How the DOJ should handle the Trump case?

[kentuck]

I suspect that the Committee will send a criminal referral to the DOJ.

I cannot see how the Attorney General could simply ignore seditious conspiracy, incitement to an insurrection, and attempted coup of our government? It is not possible to sweep that under the rug. It is too big.

The DOJ has to act. Even if they move very slowly, they must move.

Just as with any other criminal case, it should be sent to the Grand Jury. It does not take a unanimous vote to indict. The evidence would suggest that he would be indicted.

It is required that the Trump case be adjudicated in the courts, and not by politicians.

A court date should be set and Trump should have the right to defend himself against the charges, just as would any other citizen.

They could attempt a plea bargain, for example, a deal that Mr Trump would not run for office again? But that would be a victory for Trump. He would continue to propagandize and make money off his victimization. A plea bargain should be the last resort.

The only way to educate the people is to have a jury trial, much like the OJ trial. Only then would the Trump supporters tune in to see what happened. Even FOX would have to carry it.

A jury trial is required for Mr Donald J Trump. It is for the benefit of the country.

If there was civil unrest, then it would have to be dealt with.

[Atticus]

1. Common sense stated well. Thank you. nt

[kentuck]

2. Thanks Atticus!

I read your posts.

[MiHale]

3. How would a jury be picked?

One person could hold up everything. Lie to get on the jury…then never vote to convict.

Otherwise agree with you.

[kentuck]

4. The only disqualifier would be if you were a member of the cult.

Voting for Trump would not be a disqualifier.

If it looked like he might not be convicted, that would be the time to look at a "plea bargain".

[AntivaxHunters]

27. It's too bad we can't pick jurors

from Mexico and Canada.

[kentuck]

31. I don't think it would be impossible to get a fair jury.

However difficult it may appear. A Trump voter does not automatically mean they would vote to acquit over all evidence. It would be more likely if they were a devout member of the cult.

[AntivaxHunters]

32. All Trumpers are in a cult at this point

Every single one of them.

[kentuck]

34. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger voted for Trump...

and I do not think they support him right now. They are not part of the cult. I think there are many others in a similar boat. They voted for Trump because he had the "R" by his name, not because they liked him or agreed with everything he did.

But, you are correct in that it is a large cult.

[AntivaxHunters]

39. I'm talking jurors

And both Cheney and Kinziger are garbage people who would in an instant take away my rights as a woman, my healthcare, and my Medicaid. These people are NOT our friends. They never have been & they never will be.

[kentuck]

41. I have to believe that there are many Americans that still put Country over Party.

At this time, Cheney and Kinzinger are our friends. If we do not save our democracy, everything else is frills and whistles and could disappear overnight.

[Fiendish Thingy]

50. A couple of things:

Most of the federal trials would be held in DC, so the odds of a hung jury would be reduced IMO;

It was possible to convict a sitting congressman of insider trading a few years ago, and

The murderers of Ahmed Aubrey were convicted in their home state.

However, the risk of a hung jury would not be zero, so if Trump accepted a plea deal, I’d be inclined to support it, provided it still carried a 3-5 year sentence, preventing him from running in 2024.

Then go after him and his companies in civil court and bankrupt him.

[kentuck]

51. Good points!

With the understanding that a "plea deal" is a confession of some guilt, and an agreement to settle for less punishment.

[gab13by13]

5. You missed a good thread here last night.

The select committee is proving beyond a doubt that Trump is guilty of possibly 3 provable crimes.

Why does Merrick Garland have no choice to prosecute Trump just because evidence shows he is guilty?

Merrick Garland is an institutionalist which means that he will prosecute Trump if it is in the best interests of our nation. Merrick Garland may well choose to not prosecute Trump if he feels that doing so will tear our country apart, will cause a Civil War.

Kentuck, IMO we have moved past the point about deciding Trump's guilt or innocence, Trump is guilty.

The select committee's #1 goal in doing these hearings is to convince Merrick Garland to prosecute Trump.

