Why did the Justice Department fail to protect us from Trump?

Politics & Elections
121

Let’s say that you and I agree that we’ll take turns making lunch. We both have to eat whatever the other person cooks.

A couple of decades later, I start to suffer from dementia. I start cooking meals like jello dog kibble flambe. You have to eat it all. I won’t allow the rules to be changed.

The agreement was reasonable. We were both reasonable at the time the agreement was made. Saying that we deserve dog food, because we had a plan to take turns making lunch, is not a reasonable view of the situation. Sure, in retrospect, maybe it should have been clear that an exit clause might be necessary at some point. But it’s not like there was any malicious intent by anyone.

In our real world case, the Framers didn’t foresee the political parties, they didn’t foresee the usurpation of the electoral college and the Senate vote by populists, and they didn’t foresee the rise of the Internet, the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, and the Culture Wars.

But we do, at any point of time of our choosing, have an exit clause. All laws can be changed. The Constitution can be changed. Party primary systems can be changed.

At any point in time, we can all accept that we’re all just the greater Internet fuckwads and change the rules to diminish our own influence. We can always choose to replace our current systems of voting with better ones that place more emphasis on substance and moderation.

122

Many of the Founders were Deists, and many did not trust a strong central government or a standing army. So, no, nothing at all like White Christian Nationalists .

What you mean 'we"?

Doubtful, with trumps delaying tactics, and so, what if they did? Remember- “I am voting for the felon”.

I concur. Yes, my experiences were limited to Money laundering crimes, but unless against a drug cartel those sort of white collar crimes took years and years. Some were still ongoing after I retired.

And, without solid evidence, trump would have been exonerated, giving him a solid boost in the election.

No. But yeah, if you have lots of money and it is a white collar crime, you can delay justice for quite some time. That is just a delay, however. trump has been convicted of many felonies.

123

I know. But remember, he’s not the only one in legal jeopardy. There are lots of other defendants in the Jan. 6 conspiracy mess who may have turned with additional heat on them, and maybe a conviction on charges related to Jan. 6 could have convinced 5 SCOTUS justices that Trump deserved to be banned from ballots.

All speculation, of course. But who knows what an additional year of investigation might have produced by now? My point is, DOJ squandered that year, so we’ll never know.

124

They did nothing of the sort.

125

For the third time, quoting the NYT:

126

Why? Because we have robust, possibly excessive Free Speech protections in the USA perhaps? Because our constitution has very few clear examples of what should be considered sedition, and treason even more so, so many great legal minds dispute your analysis, although many do so for obviously partisan reasons. And as just about everyone has mentioned, even the poorest have the right to multiple appeals. Being white, rich and connected like Trump means you have the resources to appeal literally ever single line and jot of any such attempt, all of which have to be prepared for ahead of time if you want to win, and then again in court, and yet a third time in appeals.

So yes, your comments seem to want to jump to the ahead to the sentencing while he’s still playing out his rights. NOW, having said all that, I -DO- agree that the courts letting him jump the gun so many times in appeals, not to mention Canon’s rulings in Florida, and the SCOTUS giving him a mulligan were all excessive, probably extra-legal in reality, but no matter how much I hate Trump, he has a right to have each of his defenses considered in court, until he and his lawyers are sanctioned for frivolous excess. MOST ( perhaps only a slim majority though) of his efforts are just this side of reasonable law, and many of the ones that aren’t are being given far too much respect by partisan hacks.

127

Maybe a reliable source? And the NYT has no fucking idea of the inner working of the DoJ.

128

Those rights were exactly the same in 2021 as in 2022. They have nothing to do with when DOJ started to seriously investigate Trump.

All the more reason to waste no time in investigating him.

So you’re saying they were seriously investigating him from the day Garland took office? Gonna need a cite for that.

129

None of us have access to the secret internal workings of the DoJ. Because, they are… well… secret.

I have no idea of what they did, and neither does the NYT. Note that last word "Justice Department personnel had already spoken (anonymously) " . That means that this cant be fact checked. And sure, I can talk to a DoJ drone worker, or dozens of DoJ drones but the chance they will know the strategy of the AG and top officials is exactly zero.There are nearly 6000 DoJ employees.

Now, I was a US Treasury officer for 20 years. But I have and had no fucking idea of the High level confidential strategy talks between the Secretary, the Commissioner, or the Director may have. I mean, I could guess, and if a reporter was buying me lunch i would have hazarded some guesses. But sure, you could put me down as a "Treasury Dept official has spoken (anonymously) " and it wouldnt be a lie. Not even " personnel they could even use "“official” which I noticed the NTY reporter failed to use.

Note that the NYT has had a hard on for Biden since he wont give them special access and exclusive interviews, which they think are their god give right.

So, your cite is worthless.

130

OK, I’m not going to try to defend the NYT, and I’ll concede that it’s entirely possible that the DOJ launched a full-bore investigation into Trump and the Jan. 6 schemes the day Garland took office, only they kept it so secret that there was no apparent progress until more than a year later. If that’s the case, I’ll retract all my complaints.

But if it’s not the case, and the NYT story is in fact accurate, I’ll stick by my assertion that Garland squandered a year that may have made a difference.

131

They also didn’t foresee the power of mega-corporations. The founders imagined a voter would be exposed to a variety of viewpoints, so that the partisanship of any one group would be counteracted by the partisanship of opposing groups. And all groups would essentially be local in their reach. The existence of something like Fox Corporation or Charter Communications was unimaginable.

