Trump's criminal intent is now clear. Merrick Garland's intentions aren't.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

By Glenn Kirschner, MSNBC Opinion Columnist

For weeks, if not months, leadership at the Department of Justice has repeatedly told us they will follow the facts and the law and will hold Jan. 6 wrongdoers accountable “at any level.” Yet they provide few updates or concrete information. We have seen zero overt law enforcement activity against anyone but the foot soldiers of former President Donald Trump’s insurrection. In substance, the DOJ is asking the American people to trust them. But following the House’s final (at least for a while) Jan. 6 committee hearing on Thursday, that trust is eroding.

Over the course of these eight public Jan. 6 committee hearings, we have seen compelling (not circumstantial) evidence of Trump’s potential crimes. Former acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue testified that Trump told a group of department officials that it didn’t matter if the election was rife with fraud, adding, “just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.” This is direct evidence — relayed by Donoghue under oath — of criminal intent. Trump apparently neither believed nor cared whether there was provable evidence of widespread election fraud, he simply wanted his DOJ officials to lie — "just say the election was corrupt" — and let him use that lie to help steal a second presidential term.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder described these statements as a “smoking gun” proving Trump’s corrupt intent, adding that it would be “laughable” for anyone to argue otherwise to a jury. I agree wholeheartedly with Holder. (Full disclosure: He was my direct boss when he was the United States attorney for the District of Columbia.) And for anyone who might dismiss Holder as hopelessly partisan, it’s worth remembering that before he served as U.S. attorney for D.C., he was nominated to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia — by President Ronald Reagan.

Link to tweet

Similarly, Cassidy Hutchinson testified that prior to Trump's Jan. 6 speech on the Ellipse, he was informed that some of his supporters were armed with rifles, pistols and other deadly weapons. In a staggering display of callousness and disregard for the safety of others, Trump responded by demanding that security take down the metal detectors and let his supporters in anyway, because “they’re not here to hurt me.” As a career prosecutor, I would argue that the only reasonable inference from that statement is that Trump fully understood his armed supporters were a danger to lawmakers certifying the election win of his opponent. Trump also said that after his speech (i.e., after the metal detectors were removed and his armed mob was allowed in), they would all then march to the Capitol. This is powerful, direct evidence — relayed by Hutchinson under oath — that Trump intended to lead an armed mob to stop the election certification.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/jan-6-hearing-witnesses-prove-trump-s-criminal-intent-n1297424

[SWBTATTReg]

1. To me, after hearing these remarks (let the demonstrators in, even w/ their weapons, they're

not here to hurt me' AND 'just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me' IS all I need to hear, before hauling tRUMP's ass into jail/court, and charging his fat orange a&& w/ a pile of charges. He's indirectly responsible for the deaths of those 8 (I think now, maybe 9 now) too.

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. Just as it should be

At least until after the indictments have been issued

[emulatorloo]

3. Agreed. DOJ doesn't leak.

[Beastly Boy]

4. Say whaaa???

AG Garland, January 5: “The justice department remains committed to holding all January 6th perpetrators, at any level, accountable under law – whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy, We will follow the facts wherever they lead.”

AG Garland, March 10: "We are not avoiding cases that are political or cases that are controversial or sensitive. What we are avoiding is making decisions on a political basis, on a partisan basis... We begin with the cases that are right in front of us with the overt actions and then we build from there...And that is a process that we will continue to build until we hold everyone accountable who committed criminal acts with respect to Jan. 6."

Deputy AG Lisa Monaco, July 19 : “We’re going to continue to do our job, to follow the facts wherever they go, no matter where they lead, no matter to what level... We’re going to continue to investigate what was fundamentally an attack on our democracy,”

What kind of a willfully ignorant fool would still not be clear of Garland's intentions?