Maybe there’s something getting done about the fake electors.
What I’ve been reading about is that there is something being done about that.
I don’t know about actions on 1/6 itself. It seems like there should be enough to charge Trump or others in the Republican establishment but I don’t know if that’s true. I felt the 1/6 subcommittee made a great case to the public, but I don’t know how much evidence of real crimes there are.
But the fake elector scheme seems like a clear attempt to interfere with the election, and I keep reading about subpoenas and interviews with witnesses (over the past year I want to say), it seems like there is something happening there.
Yes that’s my feeling as well. The Jan 6th made a great, preponderance of the evidence case, which is great for their purposes which were purely political. But without some sort of smoking gun linking Trump directly to the proud boys it would be very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. He can make a plausible claim that his statements about marching to the Capitol were meant as a peaceful protest, not as an illegal invasion. As for his twiddling his thumbs while the barricades were stormed, there is no law against presidential inaction. The correct response is impeachment which they tried.
Weren’t there quite a lot of messages to/from Meadows? Would it be hard to prove that he worked for Trump? That they were, in fact, an organization conspiring to do illegal shit?
They was taking notes on a fucking criminal conspiracy. Then put those notes on a government phone.
It was never about “hard to prove” or other technical stuff. It was always about internal politics in the DoJ. With all we know now (18 months later) it seems overly generous to cut the DoJ any more slack.
I don’t either. I just think that now that there is an indictment, he would look incredibly weak/corrupt/incompetent if he interfered in a way that tanked a trial.
Messages to/from Meadows about directing the actions of the Proud Boys or any organized efforts at the Capitol? Well, no. I would be surprised if there were, even if they did not actively discourage them, either.
Presidential inaction, which appears to be the extent of what can directly be proven by such for Jan 6, would be something for Congress to address via impeachment. Which they did. And it failed. That’s the legal avenue for a sitting President, especially when there is no evidence of any specific law that was broken.
Not only would he look weak and corrupt but it would be absolutely contrary to his goals. The reason to hold off on prosecuting Trump is that they don’t want to make it look like the DOJ was being used to target political enemies. Yes, the GOP is going to call them out for witch hunts no matter what they do, but they want to make sure that other people don’t look at the DOJ’s actions and think that the GOP claims have some merit. To this end he wants to make absolutely sure that any indictment the do make sticks. So he might want to resist making an indictment for fear that it fails, but once the indictment is made, the die is cast and his only hope is to make sure that it succeeds.
Unless of course you have a pathological hatred of Garland such that you assume that he secretly wants Trump to win.
To use an analogy, its one thing to think that Zelenski might be too timid and not want to commit to an offensive against the hardened Russian lines. Its another to believe that once the offensive is started he would order to bombing of his own troops.
Or he could be weak and incompetent. I’ve never assumed he was corrupt and find it unlikely that he is. But the game is getting more complex with multiple indictments and trials, and there will be many decisions to be made about what evidence and witnesses to use and how to share them among the trials. There are a lot of ways for Garland to fumble the ball. I don’t think Jack Smith will fumble though. If anything he has a reputation for being overly aggressive in prosecutions. Maybe if Garland wasn’t so weak he’d actually try to rein in Smith to keep him from going overboard but I don’t see that happening. I think that luckily he is too meek to counter Smith even if he does turn out to corrupt.
I personally don’t have an opinion on whether or not Garland is meek or he’s careful and knows what he’s doing. I don’t know enough to be able to have an informed opinion, and likely we won’t know until years from now when these issues have reached whatever conclusion they will reach. Then you’ll have memoirs from whoever, stories will be written, and there will be a history to discuss. Until then, it’s speculation, and you basically see what you want to see.
And I mean that for both Garland’s detractors and defenders.
I think that even if they can’t tie the insurrectionist groups to the administrative efforts to overturn the election, ….the fake electors plot, the draft letter from the DOJ to the state legislatures claiming fraud and encouraging the states to pull their certifications, the firing of people like Chris Krebs and Bill Barr for refusing to cooperate with the scheme….are still worthy of prosecution as a stand alone crime and I think they could make a case beyond a reasonable doubt for fraud, at minimum.
It might be harder to make the case beyond a reasonable doubt against Trump……but they could certainly make a strong case against Jeffrey Clark, John Eastman and Mark Meadows - at minimum. You don’t need to connect it to the violence, it’s a crime all by itself.
I hope the rumors about Mark Meadows singing like a canary are true……although I think he should be in jail and I don’t want to see anyone cut him a break, he’s the one person that probably knows everything. And Trump REALLY screwed him over by not pardoning him
And I couldn’t help but notice that one of two instances of Trump showing off classified documents that was outlined in the recent indictment happened at an event for Meadows……maybe he was the source.
In light of this post, I want to clarify where I stand. I also don’t know whether the proper choice is to be more aggressive than where Garland has been nor if his was the best choice. It is entirely possible that a more aggressive approach as proposed by others in this thread is the right one. The difference is that I don’t see Garland’s approach to be so obviously wrong approach as to indicate total incompetence or malfeasance. For the most part I assume that he has more information and experience in these things than the rest of us and so I trust his judgement.
To use a sports analogy at the end third quarter with his team down by 7, and the ball on the 4 yard line a coach decides to take a field goal rather than go for the touch down. That may be the right call, it may be the wrong call, but I wouldn’t say that based on that decision the coach was should be fired or was trying to throw the game.
As a football fan I can say that one is easy. If the team wins the game the coach is a genius, if they lose then the coach is an idiot who must be fired immediately.
Hmm… This might actually be the same after all.
If he had pardoned him for any Federal crime (ala Nixon), could Smith have then forced his testimony, since there would be no 5th amendment jeopardy?
Woohoo! I eat crow, but it does not taste like suck. In fact, it’s delicious. Nom nom nom.
The DOJ finally goes after Trump for the election shenanigans. Never thought I’d see the day.
Honestly, the last few years made me wonder if the rule of law was still going to matter in this country.
Looks like the answer is yes.
Pass me some of that delicious crow, too. Sometimes it’s good to be wrong.
Nailed it.
Well, optimists and never pleasantly surprised and pessimists are never disappointed. Glad the crow is going down easy.
Thanks for bumping the thread, I wanted to revisit this but didn’t want to appear to be doing so just to gloat.
The system seems to be working. At a glacial pace, but working. Prison for all of them 
I’ll give it up for Mr. Garland now. Trump is not in jail yet, but he’s just been indicted for his treasonous behavior. Appointing Jack Smith is turning out to be the perfect approach for this case.