The first step in prosecuting Trump is getting him to appear before a grand jury, how will Garland do that? Will marshals be sent to Mar-el-Loco and put Trump in shackles? How will step one play out in a decision to prosecute Trump. If Trump is notified to appear before a grand jury will he call upon 70 million armed cultists to defend him?

I am absolutely saying that Trump should be prosecuted but my opinion means nothing, one man will make that decision, and it will be a momentous decision, one that has never been made before in the history of our nation, prosecuting a former president.

[kentuck]

6. How will it look to history if an attempted overthrow of our government is simply over-looked?

I do not think AG Garland would want to be associated with such a footnote?

He is a cautious man and he will move slowly. That is his nature. But, in the end, I think he will come to the conclusion that he has to do "something". He cannot sweep it under the rug and cover it up. I do not think that is a possible resolution.

In my opinion, it will go to a Grand Jury.

[gab13by13]

9. He isn't sweeping it under the rug

he is prosecuting a lot of insurrectionists. Never in the history of our country has a former president been prosecuted, what a precedent Merrick Garland will set. What if a jury finds Trump not guilty? Too bad Nixon was not sent to trial, the grand jury wanted his case to go to trial.

This is by far not cut and dry with Garland. Why is he not prosecuting Meadows and Scavino? Most of the Big Fish who Garland is investigating came from referrals.

I repeat, this has nothing to do with whether Trump is guilty, he is guilty, the select committee is proving that.

If Merrick Garland decides that a prosecution of Trump will tear our country apart he will not prosecute, why can't you admit that is a real possibility?

[kentuck]

11. "What if a jury finds Trump not guilty?"

That is the chance we take with every trial. OJ was found not guilty, although most people thought he was guilty of the murders. That is the way our system works. It is not always foolproof.

But the value would be in exposing the truth and the evidence, not in the verdict. The punishment, in this instance, would not be as worthy as the historical record.

[wnylib]

45. The consequences of a not guilty verdict

could be as bad or worse than the consequences of the two impeachments when Trump was not convicted.

A feeling of TOTAL immunity by the cult and its leaders. A decision by them to act on the next coup, now against Biden or during elections in no holds barred takeover of the election process.

I am NOT saying that Trump should not be put on trial and held accountable for his crimes. But I am saying that, prior to an arrest, and again prior to a verdict (no matter which way it goes), we would need to be prepared with highly enhanced security in DC, state capitals, and throughout the country. And stay on high alert against the cult biding its time and acting later.

[kentuck]

60. I would agree that security might need to be enhanced.

They could tell the National Guard to "standback and standby"...

[wnylib]

61. Good phrasing.

I think I would want to see the Guard members vetted, too, like they were for Biden's inauguration.

[Mr. Ected]

7. If Trump is notified to appear...will he call upon 70 million armed cultists to defend him?

Yes. And if they do, we will finally have the inevitable reckoning that this country has back-burnered for nearly 200 years.

The Civil War never really ended. Those 70 million represent the Second Confederacy. There is no place in our democracy for them.

[kentuck]

8. That is a gamble the country would have to take.

Otherwise, the alternative would not be worth a plug nickel.

However, my bet would be that there would be nothing close to 70 million people supporting Trump if he called them to action. Why should he be treated any different from any other citizen? There would be a "reckoning" but not the one you envision, in my opinion.

He needs to answer to the American people. Period.

[gab13by13]

12. I agree 100% with this post, but

put yourself in Merrick Garland's shoes, he has a momentous decision to make.

I have been attacked for months because I tried to point out that Garland is an institutionalist. He is defending Trump (the office of the presidency) in the E. Jeanne Carroll defamation law suit for crying out loud. Garland did not have to take that case.

I truly hope that Garland chooses to indict Trump but I will not be surprised if he does not.

Garland is not going to make his decision based on guilt or innocence, it will be based on what is best for the country.

[kentuck]

16. It is a momentous decision, I would agree.

Unprecedented. But all historic decisions were "unprecedented" at one time.

It is not an easy decision. But, in my opinion, he would not be "saving" the presidency, he would be destroying the presidency, if he chose not to prosecute. The presidency would be seen as above the law, like a monarchy. The very meaning of America would cease to exist. That is why we fought the Revolution.

