Give me a few years and I’ll be able to tell you whether Garland is being too cautious or not cautious enough.
I generally welcome your thoughtful posts. But I couldn’t let this one pass! 
I could say plenty of laudable things about the American system of jurisprudence, but to call it a thing of beauty?! You and I are obviously sewing through different glasses.
It’s gotten rather beat up since I first started working in the legal field, I’ll give you that.
But I’ll still put my faith in it over anything else we’ve got at the moment. I do admire a lot of other legal systems in the world and believe our own could be improved a lot by emulating some others. Canada’s among them.
It’s just like when Winston Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
A link to a DOJ press release, including remarks made today by DOJ’s Merrick Garland:
From Garland’s statement:
“Since then, countless agents, investigators, prosecutors, analysts, and others across the Justice Department have participated in one of the largest, most complex, and most resource-intensive investigations in our history. I am extremely grateful for the dedication, professionalism, and integrity with which they have done this work. This investigation has resulted in the arrest of more than 950 defendants for their alleged roles in the attack. We have secured convictions for a wide range of criminal conduct on January 6 as well as in the days and weeks leading up to the attack. Our work is far from over.
Emphasis mine.
Just jumping in to say that it would have been awesome to have indictments handed down on the 2nd anniversary of the attempted coup. Oh well.
That would have been a bit on the nose.
Especially if some of those indictments are for sitting members of Congress.
Smith only just got back into the country. Let’s give him a couple weeks, I say.
“In two weeks”
Do you even listen to yourself?
At some point it will be too late. We’re not at that point yet.
Modnote: This is far too personal and on the jerkish side. This is bordering on a warning. Watch yourself going forward and what forum you are in.
Things are moving right along.
Gift link:
Not too many witnesses closer to the action than these two. The noose tightens.
I don’t know what to make of it- I can’t imagine her implicating her father. Jared, I can easily see doing so. Any chance of a claim of privilege working?
Not for long, if Trump even tries. This ground has been trod and it has not gone well for Trump. Moreover, Trump did not assert executive privilege over these 2 when they were summoned by the January 6th Committee – so it’s not likely to fly now, after they already made appearances. Might delay things for a few weeks if Trump tries.
I think Trump has reached the point where he’s hoarding his pennies. There are much bigger legal fights ahead that will cost a lot more and may have better chances of success.
I’d love to be a fly on the wall when these 2 are under oath and being questioned before Smith’s criminal grand jury. I think this is the first time either of them will be subjected to potential serious legal peril at the federal level.
Parent-child isn’t a privileged relationship? Is a spouse the only one?
Yes, or “executive privilege,” which won’t get them much traction.
Actual children can’t be compelled to testify, but only on the basis of age.
Both Jared and Ivanka acted in roles as public servants and they are adults. As such, they are subject to the same laws that govern all others. They didn’t have to take the jobs.
Subscribed…
What if Jared and Ivanka refuse to answer a question because it might incriminate the other?
Maybe. Spousal privilege has two parts. 1) private communicates between spouses in privileged, and 2) a spouse can’t be compelled to testify against the other spouse, regardless of whether the testimony involves anything private.
The second could come into play. If they’re not the target of the grand jury, I’m not sure how that would play out.
Suppose that they are interviewed separtely and Jared says one thing, and Ivanka says something else that proves that Jared was lying. Can that testimony be used?
I assume that what Jack smith wants is for Ivanka to testify to the same things that she testified to the Congressional committee about, and Jared to back her up. She is basically between a rock and a hard place here If her current testimony deviates from what she said earlier then she is either guilty of lying to congress or lying to the prosecutor.