GOP aides and strategists warn there’s a risk of political violence in response to any indictment against Trump. The former president warned last month that if the Department of Justice indicts him, “you’d have problems in this country the likes of which perhaps we’ve never seen before.”
“I don’t think the people of the United States would stand for it,” he warned.
I actually agree with you for once Trump. The people of the United States won’t stand for political violence in your name.
I also believe that the Republicans rallying around Trump in the case of indictment will be the death knell for the party. I’m interested in how the political parties will work out in a post-Republican US.
It should be the death knell for that criminal enterprise, but sadly it’ll never be. It’s far too entrenched in our society now for it to ever go away or be diminished.
Now more than ever this looks like a speculation (shared by many) that will never be tested by real-world events.
Newly-appointed Special Counsel Jack Smith has a reputation as a tough guy–but the decision as to whether or not to indict Trump (or Meadows or Ron Johnson or any of them) does not rest with him. It still rests with Merrick Garland.
Which would seem to make the ‘this provides an extra layer against accusations of DOJ partisanship’ rather moot. (Yes, I’m aware that the SC rules require Garland to notify Congress if he wants to stop Smith from taking actions to which he objects, but who believes that in the eyes of the nation this actually confers any de-politicizing value of any kind?)
NPR says:
–A position likely to be echoed by all relevant GOP witnesses. Gosh, there will be LOTS of delays, won’t there!?! This newly-added layer of process could take months…or even years!!! Isn’t it exciting?
This is in contrast to a statement made by Merrick Garland during his 18 November announcement of the appointment of the Special Counsel:
Very careful wording from Garland:
**Yes, the appointment begins immediately
**Yes, at some future point, we can probably assume, Smith “will be returning to the United States from the Hague.” When? Who can say?
Correct. There’s no doubt a ton of documents he’ll need to go through, which he can do while he’s recovering, and with Zoom he can consult face-to-face with anyone in the DoJ he needs to.
You happily ignored the whole “recovering from a recent bicycle accident” in your recreational bullshit. Garland isn’t the disingenuous one here. You are.
I wonder if he got the news before or after his accident. If it was after, I’m mildly amused thinking of him laid up in some bed, letting the painkillers take effect, when the Attorney General of the United States of America calls…
What are you talking about? The “recent bicycle accident” is specifically mentioned in the post to which you reply.
You may have missed this part of the NYT report:
He has not yet left his current job.
That might be seen by reasonable people as complicating the “immediate” beginning of “his work as special counsel,” as Garland disingenuously put it.
my bolding in the NYT quote, linked here again:
You know, if Smith is able to do this new job full-time along with his current (presumably full-time) job, while hundreds of miles away from the USA and while dealing with the complications of recovering from surgery, that’s wonderful, and I would salute him.
I just find Garland’s presentation of this information to be somewhat lacking. It seems as though the information (Smith is still on another job; still in Europe; still dealing with injuries) was readily available; for example, here’s the WaPo:
Why didn’t the AG share all this at the announcement?
Again, if Smith comes through, within a few weeks, with recommendations that fit the Facts and the Law (which would indicate to many that Trump should be indicted and that all the evidence supporting such a conclusion is currently in the possession of the DOJ), then all the deficiencies of Garland’s announcement will be moot.
No, you skipped over it to imply he was staying to continue in his current position until some unknown point in the future. Jack Smith has already resigned his post, and is staying in-country to rehab. Not to continue in his current position, but to become healthy enough to travel. Sit on a fucking cactus, jackass.
He is not the only one that thinks Garland is not going after Trump.
Not because I don’t want him to, I would be ecstatic to admit I’m wrong.
It is just that Garland/DoJ has had all the evidence they’re ever going to need/get for months if not years.
Mueller showed the Russian thing.
the Ukraine thing is documented extensively.
there has been a I don’t know how many days long presentation by the J6 committee.
he got boxes of misappropriated documents.
Take your pick, or pursue them all at once (flood the zone with legitimate prosecution:) )
Garland hasn’t taken real steps on any of that.
[We’ll leave his motivation out of it, but I’ll stipulate I don’t believe the lack of action is malicious, incompetence or a lack of courage]
At this point I feel it is fair to say that the evidence points to “Garland is not going after Trump”. And that to construe the appointment of Smith as a move to expedite prosecution is wishful at best.
I agree with your entire post (and have said basically the same things throughout the thread). As you say, “I’ll stipulate I don’t believe the lack of action is malicious, incompetence or a lack of courage”. I’ve made similar remarks.
The heightened, excessively-emotional reactions of some in this thread to any criticism of Garland’s choices says a lot more about the reactors than it does about Garland or those observing his decisions.
A typical response by one of the many knowledgeable, experienced legal observers looking at this latest development:
As with many other such observers, there is nothing of what the obsessive Garland-defenders claim–no “[have] it out for” Garland; no accusations that Garland is “impotent.”
When critics have to make stuff up in order to create a case, then their case is flimsy and disreputable.