It would be wrong for him to make a political decision about what is "best for the country" when that would only be his opinion. Best if he only stuck to the law.

I hope he rises to the occasion.

[gab13by13]

23. You are looking at this through your eyes,

I am trying to get inside Garland's head. He is defending the office of the presidency in the E. Jeanne Carroll defamation law suit. According to Garland an official duty of the president is possibly defaming a woman who has accused the president of raping her.

IMO Garland went out of his way to defend the office of the president in that case.

Garland may decide that prosecuting Trump will cause a Civil War.

[kentuck]

30. You are looking at it through your eyes...

However horrific it may be, a defamation law suit accusing rape is hardly the same as the attempted overthrow of our government. Also, that was during the time of his presidency. He is no longer in the White House.

"Garland may decide that prosecuting Trump will cause a Civil War." If he made that decision, out of fear for what might happen to the country, he would not be suitable for the position he holds, in my opinion.

For the record, I think it would do the exact opposite. I think it could prevent a civil war, because every day that Trump is permitted to spread his divisive poison, the closer we come to a "civil war".

[Novara]

52. That decision infuriated me. At the time.

But now I'm left wondering if this is eleven dimensional chess.

When Garland took the job (and when Biden nominated him) they knew what was at stake. Biden and Garland knew that a political prosecution of the orange motherfucker was going to come up - no ifs, ands, or buts. By then the insurrection had already occurred and they knew damn well who was behind it and that there would have to be a decision whether to prosecute him for crimes against America. They knew this at the time of his nomination.

Maybe all along Garland expected to prosecute him. Maybe the J6 committee gives him the perfect cover, because once the country sees the evidence we will demand prosecution and it no longer looks like his sole political decision when the entire country is screaming for something to be done.

Contrary to what some people believe, I do not think Biden picked Garland because he could hide behind Garland's institutionalism and never have to make the decision to prosecute the orange motherfucker. I believe he picked Garland because he knew he would be deliberate and he has a reputation for being fair and that gives Biden's administration the cover of not going after political retribution. So I think the E. Jean Carroll decision was to demonstrate that Garland was not going to be champing at the bit to make political retribution prosecutions. And it infuriated me.

But think of the long game. When he prosecutes the orange motherfucker for sedition, his prior decision not to prosecute makes him look less like a partisan bulldog and more like a fair prosecutor. That's the part of "institutionalism" I agree with.

In my opinion, all those machinations for cover against the appearance of political retribution, while understandable, will be completely lost on republicans when they gain power. They won't make any bones about political retribution and they will go after any Dems they can, starting with Biden (fuck all knows for what, but they'll do it). They'll prosecute Pelosi. Hell, they'll go after Schiff and Schumer and the Squad and all Dems on the J6 committee. Anybody with a brain knows this. But evidently Biden thinks somehow if he bends over backwards to appear fair, the other side will cooperate. Didn't learn anything from the Obama years, evidently.

I think this is one reason Garland is being so deliberate. To not look political in hopes the other side won't go after all Dems when they get the chance. And that's despite whether or not you think it's worth it. Biden and Garland seem to think it's worth it. I don't, but there it is.

So we need to have patience and be ready to speak out when the hearings conclude. Several of us plan to post contact information for the DOJ. All of us need to make our voices heard. Not only does the DOJ need to prosecute the orange motherfucker; they need to prosecute all of the assholes asking for preemptive pardons, the congressassholes who led recon tours, and all of the white house staff and advisors who helped the entire scheme. This was an unsuccessful coup and EVERYONE needs to be prosecuted so it won't happen again.

[Mr. Ected]

17. 70 million people? Heavens no.

I have no idea how far Trump's true believers would go to protect him, whether they would wage actual battle or simply drown out the media with their "whining". But this cancer in all its forms - I'm looking at you, Rupert Murdoch - needs to be identified and neutralized sooner rather than later.

I don't want to even imagine my friends, neighbors and relatives taking arms against me, against the USA, but if they do, they need to be met with superior force. Trump is simply the figurehead but other demons wait to supplant him. First step is to give him his day in court, politics and civil unrest be damned.