132

This was the way to do this. The committee was far more competent that the coward, Garland.

When was the last time an investigation had these kind of stakes? The life of our democracy is on the line, and Garland dragged his feet. It was no secret Trump would run again. It didn’t occur to Garland that this might need timely prosecuting? He’s incompetent. He put our democracy at risk. Yes. it shouldn’t have come down to him, but it did. And he fucked it up.

133

The Prosecution is saddled with the burden of proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt (also, consider double jeopardy: you get one bite at the apple) – in Trump’s case, before a Judge, a jury, and a seemingly endless phalanx of defense attorneys (putatively) paid for by other people’s money – already estimated at over $100,000,000.00.

Some of us are getting away with simple declarative statements while offering no substantive support.

That reads a lot like an opinion – one to which you are manifestly entitled, but one that has little likelihood of persuading.

134

Indeed. So we’ll accept that there are flaws. Maybe some think the flaws are problems A, B, and C, others think that the problems are D, E, and F, but if you can find a solution that deals with all of those - regardless of whether we agree on which are real and correct - then all can be good.

135

[Not going to try to beat the edit clock]

It’s also critical to remember that Trump put three Justices on the Supreme Court, and – while far from being in his pocket – it wouldn’t be difficult to argue that they (and the other conservative justices) tend to share much of his worldview.

He also appointed Judge Cannon, who is handling the case that many/most would argue/agree is the easiest to understand, the clearest cut, and the most likely to result in a conviction.

She’s handled this case like a Judge from her native Colombia who has either been paid off by the drug cartel or whose family members – it’s been made clear to her – are in peril if she puts a foot wrong.

His team has recently been shown to have ‘openly’ short-listed Judge Cannon for the US Attorney General position – a brazen move that would ordinarily be considered overt corruption, but not according to the aforementioned Supreme Court or the MAGA faithful.

And that’s ignoring his endless stochastic terrorism targeting Judges, jurors, District Attorneys, and witnesses and his repeated violations of Gag Orders that necessarily ensued from, but failed to stop, his horrible behavior.

Lastly, everything around January 6th – what lives in Judge Chutkan’s court and the RICO case before Judge McAfee in Georgia – is complicated.

The people to whom I talk – smart, engaged, and generally interested – struggle to get their heads around those cases, the applicable laws, the timing, and all the various roles played by all the various actors. The treasonous parts of Trump’s behavior – IMHO – represent a very heavy lift for the Prosecution, despite my fairly immutable conclusion that he is guilty as sin.

Which of those things would have been materially altered by ‘an earlier start?’

136

Which of them would be going better with a later start? If you assume no improvement with an earlier start, then it wouldn’t have made any difference if the investigation started last week.

I don’t dispute anything you say, but considering all the difficulties which could have been predicted, and all else being equal, it seems obvious to me that the more time dedicated to these cases the better they will proceed. Starting a year earlier would have given everyone involved an additional year to deal with all the difficulties.

And we’ll never know if it would have made a difference.

137

No. I’m assuming that the job they did took the time that it took, and that some of us have a bit more insight than others into how much time that might possibly take, given the enormity, the complexity, the logistics, the law, and the rules that constrain The Good Guys.

A 1,000 page Pleading that might take you or me an evening to read may represent countless hours of incredibly difficult, detailed, and tedious work by entire teams of highly-qualified professionals.

I’m suggesting that they needed to be as prepared as they could be for the cases they sought to charge, and that the timing and ‘readiness’ are determinations made by people much better informed about, much more experienced with, and much closer to the situation than I am.

I think we’re comfortably at ‘agree to disagree.’ I’m good with that.

138

The NYT’s editorial slant has been inadequate to address the Era of Trump, but I’ve seen nothing to suggest that their excellent journalistic standards have deteriorated. They are extremely diligent, perhaps to a fault, in ensuring what they represent as fact is well-sourced, supportable, and impervious to lawsuit. They are damn good in this regard, but not perfect.

Hand-waving away a NYT factual assertion—again, not their way of describing it, not an editorial decision—is an extraordinary claim. “Well, no one can know for sure” takes us a couple of steps further into “we can all have our own facts” territory.

139

Fair enough. Have a good evening!

140

It is not really a 'factual" assertion.

Their assertion is that a reporter talked to unnamed and anonymous Justice Department personnel. Not officials, not high up sources, just some personnel, and “People around Mr. Garland”, Sure, So what? Are they the people who knew how and what Garland was doing and why? I believe the reporter did talk to some DoJ employees. And so?

From that cite-It is not clear when Mr. Garland formally approved the investigation of Mr. Trump. and " The meetings often lasted hours as Mr. Garland rattled off questions. One early query: Had Mr. Trump made incriminating statements during an Oval Office meeting in December 2020 when his team discussed overturning Mr. Biden’s electoral victory?"

and - Mr. Garland worked in a corner office, deliberating on an issue that was critical but not directly focused on Mr. Trump: whether to employ the symbolically powerful but little-used seditious conspiracy law against the leaders of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. After weeks of internal debate, he signed off. In other words- the critical issue was could the DoJ use seditious conspiracy vs trump, which would make him ineligible for office.

Do also note- Garland wasnt the AG until March 11. So, the first two 'wasted" months, were totally out of his control.

So. I dont see anything in that article that proves that Garland sat on his hands for a year, in fact the opposite.