joined or supported the Confederacy as Gaddie claimed.

[Escurumbele]

12. No doubt about that, my prediction is that trump will be indicted this year, reason why I hate when

people talk about him running in 2024. Many of the thugs that have been on his side, Hawley, Jordan, Meadows, his children, etc. will also be indicted.

I also think he will be jailed, too much dirt on the dirty buffoon. It would be tragic if anyone allows him to get away with so much crime he has perpetrated through his business and during his stunt on the presidency.

[dwayneb]

45. Does anyone really think this will end with Trump?

If Trump does not run in 2024 we have to realize that there could be someone far worse on the horizon. While Trump was the right person at the right time to bring together the neo-fascists with his populist charm, as a strategist for the Radical Right, he's a total buffoon.

We should be very very worried about someone that really, truly understands the way our government works, is willing and able to dismantle it from within - and will smile and placate us as he does it.

[liberalla]

13. I thought this was the plan. Timing is important. New and compelling information is coming to light.

Drip, drip, drip... We (the public at large) are being primed for big "reveals" to come. The momentum is building.

This has been the plan, right? At least, that was my impression.

[ShazzieB]

20. I agree about the momentum.

The snowball has been nudged over the top of the hill and is just beginning to head downward. It's going to pick up speed and increase in size as it goes. I'm on the edge of my seat waiting to see what's going to happen next.

10... 9... 8... 7... 6... 5...........

[liberalla]

53. Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow!

[llashram]

14. ++

[brooklynite]

15. The trial needs to happen with the indictment is ready, not before...

...and not "to change the paradigm".

[gab13by13]

18. Kentuck, I value your opinions,

I always click on your posts, you are more reasonable, more reasoning than I.

I have a what if for you. What if Merrick Garland decides not to indict Mark Meadows? Everyone is assuming he will, I am not assuming that. I mean the criminal referral is for ignoring a subpoena not for sedition. What say you if that happens?

Same question to you Brooklynite, I also value your opinion.

[kentuck]

52. What if he indicted Sean Hannity...?

Last edited Sun Jan 9, 2022, 12:31 AM - Edit history (1)

Or someone else, not necessarily Mark Meadows?

The important thing is to change the debate. It is more important to win the public debate than to win a conviction in a trial, in my opinion.

Although the speeches by Garland and Biden are important and significant, they will not have the value that a prosecution and a trial will have of someone close to Trump.

Something needs to capture the attention of both sides of the argument. The Big Lie must be challenged in court. Otherwise, it is like smacking a tennis ball back and forth over the net...

[SheltieLover]

19. Lock. Them. Up.

All of them!

[Escurumbele]

22. This is a very good article that has been posted here in DU, here is a snip of it and the link

"Watching him on TV and reading my Bob Woodward tea leaves, it looked to me on Thursday that he has heard talk from friends and sources amounting to more than rumor — that Trump is going to end up charged with a felony, or multiple felonies. He made clear that he thinks the House Jan. 6 committee is being thorough, almost to a fault, in the way they're going about their investigation of the events before, during and after the day itself. Woodward is a Washington Whisperer par excellence. He's been at it for almost 50 years. He is one of the least excitable guys I've ever met. But on Thursday, as he was being interviewed by Lawrence O'Donnell, he looked like he was about to levitate out of his chair."

[link:https://www.salon.com/2022/01/08/donald-should-be-very-afraid-this-anniversary-was-not-good-news-for-him/|

[gab13by13]

25. The select committee is doing a fantastic job,

it can only make referrals to DOJ for action.

[Marthe48]

24. We need to stop thinking that wealth equals superiority

or wealth is the be-all, end-all source of power. We need to stop acting like elected officials are exempt from obeying our system of laws, whether they are in office or out. More and more often elected officials are shown deference which in the past was reserved for royalty. Royalty doesn't really deserve it, just for having a title, but elected officials in the U.S. were picked from the pool we all swim in.

Traitor broke laws his whole life, surrounded himself with criminals who broke laws their whole lives, and continues to get by with being a traitor and a crook. Because he pretends to wealth, pretends to high birth, when he has neither.

[kentuck]

57. Sometimes it does seem like an existential battle between the very wealthy...

...and everybody else. The moneyed class seems very confident and do not worry about small things like laws.

[Stuart G]

26. If Trump is found "GUILTY" by a jury. You are correct, everything will change.

No matter, if Trump goes to prison or not.

Far stronger than..."IMPEACHED TWICE"..."FOUND GUILTY OF CAUSING AN INSURRECTION" will forever put Trump's
name in the "SH*T BOX" ......AND , NO WAY OUT!!!!

[Bettie]

27. I think that televised hearings of the

congressional committee will make a difference. At least I hope so.

[gab13by13]

35. At the very least

the hearings could make a difference getting people to vote for democracy.

[JT45242]

28. Amen. Needed since Nixon side tracked the Vietnam peace talks

Nixon -- treason in Vietnam, no consequences
Reagan -- treason giving money to Iranians to hold hostages, no consequences
Reagan/bush and Iran Contra, no consequences for anyone of note
Bush Jr/Cheney ...lies, torture, and war profiteering , no consequences

I'll believe Garland is different when I see an indictment for someone of note.

