What’s really the repercussions of invoking the Fifth? “He’s guilty of something, we’re just not sure what” won’t convict anybody. The prosecution has the burden of proof, and if witnesses refuse to testify, there’s less evidence to hang them with.
This lawyer’s reputation is already in the toilet, so his refusal to testify won’t drop him much further. It’s more of a status symbol for the GOP. He’ll get a book tour out of this and make millions.
If this professor has important information, I say grant him immunity against prosecution on anything revealed in the documents and void his 5th amendment claims. It sounds like all he did was come up with the legal framework behind the Pence rejecting electors idea, which in and of itself doesn’t seem to be illegal. And even if the emails reveal he did conspire to start the Jan 6th Insurrection and over throw the government, then we have bigger fish to fry and those documents are even more crucial.
Is there a running tally of Trump associates who have invoked the Fifth Amendment and how many times they’ve done so? Junior leads with 500 but 146 is a respectable number.
“The mob takes the Fifth. If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment ?” - a certain former president. (Although, he had not yet been elected when he said it). Maybe Sean can ask him about this?
My understanding is that Atlanta DA Fani Willis is approaching the case under the state equivalent of RICO. She has more than Trump in her sights. Others, including Lindsey Graham and Mark Meadows, may also have played significant roles in the criminal effort.
Convening a special grand jury will fast track the investigation because this is the only case the special grand jurors will attend to. It sounds like the Atlanta DA only plans to use them for a couple of months, to issue subpoenas and elicit testimony from recalcitrant actors who will not testify unless compelled. If she issues subpoenas under a regular grand jury, apparently those can be appealed to higher courts who will most likely drag their feet in passive aggressive defense of Trump. Because the special grand jury has no power of indictment, any motions to quash subpoenas will be heard solely by the judge overseeing the special grand jury (Robert C. I. McBurney, if my memory serves correctly).
This special grand jury will then issue a report recommending criminal charges, if any. Fani Willis can then take the report to a regular grand jury to seek indictments.
It may not sound like it, but this is apparently the most direct and swift method to get where she needs to be to bring charges against all culpable actors.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/24/politics/georgia-trump-grand-jury/index.html
I believe you are absolutely correct, and you summed it up perfectly in your post.
Nicely done, and thanks.
Yes, thanks AspenGlow. I’m just concerned it all may be too late in the year or so this is gonna take.
I understand your concerns. Believe me, I bite my nails over the timing as much as anyone. But for what it’s worth, I believe all these folks who are defending our democracy – including Merrick Garland – are keenly, painfully aware of the time they have to do their work.
Maybe more so than any of us. It simply defies my imagination to think that Merrick Garland, who suffered greatly at the hands of corrupt government that wouldn’t even give him an up-or-down vote on confirmation of his Supreme Court nomination – and who would likely have been unanimously confirmed, which is why McConnell refused to allow such a vote – has suddenly turned into an idiot who can’t keep track of dates, let alone the crucial nature of federal prosecution of this obvious effort to subvert a valid election by the former Republican administration.
I’ll raise one last point about the delay in prosecution: How much time shall we give Republicans to regroup behind a new presidential candidate in advance of 2024?
ETA: Thanks, @Railer13.
Well, we can give them more rope.
Exactly.
For anything Federal, they’ll have to go silent from late spring/early summer 2024 until November of that year.
I would expect that they all have a pretty hard schedule of January/February, 2024.
I think we’ll see action this year, in advance of the mid-terms. I think Garland will be very mindful of the appearance of politics – as he should be. That’s normal, though many of us have forgotten this.
I’m thinking late spring/early summer of 2022. Meantime, the Committee will continue its steady reveal of all the horrible actions taken by the Trump cabal to commit the election subversion of 2020. Add to this criminal charges for TrumpCo tax fraud from the Manhattan DA and Atlanta DA – and maybe some others we don’t yet know about.
I expect a careful unfurling of criminal stench from now through July 2024.
Welly-well. I spoke too soon.
Confirmed just now, the Feds are investigating the whole plot across several states. Apparently the New York Times has a piece out about it, but I can’t find it yet.
I agree, if all he did was write up that legal opinion, then that’s protected speech……just as if he had published a paper opining that murder was legal in Yellowstone’s Park’s Zone of Death.
But if he actual conspired with others to test his specious legal theory by committting a crime, whether it was murdering someone in Yellowstone Park or overthrowing an election….then he committed a crime. The fact that he could come up with a theory as to why his actions were legal isn’t a defense, especially when the theory was as lame as his.
For those who don’t know, here’s the short version. His theory goes back to the 1960 election, where a genuine last minute upset led to two slates of electors being submitted.
Nixon was the Republican candidate. He was also the VP counting the votes. He made the decision to count the Democratic slate of voters. The key point here is that Kennedy was the winner no matter what happened with Hawaii. At the time, Nixon emphasized that his decision was not to be used as precedent.
But Eastman claimed this incident was proof that Pence had final discretion over whether or not to accept the certified elector certificates for each state and he could reject the ones he didn’t like.
Is this the thread for ‘whew!’?
Manchin needing GOP buy-in on his replacement in 3 … 2 … 1 …
Manchin refusing to consider any appointment whatsoever unless he gets some pork in 3…2…1…
Yeah, Manchin and Sinema are going to need someone far to the right of Breyer in order to get their vote.
My prediction is that the seat will remain open, and the court will be a 6-2 court, until 2025, when President Trump nominates Boebert, and she is confirmed by all 62 Republican Senators.
I’m fine with giving Biden a chance to nominate someone, but I fail to see this as any amount of Schadenfreude towards Trump. His own appointees have already ruled against him several times. I don’t think there’s any expectation that the liberal wing of the court - legacy or newly appointed - would change that equation.
Why should Biden nominate a new Justice? Shouldn’t we wait until after the next election? (Or the one after that, should a Republican not win?)