Banking on a Garland Jan. 6 indictment
... immediately after the DOJ indictment of Trump in the docs case was announced, there came the predictable wave of second-guessing which swirled around in the very same speculative air as the absurd defenses from republicans.
More than that, pundits who had spent years wringing their hands over whether the DOJ/Special Counsel probe would hold consequences for Trump, shifted right away to cynicism and doubt - over the judge; over the venue, over court date; over the political implications; coming a bit late to the realization there are many actual considerations for the DOJ, other than following news reports, which challenge their prosecution to make absolutely certain the value and weight of their evidence.
Of these, concern about political bias screams the loudest. It's the wild card in all of this, because the politics has never been in the DOJ's control, and never will be. The simple fact that Trump can still run for, and presumably be elected even if convicted means that voters, not the Justice Dept., will be in charge of the task of keeping Trump from office.
That means most of DOJ's concern is best spent making sure what they ultimately do or decide can be judged as a deliberative process based on the evidence they uncover and produce, and not out of favoritism toward any political aim or individual.
There would be little defense against charges of political bias if Merrick Garland began with the presumption Trump was guilty of something and just had the U.S. Justice Dept. gather together whatever fit that assumption into an indictment. That's basically what we do on the outside. There's nothing wrong with that, but isn't what could be fairly reasoned to be just, and it isn't how Garland rolls.
“All Americans are entitled to the evenhanded application of the law, the due process of the law and to the presumption of innocence,” said Garland in a press appearance unsealing the Maralago search warrant (months before the appointment of Jack Smith). “Much of our work is by necessity conducted out of the public eye. We do that to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans and to protect the integrity of our investigations.”Garland said.
IF there was any actual delay or resistance in making the DOJ's Jan. 6 probe about Donald Trump and his allies in and out of the WH, it was because it was early days in the investigation. The players and their potential roles had to be obvious to Garland, but there wasn't any sense in rushing to get Pence's recalcitrant testimony, or Meadows, or any of the other Trump confidantes who were hiding behind dubious claims of privilege and other obstructions of the DOJ investigation.
It was an obvious task ahead to then make certain every underling or associate of Trump, and those of his cabal, was thoroughly broken down in interviews and other coercive methods available to the FBI and prosecutors to gather testimony which they would later present to those resisting targets and witnesses to force either truthful testimony or measure their lies against other witness statements.
Indeed, it was that accumulation of evidence which led earlier observers of the investigation to conclude Jack Smith was able to hit the ground running in a 'fast-moving investigation', despite all of the whinging at the time of his appointment that he would slow the probe to a halt.
It was also that evidence Garland had accumulated which helped them achieve court rulings breaking down privileged conversations between attorneys and Trump.
WHEN Trump indictments for Jan. 6 come down, all of those challenges become real, and will cease to be seen as just excuses for not jumping into court right away. As we've seen in the wake of the Maralago indictments, second-guessing is an irresistible game in either mass media, or on discussion boards with people unaccustomed to giving authority credit for anything.
What we'll find after Jan. 6 indictments come and settle in our public consciousness is that none of this is assured, not the political or the legal accountability we want for Trump to experience. It makes so much sense that DOJ doesn't just rush this into court hoping (as many in the public are) to influence the next election. That's not their job. Getting it right is what we ultimately expect from them.
The word from cynics is that Garland is too afraid of political consequences of any indictment of Trump or higher-ups. That admonition swirls around in the same cynical air as the one about 2024. They're both based on the idea that an indictment or even a conviction makes the political problems recede or vanish. It's like opening flood gates in a deluge and expecting that action alone will make a garden prosper just because there's water involved.
The political problem is still ours (voters) to remedy with our participation in elections. No shortcuts.
"A case of this magnitude, it does take some time," former acting assistant AG, Mary McCord, explained in March to a whinging pundit. She began explaining that investigations begin by looking at the easiest and lowest level offenders that can be convicted. Then they climb up the ladder from there.
"All indications are that that is what is happening," McCord promised. "That's the investigation that Jack Smith has taken over. We certainly know from reporting that there have been a number of people very close to the former president who have been subpoenaed in recent weeks and months it appears that some of those people are not cooperating. It's also been reported that Jack Smith sought the assistance — or sought an appeal to the chief judge in D.C. for her help."
She went on to say that she thinks that the Justice Department will be pressured to act before the 2024 election ramp-up. She agreed that she too shares frustration with the time it has taken.
"But I will say, it's not unusual in a case of this nature," said McCord. "I say this nature. There's nothing of this nature that I experienced in my more than 23 years in the department. But a case of this magnitude, it does take some time. The records are voluminous. And getting the right evidence — if the department is going to indict a former president, they want it to be locked up solid."
Last thing... I kept the memory fresh of the number of folks who insisted in no uncertain terms that Trump would never get indicted. One notable one saying, "there will be those that defend Garland up to and after it is announced that there will be no criminal charges against Trump. Unlike criminal charges against Trump, that much you can bank on."
I'm not going to spend any of my time wondering what this person is 'banking on' today.
= new reply since forum marked as read