The country needs it.

[Cassidy]

29. I fundamentally agree, but classic paradigm shifts result from numerous small shifts over time.

I am concerned that if anyone goes for the head of the snake, it will convulse the nation. The losing former guy would whine about being victimized and his minions would rally around him - with their weaponry.

I agree with M.Garland's stated plan that they must methodically working their way up the power structure to uncover the truth, make the arrests, and prosecute the criminals. I fear that Garland and his DOJ are not up to the task, but there are others who are investigating his associates and supporters for numerous crimes.

L. James AG of NY is clearly up to the task of investigating and prosecuting criminals like Jr. and Ivanka for fraud. F. Willis, the DA in Fulton County, GA, is obviously determined to investigate and prosecute for crimes of election interference. We need more district attorneys and Attorneys General as well as the public testimony planned by the Jan. 6th Congressional Committee to chip away at the false beliefs of the Trump supporters. We need his associates and assistants arrested and prosecuted for their crimes to demonstrate the criminal behavior of the entire vile Trump enterprise.

This will take some time, and is very frustrating, but it stands a better chance of longer-term success for the country than immediately aiming for the head.

[gab13by13]

36. Justice should never be based on how other people will react,

justice needs to be blind and based on facts and evidence, period.

[hurple]

31. No. It won't.

They won't watch. They won't pay attention. It's a witch hunt. It's just dems getting revenge. It's fake news. It's all phony.

They'll have their right-wing noise machine bubble to Amp up that message and reinforce their victim hood.

And he will not only survive, but come out of the other end more popular than ever.

We saw exactly that happen with two justified and prosecuted impeachments. What makes anyone think a trial over 1/6 will be any different?

[Tommymac]

42. Not with Liz Cheney on the Committee. She alone defangs those arguments.

It IS a Bi-Partisan Effort.

Just because the M$M is playing it's usual game of both-siderism does not mean it really is both-siderism.

And TFG's popularity IS fading - it's becoming a movement where he is the figurehead but has lost a lot of his power. Trumpism, not Trump.

Independents are listening too. Have no doubt that most are leaning against the idiocy of Trumpism.

[hurple]

51. Liz Cheney is a DINO, don't you know?

She's already been written off by the rest of the party, and the right-wing media.

They don't care what she has to say.

I live in a very very very red area... Trump won 2020 by > 80% in this county! I know what the red-hatters are thinking and saying, and they don't give a flying mouse f--k about what "that traitor b--ch" has to say. (Their term, not mine)

And they are getting more vocal and violent about it by the day. If they arrest that guy, and try him, expect open warfare.

Now, saying ALL that... yes, I hope that POS gets frog-marched out of mar-a-lago sooner rather than later and gets tried for treason.

[hay rick]

32. Whether it's true or not, the appearance is that the big ones are above the law.

Justice delayed is indistinguishable from justice denied. Every day of delay reinforces the narrative that government "of the people" doesn't work.

[The Wizard]

33. But the question remains

Can you assemble a jury with no cult members? One cultist on the jury and you're pissing into the wind.

[gab13by13]

37. I believe that New York has the best chance to convict Trump,

both the civil and criminal cases.

Intent does not need to be proven in the civil case and Tish has the documents. In the criminal case Vance brought on a high tech financial prosecutor (Pomerance) sp. and if anyone can nail Trump he can.

[Elessar Zappa]

39. DC trial would be better

Only 6% of DCers voted for Trump.

[CaptainTruth]

50. I agree. Remember Al Capone, convicted for tax evasion.

Financial crimes like that have a documented, provable paper trail.

On the other hand, when it comes to Jan 6 many of the things people say Trump should be criminally prosecuted for fall in "awful but lawful" territory. For example, I've seen lots of folks say Trump should be prosecuted for "inciting a riot" on 1-6, but they clearly don't understand the legal definition of "incitement." The standards of conduct required for a successful prosecution were not met, & I really don't want prosecutors wasting their time bringing charges that get laughed out of court. Now, a civil suit filed by victims could be a different matter, the plaintiffs wouldn't have to prove criminal incitement. I do expect civil suits to come, after all the insurrectionists have been interviewed & prosecuted, because their testimony (statements like "I did it because I believed Trump wanted me to do it" ) will be key evidence in a civil suit.

And yes, as you say, I too believe NY has the best chance of prosecuting Trump for financial crimes, it's just a matter of when.

[Joinfortmill]

38. 👍

[karynnj]

40. I wonder if that would change the majority of the Trump allied Republicans

Yesterday, I spend 10 relatively depressing minutes or so reading the conversation on Facebook to an article on the risks to democracy. It was at first interesting as there were posts from both sides. Many people tried to engage politely with those on the right who argued they were losing their freedoms.

Many right wingers actually seemed sincere that freedom of speech was greatly at risk, mentioning Twitter banning Trump and MTG. They were not deterred when it was pointed out that Twitter was not the government, but a private company or that no one forced Fox News to have an equal number of Democrats.