[kentuck]

22. Agree.

No one should expect it to be easy. We have to get rid of the cancer.

[wnylib]

58. You could be underestimating the

determination and commitment of the cult and the ability of Trump and his congressional and media allies to arouse their followers to action.

First thing is that Congressional Trumpists (all Republicans except possibly 2) would likely separate themselves from Congress and declare that it is an invalid institution, closing down Congressional activity. Declare themselves the "rightful government" and back it up with gun power from militias and Trumpists in the police and military.

[tinrobot]

57. He'll call, but most won't answer

Most will stay home. Some of the most dangerous are already arrested and in jail. Some of those have already flipped.

A few might show up. But this time, we have a president willing to call out the army, if needed.

They could also have him testify remotely to avoid such drama. House arrest and all that.

[PJMcK]

10. Glenn Kirchner made a very interesting point

He said that the congressional committee going first in the investigation is unusual because the Department Of Justice usually likes to get first crack at witnesses. However, with the congressional committee going first, the public gets to see all of the evidence that they present. If the DOJ went first, all of the interviews and evidence would be secret and we might never see it.

By allowing the committee to go first, when the DOJ investigates, the public will already know what the evidence is and public opinion, hopefully, will have been swayed against Trump and his insurrectionist allies.

[kentuck]

13. Public opinion is important with such divided loyalties.

Whichever side the people choose, the truth will remain the truth. The facts are the facts. It is important that the people are exposed to the facts.

[gab13by13]

15. Yes, the #1 goal of the select committee

is to convince Merrick Garland that 1) Trump is guilty, and 2) the American people want him to be held accountable.

Garland will make his decision based on what is best for the country, the committee is proving that Trump is guilty.

[no_hypocrisy]

14. My knee-jerk response would be to paraphrase Michael Flynn's "Lock him up!"

Common sense says there will be a Plea Bargain.

Why not a trial? Too much of a risk of a mistrial or a hung jury. How can you bar Trump supporters from serving? Wouldn't they lie during voire dire and claim they don't know much or anything about January 6? Wouldn't they perform jury nullification where they refuse to consider evidence as true and factual?

No, I think the legal bird-in-the-hand Plea Bargain is where we're going.

OTOH, if Trump feels lucky and goes to trial, all that evidence against him will be used and made part of the legal and historical record. Maybe that alone would make him pause.

[gab13by13]

18. Excellent point,

your suggestion may very well be the best outcome. People are not realizing what a huge decision Garland has to make.

I agree about going to trial and I remember that OJ was found not guilty.

[kentuck]

20. You may be right.

A "plea bargain" may be the direction we are headed.

However, I think it would be better for the country to expose the truth in a court of law, with witnesses and sworn statements. The historical record is important. A "plea bargain" would be a victory for Trump and a loss for our country, in my opinion. A mistrial or hung jury would be preferable to no verdict at all, in my opinion.

[no_hypocrisy]

24. There might be a Plea Bargain after a certain amount of trial record.

That's a win/win. Evidence is part of the record and Trump's counsel prevail upon him to give up.

[gab13by13]

25. What more is there to know?

The coup was done in the open, with video evidence, documentary evidence, witness testimony.

The Magats are not watching the hearings, they only watch Fox, they are not redeemable.

[kentuck]

47. We do not yet know if Trump or his "people" directly communicated with the Proud Boys...

...or if they conspired to enter the Capitol building just before 1:00 o'clock, when the Electoral certification was to begin? Or if some Congressmen and Senators conspired with the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers to control the debate inside until they were able to accomplish their mission and stop the certification?

There is still a lot we do not know.

[Novara]

53. Remember what it felt like when Nixon stepped down and Ford pardoned him?

Awful, infuriating, and justice was NOT done. Especially the goddamn pardon.

I suspect the "institutionalist" will want something like that in this case. Make a deal; it looks good for the country, like everybody wants what's best to "heal" the nation, blah blah blah guacamole.

And honestly? If the end result is him never holding any office ever again and his cult base abandoning him for caving in to the DOJ, it might be worth it.

