The Garland announcement will only disappoint you

[edhopper]

If you expect anything of note, or the indictment of a big player.

[msongs]

1. merry fitzmas from the mueller report nt

[madinmaryland]

3. Yes. There will be indictments in 24 business hours. 🤬🤬🤬

[Torchlight]

5. Convicted and guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies is fitzmas?

[msongs]

16. that's when fitz was gonna perp walk trump out of the WH nt

[Shrek]

29. Trump?

I thought it was Karl Rove.

[FSogol]

40. +1 This n/t

[Texaswitchy]

2. Count me surprised if it is anything important.

Garland is under pressure to do or say something.

[Walleye]

4. I feel sure he will just list the numbers of people he's arrested and jailed

[George II]

11. Garland hasn't arrested or jailed anyone. That's not what Attorneys General do.

[Walleye]

13. Well meant the numbers that have been arrested

[Beastly Boy]

6. I am not expecting indictments, and I consider Gardland's decision to make an anouncement itself

to be noteworthy. It is certainly unorthodox and, in my opinion premature, to make announcements so early in the matter of such magnitude (I am almost certain that the announcement will have to do with the insurrection).

I will not be disappointed because I didn't set myself up for unrealistic expectations. But many people will because they did.

[sheshe2]

7. +1000.

Thank you.

[Beetwasher.]

15. Well Said, Exactly.

He really can't say anything. I'm reassured by the fact that he's merely publicly addressing it, that in itself tells you how important he sees it, and that's reassuring. We should not know a damn thing about any ongoing criminal investigation into a former President by the DOJ. By design, we should know nothing about it until the proper time.

[uponit7771]

17. +1

[Shermann]

8. Garland is getting help authoring those indictments from the very best

...George R.R. Martin.

The good news is these indictments will be absolutely devastating and will bring down entire dynasties!

The bad news is George said he needs to finish "The Winds of Winter" and "A Dream of Spring" first.

[Effete Snob]

9. He's going to complain the DoJ isn't doing anything

And he’ll get scolded here.

[WarGamer]

10. it's just a status update...

[samsingh]

12. i agree with you. I expect something like "we cannot jump to conclusions"

meanwhile the traitors are going to destroy our democracy

[stopdiggin]

14. I picture something more like ..

we have uncovered significant, and perhaps troubling, facts - we have,and are, devoting both considerable attention and resources - we are not done, and we pledge to the American people that we will continue as long as it takes - and that we share a common commitment with them that no one is above the law.

[Septua]

22. That sounds pretty good...

I've heard too many MSNBC lawyers say convicting Trump of sedition or insurrection or treason or obstruction of Congressional certification or whatever, wouldn't be a cake walk. Not being a lawyer, I won't rant about "the obvious stuff we know."

We got to know, that Garland knows what's been going on for the past 5 years, fully understands the immediate threat it poses and knows someone has to be accountable...As Attorney General, he's obligated to make it happen.

[stopdiggin]

25. agree on all points

Last edited Wed Jan 5, 2022, 01:47 AM - Edit history (1)

except "he's obligated to make it happen."
I don't believe that law enforcement (even the highest in the land) can, or should, "make things happen." I think, even with creative application, sometimes law enforcement boils down to 'is there actual legislation and statute that is being abridged here?' And the reason we are being cautioned that this would not be a cake walk - is because in all probability - it won't be.

It's all rather nicely summed up by the difference between railing that something 'should be against the law' - versus actually finding a law that says so. Be willing to bet that there are a lot of people in Justice that are just as sick to their stomachs as we are - and would dearly love to nail this SOB to the wall. Whether they can do that or not remains to be seen.

[Septua]

27. 'is there actual legislation and statute that is being abridged here?'

Is this not the legislation?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385

[stopdiggin]

33. perhaps. perhaps not.

The language here is "overthrow and destruction of the government" - is that a good fit for actions taken? (Powell, Giuliani, Meadows, Eastman, Trump?) If it were that clear - then why the reservations on the part of the legal community? I hear a lot of "hell, yes!" and "right there in black and white!" here on DU. Elsewhere - I don't think you're seeing quite that level of certainty.

Respectfully ------- ------

[Septua]

37. It *does* depend on who you ask

I'm not unaware of the legal opinions favoring Trump, was he to be indicted. And I suppose Garland is aware of the same uncertainties.

But same as Trump's supporters, we all want to hear what we believe. Laurence Tribe has an opinion I want to go with...