Some mentioned that they were losing freedom of religion, mentioning pastors being arrested. (I read that.comment to my husband, who had the same reaction I did. The only cases I hear of involved crimes not related to religion, such as child abuse and fraud.

Some spoke of having a President they could not identify with, ignoring that no one on our side had ever been comfortable with Trump, but we remembered the Obamas treating them politely in the transition.

My guess is that the tribes have become more polarized than ever before, leading to the point that they absolutely can not accept our side winning. This might mean that emotionally they would not accept a conviction of a top Trumper. They would see them as martyrs. Consider Trump and others have referred to the low level people jailed as patriots and have called their sentences unfair.

I live in a really blue area and have a large extended family spread through the country, almost all proudly liberal. I don't know any Trumpers well. I hope that I am taking this random set of comments more to heart than I should. I would love to hear from DUers in more diverse places that things are more hopeful. The conversation remained civil, but no one shifted at all, and the two views of reality were incompatible.

[rso]

44. Trump

If Garland is too timid to prosecute, he can always appoint a Special Counsel.

[Eyeball_Kid]

47. Ah!! Another poster with the right idea!

IMO, you're on the money, just as I've been on the money for months. It would take ONE INDICTMENT to change the paradigm. One indictment of Trump, specifically. He's the head of the snake. And that day is coming, I'm certain. Here's why.

Biden has mapped out, IMO, a strategy, and we're seeing it played out. He's in touch, of course, with Congressional leadership. I don't think that Garland unilaterally chose Jan. 5 as the day of his speech. Even though he was passionately nonpartisan, I think it was part of the plan. Because Biden verbally attacked Trump on the very next day. And since then, the news media has reported news and editorial pieces and dialogs that are decidedly anti-fascist, and anti-Trump (one and the same?). GOPers are silent, except for Ted Cruz fellating Tucker Carlson on live TV. (Cruz didn't jump the shark. He swam right up to its mouth with a bloody nose.)

The strategy for Biden and the Dems is to drive a wedge between Congressional pro-Trump factions and neutral GOPers. He wants to isolate the Trump fascists WHILE the DOJ is preparing for indictments.

The next event to turn the Trumpian GOP into mush will be the J6 televised hearings. If they proceed as expected, there will be no doubt left among the electorate that Trump aspires to an anti-democratic dictatorship in which the Constitution and the Rule of Law will be totally abandoned. Fascists scoff at the Rule of Law, and they're doing it now. The hearings will go on for MONTHS. The national political conversation won't ignore the J6 hearings because it's just too titillating to look away. They'll lay it all out in exquisite detail. They'll make it totally clear that any sniffing of Trump's pants could well trigger investigations of treason.

The effort is mandatory for a republic that presumes to be self-sustaining. Fascism and Trumpism (again, one and the same?) must be purged from American politics. The drive toward fascism by the GOP, which likely began with Reagan and Gingrich, must be universally condemned. This drive has already begun, and one of the signposts on the road to this purge is Trump's coming indictments.

[ymetca]

55. The DOJ should indict TFG

for racketeering. Let Congress toy with the insurrection stuff, as that will likely go nowhere.

It has the added benefit of telling all TFG's loyalists in Congress they can just shut the fuck up now, because this ain't about that.

Hey Hannity --surprise! Good luck with your talking points, buddy.

Follow the money.

[rampartc]

58. any trial results in hung jury, no matter what the evidence

a hung jury, in magamerics = total vindication.

they are running out the clock. do you think speaker gym jordan will allow the committee to continue? hell cheney and kinzinger won't even be in congress.

a conviction even bannon or guliani, would be very welcome but how can a jury be selected without one cultist? trial before november? not a chance.

[kentuck]

59. But they could not shut down the DOJ, right?

At this point in time, I think it may be more important to win in the court of public opinion than in a court of law.

It would be difficult to seat a jury without a cultist on it, I would agree. But I don't think it is impossible.

I suspect Merrick Garland will appoint a Special Counsel to continue the investigation after the House shuts down theirs, or are forced to shut down by a new Republican majority.

[rampartc]

61. maybe the foj has already shit down

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-confirms-there-was-no-insurrection-on-jan-6/ar-AANxOuQ

[madville]

60. Agree, Cheney and Kinzinger will likely be primaried out

Doubtful those two are still in the House after ‘22.

[Poiuyt]

62. I'm not sure that I agree

It should, of course, but these are different times. In the past, everyone agreed that facts were true. Now, Republicans are divorced from reality. Totally delusional. It doesn't matter what kind of evidence is presented or how serious the charges. They will not believe that they're true and will assume that there's a liberal witch hunt going on. Legitimate news sources are just "fake news."

I will also counter your premise that Trump will be charged and put on trial. It would be nice, but I don't believe it will happen. It would be a huge headache for an AG to indict him and would probably be political suicide. Trump's followers would riot (again) or make personal threats against him/her. I'm still in the camp that thinks Merrick Garland is too timid to take action against Trump. If Trump was indicted, he'd use his lawyers to run out the clock, countersuing the government so he'd never appear in a court room.

Unfortunately, in America, some people are above the law, and Trump is one of those people.