His devoted followers won’t care even if he is convicted - “the fix was in!”.
I’m of two minds on going for non-mostly-guaranteed victory. Definitely good to get the facts into the public record, and I think generally prosecutors should be worrying less about their won/loss records than about going for justice.
But a not guilty verdict will be seen by some of the much-maligned low-information voter/citizen bloc as proof that maybe Trump wasn’t so bad after all. But I can live with that.
Pretty good article about this in the NYT today (gift link). The article says Garland did not focus on Agent Orange in the beginning, but the investigation has led him there. I don’t envy Garland on having to steer this whole thing.
Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is intent on avoiding even the slightest errors, which could taint the current investigation, provide Mr. Trump’s defenders with reasons to claim the inquiry was driven by animus, or undo his effort to rehabilitate the department’s reputation after the political warfare of the Trump years.
In his public statements, Mr. Garland has exhibited an awareness of the extraordinary perils his department, and the country at large, face as investigators close in on a once and perhaps future presidential candidate whose popularity is firmly tied to his claim that he is being persecuted by the Washington establishment.
Last week, Mr. Garland sat in his conference room at the Justice Department, flanked by oil portraits of two predecessors he admires — Robert F. Kennedy and Edward H. Levi — to declare that no one, not even Mr. Trump, was “above the law.”
That statement, which he has made in public before, was widely disseminated on social media.
But just before that, Mr. Garland said something that, in some ways, better reflects his cautious approach to an investigation that he has characterized as both the biggest and most important in the department’s 152-year history.
“We have to hold accountable every person who is criminally responsible for trying to overturn a legitimate election, and we must do it in a way filled with integrity and professionalism, the way the Justice Department conducts investigations,” he said.
“Both of these are necessary in order to achieve justice and to protect our democracy.”
If the alternative is to not try him at all, I’d rather try him than just leave it unresolved. I mean, OJ was aquitted, but it was important that his wealth and celebrity status didn’t shield him from arrest.
In 25 years, in 50, the fact of the trial will be as important as the outcome .
I like that example. He was acquitted, but there are very few people who think he didn’t do it. Trump will always have his supporters (found guilty or not), but a trial laying out all the evidence could move a lot of people’s opinions.
IANAL (let alone a DOJL), but it seems to me the thing to do is indict and try him on as many individual charges as possible. That way, even if you can’t nail him for seditious conspiracy you can still convict for some of the steps he took along the way. And he won’t be able to crow “complete exoneration!” after he’s been frog-marched off to start serving 2-3 years for one of the lesser charges.
The difference is that OJ Simpson didn’t have media empires and political machines directed towards claiming his innocence. Also with Trump there there is the obvious potential political motivation of the prosecutor. Jailing your political opponents on bogus charges is a well known time honored tactic among the politically corrupt. That isn’t what is happening in this case, but if you knew nothing about the facts of the case and the people involved it would be an immediate concern.
It is vitally important the the DOJ conduct the investigation in such a way that the logic is: “We investigated this crime and it led to Trump” rather than “We investigated Trump and it led to this crime”.
No, be had every media empire in existence cooperating to turn the trial into a circus.
The question here is whether Garland will do his job and prosecute Trump or continue to run away because he’s afraid that Trump won’t cooperate.
I think this is a violation of DOJ policy and for a good reason. A DOJ that throws stuff at the wall just to see what sticks is terrifying.
After reading this thread, it makes me glad to know we’ve got level- headed professionals running the Justice Department and not any Dopers.
I said “if they have sufficient evidence”, which is very different than throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks.
You also said, “Unlikely to be convicted.” Which is a horrible precedent.
So if someone is so powerful that no jury will convict them, we should just let them do whatever?
Like, even though the murderers of Emmit Till were always going to be acquitted, that trial was still hugely important. I think this is on the same scale. There needs to be a public record, for history and the world.
The DoJ is famous for an almost perfect conviction rate. What I am saying is that of they obkectively feel that the evidence demonstrates his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, they shpuld present that evidence to the world, not hide it.
This, I agree with completely.
Ok, then. That is in a trial, right? Like, that is how our system works. The DoJ can’t just release a dossier. So that means trying him, even if they know its a bit of a crapshoot.
If we had “level-headed” professionals running the Justice Dept, they’d have been investigating an armed insurrection from day 1, not waiting on Congress. Garland’s appointment has been Biden’s biggest blunder.
I’m reserving judgment. Garland has been saying the right things lately. If it turns out to be all bullshit, then fuck him. But I’m hopeful that he’ll live up to his words.
ETA:
How do we know that they haven’t been? Not all investigations are made public, and this one is probably best kept close to the chest until indictments are ready to be made.
Glenn Kirschner has often despaired of the DOJ’s apparent lack of investigating or taking action against Cheeto, but just in the last few days he seems to have changed his mind based on recent developments.
Granted we’re talking about one guy’s opinion here, but Kirschner was a DC prosecutor for like 25 years and I suspect he knows more than most what signs to look for when it comes to the DOJ’s actions owing to his experiences.
In particular, from what I’ve read the hearings seemed to force the DOJ to go public with their investigation.
It looks like they’re “finally doing something” when in reality, they’ve just started talking about what they’ve been doing for quite a while.
I’m certain the investigation started immediately, even if initially it only focused on the people attacking the Capitol while on camera.
Some comments demonstrate such a staggering ignorance of both Merrick Garland the person and how the Department of Justice works, it’s not worth anyone’s time to attempt to remediate it. The answers to the ignorant questions are everywhere: On this board, in the news and these things called books. Every word written by such posters screams, “I don’t know anything about this stuff!” Personally, I’d be embarrassed to post such words.
I’ve explained the answer to these questions so many times I just can’t do it again. I’ll link to one of those explanations, but that’s all I’m willing to do in the vain hope that ignorance can be lessened.
For some unfathomable reason, some seem far more invested in throwing shade on Merrick Garland. The reasons they claim have no basis in reality, but hey, I guess it’s fun. Like riding a hobby horse.
So many people don’t understand how huge this investigation is, or how Herculean is the task for DOJ. They’ve been on this case since literally January 7, 2021, many weeks before Garland was even sworn in.
Instead of investigating one man and his administration as the Committee has done, they’ve had to investigate thousands. Not just investigate them, but come up with actual, trial-worthy evidence to convict them – a much higher standard than what the Committee needs. Here’s a link to my prior post in the original January 6th Hearings thread attempting to explain what all is involved:
The DOJ has had to do this over all 50 states and in the face of immense obstruction by Republicans, and with a withered DOJ/FBI, thanks to Trump’s and Barr’s firings and pressure campaigns against the agencies prior to their departure. So in addition to conducting the largest criminal investigation the DOJ has ever undertaken, Garland is simultaneously rebuilding these departments. Massive job.
People unfamiliar with the process of criminal investigation don’t understand that to get to the point where DOJ is conducting grand jury hearings involving people like Marc Short and Greg Jacob, they have to have already had face-to-face meetings to determine what these people are going to testify to before the grand jury. You don’t just slam someone down in the seat and start asking questions. You have to know precisely what they’re going to say. The questions being asked focus almost entirely around what Trump was doing and saying with respect to his pressure campaign against Pence.
Again, DOJ has had Mark Meadows’ and other top administration officials’ phone information since April. Long before the Committee’s hearings got underway. They haven’t been knitting booties over there.
DOJ has now confirmed they have an open criminal investigation of which Trump is the subject. Let’s be honest: He’s not a subject. He’s an actual target, and he has been from the outset.
To believe anything else at this point is, IMHO, willfully ignorant.