Attorney General Merrick Garland should appoint a special counsel to investigate Trump

[spanone]

By Laurence H. Tribe and Dennis Aftergut

The time has come for Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint a special counsel to investigate Donald Trump. That step offers the best way to reassure the country that no one is above the law, justice is nonpartisan and fears of political fallout will not determine the decision on whether to bring charges.

Several recent developments have brought us to this moment. On March 2, the House select committee investigating the Capitol siege alleged in a federal court filing that it had amassed evidence that Trump illegally schemed to stop the lawful transfer of power to Joe Biden.

The next day, we learned that Oath Keepers member Joshua James was cooperating with prosecutors as part of a guilty plea for obstructing an official proceeding of Congress and for seditious conspiracy culminating in the Jan. 6 attack.

And last month, a federal district court ruled that two Capitol police officers and 11 members of Congress had alleged facts in a civil suit against Trump that, if proven, would support holding him civilly liable for inciting the Jan. 6 siege.

++PayWall++https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/09/garland-special-counsel-trump/

[Walleye]

1. It does seem like investigating and prosecuting Trump should be a full-time job

Since he is non-stop committing crimes

[JohnSJ]

2. Absolutely. That way, even a change of Congress or an administration shouldn't interfere with that

[hlthe2b]

3. For those who think this is uninformed, Laurence Tribe has indicated he has had some contact w

Garland over the past year AND he was Merrick Garland's professor at Harvard. He knows him and has accorded him due respect, but when Tribe is worried, we need to stop assuming Garland's DOJ is undertaking 3-D chess and ALL indication of investigations are simply not public.

[Fiendish Thingy]

6. AND Tribe has never prosecuted a single case. You left that part out. Nt

[hlthe2b]

7. He knows Garland and his temperament. Garland has not prosecuted a case in more than 20 years

However, as I pointed out in my earlier response to you on this issue, the many former DOJ officials certainly HAVE--like Glenn Kirschner, Barb McQuade, Joyce Vance, Renato Mariotti as a few examples. Not all have expressed uniform concern over the speed of investigation though they have all commented on their surprise that IF an investigation IS actually ongoing why the "usual" signs of depositions, subpoenas, or incidental information from related court filings etc. have not been evident and at least a few more (Neal Katyal) has expressed concern that Garlands time and practical influences/temperament as the OKC prosecutor has receded to the background over his more recent years as a highly cautious judge--possibly. adding to his reticence to be perceived as "aggressive" in either investigation or prosecution where political consequences are high.

And Tribe is one professional/personal friend/colleague who has actually had contact with Garland over the past year and a half. He is not forming his opinion blindly.

[Jose Garcia]

12. Did he actually discuss this specific case with Garland?

[hlthe2b]

13. You know he isn't going to reveal that nor would he (or Garland) discuss specifics that crossed

the line. Neither man is lacking in the high level of ethics we would expect. One can learn a lot from discussing generalities, however.

[msfiddlestix]

4. Shoulda woulda , but never happens

Going to see articles like this for the next two years or more.


Because it ain't happening and it ain't ever going to happen. not officially.

which is completely effed up. but none the less we're supposed to get over it.

I'm trying hard to get over it, but then I'm reminded by these titles repeatedly calling for an investigation.

Then we hear of an investigation that was started years ago in like in Manhattan for instance, but of course was shut down, because why? "not enough evidence" to convict.


Poppycock

[Fiendish Thingy]

5. Good argument against a special prosecutor for January 6:

https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/01/23/why-it-would-be-counterproductive-to-appoint-a-special-counsel-to-investigate-january-6/

Covered at link, in detail, with receipts:

SPECIAL COUNSELS CAN ONLY INVESTIGATE CRIMES, NOT POTENTIAL CRIMES NOT PURSUED

THE JANUARY 6 INVESTIGATION IS FAR TOO LARGE FOR A SPECIAL COUNSEL

CALLS FOR A SPECIAL COUNSEL INTERNALIZE A BELIEF THAT TRUMP WAS FURTHER FROM THE MOB THAN HE WAS



Just a reminder, although Tribe is a brilliant constitutional scholar, he has never prosecuted a single case in his career.

[spanone]

9. Good argument for a special counsel

If republicans take the House or Senate in November, it's all over.

[Fiendish Thingy]

10. Congress has no authority over the DOJ

Unless they want to try and impeach Garland.

[spanone]

11. I believe they would do that in a heartbeat. We'll see.

[oasis]

8. The threat of a special counsel should constantly hang over Trump's

head like the Sword of Damocles.

Fake leaks of a special counsel being actually in the works would be okay by me as long as it causes TFG and his team of incompetents to sweat it out.

[RobinA]

14. Ain't Gonna Happen

This is not going to happen. It just isn't. The ship has sailed. I hope to hell I am wrong, but I don't think I am.

[usajumpedtheshark]

15. Certainly looks he will die before any punishment occurs