"Some have expressed pessimism that the Department of Justice would be able to convict Mr. Trump. His guilt would ultimately be for a jury to decide, and some jurors might believe he deluded himself into believing his own big lie and thus genuinely thought he was saving, rather than sabotaging, the election. But concerns about a conviction are no reason to refrain from an investigation. If anything, a federal criminal investigation could unearth even more evidence and provide a firmer basis for deciding whether to indict.

To decline from the outset to investigate would be appeasement, pure and simple, and appeasing bullies and wrongdoers only encourages more of the same. Without forceful action to hold the wrongdoers to account, we will likely not resist what some retired generals see as a march to another insurrection in 2024 if Mr. Trump or another demagogue runs and loses." (12/2021)

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/23/opinion/trump-capitol-riot-january-6th.html

Lots of opinions...

"But while a criminal investigation might be warranted, based on what we know publicly, the reality is that criminal charges are not likely to be successful. And because charging Trump and failing to convict him might do lasting harm, I would not be surprised if DOJ ends up not charging Trump."

"The most prominent proponents of a criminal investigation of Trump are three lawyers whom I know and greatly respect. Recently, Laurence Tribe, Barbara McQuade and Joyce White Vance wrote a “roadmap” for a potential criminal investigation of Trump. They offer eight possible charges, ranging from conspiracy to RICO. I admire their creativity, but because Trump’s conduct was so unusual, any one of the charges they lay out would represent a “first of its kind” case. I’ve prosecuted one of those before, and they come with their own special set of challenges and risks because there is no existing legal precedent to guide prosecutors."

"As Tribe, McQuade and Vance rightfully note, Trump’s role in inciting his supporters to attack the U.S. Capitol would itself be difficult to prosecute criminally. Certainly, Trump’s tweets and statements whipped up his supporters, who ultimately engaged in a brutal attack that resulted in multiple deaths and nearly obstructed the peaceful transfer of power. But First Amendment law gives broad protection to speech, so any prosecution of Trump would involve taking on various defenses he would have. For example, under the First Amendment, incitement is protected speech if it is not inciting “imminent lawless action." (8/2021)

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/08/31/trump-election-interference-outrageous-prosecute-507644

Needless to say, the issue is convoluted...we want to see justice but I suppose history is replete with examples of failed justice.

[msfiddlestix]

39. We can't trust our own eyes and ears

That's just a bridge too far..

Well I know I can't trust my vision as well as I used to. It's quite possible I was hallucinating on Jan 6, 2021.

But my hearing is still in pretty good condition, thank goodness. I can still play my fiddle fairly well on the deck of our sinking ship.

[Septua]

42. ..and there's a bunch of lawyers...

..who's actions suggest they believe attempted coups are not necessarily illegal.

[samsingh]

34. you are an optimist - i hope you are right.

[stopdiggin]

36. yes, rank optimism!

tossed out to counter unremittent pessimism (and Garland bashing)

[gab13by13]

18. Garland already failed to act,

he allowed pro-Trump Cyber ninjas access to ballots, voter information, and election material and equipment which should have remained in the custody of election officials. As a result the fraudits spread across the country and are still ongoing.
Garland did write a stern letter part of which warned the Cyber ninjas not to go door to door seeking voter fraud. They ignored that also and people have gone door to door in several states with no consequences.

Garland chose not to indict "individual one," when the ducks were lined up in a row. The statute of limitations has run out.

Garland chose to represent the office of the presidency for Donald Trump in his defamation law suit with E. Jeanne Carroll, he could have declined.

[bullwinkle428]

19. Claire McCaskill (on Lawrence O'Donnell's show) : "It better be a 'big speech'!"

No link; just reporting what I saw in a segment a few minutes ago.

[NJCher]

28. I saw that, too

I said you speak for me, Claire.

[brooklynite]

20. He told you that, did he?

[Celerity]

21. My expectations bar is set very low.

[Hekate]

23. Thank you very much for your input

[nolabear]

24. I hate preemptive misery.

[obamanut2012]

30. Agreed

[Vinca]

31. As I like to say - expect nothing and you won't be disappointed.

[MineralMan]

32. Thank goodness someone with insider information

has weighed in...

[Hortensis]

35. :) Well, at least your attitude seldom disappoints expectations,

so there is that to depend on during scary-unstable times. Thanks, edhopper.

[we can do it]

38. Doubtful, I'm not a baby.

[NurseJackie]

41. Okayyyyy...