That’s because Nixon was successful in his crime, in the sense that the initial act was pulled off as planned. Sure, he was eventually caught, but that’s the point. In Nixon’s case the people whose job it is to catch and punish cheaters weren’t part of his criminal actions, just like the umpire and scorekeeper aren’t involved when a pitcher throws spitballs or some guy in the dugout bangs on a trash can. He was working with creeps like G. Gordon Liddy, not the Secretaries of State of the closely contested states, or the Republican leaders of state legislatures, or the members of the electoral college, or the VPOTUS. Even if a creep like Liddy pulls off he initial crime successfully, the machinery of law enforcement is still in place to work like it’s supposed to. Trump wanted to destroy that machinery, by cajoling and bribery (with his endorsement rather than cash) if possible, violence if necessary, which IMHO is on a whole different level than some breaking and entering.
While I agree that it would be overstepping for Biden to “order” Garland to prosecute Trump, Garland is still a political appointee and there would be absolutely nothing wrong with Biden telling Garland that he wants the crimes committed around the Stop The Steal movement aggressively prosecuted.
It seems to be that the DOJ has fully succumbed to the gaslighting, they seem to be doing a better job of going after Democratic political actors while protecting Republicans than Trump’s DOJ.
There’s only so much that money can do in election campaigns. There were several Dems in recent congressional races that easily out raised their R opponents but came no where close to winning. Amy McGrath is a prime example.
Unfortunately, there just aren’t that many Dem voters in WY to make enough of a difference. Chances of Cheney winning the WY primary are not good at all. I’m not saying she can’t win, but she’d have to get out and do a lot of retail campaigning. I doubt if she’ll have enough time to do that.
New York Times reporting today that Pompeo and Mnuchin were in on the talks about invoking the 25th Amendment on Trump.
I would very much like to have those discussions reviewed publicly by the committee.
I will be more than a little bit upset if there is any credible reason to hate either of these two men even a little less.
The one moron testified that trump ordered him to the Capitol and, after all that trump did for him, it was the least he could do. I wonder if, in the unedited interview, he gives examples of what exactly trump did for him.
That they knew invoking the 25th was necessary and didn’t do it just makes them cowards as opposed to merely sycophants.
“… he’s got lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll’s eye. When he comes at ya, he doesn’t seem be living, until he bites ya and the black eyes roll over white…”
I know you and others are impatient with the process of putting together complex lawful prosecutions, but it would be inappropriate for Biden to publicly tell Garland he wants the crimes around January 6th to be aggressively prosecuted or how soon it should be done.
While it’s true a president gets to pick his own AG and to that extent, it’s a “political position,” the relationship is not meant to be used as Trump used it; that is, pointing your DOJ at your personal choices for aggressive prosecution. It is meant to work as Merrick Garland repeatedly says it should: Follow the facts and the law to wherever they lead, and then, if warranted, to aggressively prosecute the perpetrators. That’s what Garland is doing. He’s not going to rush to charge a former president of the United States with the highest crime of seditious conspiracy and not make absolutely sure that he can prove his case.
I’m more certain than ever that Trump is going to be indicted. This whole January 6th Committee passion play to the public is them explaining why Trump must be indicted, and to show the DOJ is not doing it for political reasons. They’re doing it because crimes were committed. All this, “Oh, my god, Merrick Garland, are you listening???” coming from the Committee is wrist-to-forehead play acting, done to say to the country, “The DOJ simply has no choice! They must prosecute – it’s not because we’re telling them to!” They are trying to bring the country along to understand why Trump’s prosecution is inevitable and necessary.
And sure, we all understand this without being told. But a significant segment of this country doesn’t. Not Trump supporters, and not the many who are indifferent to political concerns. Some of these people remain uncertain about the truth. The Committee’s job is to educate those who are open to learning what really happened. The DOJ’s job is made easier if the Committee is successful in explaining this to the public.
I don’t know how long it will be before Trump will be indicted. DOJ is working their way up the ladder, as we would expect them to do in a prosecution of this sort. It’s a classic RICO process and they are proceeding apace. It takes the time it takes. But indicted Trump will be – of this, I am more certain each day.