Or maybe I really am a pollyanna, fuck.

[no_hypocrisy]

26. Afterthought: A mistrial or hung jury or nullification would give Trump

the opportunity to misrepresent the outcome as "I'M INNOCENT!!!!"

A plea bargain could incorporate culpability of some degree. I could handle that.

[fightforfreedom]

19. First, Garland should indict Trumps inner circle.

There is no reason Garland cannot do that. They are all fair game and they are guilty as hell. Those investigations and trials would change everything. Then Garland can decide whether or not to charge Trump.

[kentuck]

21. I agree that would be the best route to go.

Pick off all the sycophants and leave him stranded.

[AntivaxHunters]

28. That's a good way to get ppl to flip

[Novara]

54. Right, and if they squeal, it produces incentive for a deal to be made.

Prosecute them and use them to get him to make a deal.

[gab13by13]

29. Trump's inner circle

includes sitting Congressmen. Garland has already declined to indict Meadows and Scavino, and no they are not secretly cooperating.

[kentuck]

33. Sitting Congressmen is a different can of worms.

It should be up to the voters to clean their own house.

How do we know Meadows and Scavino are not cooperating? They were the handlers of the information put out by the Trump White House. Scavino was in charge of the social media side of communications.

Also, how do we know that Garland does not want to tie up the bigger case with a simple contempt of Congress charge? They could appeal and mess up the entire case for months on end.

But, it was puzzling to a lot of people as to why Garland did not charge Meadows and Scavino.

[gab13by13]

36. It was puzzling to the select committee,

the committee was pissed. Why can't DOJ charge more than one crime?

[kentuck]

37. Some of them were "puzzled"...

I don't know if the entire Committee was on the same page on this one? I suppose it would make sense not to tie up the system with lesser charges if more serious charges were in the works? I would like to know the thinking on that.

[fightforfreedom]

35. Meadows is under investigation big time. Not indicting Meadows for contempt means nothing.

I don't know why you keep bringing that up. It's not relevant. There probably is a good reason Garland did not indict Meadows for contempt. Meadows is facing serious felonies.

[gab13by13]

38. My opinion means nothing

I know that the select committee believed that indicting Meadows was relevant.

Why can't Meadows be indicted for multiple crimes?

I have no idea whether DOJ plans to investigate Mark Meadows, all that I know is that DOJ dropped the Meadows select committee criminal referral, everything else is pure speculation.

[kentuck]

40. Your opinion is valuable, gab13by13...

We do not know why Garland did not indict Meadows and Scavino? We can assume he had his reasons. Perhaps he wanted to send the signal that since he was not going to prosecute Meadows, he definitely would not prosecute Trump? Perhaps he was setting the parameters for any future indictments? Who knows?

In any event, I think we shall know sooner rather than later. The decision time is getting near. I hope he does just as he said he would do and "follow the law" wherever it may lead, and not make a convenient political decision out of fear of dividing the nation even further.

[Chainfire]

42. If the evidence is as strong as we believe it to be, and it doesn't result in an indictment,

before the fall elections, then the ship of justice has sailed. For our justice system to remain valid, then it must apply to all. That is a notion that gives the rich and powerful nightmares. If Trump falls, then none of the domestic oligarchs may be safe from the long arm of the law.

With liberty and justice for all.

[kentuck]

43. And we should not be deceived....

Trump and Republicans do not like these Committee hearings one little bit. It challenges their Big Lie.

[gab13by13]

46. Yes we make the mistake of forgetting about who is really behind the insurrection,

I call them American oligarchs which I should change to domestic oligarchs.

Sheldon Whitehouse gets it, I wish he would run for president.

The domestic oligarchs fund the traitors and they pick the judges and SC justices.

[Fiendish Thingy]

44. DOJ should handle it in this manner:

Whichever strategy is likely to produce the most convictions of the most people for the longest sentences…having said that, some plea deals for underlings may be appropriate in order to secure convictions for the higher ups. I think I’d be willing to accept a plea for a five year sentence from someone if it meant that Eastman, Gosar, Brooks, Perry, Loudermilk (who gave a tour) and maybe even Ginni Thomas ended up serving 10-20 years for fraud or seditious conspiracy. (I would consider letting Thomas off with probation if she flipped, AND Clarence resigned from SCOTUS)

As for Trump, part of me wants to go for the maximum charges with the maximum sentence, but, what if he is willing to plead guilty to a lesser charge, skipping a jury trial with its possibility of acquittal? If the sentence is at least 3-5 years, preventing him from running in 2024, I’d be inclined to accept the deal.

[gab13by13]

49. I need to think higher,

I'd be happy to see Trump forced to appear for his Manhattan DA deposition.

I like your thinking.

[Hotler]

48. Start out by arresting him like a drug dealer. Kick the door in at 3am,

toss in a couple of flash-bangs, throw him on the floor. If he gets lippy, smack him in the mouth with a rifle butt. Take him out and set him on the curb for all the neighbors to see. And remember to smack his head on the cop car door just like he want law enforcement to do to the bad guys.

[Ohio Joe]

55. My thoughts...

Nothing is going to change in regards to how the DOJ is working the case. They will continue working the three seditious conspirators that we know they have flipped to mail the inner circle to the wall. Anyone saying that DOJ not indicting Meadows and Scavino means they will not go after them for anything is, knowingly or not, repeating a FOX talking point (if you want to see it, let me know and I’ll link it). The goal is to get some of them to flip.

I’m also seeing a talking point pop up where DOJ will not charge because they are afraid of the militia magats. Utter… Laughable non-sense. The idea that there are 70 million armed crazies waiting to start mass murdering people and taking over the country is a magat wet dream and IMO has no place being spread on a Democratic board. DOJ and law enforcement would squash any magat stupid enough to try. They won’t ignore the crazies but rather prepare as best they can to deal with any that pop up. Certainly, they will not base charging or not based on fear of them.

So… Back to tfg… I don’t think DOJ will try to prosecute based on circumstantial evidence. While cases are won based on it, I don’t think a former president would be convicted on it. In order to convict, they need to flip some of the inner circle. Doing that will depend entirely on the inner circles confidence of tfg being re-elected. If they are sure he will be… There is a decent chance they will hold out for a pardon when he is. If they have doubts… They will flip.

I do not expect to see much in the way of DOJ movement until the sentencing of the seditious conspirators. That is when DOJ will have to reveal in court documents some of the details of how exactly they are cooperating. At that point shit should become very real for the inner circle. The conversations with DOJ will become a lot less friendly and indictments will follow.

After this, there will be another lengthy silence from DOJ. There will be a series of court maneuvers to try and get the charges dismissed. This current Supreme Court has already weighed on ‘privilege’ by tfg and said President Biden overrules any such claim… The trial will go forward. This is the point where flipping will become a race for the defendants. Meadows has by far, the most to give and will be the main target to flip… Sadly, I fear he will end up with a very good deal when he hands over a ton of people. I won’t like it but… I’ll back such a deal.

There will be a continued outcry here that DOJ is doing nothing, going to slow and on and on. It’s painful… Frustrating… Rage inducing… I get it. I have those same feelings. More than that though, I don’t want to fall into the ‘lock him up’ frame of mind. I don’t want a trial because ‘I know, common sense tells me’. Fuck my feelings, I need facts and evidence proven in court.

It’s going to be a slog.

[kentuck]

56. Good post!

If the Committee has proof and testimony from the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers that they personally communicated with Donald Trump, then that might change the whole ballgame. But, it is very possible that none of them would turn on Trump? Also, it was likely Roger Stone who communicated with them?

They are confessed seditious conspiracists. They have already pleaded guilty to a plot against our government. These are the most serious charges thus far.

There is still a lot of information and evidence to uncover, in my opinion. I seriously doubt the cautious Garland would indict without the evidence in his hands.

It's going to be like a pancake breakfast when they start flipping.

[ironman99]

59. RICO! RICO! RICO!

There is no difference between the the Tangerine Taintfungus and the Mob of New York.

Get the street soldiers, they will roll on the Capo.