Cassidy Hutchinson, aide to Mark Meadows, dropped her Trump-paid attorney, hired new representation, and is now cooperating more fully with the J6 committee, this occuring Thursday, prior to the hearing.
One thing you have to remember about these people is this:
…they are apparently both willing and able to listen to Fucker Carlson and Hannity for two full, uninterrupted hours, without changing the channel. These people are very dedicated to hearing the bullshit that Trump et al. want to tell them.
And the facts:
Apparently a large group of Trump supporters was egged on by Trump and some of his toadies to take control of the Capitol to “stop the steal”.
In every sane definition of the word this amounts to a coup. If that is not #1 priority for law enforcement, then what is? If he isn’t investigating this, what is he there for?
I really am stumped to come up with a job description that wouldn’t, as a matter of course, put this on top of the agenda or rather make it the only item.
I am so very hopeful that you are correct. And wherever I am when it happens, I will buy the first round.
To date, the DOJ has prosecuted over 800 participants in this far-reaching coup. In keeping with how these cases are generally prosecuted, you start at the bottom and work your way up.
This is exactly what DOJ is doing. They scooped up many of the Capitol invaders and are looking for more. Then they moved on to the people that paved the way into the Capitol, the Oathkeepers and the Proud Boys. Now they’re focused on the layer above that: Peter Navarro, Roger Stone, Steve Bannon, Mike Flynn, John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark and others.
Once you get that layer lined up, you head to the next one: Mark Meadows, Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, Don Jr., et. al.
You work them all. You get their cooperative testimony. Or you don’t, so you pressure them with charges you can bring against them and make deals in exchange for their testimony.
Only then, after you’ve got all the testimony and documents that you can possibly obtain, do you go after the top dipshit. And there is absolutely no point in doing it any sooner. We are still learning more every day about the depth of this corrupt scheme. There is more to learn, and it is more damning still.
Why would Garland want to prosecute with anything less?
Do you actually believe that Merrick Garland, done out of a Supreme Court seat and a significant victim of the walking, talking, quivering mass of corruption that is Mitch McConnell, is somehow oblivious to the corruption that is the entire Trump presidency? I don’t.
While we’re on a break from the hearings, I’d like to point those who are interested to last evening’s comments by the NYT’s David Brooks (about 2-1/2 minutes. Should be teed up to about the right spot):
I don’t see it as an either-or, but I do both agree with the critical nature of understanding what evil is currently being set in motion and what can be done about it (ie, looking forward) while we try to understand how we got here and what accountability might look like for those actors.
The current hearings will fall far short of the good they could do if the only underlying goal is trying to keep Trump from being President again.
We’re still left with the specter of “who counts the votes” largely unchallenged. It’s not enough to cut the head off the snake. I think Brooks invokes the hydra metaphor, and – IMHO – quite appropriately.
Completely agree.
I was reading - I believe it was Greg Sargent at the Washington Post - who brought up an interesting point about the goals of the Jan 6 Committee. He pointed out that one purpose of the hearings is to get the public’s head around the criminal liability of Trump’s actions, so that when an indictment comes down, the public will see it as inevitable and not be surprised when it happens. This may help to keep the non-Trumpist conservative-leaners and independents from buying into the “Shock! Outrage!” narrative that will be coming from the Right if (when) Trump is indicted.
Exactly. This is my thinking, too. And that’s what has increased my certainty about Trump being indicted at some point in the future.
I don’t think it will happen until after the mid-terms, though. In fact, I expect Trump to announce his candidacy for president in 2024 before the mid-terms, so it will be more problematic for Garland’s DOJ to bring an indictment against him.
I sincerely hope this does get through to enough of them, but I’m pretty sure I will feel shocked if they don’t go all-out on the Shock&Outrage displays. It’s all they have these days.
Care to enter into some type of gentlemen’s wager? Loser donates $50 to Chef Andres’ World Kitchen?
Wyoming’s voters are 68% registered Republican. Some fraction of those, like me, are registered as Republican only so that their votes are not completely futile, and they can wield some small influence in the process. It’s very possible that more than half of registered Republicans will vote for Liz Cheney.